|
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 - DonLand
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
1
« on: August 24, 2022, 10:12 »
Thanks Uncle Pete for taking the time to write such a detailed answer.
So far I've been tracking accepts/rejects by agency but end up spending an inordinate amount of time doing it. In the end I've never really needed any of that info. As you said each agency is different with sales and even accepts/rejects so trying to decipher any consistent sales info between agencies seems like a waste of time.
2
« on: August 22, 2022, 17:11 »
Just wondering if people track their acceptance/rejects or simply track what you upload to each site. Personally I've been tracking acceptance/rejects but it is pretty time consuming so thinking about just tracking uploads.
3
« on: July 24, 2020, 23:14 »
So the question is can everyone see my post about it? If not Ive been shadowbaned as I can still see my post!
4
« on: July 24, 2020, 20:53 »
I just did the deactivate Javascript and was able to post in the SS forum. Let's see if it stays there or gets deleted. I wonder what would happen if I posted the javascript by pass on the SS forum. 
5
« on: July 24, 2020, 20:37 »
I tried posting and am greyed out also. Guess they didn't like my post about turning my portfolio off. Guess we'll have to post here instead.
I turned off my portfolio on SS in early June after viewing a few days of the dismal results.
Since then it seems my Adobe sales have increased a little bit but things at Alamy are different.
I haven't had any sales on Alamy since early September. In July I've had 4 sales for a net profit of $131.
That's a little bit better than .10 each. Not sure if one has to do with the other but just maybe.
6
« on: September 28, 2015, 17:32 »
I know this is an old post, but what a PITA sorting keywords is!!! So every time I upload an image to Fotolia I have to sort keywords for each and every image. I have over 1000 images online here and started sorting keywords, if you think categories take time, start playing with keyword sorting order.  . Since the search places priority on the first 7 keywords is it worth having more than 7 keywords?
7
« on: March 15, 2015, 12:47 »
It could result in FEWER downloads! (more $ for SS) Imagine you're a designer working on a project and not sure of which images you'll be using. You have this 25 a day quota so at the end of the day you fill it up with possible images you may use in the next few days so you don't run out of choices. Instead, now (other than near the end of the month) you're working away. Tomorrow you may need a bunch of images, so you no longer have to download 25 possible images, you simply wait and download the exact images you need tomorrow while working on the project.
8
« on: November 03, 2014, 13:55 »
1-Dump the keyword tiers and pick up the keywords from IPTC.
If you can't dump the tiers, at least make it only 2 tiers and be able to just click it in the main tier and it appears in the essential tier while automatically disappearing from the main tier.
2-If you must have categories make it simple like SS.
3-Don't dump the entire batch because of a single image that does not pass, simply dump the single image.
9
« on: October 30, 2014, 14:47 »
Just finished a live chat with them. They said they will reply to it here on MSG.
10
« on: October 22, 2014, 13:36 »
Sounds like you failed to set the Color Profile to sRBG.
Agree... I had the same problem. Most of the sites simply strip out the color managed profile and assume sRGB. If you uploaded in AdobeRGB all of your colors will appear muted online. To get the correct color the customer would have to know to open the image in a color managed program and apply (not convert) the original colorspace. Most if not all will never know this and you will most likely get fewer downloads because of the dull colors. Unfortunately the simple answer is to upload in sRGB.
11
« on: October 06, 2014, 11:38 »
RPI in terms of USD. We know the average RPI at Shutterstock is about 28 cents for all file types but I haven't seen any recent polls on this for photographers and illustrators.
This sort of poll is only even slightly useful if we know the media and critically for SS, whether images are opted in for sensitive use or not, since it's all in or all out. All out, to protect models, means the biggest value sales (even if not actually 'sensitive') are unavailable.
You ask for RPI, (income/all images on SS) but do you really mean RPD (income/# of downloads)?
12
« on: May 15, 2014, 16:09 »
Another reason to not be in DollarPhotoClub is the using of the credit as seen here where it is simply credited to DollarPhotoClub! I'm not sure if this is a rogue instance, or if all of the images are credited to DPC only. http://careertipperblog.com/2014/03/07/dress-and-speak-success/I then downloaded the image. It is HUGE. 6317x5062 pixels! Why would a site have the original hi-res file available for download is beyond me. The image number on both FT and DPC is 61312360. Finally the Copyright Credit in the file reads: FotolEdhar - Fotolia On another note I'm wondering if Oleg is setting Fotolia up for sale. This site looks like a bad language conversion to English but its still readable. http://newsduet.net/dollarphotoclub-expands-into-more-markets-hits-11000-users/
13
« on: April 14, 2014, 08:54 »
I haven't uploaded to BS in a while but if it's anything like SS I would try using the caption field instead.
In SS I did a test. I put info in the Title field and if it was too long it screwed it up. If I put the info in the Caption field all is well.
If both Title and Caption are filled SS picks up the Caption and ignores the Title. See if BS works the same way.
14
« on: April 09, 2014, 16:48 »
To SS you must upload in sRGB. They appear to ignore the color space when converting the images so if you upload in AdobeRGB your images will all look flat and undersaturated. Most other agencies are the same with IS being the exception.
I upload to SS in aRGB and when looking at my images on their site they look fine....both on my calibrated desktop and on my laptop. I guess I have no idea what someone else may be seeing.
I'll have to experiment with my next batch to SS and give sRGB a try.
