|
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 - weknow
1
« on: April 12, 2011, 12:32 »
Don't know what happened there..... Every month something inbetween of 30 to 75 downloads. Today I received april totals which is 684 downloads...... That means that every one of my port of 700+ is downloaded nearly 1 time..... " ploink"  and 
2
« on: April 08, 2010, 12:41 »
3
« on: November 17, 2009, 02:07 »
Do they sell your poetry? 
4
« on: November 15, 2009, 14:55 »
Overall rank 15150
7 days rank 9880
sales 93
5
« on: October 15, 2009, 02:40 »
Perhaps all that views are just the many uploaders looking at each others files.......? 
7
« on: October 11, 2009, 14:23 »
Let's see it optimistic: That wedding dress is whiter than white
8
« on: October 09, 2009, 07:58 »
Stockastic wrote: Well the honeymoon is over, that's for sure. [/quote] There's is really a kind of honeymoon on SS! After acceptance as a contributor, you get an extra exposure on SS frontpage for about 6 weeks. That's why you'll get a lot of downloads very quickly. After that you're one of the many and your new files - which are looked at much more than older files - are just a few inbetween the thousands uploaded every day. If these new files have a lot of attention and downloads, they stay in the run. If not, they sink to the bottom and will only be found by the buyer who is really searching for that particular image, if someone is. On SS the new stuff is looked at the most...a lot of subscribers only go quickly threw the tens of thousands new images, to collect the number of images they sucscribed for. Many downloaded are never used at all. As the upload of new images on SS is developing in enourmous numbers, the piece for each contributor becomes smaller. You can "feed the beast", because threw your newest uploads you have the change that buyers find more of your images of their interest. You'll find out that after 1 or 2 weeks not uploading, your overall downloads go down to < 50%. Feeding the beast is uploading a few images once or twice a week, to have attention with your portfolio. In the longer run, your statistics wil slowly grow this way. Don't look to much to the first months! When your total earnings go over 500 dollars (that will take some months), you'll get a boost because you'll earn 30% more for each download. 0,25 > 0,33! 1,60 > 2,48. Each agency has it's own strategy. On the long run SS is one of the best earners. The influence of the market and the economical crisis might be there...but what you're looking at is a kind of pattern, each contributor to SS experiences. regards!
9
« on: September 26, 2009, 09:37 »
"1(SS) + 3(DT,123,StockXpert) + 2(FT+IS) and the rest." That's indeed my experience after 14 months in this game and a portfolio of 600 to 900 images of non-people. Interesting to see how eachones experiences are quite different. 
10
« on: September 26, 2009, 09:28 »
CClapper wrote: "A reviewer on one site may not think a photo has commercial value, while a reviewer on another site thinks it does." As far as I know, often the same reviewers work for different sites/agencies........ I agree with you: Refusements are all in the game....even if they are hard to understand....move on! Regards!
11
« on: May 16, 2009, 14:09 »
Hi Jeff,
If your original photo's are good, they might be much better sellers on microstock!
Maybe micro-agencys might take a few of these "translations" of an original photo. Some will not like them at all. Others might give a few a try. If your techniques don't blur or grain or uneven edges to much...etc. It will be judged on the technical merits of a photograph and in my experience most "changed" photo's have effects (look at them 100%) which will become explained as technical "not good" in the eyes of micro-judges. But even: when accepted, they probably will not be hot sellers on micro. You have to consider if the lots of work to use these techniques in a quality way are worth the pennies you get on microstock! In my opinion a good use of all kinds of unusual techniques can create real art: not because it's an imitation of a painting, but it gives you opportunities to use a different image-language! It's not the effect, but what an image communicates that matters!
There are sites (not micro) where this kind of converted photo's may sell on higher (macro, art) prices. You better should try to sell this kind of work with them!
Certainly when you have a portfolio with several images in a recognisable own style, there might be a public and costumers for on sites that look for illustration or more original work than micro. F.e. try Veer.
Hope my answer is relevant to you!
Regards
12
« on: May 15, 2009, 10:48 »
Where I could bargain on one or two rejection for every 100 submissions, I sit with a 40% acceptance rate for this month, every rejection the same reason: "This is a very well covered subject in our data base or the subject of your image is too specific etc." A search reveals that the subject is not that well covered at all. I think the problem lies with new inexperienced reviewers, so I decided to stop uploading at DT for a while, at least until the problem is solved. I try to keep my acceptance rate above 90% and with the current rejections I will soon be trying to stay above 80%.
