|
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 - lefty
1
« on: September 01, 2010, 15:53 »
Thanks all. USPS, lol, where I am posted snail mail is a luxury. There is like one store that does everything. Computer is like a 286 and running water is amenities but don't touch the rose of the shower of you get electrocuted.
I have already left several storages of past arquivos with other friends in other outposts, and have not gone back there to pick them up, lol.
Which is why I am wondering if I should even worry about arquival storage.
FD your idea is cool. But I won't even have a computer to access that, no?
Micro, Race, I think I will just act like say I lost everything in a fire and hopefully
I will not have to upload all over again . For my own sake, I hope Shutterstock and Istock will survive, and when I come back to a more civilized place, ha!ha!
hopefully I will see I have money to collect.
Thanks all. I learned a lot from you all. Salut!
2
« on: August 30, 2010, 10:12 »
Summer trainee posting position is over. For dayjob I got new permanet post up North big pay but expensive moving. My biggest load is backup dvds because I make copy of all shoots . This and my movie and music. Problem now I cannot pay to move everything. Unrealistic broker quotation to transport. I don't use this stuff only archival .
Is it important to keep this stuff? I do not see uploading to new stock agency in future. Where I go, no high speed luxury .
Would you do in your own situation, trash all and say bye bye to dvd archival.
I can upload to remote site but again cost time, I have no time to do much but prepare relocation.
In your experience of many years in stock, do you find critical to keep arquival?
Thank you in advance for best idea.
3
« on: August 28, 2010, 10:04 »
Many thanks sharpshot, SSue, BT. All very useful information.
BT, the pictures are both possible editorial or commercial because like Sue , travel, tourism , which I have both with people and others without people.
I am thinking who would take more? Ads for travel brochure or newsprint for travel?
Sharpshot, Shadysue and Baldrickstrousers,
if I have to give 1,000 photos to Alamy , I am sure 1,000 photos with Shutterstock will earn me more money because Shutterstock has bigger sale base market corner.
My friends and I have tiny portfolios with Shutterstock and already we four are earning more money individually than we had with previously 20 other sites from Istock down to agency xxx. You know what I mean.
ShadySue, lastly, thank you for pointing out the illusion that Alamy mean only big commission. I did have no idea that there is other distributorship to wittle down
big commission from Alamy.
So, still based on what I see in my wallet now, and compare to moon dreams of visual vapour big money and bigger commissions, I am still better to stay with Shutterstock,
right?
4
« on: August 27, 2010, 18:59 »
You might make a few bucks in micro and nothing from Alamy. If you get a sale or two off Alamy you'd likely easily beat anything you make in micro. I think I would take my chances at Alamy for editorial type images. The return from micro is so low as to amount to nothing.
Thank you for rapid response Zeus. Much appreciation for your idea. I think I want to experiment after studying Alamy and personal communications with some people who do well with Alamy. They too say to not intermingle micro images with Alamy because buyers don't look for micro type in Alamy. And evidence is in the popular images very different. Also, some pictures I give to micro are almost wasted there which I see similar style in Alamy which are said to be placed high in search. So I am thinking of doing more homework and separate contribution to Alamy for the rest of year. Like you say, micro is so low it amount to nothing, except for Shutterstock due to volume download . I can do with two separate portfolio, one for Alamy, one for Shutterstock. What do you think? A good idea to try?
5
« on: August 27, 2010, 18:22 »
I have some photos that can be both royalty free microstock or editorial.
For rf I only make it generic with cloning off logos etc and by historical past
I sell some for 25 cents with micro stock.
But I read here that Alamy is good potential for editorials.
I am asking you, if you have option to present image as is for editorial restriction
usage with Alamy 26 MB size with no time wasted for cloning off logo, brand on boxes,etc..
and you can also submit smaller size 6MP , 4MP for micro stock rf.
Which one will you choose.
micro stock you know you can make 25 cents and sure to at least make say $5, $10
total. Alamy, you know it is one time in a blue moon chance, but one download will bring a lot of money, esp since editorial sell best for Alamy.
Do you choose Alamy or the more sure thing of microstock?
My approval with Alamy is 100% .But of course, not many of my work was 48 MB,
so I do not have many. But now 24MB it is possible I can increase upload.
6
« on: August 27, 2010, 18:07 »
OK I must feed beast, but the beast feed me too.
 exactly. I don't mind feeding it, that's the nature of the subscription model. New images do the best as subscribers watch what comes in to pick up something they like for 'free'.
