|
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 - etudiante_rapide
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... 79
976
« on: October 30, 2015, 09:10 »
And since some pics are blatantly given away now, customers wouldnt be thievesthey are just regular customers that accept a big xmas present from SS
except that 1) Santa has his elfs and wife to make the toys he gives away; not someone else's toys 2) even the Santa at the shopping center asks for money from moms before their child sits on his lap to get a gift from Mrs Claus. there is nothing wrong with giving away free stuff, so long as like dt, the contributor chooses the option; not the agency sneakily creepily doing it on the sly simply because , perharps, eg fotolia with adobe is gaining foothold of their market. whatever the reason, ss is definitely not the #1 agency it used to be... and the market (the other stock market) reflects this.
977
« on: October 30, 2015, 08:53 »
You sold an image rights for 6 $ 
Are you serious ?!?
yes, i am shaking my head too. Ivonnew, $6 does not even cover the time of your workflow. selling the rights means giving it all away. next time , think again. if someone wants to buy the rights from you, it must mean a lot more than $6... or else they will just download it and you earn a few pennies for the download. if you look at dt default price for selling rights, you see it , realistic or not, is far more than $6
978
« on: October 30, 2015, 08:47 »
I am one of those that get really irritated by seeing obnoxious watermarks. At some point it really starts to affect the image and i think thats a fine line that is different depending on who you ask.
LMAO to the red remark. depending on who you ask, you say? that is like asking the petty thieves in my neighbourhood do they really feel it is necessary for us to have barbed wire around our property 6 foot walls to deter them from breaking into our homes. the only ppl who consider watermarks obnoxious are the ones who do not think it is important to protect someone's else property , in this case, the photographers and vector artists. are you by any chance one of the mgt fellas of ss who implemented this obnoxious idea of making it easier for ppl to steal our work???
979
« on: October 29, 2015, 19:57 »
I think he's set things up so that his cat can just randomly bump the camera a bit and activate the shutter. Over and over and over.
Does SS still have a "new images" page, and if so does this sort of stuff show up on it? Check out his 'sets' page. It says he has over 10,000 images of marijuana on a white background.
that explains ss claim of 50K daily new images. nathan contributes 1/5 of them already 
980
« on: October 29, 2015, 19:48 »
 mrblues101 stockastic u made my day to a good start to this halloween weekend as for nathan, i guess he is vyying for a national grant to research marijuana, or maybe he already has one but forgot. talking about america and marijuana, i just heard some song on the radio that says the new free america smoking marijuana ,... or something like that... i guess that must be nathan too. we might just find soon in USA that marijuana is essential to religion like some caribbean islands everything is going up in a puff of smoke... whether it is due to tobacco or weed envato, ss, ... who else is a disciple of nathan
981
« on: October 29, 2015, 19:39 »
check their forums, there is a brief explanation from Collis (the CEO) that its basically an experiment to see if they should make massive changes to PhotoDune.
Shame it wasn't communicated to photographers first.
haven't had any sales with what little i have there. i am sure you too are mostly the same. so, if you cannot sell your stuff, you can either put up a bankrupt sign like a shop without any customers usually ends up doing, or give your our work away for free. thx for the info, pixelbytes, i am off to delete my images. i won't rush as no one has viewed any of them so, not much risk of anyone finding them in a hurry
982
« on: October 29, 2015, 18:04 »
Tim, please make social media sharing optional.
I have no interest in seeing my photos shared freely on Facebook, Twitter, G+ etc.
Yup... That's the point.
I uploaded many images wasting time on preparing two sizes and handly watermark on files (why the h... isn't it made automatically?!). Some promising sales showed up but... huge but... I wasted far too much time on removing my work from the sites I didn't want to share my work... taken from 500px. Like Thumblr for example. One guy takes (shares) the image from your site and hundreds people just copy it to their blogs. I don't use it and I don't want people to share my images without my permission here and there. And your politic is encouraging people to share just like that.