On some images it is subtle, others more noticeable. The problem is SS views it as an untagged colorspace. I know that when I upload an sRGB and an AdobeRGB image the sRGB matches on the web and the AdobeRGB is dull and undersaturated. If you download one of your SS AdobeRGB images in Photoshop and your default color settings (command+shift+k on the mac) is set to AdobeRGB the image will appear correct (if you uploaded it in AdobeRGB) as the untagged image will then be viewed as if it were AdobeRGB and all is well, but... on the web it will not match. The real problem is that SS does not carry over the colorspace embedded within the file for at least the display which is where the clients are doing the choosing to purchase our images. The default untagged colorspace is sRGB... so... I'd rather have the client see the image as I created it and not as a duller less saturated version. Hope that helps explain what is actually going on. If you don't see any difference than ignore all of this and be content with it and continue doing whatever you are doing now.
15
« on: April 09, 2014, 11:07 »
My screen can only see about 75% of the colour palette for Adobe RGB, the brighter parts of the range are missing, so a correctly edited ARGB image will not display on my equipment.
It would obviously also be impossible for me to edit in ARGB because I would think the image was brighter than it was was and it would come out under-exposed (I think I was doing that at some point many years back, without knowing what was going on, to keep Alamy happy).
It may well be that SS is converting from ARGB to sRGB correctly, but people who upload in ARGB have used non-compatible equipment to edit the image, so their work will end up lacking bright colours.
SS is NOT converting AdobeRGB to sRGB at least not on the website images, they simply leave it and ignore the colorspace leaving it as untagged that is why you need to upload in sRGB. I don't know about when someone downloads an image but if you submit AdobeRGB image it will appear muted. I know this because I have uploaded some AdobeRGB images with the profile attached and when viewing an image online it no longer matches my images. If I screen download my image, take it into Photoshop and then tell it to Assign Profile (not convert!) AdobeRGB the image then appears correct. I have quite a few images like this before I realized the problem. Here is an example. Drag it to your desktop and then open it in Photoshop to see. Go to Assign Profile and select AdobeRGB to see the correct colors. I have too many images there to go back and re-upload them with sRGB. This image was uploaded with AdobeRGB color profile intact. http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1268305/140020126/stock-photo-lamb-chops-on-a-white-plate-with-red-wine-140020126.jpg
16
« on: April 09, 2014, 10:20 »
To SS you must upload in sRGB. They appear to ignore the color space when converting the images so if you upload in AdobeRGB your images will all look flat and undersaturated. Most other agencies are the same with IS being the exception.
17
« on: April 08, 2014, 13:07 »
Thanks guys for the replies. Some very good reasons to continue along my current path of keeping track of kept on rejected images.
18
« on: April 08, 2014, 11:04 »
Just wondering what everyone does about submission rejects. Do you keep track of what every agency has online and what they rejected or do you just lump them together as say submitted and not worry what they actually have online or not.
The reason I ask is I've been keeping track but realize what a large amount of time it consumes on the back end.
I've been trying to figure out the pros and cons of each way. It's nice to know in my lightroom database who has what online, but in reality I'm not sure it really helps or is necessary.
Not worrying certainly would speed things up, just upload and move onto the next batch.
19
« on: March 30, 2014, 00:48 »
Mark me as another one that went from sole proprietorship to a Corp Sub Chapter S and back again. By the time I got done with all of the accounting bills and Quickbooks it just was not worth it. While moving back to a SP I got rid of my accountant and Quickbooks and am doing everything with iBank and Turbotax.
20
« on: March 28, 2014, 15:47 »
Add Bigstockphoto to the list of places that allow print on demand with an EL.
Add BS to the list of agencies I have cancelled out of EL's. I only have 99 images with them and have not submitted to them since seeing their pitiful payment schedule as I don't want to give their parent company any bad ideas that it is acceptable.
21
« on: March 28, 2014, 14:01 »
Doesn't the fotolia extended license allow this kind of use? Also the person selling the work doesn't seem to be saying that she took all of the pictures just that she has taken many photos of pets.
Thanks for the heads up. I just opted out of CS extended licenses.
22
« on: March 18, 2014, 12:40 »
I just posted in the CanStock forums asking for an opt out from distribution sales
http://www.canstockphoto.com/forum_read.php?id=6255
Even the parent company, FotoSearch, doesn't have any indication of the copyright holder of the work and I'm just not getting enough distribution sales to soften me up to tolerate this.
I know at some point a while back we we around the block over the issue of stripping out our copyright information from uploaded images - somehow it seems like this is another step in that direction. Not only is the copyright gone from the images but there is nothing on the agency/distributor page that indicates who owns that image.
I'm not expecting them to say "OK fine" but it's worth asking...
I'm waiting for a response also. Here I thought CS was one of the fair sites. Also wondering why we only receive 20% from any FotoSearch sales.
23
« on: March 17, 2014, 18:16 »
So the question I have is if FotoSearch or GoGraph sell and image for $40, how much do we make?
24
« on: March 16, 2014, 16:03 »
Another one bites the dust.
I have a small portfolio (<200 images) on FT since June 2013 with mostly sub sales but have already reached the $50 threshold.
After reading this I just sent them the delete my account letter.
So that's -2 so far with DP being the first that I dropped.
25
« on: March 06, 2014, 23:22 »
They're back!!!
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