What worries me about SS these days is the changing review policies. They are rejecting highly commercial images for uncommercial reasons. Lately they have promised a new explanation of what they really, really want, but I don't see any reason to reject images (except technical or IP issues) which will sell better than others. What are they in business for?
If SS continues to reject good-selling images for secret/arbitrary 'reasons', then all it will have to do is start favoring some pets over other contributors and SS will be the new IS.
Maybe the change in policy is to say might be a good idea NOT to feed beast too much. I look at my own history (very very short one, 3 months only), and I see actually no correlation in more downloads with more uploads. Actually certain week sans upload get me more downloads even ppd. So maybe feed the beast is no longer applicable. I am trying now in new month to slow my upload due to other reports of too many surprising unpleasant rejections. And see if abstension from upload affect download. In the past the more approval I get the more upload I make, but then I find at certain point after too many consistent upload you get one big slap in face of 60% rejection and this is sign for me to stop feeding beast. But this is only my case. Do other people here have different experience? I think best to refer to newbie only because I am this.
7
« on: August 27, 2010, 15:38 »
Wow, that is bad news . I just joined Shutterstock and they sell well for me. Does it indicate I will have to be seeing more rejections even if I submit future work that compliment my best sellers?
Any experienced Shutterstock contributorship insight will be much appreciated.
So sorry I am a late comer for Shutterstock. Because each month I get BME from them. Is this sustainable?
Cthoman?
I assume you can't keep having BME forever. If you do, then I want your secret.  I wasn't affected by this change at SS, but other reviewal changes at IS have hit me. So, I can understand how the other contributors feel. It sucks.
OK, talk to me in 9 months. If after annual anniversary #1 I have 12 months BME I will offer you my secret for a good nominal fee . Thank you for your kind quick response. Good luck to you too.
8
« on: August 27, 2010, 10:17 »
It's like the other thread.
"Cut all out the crap out of the sites to make it easier for buyers! Except for mine."
It would be interesting to see how many of your best selling images would be rejected for LCV, if you dropped the crown and uploaded there.
Well, I wasn't specifically talking about me. I was trying to put into words what I think everyone feels.
Yes, that was the impression I get from sjlocke comment. The me implicate you me everyone incl sjlocke. Simply put how he think everyone feels. Agree.
9
« on: August 27, 2010, 10:12 »
I am confident Shutterstock most reviewers do not wish ill on contributor
but post here and in Shutterstock forum say there is indication of one rogue reviewer.
This is more of a policy change than one grumpy reviewer. SS appears to have clamped down on abstract backgrounds and other things on the illustration side that they have too many of. There are several threads and many illustrator contributors complaining about it on SS. gubh83 has links to those threads above if you want to read more about it. From a general standpoint, this doesn't seem like anything new. Agencies get more picky and standards for acceptance go up. The agencies usually don't release a statement saying they've made a policy change, so most of us find out the hard way, rejections.
Wow, that is bad news . I just joined Shutterstock and they sell well for me. Does it indicate I will have to be seeing more rejections even if I submit future work that compliment my best sellers? Any experienced Shutterstock contributorship insight will be much appreciated. So sorry I am a late comer for Shutterstock. Because each month I get BME from them. Is this sustainable? Cthoman?
10
« on: August 27, 2010, 09:28 »
It's like the other thread.
"Cut all out the crap out of the sites to make it easier for buyers! Except for mine."
It would be interesting to see how many of your best selling images would be rejected for LCV, if you dropped the crown and uploaded there.
Reviewing is subjective and it is hard for experienced microstockers to know what will sell, what chance does an inexperienced reviewer have? I just had one rejected for LCV that should sell well, they accepted 2 landscapes that probably wont. I just don't see the logic in accepting images that don't sell much and rejecting ones that would make them and us money. It happened to me a lot with DT and I have stopped uploading, my sales there have tanked and they are making less money from me. The buyers will just go to other sites, if they can't find what they want.
I am all for deleting files that are 2 or 3 years old that haven't sold. The sites have millions of those and should remove them automatically.
In spite of appearance , I am not objecting to rejection. IStock for 90% of the time, I agree with rejection because the astute reviewer(s) show me the problem. ie. specific. Some special ones even explain the cause and how I can correct that. So I resubmit and got approval. Only cannot understand the non objective rejection. As sharpshot point out, it is highly subjective. Scout can overturn many time the subjective rejection. But Shutterstock do not have Scout. I mean that objective rejection , 10 different reviewer can agree. It is identifiable and cannot be overturn. But LCV, poor composition, and other subjective rejection do not always point to objective review and can be abuse. Like Sharpshot say, I just don't see the logic in accepting images that don't sell much and rejecting ones that would make them and us money. Point only to self interest of reviewer. I am confident Shutterstock most reviewers do not wish ill on contributor but post here and in Shutterstock forum say there is indication of one rogue reviewer.
