|
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 - BaldricksTrousers
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 206
901
« on: November 14, 2014, 07:42 »
They'll be rejecting because of the narrow tonal range, her black point is way off what they want, giving the misty effect which is the hallmark of her photos.
902
« on: November 13, 2014, 07:54 »
You can start to flame on me and act as a pro how much you want, this doesn't change the situation...i'm not positive about microstock
What i was trying to say is that if this forum wants to be a sort of community we must share more new ideas rather than past failures
Does it want to be a sort of community? I thought it was about sharing information on what is happening in the market, not about being a social meeting place where we can leak our cunning plans to our competitors in a happy-clappy way.
903
« on: November 12, 2014, 19:07 »
That is ridiculous. I wonder if the "bridge to bigstock" conveys videos there. (Edit - Mine don't seem to be there)
904
« on: November 12, 2014, 11:28 »
Given the tiny number of images I have left on iStock, it's hard to draw any general conclusions, but after the October subs and PP numbers were all in, I found it interesting that the total download number for September was just about the same (1 more) as October, but October's $$ was half September's
And that's despite the commissions for independents being increased on the main site. It's the same for me and it clearly means that buyers have switched to subscriptions in response to the price changes. I'd expect the RPD to decline further in the current month as credits are gradually used up and more buyers switch to subs.
906
« on: November 11, 2014, 20:39 »
It's bit better hope this trend will continue!
That blue bar for November looks pretty awful .... and so does the one on my chart.
907
« on: November 11, 2014, 19:46 »
Just got credit for a Oct 31 sub. I think that might be all done for now?
Could be. I notice that my average dl commission from iS has dropped from 56c per dl in each of July, August and September to 46c per dl last month. My total number of dowloads in October was just shy of the September total. Not good.
908
« on: November 11, 2014, 19:31 »
@Ramin: What did the October 7 email say?
When the politics and hate take a break, we never got an answer to the question. What did theOctober 7 email said? We don't have the answer that started a political war on an assumed guess.
In reply 46 he said he never received the promised e-mail of October 7.
I'm not sure where the political war is - all I see is different perspectives that people have.
All of this is based on a guess, including the personal attacks about politics? Never got the email. Didn't do anything wrong. No reason. Just assumes he knows and starts accusing the reason. Some more start guessing it's the fault of the US. Now we talk nukes and politics not the question why the account was closed?
Apparently the name of Iran has been expunged from the country list and other accounts from there seem to have been closed too, which - if true - makes it a political action not a violation of the terms and conditions. The only obvious reason for Iran-based contributors suddenly being dumped and the country's name being deleted is that there are international sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear programme.
909
« on: November 11, 2014, 19:08 »
@Ramin: What did the October 7 email say?
When the politics and hate take a break, we never got an answer to the question. What did theOctober 7 email said? We don't have the answer that started a political war on an assumed guess.
In reply 46 he said he never received the promised e-mail of October 7. I'm not sure where the political war is - all I see is different perspectives that people have.
910
« on: November 11, 2014, 17:33 »
Israel and Iraq are long time enemies of Iran, and if Iran nukes up, then all hell could potentially break lose in the Middle East.
Iraq USED to be an enemy of Iran, but by toppling Saddam and introducing elections into the Shia majority country Bush made it part of the Iranian sphere of influence. That's the reason ISIS has managed to split the country and I'm sure its a major reason for the Syrian war (the Shia arc of influence from the Indian Ocean to the Med, once Iran, Iraq and Syria were all on the same side being too much for Saudi and the West to swallow). "Democratic countries" is really just a synonym for "the West", since almost every time democracy rears its ugly head in countries that aren't culturally Western the US and its friends step in to chop that head off. The US and UK toppled the democratic government of Mosaddeq in Iran in 1953 (he wanted Iran to own its own oil) and transformed the Shah into a dictator. In Algeria, the West prevented the FIS taking power, triggering a decade of civil war that killed 200,000 people (more than so far in Syria, but the Western media showed no interest at all in that). In Palestine, Israel and the US did everything possible to drive out Hamas, after it won a free and fair election. In Egypt the West backed Field Marshal Sisi's coup against the fairly elected Muslim Brotherhood government. In Iraq, the US has pushed out the President and installed a replacement who fits more with their idea of what the Iraqi leader should be like.... and then there is South America. Democracy is simply a system designed to provide a stable environment for the countries it evolved in and it works because you and I and the political elite have been brought up with a set of unwritten rules - such as not attempting to physically annihilate the opposition if you have got power - that aren't part of the culture of other societies. It isn't democracy that makes the West take what you consider to be "saner" decisions, it's an outcome of a way of thinking that has developed over centuries.
