deleted

Quote from: m@m on May 09, 2009, 00:32

Quote from: OM on May 08, 2009, 23:31
Dunno if already mentioned:

http://www.snapixel.com/

Own site, their bandwidth, 60/40 split...60 to contributor and basic credit is one Euro/$1.34US.

Anyone know about them?

Yes we have!...do a search on a previous thread on them.
"Please don't bring them back, unles they've something new to show and offer" 

Dunno if already mentioned:

http://www.snapixel.com/

Own site, their bandwidth, 60/40 split...60 to contributor and basic credit is one Euro/$1.34US.

Anyone know about them?

Took 3 days but is available now.

Quote from: HughStoneIan on May 01, 2009, 18:23
This isn't just for US citizens, unfortunately:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCkCWxv3kUE&feature=related

It appears these Senate bills are being introduced as a means of ensuring "national security" by regulating or drastically curtailing private use of the internet.  Perhaps just a false alarm, blowing smoke.  I hope so.

Typical US Senator bumbling moron..........the guy is just incoherent from start to finish. Probably doesn't even know how to use a puter.
Sure, shut down the internet.........saves inventing a time machine to take a peek at life in the Middle Ages.

If it isn't difficult enough to get submissions accepted, I've had an accepted submission to FT.eu and it's now 3 days later and still not available in search.
Anyone else experiencing this?

Quote from: madelaide on April 29, 2009, 23:22

Quote from: Xalanx on April 29, 2009, 07:52

Quote from: madelaide on April 29, 2009, 02:53
I was simply trying to say that it isn't a complex issue to replace "'s" by nothing in a search tool (or at least offering a choice, what is also done by Google when it thinks you may have writen something wrong). 

Unless you're a software developer, your afirmation is rather assumptious. Because I am a developer and SEO algorithms are indeed complex and changing them is not some easy job to do and of course needs resources (time, people) allocated.
I for one don't express my opinion in a matter that goes beyong my area of expertise, just for the sake of posting in a thread.
And you should not compare any stock agency search engine with Google.

I am not a professional programmer, but being an engineer I have been involved with programming for (too) many years.  There is no difficulty in transforming a string "women's health" in "women health".  I am sure stock site programmers face much more challenging tasks than this, given the image sizes, lightboxes, billing, different OSs and browsers, etc., so FT programmers could do that as well.  If a buyer types "women's health", he is not wrong; the site is wrong if doesn't handle this search correctly. 

Exactly..........the customer is mostly right.

Image is not particularly well protected, is it. At least they haven't tried to remove the watermark
!

After one year of my images being exclusive at FT, I removed the few pics I had at iS and went totally exclusive at FT. I have a very small portfolio at FT (90pix) so my experience since going fully exclusive cannot be backed statistically. However, since I went fully exclusive, sales have plummeted. So many more subs sales and XS/S whereas before, XL's were common.

On reflection, I can see that at FT, total exclusivity could be a disadvantage........they have to pay you a bigger % of the sales whilst the images remain the same price as they always were for buyers! I can't see any real advantage to being exclusive there..........it's not like iS where they promote a contributor every week or month.
I haven't much time to do stock work at the moment but I think I'd like to see if going non-exclusive would
make any difference! LOL.

BTW, if one abbreviates 'professional photographers' to pro's, this is correct because the apostrophe indicates that an abbreviation has been made.

Quote from: werkmann on March 26, 2009, 03:11
As coming out of germany and selling most on Fotolia i can say: yes, most of the customers from Fotolia are out of germany and nearby in europe.
...and don't give any attention to the rejection reasons on FT, they roll a dice for their rejection mails (don't understand this as abuse, they know itself and laugh about it. My own rejection rate is less than 10% on FT and the rejections i get are allmost complet nonsense. Latest rejection i get was about pixelproblems and blur...unfortunately it was a vector illustration).

Greets from Bertold

I just try to sneak 'em back in later....one at a time!

Seriously though, I believe that most of my sale on FT come from the Eurozone (credit price 1.00 Euro) whereas FT likes to keep me on the UK site at 60 pence/0.66 Euro per credit. This is good business for FT but some things do sell so I'm not whining.

Quote from: WarrenPrice on April 01, 2009, 19:39
Just got battered again by FT.  I use them to keep my ego in check.  LOL

Ah! An equal opportunity masochist, like myself!

Quote from: cidepix on March 05, 2009, 17:12
Good morning. I wish you were there to back me up when I showed my displeasure on fotolia forum. Apparently people only use it to say "fotolia rocks"

My bad!

FT forum is a place to points things out, ask questions and express grievances but only after a good dose of valium. It is the place to get 'your card marked' or banned depending on the vehemence with which you express yourself. There is no freedom of speech there and complaints will rarely change anything that management has already decided upon. Except in a few rare instances, it's pointless to post there so I don't.

Worst deal of all is if you had images exclusive to FT before 1st March (earning 50%) and after 1st March (not having signed their Total Serfdom Exclusivity Agreement), your same images get only 30something percent).
Not to mention the credit price of 60p on the UK site = 20p for the contributor that isn't into total serfdom.

Agree with 'submit slowly' for the best chances.