Last year I (and many other people) asked 500px to stop this madness and let us decide about sharing options. 500px declined saying:
"However, we allow and encourage members to share photos from 500px on personal blogs and social networks. As long as they're providing a link back to the photo's page and giving the photographer attribution for the photo,..."
and
"social sharing will always be a feature of 500px. It increases views of your photos and thereby increases sales..."
what a bunch of bs...(and once again, i do not mean bigstock)... when a site correlates sales with our photos by sharing without our consent automatically, what they really mean is ..." we are more interested in traffic, and not really interested in you earning money with us. our main concern is we get ads and the money we get from ads is 100% ours to keep. if you are naive enough to think we care if you earn anything with us, you are more stupid than you look".
983
« on: October 29, 2015, 17:49 »
in answer to the comment ...
" how long do we have to wait for an effective watermark and
a non-canned response to joanne and all"...
dear faithful contributors of ss,
the effects of marijuana can linger from hours to a lifetime.
pls be assured we are taking your concerns seriously.
we are servicing concerns on a priority basis.
(huh, what??? oh, ok... sorry i haven't inhale enuff of the stuff yet. because i needed to type this email to those msg buggers. ..
wow, this is really good stuff !!! where did you get it???...
985
« on: October 29, 2015, 16:07 »
986
« on: October 29, 2015, 15:06 »
Yes, we've wandered off topic. But obviously SS isn't going to explain what's going on and won't change.
For me, at least, microstock is history and in fact, discussion here on MSG is way down from what it used to be. I'd like to see a new forum dedicated to print sales, both online and in person. I've searched, but I don't think there is one that is currently active. MSG has a subforum for POD but there's little activity in it. FAA has a forum but the moderators won't allow criticism or any mention of competitors.
nothing wrong with competition. if football(soccer to you ), tennis or grandprix ban competitiveness ... the sport would diminish into wishywash like social medias on interent
987
« on: October 29, 2015, 15:04 »
Tim, please make social media sharing optional.
I have no interest in seeing my photos shared freely on Facebook, Twitter, G+ etc.
I am not a facebook, flicker, istagram or twitter user. I also prefer to keep my life and art off social media...
that would be a good way to handle this. optional. if i understand it, 500px are divided into two, one for printsales and other for whatever., maybe this could be the solution, leave the printsale section non social media or optional . .. as yes, social media is a total pita, esp those who join them simply to get 2000 fbfriends , thumbsup, likes, and 500px nice work come see my work in return.
988
« on: October 29, 2015, 14:58 »
not if u want to cannibalize your sellers. if u like, i would say ... just upload your non-sellers there, but none of your good earners as u earn less with BigStock per sale. BigStock used to be good, with good ppl working there, but since ss took over, many good ppl left and it stinks now.
989
« on: October 29, 2015, 14:48 »
Forgive me if I misunderstand what you're saying, but
this is not the time for negativity or sarcasm. They don't help.
They make money out of OUR work, they can't ignore us forever, if we stop uploading and will not upload until this problem is fixed.
We have to think long term and not just this day and week. Let's be consistent.
Are you all prepared to delete your images if they don't comply? It's easy to go sign a petition, but when it comes to doing what is REALLY necessary, most won't bother. "I can't afford to take my images down, I have a family to feed" or "well, they DID improve the watermark a little bit." It's not negativity or sarcasm, it's history and fact. Documented right here on this forum. Look how many people still upload to istock, after years of complaining!
And yes, they can ignore you forever. If they lose even 1,000 out of 10, 20 or 30 thousand contributors, do you think they care? Its a rhetorial question...the answer is no. And I would bet they don't even lose that many!
if we stop uploading
Another easy (yet temporary) solution. They don't care about that. how many images get uploaded every day?
I was on board with all of these demonstrations once upon a time. Nothing major ever changed (notice Shelma1 and marthamarks (my two archenemies, who just HAVE to dispute everything I say  ), I said major. sure, contributors might have won some skirmishes, but the war goes on). They still make billions and we still make pennies.
But I admire all of your rebelliousness. 
i am in line with cathyslife on this. it is not negativity or sacarcsm but reality check. in latin lucha sounds like loser, winner in english sounds like whiner, ... which is all much like what we reach after pages in ss forum and here with no response from ss mgmt. it is like a dinosaur refusing to change instead waiting until the boat sinks before realising everyone will perish. the old bear knows when to quit while the silly bear think a gun pointed in its way is a stick with food on it. we all went that way about optimism here 10 years ago, and nothing 's changed except new issues of whogivesashitwhatuthink popping out each time. but this is a forum, and free speech is ok .