911
« on: November 11, 2014, 06:05 »
Iranian democracy is an odd beast, Gostwyck. It's the sort of democracy that the UK might have if the Church of England was allowed to vet all political parties and candidates and reject any it didn't like, and where Parliament and Premier could be over-ruled by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Since this is going political, I'll add a few things: back in 2005 or 2006 (can't remember exactly) Mossad revealed that if Iran wasn't bombed immediately it would unquestionably have a nuclear bomb within 18 months. This information seems to be what prompted Gulf Arab states to set up their own "peaceful nuclear programme" - as we all know, peaceful nuclear programmes are what is needed to deter regional rivals who are about to get nuclear bombs. In the event, the 18 months passed without Iran getting bombed (to Israel's annoyance) and without it getting nuclear weapons either. A decade later it still does not seem to have any weapons-grade enriched uraniam and has converted a lot of its lower-grade enriched U into a form which prevents it being used in weapons (they always said it was for medical equipment). Meanwhile, nobody is talking about the "peaceful" Saudi/GCC nuclear programme, though Riyadh has nuclear co-operation deals with the US, China and Pakistan and is also rumoured to have an agreement with Islamabad to take delivery of a nuke or two any time it feels the need. If ISIS were ever to topple Al Saud and extend the Caliphate into the Arabian Peninsula I suspect we would hear lots of shocking stories along the same lines as those told about Iran.
For those who say that Arab oil powers don't need to go nuclear, it's worth remembering that the US was desperate to install nuclear power plants all over Iran when the Shah was in power, and would tell anybody who asked that it was stupid to waste oil making electricity when you could do the same with atomic power - exactly the opposite of what they say today.
I don't know if Iran wants a nuclear bomb. Back in the Cold War we had wise policies of Mutually Assured Destruction and suchlike keeping the peace between Russia and the West. I don't doubt that Iran regards nuclear-armed Israel as being as much of a threat to it as the US thought the USSR was 30 years ago. I do know that the Ayatollahs in Qom, who direct Iranian policy, have never shown any desire for an early meeting with Allah as a result of a military miscalculation. For that reason, I'm not particularly worried about Iran getting nukes, it might even improve stability by making Israel think twice before using excessive force against neighbouring states. The nutters in the North Korean and Pakistani military, who already have their hands on nukes, are much more scary than the cooly calculating old men who run Iran.
There's so much in nuclear foreign policy that makes no sense at all that it is clearly a smokescreen for something else. How can it not be a problem for Pakistan to have nukes, when bin Laden was allowed to hide for years just a couple of hundred yards from a major Pakistani Army base? And when the raid that killed him didn't cause Islamabad to ask how he could hide there, it made them mad about traitors allowing the Yanks to get to him (a high treason trial followed against a doctor who helped the US). It's okay for Saudi to plan for 16 civilian reactors by 2030 but not for Iran to have any - and that's despite the involvement of Saudis in Al Qaeda and Isis, while Iran has no links with terrorist acts against the West (with the likely exception of the Lockerbie bombing, which was probably retaliation for the US shooting down an Iranian civil airliner shortly before).
And all this leads to some poor bugger getting an iStock account closed.
912
« on: November 11, 2014, 03:38 »
Canon 6D and some film cameras for fun.
I got my hands on a Sony A7r the other day and it's incredibly light, I am tempted to switch as I can use all my lenses om it via an adapter. The EVF could still be improved and presumably will be in the next version. There's still tons of life in the 6D, though.
913
« on: November 10, 2014, 15:59 »
Is this not worth reporting or has someone already done it?
Errr ... you spotted it, why don't you report it?
914
« on: November 10, 2014, 15:52 »
Actually this will all play out in 10Q reports once shutterstock has assimilated the majority of IS exclusives and they have all hit $.38. Once this occurs and has become stable we will be able to see the reality of the situation in Decreased Revenue and/or Decreased Revenue per download.
You don't have to wait for reality, it's here, now. Tomorrow's reality may be a bit different, just as yesterday's was, but in the end you have to live with whatever today's reality is. Reality never "becomes stable".