Quote from: lienkie on February 26, 2009, 20:16
For me(a newbie of 5 months) the algorythm is easy
Rejection=learning opportunity
Less rejections=I've learnt something
More rejections=I'm not learning/listening to the pro's
And do this again,and again,and again.......
It's as simple as that.
NEVER take a rejection personally,it's just part of the learning curve.
If you don't want to learn,this is the wrong industry to be in.
Sites differ and they know what their buyers want,and they are propably more knowledgable about market trends than we are(me in any case).If you spend enough time reading the forums etc. you'll start getting an idea of which sites want what.
I love landscapes but know that FL doesn't,so I just don't send them any.Give 'em the stuff they want and they will sell it.

With Fotolia, I'm afraid that's not the case. You can rarely learn anything from an FT rejection because even when the reason given is eg 'quality of photograph' , it can mean many things; none of which has to do with the 'quality of the photograph'.
It can mean, "I don't personally like the shot........I don't think it's commercial.....Sorry, but I've hit my quota for allowed submissions for this shift and I'm going home, oops hit the wrong button etc."

One contributor had some great photo's rejected on the basis that  FT already had too many the same(complete lie) and when he complained and mentioned success on other sites with the same shots, they were all allowed. Therefore, rejections on FT should be accorded with the disdain  by which they are given.........serendipitous: lucky for some and unlucky for others. IS is another matter entirely and is most educational.

Total disdain for contributors, imagining that they would unable to work out that the stated 3% reduction is, in fact, much, much more.
Shooting themselves in the foot, I reckon.

Quote from: Ssuper on February 18, 2009, 05:28
Fotolia, my friends, is for sale...That means your images, and revenue, are being negotiated, as we speak. or as you read this...

Any verification for this or is it just a rumour?

Or, if you can rustle up a few clients in the Euro area whilst you are registered on UK.......you buy pics (from any contributor) at 60p per credit....deduct them from your sales account and sell them to the client for one euro per credit + search fees.

Gee, ain't capitalism great. LOL.

Quote from: borg on January 04, 2009, 18:24
We need, all together some kind of campaign on Fotolia to change this injustice... 

By popular acclaim, one of the longest threads of FT has now been terminated by Mat the Mod.

It was obviously an embarrassment to the 'Powers That Be' so the order came down from on high to minion Mat........."Make an end to this revolting thread". Also sprach Zarathustra......Beam me up, Scottie........and it was made so!

Quote from: lisafx on January 30, 2009, 21:11
I wouldn't stress too much over Fotolia rejections.  They are among the most arbitrary and inconsistent site for reviews. 

Istock reviews are usually dead accurate and provide a great learning experience. 

Amen to that! And if you look at some/a lot of the stuff that does get through, it's horrifying. Sometimes I wonder if they expect a contributor never to make 50 credits so the site gets to keep all the money!

Meanwhile their database gets more and more polluted with junk.........then the buyers leave.

Bingo. Give the man a cuddly toy!

You could always get a D80 for <$500 and spend the rest on good lenses.
I've used a D80 for two years for both studio work and weddings. Don't exceed 800 ISO and there's no problem. At 100 ISO for stock, I doubt you will see a huge difference in the output between the D80 and the D90.
Or get a used Canon 5D Mk I from a careful amateur......couple of prime lenses and the quality will beat most of the other stuff out there!

Quote from: jsnover on December 13, 2008, 17:40

Quote from: Fyletto on December 13, 2008, 10:30
Ok, guys. I perfectly understand each of you, I am UK zone prisoner as well... But only few of you were able to express your ideas on Fotolia...The thread is small there. I suggest: help us there! Only people contributing to this topic on Fotolia forum are the same ones from the beginning. If we want the change, they have to see masses. Look at ranking, subscription threads there... They have  at least hundreds of replys by various people... So please, support us there as well... Big thanks to Andresr for his replies there!!! If even one of the biggest fish does not agree with Fotolia policy, it helps so much to our matter...

I'm no longer a contributor at FT, but during my years there it was crystal clear that there was no tolerance for an open discussion of policies contributors were not happy with. At the beginning, all users could see forums on all the different geographies, and then FT shut that down to try and avoid contributors discussing problems freely. They delete threads at will, threaten people who discuss FT policies on outside forums and anyone who's been there a while knows that as they've seen it repeatedly.

There have been some minor successes in getting changes (over subscription commissions and the initial policy that subscriptions would not count towards rank, for example) but they have not come about via discussion on FT forums, but by action on the part of contributors.

You don't try to organize FT contributors unless you're aware that doing so may result in the closure of your account, but if you do, don't waste your time on the FT forums as it's not a place for any type of free discussion.

Interestingly, the FT forum thread on this subject has been allowed to bleed to death........move along now, nothing to see here except the euro is now worth 95 pence!

Quote from: Shutterscript on August 28, 2008, 21:38
I recently started uploading my work to microstock sites and became very perplexed with Fotolia.  I submitted 10 photos to Shutterstock as part of my application and 9/10 were accepted.  I submitted the same 10 to Fotolia and only 1 was accepted.  Not only were 9/10 rejected at Fotolia, but they were rejected within 5 minutes of their submission.  I'm not sure what's going on here, but I'm considering terminating my account with Fotolia rather than continuing to waste my time uploading rejections.  Any opinions on the matter?  Should I stick with them and keep submitting content or just put my efforts elsewhere.

Here are the photos I submitted to shutterstock:

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=252346

I already have 33 downloads in 1 week from those 9 photos.

Thanks for the input.

Your images look excellent to me. Fotolia reviewers are a law unto themselves. If you really want to get mad, look at some of the 'recently accepted' page on the day that your images get rejected. You will be totally amazed at some stuff that passed review on the day you got rejected.