|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - sharply_done
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 73
826
« on: April 29, 2008, 00:19 »
Perhaps they might consider changing 'Today's Worst Image' to 'Today's Best Rejection'. This way they could use part of the site to educate contributors as to why an image that is acceptable elsewhere is unacceptable at Crestock.
As it stands, I see no use for the 'Worst Image' other than to get an occasional chuckle, which isn't advancing anybody's career.
827
« on: April 28, 2008, 12:05 »
I got to more sales...total of 3 now! I have $1.50 made...Yay!
Sorry to burst your bubble, melking, but averaging 50c per DL is about the best you can hope for on Crestock. Although it's possible to sell images in quantity there, making significant cash at Crestock won't happen for the non-elite contributor until they restructure their commission rates. I hope the sales continue for you!
828
« on: April 28, 2008, 11:54 »
If it's any consolation, I don't think Judge Ross has too keen an eye for commercial imagery: Although I've been selected for 'Today's Best Image' (a rather unprecedented) ten times, for the most part the shots he's selected are not amongst my best sellers on Crestock or anywhere else.
829
« on: April 28, 2008, 11:38 »
Dan I agree, those comments came out of nowhere. Maybe you should bring back the Bruce Willis avatar to command more respect.  
Yippee-kay-yay, * ...
! (grin)
830
« on: April 28, 2008, 11:28 »
While I agree that these are technically superior images that should have been accepted, I think two of the shots ('worker woman' and 'guy with champagne') contain awkward elements that may limit their appeal.
FWIW, I've been bitten by the LCV bug, too. Whatever...
831
« on: April 19, 2008, 23:30 »
C'mon, really now, do you think anyone is going to contact you with a "Yes, how can I help you?" response?
You'd have more success putting a Photographer seeks employment ad in the newspaper.
832
« on: April 19, 2008, 18:13 »
I think SS should keep the Top 50, but move it to the buyer's section of the site. It might even be useful to expand the list to Top 100 if they do this.
833
« on: April 19, 2008, 10:46 »
As a side note Getty commision some photographers to shoot stock for a fee and the result is then Getty own and sell the images.
Another sidebar: I once met a photographer who was doing this. A large regional corporation hired Getty to shoot custom images, and they subcontracted him to do it. I found it amusing that a) he was from NYC and they flew him out to Vancouver to do the job b) they supplied him with a Hasselblad digital camera, and c) he was a part-timer: the only reason he got the job was that he had a friend who was an editor at Getty. Nice work if you can get it, huh?
834
« on: April 18, 2008, 20:12 »
I've had a few 'what?' rejections at SV lately, too.
There's definitely a rookie reviewer there.
835
« on: April 18, 2008, 18:52 »
If by 'critical mass' you mean that your sales will begin to increase once you have 'enough' images online, this does not exist. Your photos will sell according to the demand for their subject and the quality of the image.
There are things you can do to give yourself a 'leg up', but if an image isn't as good as or better than its competition it just isn't going to earn anything significant.
836
« on: April 18, 2008, 13:36 »
Ack - those are very low numbers!
837
« on: April 18, 2008, 13:33 »
I've found that SS can be a good sales barometer: stuff that sells well on SS will usually have good sales everywhere else, and images that only get a few DLs on SS are usually flops.
Runaway sellers are another matter. These are dependent upon luck more than anything else. What may be a big hit on one site may only have mediocre sales on another.
838
« on: April 16, 2008, 16:08 »
Welcome aboard!
839
« on: April 16, 2008, 14:30 »
Sidebar: Check out what rinder says about MP. I guess this makes rjmiz the anti-rinder. (big grin)
840
« on: April 16, 2008, 12:24 »
I wonder why they did that major upgrade. The site seemed to work fine before. It must have cost a ton of money and the performance was actually worse afterwards. Maybe the money should have been invested in marketing (?). Who knows...
I thought the same thing, too. I can guess that they only had a certain amount of money available, and Bryan deemed it would be best spent on hardware/software rather than marketing. I wonder if he'd do the same again. As for LO being the first of many, I can see Crestock (who also recently revamped their software) being close to the front of this line. Although they promote themselves better than LO did, Crestock just isn't attracting the number of buyers they should be.
841
« on: April 16, 2008, 12:15 »
Thanks for the appraisal, rjmiz.
I was considering joining MP, but if you're not selling there, I think I'll take a pass for now - perhaps things might look better in the fall.
842
« on: April 15, 2008, 20:51 »
Though I'm sad to see them go, I can't say that I'm surprised. It seemed like a very nice company, with its heart in the right place.
Best of luck in the future, Bryan and company!
843
« on: April 15, 2008, 20:41 »
...
IS has a strong place in the market today, but its my guess that this will soon change if IS doesnt change their ways. The sad thing is they could be number (1) but I think they have waited too late to even hope for that spot.
...
Sorry, cshack, but I don't think you're anywhere close to being on top of things. IS is changing, and they are number one. I suggest you wait until you've spent more than 'a few months' in microstock and have more than 255 images online before you so firmly make up your mind about the future of this industry.
844
« on: April 15, 2008, 20:21 »
I've had that once before, too - I think they suspect you of plagiarism or theft, and want you to verify that the work is indeed wholly yours.
Edit: Thinking about this further, it was BigStock who gave me a 'soft rejection' like this, not IS.
845
« on: April 15, 2008, 15:45 »
Thx all to have killed my dreams ... 
Fred
Die, evil dreams of easy wealth, die, die! (smirk)
846
« on: April 15, 2008, 11:10 »
Yeah, that's normal, and you shouldn't get overly excited about it. Sure, it's nice to be validated, and 40 DLs over 9 images sounds like a lot, but it's really only $10. And don't start extrapolating, either - as others have said, new portfolios typically experience elevated DLs/image on SS.
847
« on: April 14, 2008, 19:35 »
Although Crestock and others are fine for uploading, I need the UI to make management chores very easy - for this StockXpert is far and away the best.
848
« on: April 10, 2008, 20:56 »
Geez, don't take it so personally.
If you really think they're marketable images then resubmit them, otherwise chalk it up as a learning experience.
849
« on: April 10, 2008, 20:17 »
I joined in January 2007 and can only upload 4MP ... bummer.
850
« on: April 10, 2008, 19:30 »
It's a pretty safe bet that this is the most anticipated commission increase so far this year.
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 73
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