11
« on: August 26, 2010, 17:34 »
Sorry FD regular, pls explain.
I happen to like Shutterstock very very much. Each month since I started with Shutterstock, very very recently, each month was my BME.
And this month is even more, and still not the end of month yet.
I make more just in this short time with Shutterstock than I have with any other sites in many many many more months, .
I do not give many of my stuff to other sites because I do not have the time to upload there. So all I have mostly is with Shutterstock.
I don't know what you are implying . So please again explain yourself.
P.S.
the only time I had 100% rejection. Every photo was from the same shoot of the images that have been selling well on Shutterstock. And also, the images were approved by Istock. So unless you know something I don't. Please enlighten me
with your intelligence.
12
« on: August 26, 2010, 13:48 »
-fashion buyer thought microstock people pics were cheesy
Funny - I think most "fashion" pics are terrible.
http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/2010/06/26/fly-moon-harpers-bazaar-china/
Ha!ha! Well done. Even you see now on fashion magazine lots of on camera flash with ugly shadows that would not make IStock reveiw. But is done by designers with quality of phonecam. If not, it mostly oversaturation and is call new style photography glamour. It same copy style of soft porn . All bad focus . But for soft porn no one is looking for composition except eyes on vital parts. h@ha!
13
« on: August 26, 2010, 13:33 »
By certain chance, do anyone with big reversal question rejection? Maybe it is reviewers revenge for question objection. Many week back I do same because 100% approval reversal and after that more 100% rejection with all composition poor.
Suspicion because set of photos all from 5 previous batch of 100% approval done in 12 hours. Then rejection with turnaround review of 3-4 days delay.
I am convince still not is Shutterstock new policy. But is lazy reveiwer same usage of "poor lighting, composition , trademark problem possibility,etc" .
Best to sit on behind until regular reviewers with brains in head return from vacation.
14
« on: August 25, 2010, 13:12 »
Summer holidays. August. Everybody go away with family . 100% face change too incredible turn face for even Shutterstock. The rejection must be due to substitute reviewers . Thank you for warning. I will withdraw my submission until I see indication regular reviewers back from vacation.
15
« on: August 25, 2010, 08:12 »
And while I got your attention.
I have question for you on Firefox. How do you reduce the memory intensiveness impact on browser? I don't like IE because it is prone to virus. Or is that pure rumor? What browser do you use? If firefox is so bad why is it the most popular of browser? FF, but I now minimize my # of open tabs so the resident scripts are minimal. FF itself is not that heavy, but of course heavier than IE that co-uses the renderer in the (resident) explorer. If you have little memory, it's better to restart your PC and not open FF when you want to do Photoshop. DPP is a memory beast too.
Thank you. So that the reason for Lack of Memory warning. Salut FD
16
« on: August 24, 2010, 22:50 »
Come on TanSen, flattery will bring you nowhere. 
Lastly why you refer to the Nepal TanSen? I am not Nepalese . Nor am I TanSen the Getty photojournalist. But Confusion is much flattery , thought. Thank you
17
« on: August 24, 2010, 21:03 »
From careful observation and rememberance of several comments existing here there is one call FD who sound like having qualification you seek. At least from various comments made by the person. Unless it is all person named FD know is limited but my idea is this person sound with knowledge to design site so. Come on TanSen, flattery will bring you nowhere.
Sorry FD, it is not flattery. I read many times you mentioning technical terminology that fly pass my head. Assume you are qualified. So why not you offer lisafx the assistance ? And while I got your attention. I have question for you on Firefox. How do you reduce the memory intensiveness impact on browser? I don't like IE because it is prone to virus. Or is that pure rumor? What browser do you use? If firefox is so bad why is it the most popular of browser?
18
« on: August 24, 2010, 20:31 »
Personally I lack the skills to design the site
From careful observation and rememberance of several comments existing here there is one call FD who sound like having qualification you seek. At least from various comments made by the person. Unless it is all person named FD know is limited but my idea is this person sound with knowledge to design site so.
19
« on: August 24, 2010, 20:20 »
Rejection reasons sound plenty like Shutterstock and Istock sound like same reviewer
. My thinking is same reviewer moonlite for Shutterstock Istock and Cutcaster.