Since about two months Dreamstime seems to have changed their acceptance policy drastically. Before my acceptance was around 80 to 90%. Now I'm glad if half of the uploads are accepted. And as far as I can see it's becoming worser and worser. Let's be clear: It's their right to accept what they want! But as far I can see, their explanation for many refuses makes no sence. I take my work serious and try to make saleable stuff. I look at the images in the database and try to make them different and appealing and better. Nearly all refusions are for "This is a well covered...." That may be, but if it was the same, I normally would not make and upload it. I make a lot of abstract designs, which come in the abstract categories and it looks like these categories are blocked for new images. What's contributed in there is nearly automatically rejected. If they are making a quality comparison between what they have and new stuff, It's not clear to me what they are judging. It feels like indifference. They might not be interested in this kind of images anymore? If this is wise it's not up to me. As far as I can see, they very often miss the best and some nice selling images on other sites and take/hold the lesser quality.... For me it's difficult to see the sence of it. I feel my enthousiasm for this site is lowering. I can imagine that the same effect is on more contributers. Isn't this threat expressing this feeling all toghether? I wonder if this is what they aim for or want to happen?....and if, how it could be in their commercial advantage? What do you think?
13
« on: March 08, 2009, 08:05 »
In the midst of all these paeans to DT I'd like to offer a contrasting opinion. I started doing microstock a couple months ago and have about 40 photos on several sites. Disclaimer: I'm never going to be hot, I'm just doing objects, my expectations are low, my conclusions apply only to myself.
I made a few sales on DT in the first 2 weeks, then nothing. After a month, I rather suddenly stopped getting any more views of either old OR recently submitted photos. This pattern was repeated on a couple of other sites.
SS however was completely different. Same photos, but over 10 times the sales, which are continuing. Of course this is mostly 25 cent subscription sales. But I've stopped submitting to any agency except SS, the others are now "dead" as far as my account is concerned.
I draw 2 conclusions. The main one is that if you're new and don't start selling right away, you're downgraded at some point and might as well give up because people aren't even seeing your images any more. It's not hard to figure this out. Reviewing is expensive - maybe the biggest cost of running a microstock business - and if you're not selling, they're losing money by paying people to review your images and would really like you to just go away.
The other conclusion is that ShutterStock does things differently, or maybe the probation period is just longer - we'll see.
Hi Jim, Perhaps you make the wrong conclusion of these "facts". You contribute a few months. I think the patron you describe is kind of typical for what more are experiencing. At least, it's the same, I saw happening in my first months. By the way: 40 files is too less to have more than incidental sales! It's a very very tiny microstock portfolio! At SS new contributers have an extra exposure to their files for 4 to 6 weeks from their start! In the first two months you sell a lot. After that it will slow down soon! To reach the same amount of downloads, you have to "feed the beast" on a regular base! Send in files and keep doing that. If you don't, your files will just go under in the millions other "lost in time". Feeding it is not only to sell new stuff, but also necessary to get views and so selling possebilities to the rest of your portfolio. On other sites like Dreamstime the way people search is different. It takes some months before you have more or less regular sales and before your files will be seen. But they have better change to be seen and found still than on SS, after some years. In general SS is a good earner in the long time, only if you feed it. You'll sell lots of smalls and earn inbetween 25 to 50 % of all from just SS. Other sites sell less in general, but the fee is higher. Not selling at first there, doesn't mean it will not sell ever! Of course a lot depends on what you contribute and all kinds of coincidences, we as contributers can not control. But with not at least several hundreds of files on line, you never can get a sale-stream... Good luck! Weknow
14
« on: February 08, 2009, 10:36 »
There are two visions on what to send. A. Send a picture from which a buyer can make as much as possible (keep opportunities to use it open). In this vision you best send the not-cropped. B. Send the picture ready to use. Than the cropped is better. It is in the way it will be used most probably. Whatever is said theoretical.... In microstock the practice is vision 2. The cropped is more of interest and has the best composition. I consider the uncropped even has the risk to become denied because of that. I'm sorry to have to say...microstock is mostly about easy, cheap and quick...and not about much considerention and great visions. 
15
« on: February 05, 2009, 13:42 »
I don't understand that if our files are on this stealing (uh sorry: "sharing"...like somebody shared my car and is sharing my home  ) website...we as copyright-owners can contact Rapidshare.... Why can't the companies who sell our stuff contact Rapidshare, even try to make the free sharing at least more difficult? That would make more sence... Our/my files are a few..... Their files are a lot. In practice it might be a cat and mouse game...but isn't it a task for the stock-companies to try to protect our and their property? Even if it's not possible to stop it all and completely? Being very active in this matter could be a concurrency-argument for all: theirselfs, the buyers and us as contributers....?! What do you think? And what do they..the agencies..think??
16
« on: February 04, 2009, 14:17 »
I'm on for three months now... I only got $1.85.... DS is far behind.... I'm in now for seven months. DT was indeed slow the first 3 to 4 months. It takes some time before your pictures become downloaded. The last 2 month DT is becoming close to SS. And most downloads are from pictures which are a few months uploaded. So don't worry....things might become better in time Shutterstock is the opposite. The first month you are explicite announced as a new artist an get relatively many downloads. After that things went much slower, as it seems. Now, with a much larger portfolio, my downloads are nearly on the level of that first month... I think this is a typical movement for the way SS is giving new contributers a first jump.
