|
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 - GWB
1
« on: March 22, 2010, 07:24 »
Same here, hope you get your payment worked out. Just got my pay out. Placed it on the 1st. Of all the microstocks they are the slowest, but at least the sales remain consistent there.
2
« on: September 28, 2008, 10:00 »
Same here, these keyword rejections are getting absurd. What are they looking at? Though I am constantly annoyed with them the sales remain good. I just wish all of this made sense.
I'm going to submit files with just the minimum keywords--5. If it gets through then I'll go in later and add more.
G~
3
« on: September 09, 2008, 14:41 »
I love DT as well. Sales are good and the acceptance ratio is very good too. If I want to create an image that is experimental, or not standard stock, they will generally accept it.
G~
4
« on: September 03, 2008, 10:22 »
Gunnar, I don't think it's because you are new. IS has been calling things so tight of yet I can barely get an image through and I've been with them over 3 years. I recently got a keyword rejection for multicolored ball of yarn. I mentioned all of the colors of the yarn in the tags and the rejection notice said the keywords were not "fully relevant to the subject." Oh, come on... SS, DT, and SX gave me no trouble with this. I realize the need to cut down on spamming but this doesn't make sense at all.
Try submitting to Scout, I've got quite a few over turned of late.
5
« on: July 10, 2008, 11:43 »
...What got me me was the two the words they added-- "nobody" and "entrée." I kid you not.
I have no idea what language that last word belongs to! lol
G~
LOL! I would love to see a thread on the dumbest wiki results. You deserve some sort of prize for that one!
Indeed! I'm sure it would be a good read. 
6
« on: July 10, 2008, 10:46 »
I think the way that you can get some oddball terms on your images - that you didn't put there - is when they change the CV.
Another way you can get oddball terms added to your images is when some idiot wiki's them. I just had an image of chinese egg rolls come through the wiki with the term "asian food" removed and the term "fried egg" added! No kidding. They added "fried egg" to a picture of egg rolls.
I would say literally half the wiki'd files I get back have some similar type of craziness. The number of problems seems to defy the odds of mere mistakes slipping through the cracks. The wiki started off as a great idea but seems to have degenerated into a free-for-all with no apparent oversight.
I can relate Lisa. I just had a keyword correction on a picture of some sushi rolls. They are wrapped in rice, which is clearly visible, but they removed "rice" from keywords. What got me me was the two the words they added-- "nobody" and "entrée." I kid you not. I have no idea what language that last word belongs to! lol G~
7
« on: June 23, 2008, 11:10 »
Yes, I just recently had a photo rejected on the grounds they their editorial policy had changed. Go to the forum (General Discussion), there is a posting about this with additional info on the new rules for submitting editorial images. They want-- Who, What, Where & When and other info. They have not updated their Submitter Guidelines to reflect this yet.
G.
8
« on: March 27, 2008, 15:42 »
I've used the Cokin P holder with their filters but not the Singh-Rays. No, you can't use a lens hood with the adapter attached. I've seen videos of nature photographer Art Wolfe using grad filters but he does not use the holder. He just holds it up in front of the lens by hand. After a while I started doing the same thing. Much faster and you can keep your hood on.
G~
9
« on: February 26, 2008, 11:51 »
Yep. Got a "gateway timeout" error using Safari.
G~
10
« on: February 21, 2008, 09:43 »
At least Seren you have your free speech here!
As in the past, every time iStock makes a new policy change it's controversial or pain in the rear. I noticed on their forums that one poster wanted to know when Getty was going to be culling their car and cruise ship images and was told by an admin that--"They have their own way of doing things which really is none of our business." In other words they didn't even want to address the issue. It's a fair question to ask. Just go to Getty and do a search for cruise ships, stretch limos and John Deere tractors--lots of that subject matter but iStock is now not allowed to have such.
Makes me wonder what this will do to sales for contributors and iStock in general. They are certainly sending a lot of business elsewhere.
11
« on: February 18, 2008, 21:44 »
I can see the legal side of this argument, but if you do a search at Getty there are plenty of car and cruise ship images available for sale in their RF (and RM) sections. Could it be that IS has eaten into their sales of more expensive images? If it's a legal concern then why are images of similar subject matter still available for sale at Getty?
In regards to John Deere, their green and yellow color scheme is copyrighted. At least that's what IS told me when I got my my tractor pictures rejected. However, a search at Getty reveals plenty of John Deere tractor images. Maybe there is a good reason for this but I am at a loss to know what it is. All I know is one side can play and the other can't.
12
« on: November 24, 2007, 15:07 »
At SS, I've had quite a number of vertical shots accepted lately with "vertical" in the keywords. I'll watch that from here on out. Thanks for the info.