Cutcaster is good promise for more money like Alamy and Deposit Photo but already we know big commission of zero is zero. Already we see 25 cents of Shutterstock make more money in fraction of time than bigger promise of Istock, and Istock times 4 per download make better promise of earning than Cutcaster of many times bigger earning.
My idea is more relistic to give to Canstock and Bigstock and Dreamstime then lower position biggest commission agencies.
Maybe more realistic pricing by Cutcaster can show better realisation of promise of bigger earning. But already too many big promise agencies die early death. I am surprise Cutcaster Deposit Photo still alive.
We all remember Oliver, Photoshelter, Zymmet,
and still we look at tier big 4 no change to right of column.
Only Shutterstock and Istock in same place .
Pretty obvious nice to wish for more money but better to face realism with what I see in my wallet from Shutterstock.
Next in line is close neck and neck race Istock Fotolia Dreamstime.
Not likely to see anyone else change position .
Once again my own story.
20
« on: August 24, 2010, 16:28 »
Only looking for idea to get behind real reason for slumping or is it only for oldie.
Be new I am that my treatment of a newbie is only month to month exceed expectation. So is surprise
there is slumpage.
That's an interesting point. Newcomers will still see the rapid rise in sales as they increase their portfolios by a huge percentage each month. So that will give them encouragement.
What happens later on, Lefty, is that you have, say, 2,000 photos online and it takes a huge effort and a lot of time to increase that by 50%. If the earnings per file are falling by two or three percent a month, then a large contributor can barely keep pace with it - you may have to add 50 or 100 photos a month just to stand still.
The new contributor, with say 100 photos online, can increase his portfolio size by 50% in a month, with a bit of luck. If the sales are falling 3%, all he will notice is a 47% increase in earnings.
The bigger your portfolio gets, the harder it is to increase your earnings and the more obvious any slump becomes.
Much appreciation . You are a good person . I can tell from your response. And for your insight, I realise that, as I read always in spite of other insistance of volume, people like sjlocke stress the contrary to focus on quality not quantity. So yes, I am no big hurry to reach 10,000 images. I don't have that factory production or patience to churn out volume. But yes , I take sjlocke insistence very seriously, forget playing numbers game and pay more attention to quality. Thank you again BaldricksTrousers. by way, last, BT what a funny name you got. Where does it come from?
21
« on: August 24, 2010, 13:26 »
There is no doubt some people making dreviation of other people picture into vector or input to another photo. Already we see complaints here and other forum.
Unfortunate you one person picked out , and you say your work not dreviation.
So, like other people here say, you not do wrong, you not worry.
But it is still big mystery how the real thief get away and innocent get account suspended.
Sometime it so obvious. I see one new image and next week a vector by another person of that photo. Only with simple perspective deviation. Surprise me that reviewer did not pick out the derivation.
So sorry for your situation. Hope mess will cure soon for you.
Also, maybe part fault is agency they not stress the seriousness of derivation. So many complaints of theft but still no one site publish warning of seriousness.
So partly fault of agency and also wording Royalty Free.
22
« on: August 24, 2010, 13:10 »
Ooooookay. The topic is Istock Collections lightboxes and you feel that adding a part about starting/promoting the OP's own site is on-topic. Riiiiiiiiiiight.
I have not suggested that anyone promotes their own site alone.
If this thread is only about complaining then I suppose I am OT. But the complaining will not achieve anything. You need to come up with posititve ideas and strategies which independents can use to create for themselves some of the same marketing advantages which non independents enjoy at IS? The front page collections are about marketing.
My suggestion is that a group of independent diamonds could work together to promote an always timely selection of their best images from their own portfolios. Market yourselves as special few and use the social media to propagate the idea that you are some of the best, working together. Use your own marketing to boost your numbers together and to make your work easy to identify. The collections at IS and on other stock sites are new alternatives to search.
You might want to dress yourselves up rather like an agency or a team but really it would be about creating a credible showcase for your work. Award yourselves a logo of distinction. Perhaps they'll put your collection on the front page one day if it is good enough. You want to sell more pictures and so do they. Do something new.
I think suggestion is viable idea only for the top sellers like lisafx pauliewalnut sjlocke etc. But I remember reading one man already do some collaborative form like this already. Sorry do not remember name but I think he very known here . Interesting to know if success was occured for this idea he started. If so, obviously top sellers like aforemention lisafax, pauliewalnut, sjlocke and other I do not recognized (sorry not implication of insult but I not consistent informed of top sellers, only what people say here of them). But I repeat, if so you alias say working solution of propagation with alliance, then for sure the man already win many here and there would not be complaint like now . Just my thinking.
