|
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 - heywoody
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... 58
976
« on: August 17, 2012, 04:43 »
Pure black and white would have the same effect as a clipping path. The extra benefit is that the grey areas are more or less transparent depending on the shade so your isolated wine glass layered on an image will allow the background through as if it was shot that way. Doing it with photos would take a lot more skill than I have (the software I use can just generate the mask when it's rendering the main image).
977
« on: August 16, 2012, 17:43 »
There was one of those threads on DT (before they started to accept png) where a bunch of us were arguing for it but one of the admins said they'd accept this format with an alignment mark. I tested the waters on DT, SS and FT and only FT had a problem. It does make a strange thumb (could result in someone having a closer look out of curiousity) and doubles the dimensions of the image.
978
« on: August 16, 2012, 15:47 »
Is this one open to "noobs"? 
979
« on: August 16, 2012, 10:20 »
you know about PNG on DT - SS will accept an image done like this (image has an alignment mark in the corner of each)  FT will reject - haven't tried 123. IS may accept them as I believe I have seem some..
980
« on: August 13, 2012, 17:59 »
"comparitively speaking"  It's about 3 times SS but 10% of the volume
981
« on: August 13, 2012, 10:21 »
You will definitely make much more spreading it about.
Having said that, the RPD on DT is very good comparitively speaking & much better as exclusive. The big problem is the "Ds" are much less frequent as buyers can get images much cheaper elsewhere. If we all went exclusive there the demand would have to follow the supply but I don't see that happening...
982
« on: August 13, 2012, 06:07 »
I don't remember but I think it is "freeimages" something dot com 
You must be crazy to contribute there.. Just remove your port..
Yes, you are making money but distributing your content for free will make people think they are "creative-commons" stuff after a while..
+1
983
« on: August 12, 2012, 09:05 »
Know exactly what you mean, one runs out of patience with all the ups/downs, paranoid search changes, bugs and glitches. Honestly, all it takes is one more of the big four to start messing and its goodbye.
Sometimes I almost get the impression they only want weekend snappers, they are easily fooled and dont make noise and only too happy to see their little pic as a screeen shot.
trouble is the governors of the major agencies have long ago already made their monies and by now they are probably pretty burnt out and just want to go really, so they dont care one bit. couldnt really give a hoot.
I don't think they care, either. They have enough photos and good photographers now that if some leave, they are ok with that.
When Tyler's DTrank.com was still in operation there were some important statistics displayed in the top left corner of the pages. Those stats said that 50% of sales came from a mere 800 contributors. That's out of 130,000+. If just those people decided it wasn't worth it anymore DT's sales would drop by 50%. I think they'd notice something like that. The other important stat was that 90% of sales came from something like 4800 contributors. Meaning 125,000 contributors account for only 10% of sales. Those would be your weekend shooters. I'm fairly certain those numbers apply to every agency.
I can see a stockpocalypse coming. I can see the govs of those agencies caring a bit when it happens.
Interesting... I was extrapolating based on the impact of very low sales numbers on FTs 7 day rank and very much in line with this. Id expect that, even among the 800, there is a pretty huge variation with the top 10 15 % garnering 85-90% of that 50%. I dont doubt that sites would lose revenue if the cream of the crop stopped submitting but nothing like 50% as most subject matter would still be well covered so it would just mean that further sales would be shared among the great unwashed.
984
« on: August 11, 2012, 19:11 »
There's probably about 3 groups:
The pros who make a good living out of this - maybe 100 - 200 people
The high performing part timer making more than equivalent of minimum wage (about $1500 per month in these parts) - probably < 1000 people
The rest - for whom it's a hobby that generates a bit of extra money but would be doing pictures anyway (probably better pictures).
The "is it worth it" question is really for the first 2 groups as the rest of us are not really taking our time or production costs into account.
985
« on: August 08, 2012, 14:46 »
I don't think the bar is really that different elsewhere than DT. It's a long game an it depends on whether you are looking for a home for the images on your hard drive where you have a pretty good idea what will and won't get in, or intend to produce lots of new stuff that can be aimed at what the sites are looking for.