13
« on: November 16, 2007, 11:18 »
Of all the sites I'm on, Stockxpert is getting to be the most annoying with rejections and or, rejection reasons. I used to think IS was hyper picky. But they now accept pictures that StockXpert rejects. Well, it all goes in cycles. I usually wait a bit and then resubmit. Sometimes you get better results from a different reviewer.
14
« on: November 16, 2007, 00:01 »
I had a deal with them today. I had some tractor photos that were rejected. I made sure the logos were all cloned out. It seems that John Deere's green/yellow color scheme has been registered as a trademark. Live and learn. It's not just logos, it can be colors too.
G~
15
« on: November 13, 2007, 10:06 »
Looks like it. I can get on either.
G~
16
« on: November 01, 2007, 15:28 »
That's right, you could write a book on rejections from the microstocks! My newest is from StockXpert as well. I got four pictures rejected with the reason: "Please submit better quality images." That was insulting and not a bit helpful. At least one of the rejects made it's way to iStock's library. And to think I used to consider IS to be the most picky and unreasonable!
17
« on: October 26, 2007, 09:32 »
I used to think that iStock was hyper picky and unreasonable at times. Now DT, SX, and FT are making them look conservative! In my experience DT and SX have really ramped it up. Today I got a batch of files rejected at SX with the reason of: "please upload better quality images". Ouch! That's a new one. I get of lot those, "too many in the libary" and "no commerical potential" reasons as well from the usual suspects.
SS is still one of favoriates and I move the most pictures through them. IS the money leader though.
G~
18
« on: September 26, 2007, 09:28 »
Yeah, the ra-ra club.
19
« on: August 23, 2007, 15:19 »
I got a new one at iStock recently where I was told that one of images, when zoomed to 100%, produces "pixel discoloration" and hence, would not be suitable for printing.  Since the image would end up being a halftone, how would that ever matter, even if that were true? And the only way to look at individual pixels is to zoom the image up to 3200%. Of course this picture was in a batch of 4, the other three all being accepted. Same camera settings, photoshop workflow, and lighting used on all. Although I mostly wait and resubit, I think it's good every so often to send a reject to Scout, if nothing else, to let them know what their file inspectors are doing out there. I've read about some getting fired.
20
« on: May 14, 2007, 08:42 »
Last year I used Paypal with B&H to order a camera and a lens and the amount went over $1600. A few moments later, I got a call from a Paypal rep asking about the transaction. Apparently, they were watching and have that amount flagged (over 1k?) to I assume, help prevent fraud. This hasn't happened on any of my other orders using Paypal, all of them being under 1k. At the time, I wondered if I would be charged some kind of fee for this type of service, but was not.
G~
21
« on: May 10, 2007, 19:06 »
I had a batch that were approved sitting on orange for a long time this week. They all finally are green now. No watermarks on them yet.
G~
22
« on: April 21, 2007, 10:02 »
Dittos! Sent up a batch last night with the hope of keywording them this morning. Nothing. I sent a message to support as well. This is not the first time this has happened for me. Earlier in the week one file never got there.
G~
23
« on: April 17, 2007, 10:26 »
Just the usual for me at IS. Recently I submitted two photos that were vertical and horizontal shots at the same subject. The vertical went through but the horizontal was rejected. Both were shot in the exact same lighting conditions, both used the same exact post processing in Photoshop. Never the less, the reviewer decided the rejected photo had too much artifacting. No way. But, so it goes...it's happened many times before.
I might add that both were accepted at four other microstocks with no problems.
24
« on: April 11, 2007, 12:31 »
Same here, sales have been shoddy lately. I'm not worried yet, as ebb and flow are are the process and I've experienced that many times before. Besides, if iStock is down, the other micros will come through. Those 0 or 1 DL days remind me why I'm not exclusive! But I have had an aggravating time dealing with them that I've never had with any of the other micros.
25
« on: February 25, 2007, 13:41 »
Yes, I've seen an increase in sales at SX. They are #4 in sales of the microstocks but appear to be gaining on my #3, Dreamstime. My only trouble with SX is that last year, PayPal charged me a $3.27 surcharge for a $102.50 payment. I have a premium account with them and have never been charged a fee with any other microstock for $100+ pay-out. I contacted SX and they said they didn't know what was going on. I've gone around and around with PayPal on this. Their latest email mentioned something about a "mass payment" rule and my payment from SX was outside of the rule. They never stated how much money a mass payment is supposed to be. I guess there is a cap on the overall payments you get per month, including the other microstocks? Go over the limit and get a surcharge?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