915
« on: November 10, 2014, 12:34 »
This was good from Tror:
"They should fire the responsible person and rework their whole approval process."
If everybody got fired if they ever made a judgement call that someone didn't like then I don't suppose there would be very many people in work. Their approval process is quite clever, really, it's just annoying if it happens to trip you up. I got some film scans rejected four or five years back and then got hit again when I overlooked a sensor spot, so I do know how annoying it is, which is why I am extra careful in my own quality control.
916
« on: November 10, 2014, 07:20 »
But is it worth so much work (You wrote five minutes just for checking photos), which , I believe, were already accepted and sold on other stock sites as well, agree?
Then so low sales, as our colleagues wrote.
I really do not know if I will upload in future. I am new on Alamy and after 3 ok accepted batches (40-50 photos), was suddenly rejected a 40 photos batch, because of one photo (with 350+ sales JUST on SS).
Again, this pics control is not logical and not fair too.
I upload to Alamy and the other sites at the same time, so the five minutes in PS and probably another five in Lightroom is effort divided between all the sites I submit to. The irritating bit is the final keywording, which takes another couple of minutes per photo - I've got more than 100 waiting for keywording at the moment, which will take a couple of hours of tedium to complete and which might on average produce one sale per year hereafter. Is it worth it? Well, if I was really convinced it was I would be a bit quicker in doing the keywording, wouldn't I? When images are just for Alamy (editorial, generally) the question of whether it is worth it is even more difficult. I'm surprised that a picture that passed SS went on to fail Alamy.
917
« on: November 10, 2014, 06:49 »
@Ramin: What did the October 7 email say?
I am wondering why he prefers no to tell what did the October 7 email say...
There are lots of Iranian contributors on Shutterstock, Borna Mirahmadian
http://www.bornamir.com/section653944.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/g/bornamir
But is he registered from Iran or from somewhere else? It isn't the nationality that is under sanctions, it is the country. There wouldn't be a sanctions problem for an Iranian based outside Iran.
918
« on: November 10, 2014, 05:46 »
No. The OP said before he was iS exclusive he had accounts with the US based agencies who closed his account at the same time. Then he became iS exclusive and as of 7th Oct they closed his account.
Oh, it's ambiguous. Could be read either way. I took it that he had removed his portfolios but left his accounts open.
919
« on: November 10, 2014, 04:37 »
Why would US regulatory authorities have any jurisdiction over another sovereign country, ie. Canada?
Because they do. If you don't do what they demand for "security purposes" they can stop their companies doing business with your country and your government doesn't want them to do that. In Qatar, banking is subject to all sorts of US-demanded restrictions "to prevent money-laundering". Fifteen or 20 years ago the Qatar Monetary Authority decided the rules, now the Qatar Central Bank is imposing US-stipulated regulations - I suppose it's "globalisation". But as iStock is owned by Getty, they only have to threaten Getty with action if it doesn't apply US regulations to its foreign subsidiaries. They could, for example, ban US access to iStock's site. The US isn't the only bully on the block. Switzerland is losing its special trading relationships with the EU because the Swiss voted on something in a referendum that is contrary to EU rules on free movement of people. Scandinavian non-EU members also have to work within EU laws to maintain trading relationships. PS - ShadySue - the guy said that SS, FOT and DT, all US-based, had closed his accounts at exactly the same time, which gives good reason to think that the initiative came from the US authorities rather than the Canadian side.
920
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:12 »
It's not how many per batch that matters, it's how many between Alamy reviews since they will reject ALL outstanding batches if one image fails. My last review was four days ago and I've now got about 50 images outstanding in three batches, I'll probably get reviewed again today or tomorrow. However, if you have a record of rejection you may have to wait a month for the next review - by which time you may have hundreds of images queued.
Really, the only way to limit the damage from rejection is not to get rejected. Once you do, batch size becomes irrelevant, if you limit the number of images between reviews then you will only upload a very small number of images each month. Limiting uploads for fear of rejection makes no sense - just be sure you check each image by pixel-peeping before you send it. These days I process in lightroom, then spend five minutes checking each image in PS before sending.
921
« on: November 10, 2014, 02:29 »
It sounds as if regulatory authorities in the US have sent a notice to microstock companies instructing them to delete Iranian accounts. I'm actually surprised there was any way of stock agencies sending money to Iran in the first place.