17
« on: January 28, 2009, 10:22 »
I started in July 08. No big expectations. Until december with about 300 files online, SV was my nr. 2 agency after SS. Now DT is second and growing for me. Seems pictures there need some month to start to sell. But SV is still doing better for me than StockXpert, 123, FT and BS. Most submission sales (also on the others)....but sales and some more sales than others of the big 6. Yes, I take the time to upload them by 5 and to copy and paste the information to SV. I like the presentation of pictures on SV...they look good. (Much better than on some other agencies) I do no "people" and - at least - believe in the pictures I upload...not to be "the top" or the "best" or "super-selling", but having possebilities to sell some or several times threw the next years. I do not upload masses. Not becomming rich or so. Just picking some grains. Perhaps it's not the agency or the neat to be a "big" agency and a "big" seller. Perhaps it's more the expectations one have. My expectations are modest. And for me SV is not that bad at all.
18
« on: January 24, 2009, 05:20 »
Only subscription downloads here since december. More than before. But income is less.
19
« on: January 18, 2009, 10:04 »
I wrote: "Take the darkest area of your photo and the RGB values for that black must come close to 255-255-255. Your whites with some detail must come close to (but not be!) 0-0-0." This was wrong. Deepest black is 0-0-0 and clearest white must be 255-255-255. Thanks Steve to point me to this mistake!
20
« on: January 18, 2009, 05:43 »
In PS you can measure your tones. Watch your histogram. All the information you need is there!
Take the darkest area of your photo and the RGB values for that black must come close to 255-255-255. Your whites with some detail must come close to (but not be!) 0-0-0.
Honestly...I can not imagine to work on a screen that is not more or less showing your pictures in the standard everyone lookes at them and uses them. Even not callibrated to the absolute detail..there are lots of helps on the internet to get the clarity and contrast and colors of your screen quiet right. For example Adobe gamma in PS will be a big help to fix this....... There are testcarts or testphoto's to check this all over the internet. Even when it's not scientific 100% accurate....You'll solve the problem for practical use with it!
21
« on: January 17, 2009, 10:58 »
Hali said: "microstock is fast food.." Which even can taste good and not always has to be unhealthy....in my experience
22
« on: January 16, 2009, 10:37 »
In the seventies (when that was needed to start as a professional photog in The Netherlands) I worked hard to have a degree as photographer and got it. For all of these 3 photo's I should have been declined, indeed for overexposure. "No details and real information in the lights". But at first sight these look pretty and light and many people would choose them before a bit darker and technical flawless version of the same scenes. It's often difficult for me to look at pictures with fresh eyes (leaving the skills behind) and just look if they are pretty to many. I really have to learn that since I'm into selling stock! Stock agencies seem to have their own idea's of quality. It doesn't have to be good and marveless, but nice and clean and attractive at 100 or 200% (in which size a picture never is used). I had a 25 year reputation as weddingphotographer...selling good and personal and (for my clients) amazing photo's...and the freedom of rejecting clients because there were to many...but I'm sure that perhaps even not a few of these pictures (with a model-release) would become accepted for stock. So what is quality? The first two photo's you show, may be "not perfect" in many ways...but I can imagine they will sell. And mostly because of they are pretty and light and look "fresh". The third one I wouldn't consider to send it in. It's a bit of a visual mess in my eyes. And the t-shirt-white is blue (which can be cleaned) as a result of how a digital camera translates "too white". But...no matter of what I think of it...the Fotolia-reviewer must have thought there might be a market for it..... (or was more concentrated on grain and sharpness) I think, we stock-people, are just like chickens. Trying to pick some grains out of the mass. Some pick more than others. They may be "clever" or "smart" or "talented" or "lucky" or "succesfull"..... It even may have something to do with certain qualities....but what and how...I'm not sure.
23
« on: January 07, 2009, 09:20 »
24
« on: January 03, 2009, 11:01 »
no istock on your list? weird.. istockphoto is by far the best.. No, no IS. Tried 2 or 3 times to come in, but failed. I think my work is not good enough for their standards at the moment. Probably I'm not thinking and acting commercial enough for their portfolio. Like to do it my way and to find out how my approach and viewing on imaging can work....IS looks to "beautiful" in my eyes...I'm not sure if I can work and succeed in their style.... Maybe later sometimes. the rest is useless.. maybe crestock, snapvillage and canstockphoto can be added if you have got a lot of time to waste, but not really crucial.. These order was what worked for me the first half year in microstock. SV is stil my number 2 in earnings f.e.....why stop there now? But in another half year or so...I might agree with you due to different experiences.....or things stay this way, which is fine
25
« on: December 27, 2008, 06:35 »
In the last half year after equally uploading to many sites about 300 non-people illustrations and photo's:
1. SS 2. Snapvillage 3. DT 4. Featurepics 5. StockXpert 6. 123RF 7. Bigstock 8. FT
All others are less than $10
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