23
« on: August 24, 2010, 11:43 »
Lefty is using a Kodak Instamatic, 1982 model, typical neewbie stuff.
ha!ha! very funny. And for 60% on Istock and close to 80% on others mine performance must be incomparable. Lefty, everyone is your competitor in this game. It doesn't matter a what they think of you or me or newbies or old-times. What we try to do on this forum is try to understand what is happening in our marketplace.
If you want to kick the old-timers, go and take sales off them by outclassing them. Newbie or not, that will get you their respect (but not their love).
Competition stiff bring out sometime not so nice reaction. Even we see in simple match of wit or simple fun tournament tennis, football, hockey. Not unexpected too in micro stock. Maybe I write to sound I come in here to pick war with old timers but no, I read with seriousness the situation. I understand too some people get overreaction like me too. But make no mistake I am not out to bash you Pauliewalnut or any oldies. Only looking for idea to get behind real reason for slumping or is it only for oldie. Be new I am that my treatment of a newbie is only month to month exceed expectation. So is surprise there is slumpage. Maybe when I am ten year old in microstock comparing today obvious will be slumpage . All business in slumpage over 10 years picture retroactive. Only cigarette, alcohol, and drugs do not face slumpage. So natural to see slumpage for long term comparision. I thank all that it is reality to face bigger task to success in microstock than 5, 6,7,10 years ago. So happy to know stiff competition is for the future continuing. I will continue take pictures with Instamatic and try mantain approval of more than 20% , ha!ha!
24
« on: August 23, 2010, 20:10 »
I agree with your last assessment BT. Markets tend to self correct. I can see a lot of image producers becoming disillusioned soon and slowing down, or completely ceasing image production. Personally I'm doing pretty well, but even so I have little to no desire to keep feeding images to my agency for ever diminishing returns. I can't imagine how it feels for the noob who has an 80%+ rejection rate and just wants to reach his/her first payout sometime in the next few years. What is this thing about anti-newbies. Not all newbies get 80+% rejection. Can not a newbie also get
20% rejection ? Or even 40% Istock rejection ? Or is all newbie painted with broad brush in this narrowminded
mentality here?
It's not anti-newbies. It's usually fact.
All stock newbies have different levels of experience and for the first few months will have different acceptance rates.
The "I have a Point & Shoot camera and never heard of Photoshop" newbies will probably be in the 0-20% range.
The "I just got my first DSLR and do some photo editing" stock newbies are probably in the 20-40% range.
The "I've had a DSLR for a couple years and know a little Photoshop" newbies are probably in the 40-70% range.
The "I'm an advanced photographer/web designer/photoshop pro who works for an advertising agency" stock newbies might be in the 70% and up range.
Obviously this varies. Is this fairly accurate for Istock based on your experience and acceptance rate?
Perharps so. But if I recall the millionth seller IStock top LisaGagne started as newbie without a clue what camera was. She bought camera from second hand store and now she is outselling everybody at Istock. Even you those who look down on newbies and expect only 20% acceptance is too much condescention . You all forget where you started? And now you assume all newbie start at same ignorance point as you . That is silly.
25
« on: August 23, 2010, 18:46 »
Agree agree. Also like so many said Shutterstock is equal standing for all old and new contributor with no download information to bias buyers group think. So image stand on sellability. Not because I am Mr Big seller with big sale . You like my picture or you don't. So instant sale because it is what buyer want.
No surprise contrarian report sales drop but sales up for others , even new people.
Fair level field .
Agree with Lefty here. It is a very level playing field for all. And I think most contributors appreciate it. The sites that stack the deck have certainly earned a lot of ill will with many contributors. OTOH, nobody seems to feel they are getting a raw deal at SS.
Lisafx, sorry if I do not understand "stack the deck" meaning. But nobody seems to feel they get raw deal at SS because like some notables here many times said too, it's not 25 cents or $2 or 50% commission or xxx % or cents per download we care. Only we care is at the end of the day how many dollars and cents go into my cumulative earnings. Shutterstock , maybe significant drop for many, or maybe significant increase for others, still in the end give 1) level playing field for all 2) no bias with stacking deck (if that is your meaning to mine understanding) with number of downloads info 3) others invisible bias we cannot see. No surprise even though per download money is small for Shutterstock, the takehome money is still the best in the market for contributors , old or new. So no surprise Shutterstock will get me and others like me and maybe you ,etc from old school , to continue to give Shutterstock the priority of new work IN SPITE OF what others say how much higher Fotolia or Istock pay per download. Again hope my writing make sense.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