922
« on: November 09, 2014, 14:58 »
^ do you know anyone who has ever actually paid. I doubt that many investors are paying for it. The stuff he had on Getty midstock last year seemed more surmised than researched. It seemed to have been extrapolated from the freely available Moody's report.
Someone once told me (proudly) that he paid for Jim's professional column and therefore was better informed than me on certain aspects of microstock. The amusing thing was that much of what Jim was saying at that time he had got from discussions with me 
923
« on: November 09, 2014, 14:46 »
I had an earnings peak at Alamy in 2012. That dropped in 2013 back to 2011 levels and this year is almost exactly the same as last year.
As for rejections, once they notice that you have submitted something sub-standard (they normally only look at one or two photos per batch) they start to look much more closely at your work. As soon as they find anything wrong with any image they will reject the whole batch (and "blacklisted" contributors are reviewed less frequently, allowing batches to pile up). If you are submitting anything with sensor spots, significant WB problems, camera shake etc. you are taking a big risk, but the inspection standard seems to be reasonably relaxed. It's been several years since I got any rejections there.
The thing is, they want you to do your own inspections, not leave it to them to weed out your poorer work.
924
« on: November 09, 2014, 14:38 »
It's quite popular in the Middle East as part of a meze. It doesn't matter if it is a tiny niche that only has 20 buyers a year if you are the only one with pictures of it. It's no different from shooting something that sells 20 million licenses a year, if evry picture of yours has a million competitors. In fact, it's better, because my image is always going to be on the first page of the search, if I shoot Girl With Headphones I probably won't be in the first 40 pages.
It's shredded chicken in a walnut, bread, stock, onion and spice sauce drizzled with a mix of walnut oil and paprika. It's surprisingly nice, actually.
That's it in a nutshell. What is a tiny niche to you? When GI did their "free" portal thing, there were a number of posts about bloggers being a negligible market. But to whom? If SS (for example) has over a million buyers, what is negligible? 1%? If I had 10k buyers (or even a fraction of those like 100 regular buyers), I'd be smiling all the way to the bank...
I agree though, even 20 buyers can be quite lucrative, especially if the picture is of something you were doing anyway like my food pix. There are a huge amount of mainstream items not well covered or barely covered. You just have to go look.
I cook, shoot and eat, so the cost to me of turning out food images is negligible, though there's some extra waste. Looking at my total earnings over the last 10 years, the average return per image in my portfolio is about $20. Not a lot, but if shooting an extra 10 food pictures one day is going to bring in another $200 over the next 10 years it is still a worthwhile day's work. On the other hand, I went to Venice once to shoot stock, that's a fairly high commercial value destination and my pictures sank almost instantly, without trace. It was an interesting trip but it's pretty clear it will never recoup its costs. I've made quite a nice pile of cash from Santorini - but that's only because I was one of the very first microstockers to upload pictures of the famous churches. I would say that breaking into a high-commercial-value area these days probably requires an absolutely extraordinary interpretation of the subject (which is then probably too good for the micros), if your pictures are just superb microstock HCV work then they are likely to be competing unsuccessfully against established, equally superb images and to be lost in the nether regions of the search before they've made an impact. Yuri's HCV, high production cost, work now only seems to sell two or three times faster than my LCV, dirt-cheap, work; at one time he was outselling me 20 or 30-fold or more.
925
« on: November 09, 2014, 08:54 »
Here's the thing that scares the crap out of me...
Look at the chart for "Historical Operating Metrics"...
The rate of growth in the image collection has been accelerating at a frightening pace.
From Q3 to Q4 2012, the collection grew by 7.4%. That rate of increase steady rises from quarter to quarter, and in the most recent period, from Q2 to Q3 2014, the collection grew by 10.0%.
THIS is why we're making less and less while we upload more and more. .
Look at the actual number of added photos and you'll be even more scared. Even if the rate had remained at 7.4% throughout, the growth would still be exponential. If you have 7.4% increase per quarter in a collection of 100,000 images then in Q1 you add 7,400, in Q2 you add 7,950, in Q3 you add 8,500 and in Q4 you add 9,160, over the course of a year you have increased from 100,000 to about 133,000. It's always been clear that nobody can keep up with collections that are growing 30, 40 or 50% a year. The miracle is that the agencies have found enough buyers for us still to be able to make some money more than 10 years after this began.
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 206
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
