|
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 - mollypix
Pages: [1]
1
« on: April 12, 2011, 22:48 »
It makes me wonder if the status quo will continue for best match....i.e. Files found their way to the top of searches because they were a relevant to the search AND clicked on by the customer. Will Vetta and Agency be always at the top of the searches, or will they filter down through the mass to the bottom, simply because they are more expensive and not due to irrelevancy. Can somebody find a grossly irrelevant Vetta or Agency image ? If so then Vetta and Agency images have a "bubble" around them so as they will always be at the top. Time will tell....meanwhile my downloads are non-existent......is the Crown worth its exclusivity.... One interesting fact is that iStock has not grown in membership since January 36,892, Today 36,895. (I keep a spreadsheet on the numbers from http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/ ) When I look at the numbers, only the Base Level is decreasing, all other levels are increasing. Which says there has not been a new member this year. The exclusive numbers have risen back up from Decembers Peak with December 5872, January 5399, Today 5479....Dec/Jan had a huge bailout due to the best match, I wonder what will happen in the next week or two. Has the dust settled, no, its just the eye in the storm................
2
« on: July 31, 2010, 22:18 »
I recon thats a big plus for being exclusive at iStock. If an image is being illegally used iStock will investigate the issue. Not sure whether one use on a blog is worth investigating.
By looking at the image on PS and adjusting the levels, I dont see any unnatural pixel changes in the area where the logo was. So its probably been used from a download.
While it may be true that istock will investigate the issue if one is exclusive, I don't consider that a good enough reason to do go ex, but that's another conversation. I continue to see thousands and thousands of images being pirated with both istockphoto and Getty plastered across them, so at this point, I don't see where the agencies are making much headway either. And if IS or Getty does investigate and succeed at getting images pulled, I would think that ALL images would be pulled, whether one is exclusive or not.
Love to see some instances of these pirated images...cheers
3
« on: July 30, 2010, 19:50 »
I recon thats a big plus for being exclusive at iStock. If an image is being illegally used iStock will investigate the issue. Not sure whether one use on a blog is worth investigating.
By looking at the image on PS and adjusting the levels, I dont see any unnatural pixel changes in the area where the logo was. So its probably been used from a download.
4
« on: January 05, 2010, 22:33 »
Hi Folks,
I sent this email to Crestock today.
I have tried to delete my images from Crestock, but the website does not have the necessary "DELETE" button.
Does anybody know a way to delete images at Crestock?
Not happy at all with Crestock.
Cheers
Mollypix
Dear Sir,
I have repetedly asked for a payout of $50 on my account Since October of 2009.
You have not paid this account.
I can only assume that Crestock is insolvent.
Please remove all of my images from sale, any furthur sales of my images will be considered THEFT.
Thankyou
Mollypix
5
« on: December 16, 2009, 16:25 »
Hi, Has anybody actually received payment from Crestock this month??? I have not been paid since requesting a paymet in October. I have emailed three times, receiving various excuses. I have told them that if I do not receive payment by Dec 31st, I will remove my images, again I got another excuse. below are the emails On 15 Dec 2009, at 21:37, > > Question/comment: > Hi, > > In October of this year I requested a payout of $50.00. > > This has still not been paid. > > I contacted you several weeks ago, you replied that payments have been > delayed, and would be making the payment shortly. > > This still has not been done. > > If by the 31st of December 2009 Crestock has not paid my account, I can > only assume that you have insovency problems and I will withdraw my images > from your site. > > As Crestock is a very small seller of my images the loss of your > non-income will not be noticed. > > Furthur I will be advising all of my Microstock Friends of this action. > > Thankyou >Mollypix REPLY ----- Original Message ----- From: "Crestock Helpdesk" < [email protected]> To: <> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 5:54 AM Subject: Re: Message from crestock.com's contactform Hello Mollypix, I understand your views on this. Many of the most delayed payments were cleared this week, but unfortunately I see that your request was not among them (the requests are processed chronologically). we hope to provide a clear timeline for remaining payments soon. Best regards, Gudmund Gudmund Aarseth The Crestock Team [email protected]Hi, Please understand that I only have your word on this. Can you please give me a date when my payment will be made. Again, I have only these excuses to go by. Thankyou Mollypix
6
« on: September 14, 2008, 16:11 »
Microstock as an industry just hasn't been around long enough to weather enough "economic storms" and "fluctuations" to throw all eggs in one basket.
Who knows iStock may go the way of Lucky Oliver and Photoshelter.
If you look at any search using best match, it doesn't take long to find the end of the exclusives and the start of the non-exclusives. In fact you can see the dividing line. The percentage is still small.