990
« on: October 29, 2015, 13:25 »
475 out of 60,000 contributors (wikipedia 2014), nice!
yes, and 9 pages on this forum. i can see where this is going to get ss management off their moforearends to acknowledge there is an issue to be implemented urgently. consider there were a lot more pages re the other contributors relations matter on ss forum which were also ignored by management. time to face up to the truth, ppl
991
« on: October 29, 2015, 12:52 »
p.s. i know what i commented directly to stockastic is a bit OT, but this topic of this thread is more or less moot. nothing 's gonna change with ss or whoever. whether in terms of better contributors relations, or preview size, or sales, etc so we may as well start to rapport on alternatives instead of beating a dead horse and screaming here on leaf's site because no one gives a hoot already.
992
« on: October 29, 2015, 12:49 »
I have lots of photos that I could be selling as wall art, greeting cards etc. But as we all know, art/craft shows are a huge effort that seldom pays off. For photographers, the problem is inventory - we have to invest hundreds in framed/matted prints, and unlike wood furniture, they aren't fun to make. And we have to store them. If technology could give us an answer to this problem, local photo sales would be more of an option. Maybe every art show could have a single print booth that could produce finished product on demand, so we'd just have to show samples.
i think we have a rapport going here... in terms of where we are going with our work..globally via ss,etc or locally. re your comment to me about temporal-ity of opportunity, and in this latest reply of yours to shelma re marketing locally. y'know, i have traveled to lots of countries and the issue of distribution is the same all over,, whether latin-am, italy, usa, asia, etc. i spoke to all kinds of photographers and painters and i get mostly the most optimistic rapport from the ones who work locally all day in an installment during summer mainly. you mention inventory issue is universal too. i was on holidays in the maritimes and italy and these same issues were pointed out to me. also local issues like getting a good spot each summer. some cities have a bais to seniority, others are first come first served annual while other is more in the raffle. but no matter where you get to be in the tourist area during summer for your stall, the unity is amazing. we don't find this backstabbing attitude we find with stock photography. and yes, many tell me they are not interested in stock photography too. but, long days in summer sitting in the tent or outdoors in the shade waiting for business do not fazed these artisans. they are back there every year, so obviously they must make enough or else they would not be there each summer . the cost to get a stall is a bit steep for someone like me waiting to see if i do want to take that leap ... as the oldtimers say, $$$ to pay for a stall may sound much, but you sell . if you are in this business, i like to hear your own view as to the feasibility to take that leap to sell photographs locally, ie. in whatver city i may be at that time. italy i am told is almost out of the question, as they do not give out a local stall license to foreigners.
993
« on: October 29, 2015, 12:02 »
hello, i went to your site and was impressed with some of the work. also the price line for printed material which are not in line with the absurd low price of micro. only concern is that , like fbook,flickr,etc... you look no diff to me as a social-media rather than a site to be taken seriously for photographers wanting to market their work. what i mean is as i mentioned before here on leaf's site, is that i notice most of your contributors tend to hinged on the idea of "like your work, come visit me and give me a thumbs up" or what fb calls "like", or that silly nudge, pinch or whatever. you have to decide whether you want to be a social-media where your ppl join you to show off their snapshots, or you want to be taken seriously as a photographer's outlet. and yes, of course, watermark is critierion too. i don't know what to advise you on this matter as i am no expert on watermarks. perharps find a way to preserve camera's exif or what ever. as if i understand correctly, in issues of copyright infringement we can prove we own the photos by providing our original as each frame is embedded with our camera id etc something to consider. btw, welcome and pls feel free to make more threads. and don't take too seriously the goofballs who thrive and driving away new sites trying to make an appearance here on leaf's forum. they really have no actual damage to you, if you take those ppl like barking dogs
994
« on: October 28, 2015, 17:56 »
Take a look at what's happening with Etsy. It started out with crowdsourcing of handmade goods. Now that it's gone public, it's bringing in mass-produced products from big suppliers. All those artisans and craftsmen that got the business off the ground are crying "foul" but there never was any promise regarding the future. Same thing will happen to (formerly) micro stock.