986
« on: August 07, 2012, 13:24 »
Why not use IPTC ?
Really good advice = IPTC + FTP = painless uploading
987
« on: August 03, 2012, 18:10 »
commiissions are pathetic to say the least, so if they do end up cutting contributor rates I am definitely jumping ship
I'll take my chances in the ocean rather than be on a boat full of greedy pirates...
Yeah? Is that low sales or low rpd? I've just started there and, so far, RPD is 2nd only to DT and double SS - of course SS generates much more because of higher volumes.
988
« on: August 03, 2012, 09:48 »
J ~
Yu. know who is still keeping his eggs spread among all the old, exploitative baskets despite his supadupa new shiny website.
What does that tell us?
Yesterday he posted on his iStock blog: "...So let's create images to our hearts content and care not for the cost, not for the hard work, but only for the images. That is who we are!"
Still the Master of self-promotion.
Eggs is a very good analogy - stock producers (with a possible few exceptions) are just like battery hens producing vast quantities of product for very little gain and no individual importance
989
« on: August 03, 2012, 08:30 »
what a pity, wut left us
anyway, dont have much time now, need to keep up with the caribbean all inclusive hotel
i was wondering about that...
990
« on: August 02, 2012, 10:07 »
A. The obvious answer is to do something about the outragous spam - a 10 - 15 keyword limit would sort that pretty quickly.
B. What is the alternative to relevancy ?
991
« on: August 01, 2012, 07:43 »
I have a few. I upload to two sites "nobody" is talking about (they have been mentioned here, they aren't that exotic!) and I get decent returns (think "half of what Fotolia earns me").
I don't want to talk about them, all microstockers rushing to the sites might spoil it, I'll rather have my own money
I'm not sure that ALL that FT earns me would be worth the effort, never mind HALF 
992
« on: August 01, 2012, 06:13 »
Too small, too new to see trends but seems like ok - revenue same as FT for July with fewer images as RPD is turning out fairly ok compared to the others.
993
« on: July 31, 2012, 18:46 »
It might fly if the top 200 or so contributors who may have a buyer following moved everything - hell of a risk though.
994
« on: July 29, 2012, 17:45 »
Views are not realtime on FT - they will update if you edit the file or get a sale but otherwise it's based on some sort of schedule. Also believe it's just views by logged in members whereas DT seems to count guest views and bot hits (the view count on one of my images jumped by 12000 suddenly for no good reason, not a particularly good image and certainly not a big seller).
995
« on: July 28, 2012, 06:31 »
Dunno.. Have seen lots of threads here and on SS where lots of non-noobs complain about rejections, a MSG noob or a stock noob may not be a photography noob an the SS review fairy can be quite good to some of us (i can see where they're coming from when they do reject something whether I agree or not). Basic advice is sound though, sites accept what they accept and reject what they reject and the only benefit in complaining is the getting it off your chest factor.
996
« on: July 28, 2012, 06:18 »
Possibly copyright rejections my go under that heading also...
997
« on: July 27, 2012, 11:03 »
The checkmarks are back to default for me but the extended price is set to 10.
I have reported the issue.
Just reminded me to change the EL price on my most recent approved files...
998
« on: July 26, 2012, 09:11 »
Maybe the wing logos? The equivalent U.S. would not be allowed I don't think. Don't know how the UK feels
The sub is already on a few sites in a different setting and there's a kind of tank with the nazi cross also - could actually be a case of nazi ok, winners not ok as the former unlikely to take an action
999
« on: July 26, 2012, 07:55 »
I just had this image rejected on 123 for potential copyright - can't see anything on these vehicles in SS's shutterbuzz and wondering if anyone is aware of restrictions generally? It's pending on some other sites and wondering if I should pull it.  This one is currently available on IS, SS, DT and FT - maybe british warplanes are copyrighted and german ones not ?? 
1000
« on: July 26, 2012, 03:41 »
I don't think much will be learned from seeing the images - I virtually never have rejections from FT and had 2 of a batch with this reason last month (the first in 9 months) - the rejected images are on SS, DT and 123 and better than many that FT accepted in the intervening period.
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