Overall I like iStock, it doesn't have a head in the sand approach like Fotolia, their recent cull is a good start, slash and burn the trash, and if that includes some of my non productive images so be it. (Don't tell me that all of your images sell like hotcakes, don't p*ss down my leg and tell me its raining)
Survival of the fittest will determine the outcome, some sites will make poor business decisions, don't you be the one without a seat when the music stops.
Mollypix
7
« on: September 03, 2008, 18:06 »
Try this little search on iStock
Surfing (Water Sport)
Photos only no illustrations, flash or video in the search
20 images per page
Sort by downloads NOT by best match
Now add up all the downloads for the the first 20 images
Comes to 10556 downloads
IF... all of those images had been on the site for 5 years (which they haven't been) but I'm not going to look at each image to find out how long they have been then...
Average downloads per month per image is 8.79 over 60 months.
What this tells me is...
The subject is popular and I can expect good downloads from my images for a good time to come.
Other subjects can be looked at the same way, and a good picture of subject value can be obtained, by working out that average.
Cheers
8
« on: September 03, 2008, 17:44 »
So from our point of view, the old addage, Pay peanuts you get monkeys". Therefore our images just might be reviewed by monkeys.
I still believe that most reviewers are good at what they do.
To me the fairest way to ensure the reviewers are being fed the best images, is that the sites rank the upload reviewing order to "highest current approval rate first"
I will wait for the yells and screams....
9
« on: September 02, 2008, 17:16 »
Does anybody know how much a reviewer gets paid to sort through the mess? 
10
« on: August 25, 2008, 15:33 »
Thanks Nemo 1024....
I like to play "who dares wins" with seagulls if I'm down the beach having fish and chips. This time I tried a few images. Got a few others with the bird actually taking the chip, the chip still in my fingers, i'll upload them sooner or later, their good images but not so much room for copyspace.
These shots arn't big sellers anyway but fun to do, bit quirky, good impact, a good laugh, and I can't find any other images with a seagull actually taking food from a hand.
thanks again for the inclusion in your lightbox
cheers
Mollypix
P.S. It ain't cropped, folded, spindled, mutilated or photoshopped, thats the full image.
11
« on: August 25, 2008, 04:07 »
Hey Pete,
Why don't you go out and show me how its done.....
Be carefull you might get a finger pecked....oooohhh ouch.
Some do...some dont...some just sit and criticize
Cheers
Mollypix
12
« on: August 24, 2008, 15:40 »
Fotolia seems to have a mindset....sent them this image... http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/animals/birds/6895925-seagull-and-chip.php?id=6895925Rejected for overabundant photo catagory...so I sent them a message...that "If I search for seagull and chip I don't get any images, how can it be an overabundant photo??" Reply..."We don't need this image" Oh well, your funeral...haven't had a rejection from any other site. Cheers Mollypix
13
« on: June 17, 2008, 04:09 »
anonomous
Not about to leave Fotolia but they have slipped in - my time v site rating...
(ie I have x amount of time and 9 sites) Fotolia dropped to fourth on the list, and I'll be regulating that as well.
Still they make 13% of my microstock income.
What I don't like loosing is my market share...
Cheers
Mollypix
14
« on: June 16, 2008, 15:37 »
Ahhh....but Molly, you're using "logic" and "good business sense"....something that FT has chosen NOT to use. In order to understand, you must wrap your head around the concepts of "illogic", ostrisizing", and good old fashioned "schizophrenia". [/quote] Well that puts me right out .... best pack my bags and go...  Cheers Mollypix
15
« on: June 16, 2008, 04:50 »
Fotolia should not forget the old problem of getting microstock sites up and running. Uploads to site v Downloads and income from the site...to generate income you need uploads.
They have certainly slowed down...I don't believe there is any ceiling for the number of images. If you discourage uploading you are effectively cutting off your supply. Cut off the supply, no matter how many images you have, means to cut off your future income.
I do agree with culling non selling images...18mths and no sales...in the bin...but to have a carte blanche attitude to many types of images is suicide...
May to debate continue...
Cheers
Mollypix
16
« on: April 29, 2008, 17:29 »
Hi,
I was on PD but left after about a year.
Main reason - Many images on the site are over stated on the resolution of the the original image. i.e. A image photographed with a 4MP Camera being stated as an 8MP. Many of these images apear in the "WOW" section.
How do I know this, right click and save the thumbnail to your harddrive. Open it up in Photoshop and check the EXIF data. Many photographers leave their EXIF data. Many of the cameras are some $2.00 point and shoot piece of ....
Very annoying.... and misrepresenting work is not fair.
So I left...joined the micros and makin $$$$$$
Apart for that I don't want to have to "deal" and play "duck and drakes" to make a living. Just pick up the $$$ from the micros.
Cheers
Mollypix
17
« on: March 25, 2008, 17:46 »
Pages: [1]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