hmm, interesting. so we like those indie musicians and now artisans are all crying foul, when we all went in knowing that eventually they will forget you once they become mainstream. it's a sad world with vultures using pawns like us. i guess the next time something wonderful comes up ...like canva, stocksy ... we better ask ourselves if we want to lend them a helping hand, right??? what do that phrase for ppl like us... whipping boy, chess piece, stoolie, floor-mat ... can't remember what that is appropriate definition to describe ppl like us
995
« on: October 28, 2015, 15:15 »
wow, completely/majority declined??? from even sjlocke??? that's atilla 's kind of slaughter
Not really because for those rejections the reason most likely is not "out of focus" or "too much noise" but "these look to much like generic stock and not enough authentic to fit in our collection". That's a whole different story. And Sean was the hero in shooting generic stock, so I'd bet he had to make quite some changes to the way he shoots (and directs his models) to make it work for Stocksy.
My personal acceptance is around 50%. It varies heavily because I haven't really found "my Stocksy style" yet. I upload a diverse range of images, not really a lot of shoots planned for Stocksy. It's a good match because it sometimes is a place for images that don't really fit anywhere else. And if I upload three similar images and get two rejected, I assume I will still get most of the sales I would have gotten with all three versions as there is not all that much of a competition for images that are somewhat unique in a collection of less than half a million.
ok, yes, i should have been more precise in my comment. if it was not those typical renegade OOF absurdity , and is those "not Stocksy kind of work we're looking for", then it is not as bad as i think it is. yes, too, sjl is our micro type hero like yuri and there is a difference in micro and other types of commercial photography, or even artsy stuff or w eugene smith /man ray/ ansel adams eternal master works. i am sure our great cartier-bresson would have gotten 100% not in focus where we want it to be rejections, and eugene smith and man ray would get the poor lighting rejections from ss ...not to mention david hamilton (100% noise rejection)
996
« on: October 28, 2015, 14:48 »
double post
997
« on: October 28, 2015, 14:48 »
I don't think they will fix it. They do what customers ask them to do, not contributors.
BTW, where is Vincent? 
I think your correct. We Cave in pretty easy throughout History. Don't talk about it and they will go away. Don't think so On this One. Of course we need a LOT more Folks.
please take a look at my new thread
this is something that could happen with this large preview size
998
« on: October 28, 2015, 14:47 »
http://www.collegehumor.com/post/7009050/guy-photoshops-himself-into-stock-photos-to-instantly-make-them-better
Pretty funny stuff!!!
no, that wasnt my purpose of this thread. i think he is breaking the agreement of using stock photos or using unauthorized stock photos. the quality of the stock photos look like the kind of work sjlocke, yuri would do with their business category . i thought maybe sjlocke and others in this field would recognize the person's work and inform them so this abuse is stopped. another possibility is in line with the large preview image size that ss is giving away. this is the sort of abuse and piracy you encourage
999
« on: October 28, 2015, 14:40 »
Because inspecting submissions takes time and costs money. If you just want thousands of similar vectors or icons, it's cheaper to pay someone to generate exactly what you want, and just load it directly, without paying reviewers to look at it.
SS makes their own rules. There is no legal requirement that they only offer imagery from outside contributors, or that it all goes through inspection. Their buyers don't care where it came from. SS wants to grow, and they don't need to rely on crowdsourcing for everything anymore.
i seem to agree more with you than with my own xfile theory it goes hand in hand with the deception method used by apartment bldg owners who want to dump their real estate because it is riddled with lots of pending repair and hidden skeleton .. so they fill their apt with met-houses and druggies and present their apt as fully-rented. when the buyers come in, they make sure the druggies and met-houses ppl are gone, so it looks like a nice quiet fully-rented apartment bldg. iow, wait for another change of ownership istock style
1000
« on: October 28, 2015, 13:17 »
just for your info,
i went back to check my submissions,
averaging 90%
there only once i had 80% but it was due to a misinformation of the reviewer who asked for credentials.
they got approved when i send them a copy of my email from the organizers we did not require credentials .
but as yada3 says , it tells you nothing about your own acceptance rate. we have pages of complaints
100% rejection , although i am not one of them, i believe it depends on the reveiwer as well.
years ago, i would be more confident of the reviewers justified to rejection, but not these days.
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... 79
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
