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 - jsmithzz
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
1
« on: February 02, 2018, 19:46 »
Welcome back
The old stats from the iStock site are no longer accessible, so DeepMeta cannot access them. Instead, the new ESP servers provide monthly "Royalty Statements", which are very detailed. So that's an improvement. DeepMeta automatically downloads these statements, and shows them in the "Statements", "Sales" and "Stats" sections. Unfortunately, these statements only report sales starting from Feb 2017. So that's what we have to work with.
If you've used DeepMeta 2 in the past, you can import that sales data in the new DeepMeta 3 version, and can see Downloads/Royalties in the Files list (clicking page 3, on the page 1-2-3 selector at the top of the file list).
Thanks for the quick response, Franky! Just so I'm clear... in Deep Meta, the Getty Sales aren't shown but all other sales are?
2
« on: January 29, 2018, 20:36 »
Sorry if this has already been answered elsewhere, but I'm just getting back into stock photography after a year long hiatus and am trying to make sense of ESP and all the other changes.
1) Are Getty stats reflected in Deep Meta? I didn't see anything in the stats that indicated any Getty sales. No. 2) Are the stats in Deep Meta pretty much what we got before the switch to ESP?
And No, because it's limited to what the Getty API allows. (I'm assuming you know to download DM3?) [/quote] Yes, I have DM3. So if it doesn't reflect what we got before the switch to ESP, then what am I looking at? What's not included?
3
« on: January 29, 2018, 19:57 »
Sorry if this has already been answered elsewhere, but I'm just getting back into stock photography after a year long hiatus and am trying to make sense of ESP and all the other changes.
1) Are Getty stats reflected in Deep Meta? I didn't see anything in the stats that indicated any Getty sales. 2) Are the stats in Deep Meta pretty much what we got before the switch to ESP?
4
« on: January 16, 2017, 23:28 »
The microstockr app is also working again for balances
Yes, I saw thought. But it's sad that you have to rely on 3rd party programs and apps for info that your agency should be happily giving you.
6
« on: January 16, 2017, 17:23 »
The removal of all the financial stats and the lack of answers from support both directly and in the Getty forums is the last straw for me. I'm finally moving on. I've done research and think I've narrowed it down to Shutterstock and Adobe. Was wondering what experiences you've all had with either of these sites both good and bad. I know I posted about SS a while ago, but am asking again because things do change quickly.
7
« on: December 25, 2016, 05:48 »
Just to add to what others have said, you have way too many duplicates. The portfolio you show to the world should have only your absolute bet work and not be filled with lots of duplicates or semi-good photos. Also, if you're looking to do architecture and travel type pics, compare your photos to what you see in postcards and travel magazines. Look online to see what the pros are shooting in the same places and see if your photos stack up, and I think you'll have your answer.
Not sure I fully agree with that some of what I consider to be fairly mediocre work has sold very well whilst I have what I consider to be my best artistic and technically sound work never selling. I think the best way is to learn from your own work look what sells and do more along those lines.
Good luck with that approach.
8
« on: December 25, 2016, 04:13 »
Just to add to what others have said, you have way too many duplicates. The portfolio you show to the world should have only your absolute bet work and not be filled with lots of duplicates or semi-good photos. Also, if you're looking to do architecture and travel type pics, compare your photos to what you see in postcards and travel magazines. Look online to see what the pros are shooting in the same places and see if your photos stack up, and I think you'll have your answer.
9
« on: May 15, 2015, 20:34 »
I know that the current max display for Instagram is 640x640 pixels. However, I just read their FAQ's which say you can upload many times that resolution. Is there any advantage or reason to upload more than 640 that I'm not thinking of?
10
« on: December 14, 2014, 09:17 »
.
11
« on: December 14, 2014, 07:30 »
Successful people tend not to post otherwise the copycats crawl out of the woodwork and suddenly best sellers are not best sellers any more
Totally agree. There are also always threads and the occasional PTOTW to post your most successful files. I think you'd have to be an idiot to show off these works in the forums.
12
« on: October 18, 2014, 09:47 »
Thanks for posting the comparison. Sorry, didn't mean to mislead. I just saw the drop off and the timing of it and assumed the worse. But yes, that does beg the questions as to whether or not something is up with Alexa.
13
« on: October 18, 2014, 09:24 »
I don't know.. then you have a monitor which has like 7x more pixels than the consumers who will be looking at your photos (if we assume they use 1920*1080), and when editing I like to see what the "average Joe" would see.
Also, on a monitor this sharp, pictures which are wide 900px (for example) are minuscule.
Maybe I need to see one in action, but I doubt I'll change my mind until the masses shift to 4K/5K.
You make a very important point. I have a 4K monitor and everything looks great. The only problem is that now all photos look like absolute crap on all other monitors and devices in comparison. Being able to see what the average Joe sees is very important esp if you're doing work for clients.
14
« on: October 18, 2014, 09:20 »
I think the numbers speak for themselves.
15
« on: October 17, 2014, 00:00 »
There is no correct answer to this question because it all depends on the quality of the contributors portfolio. I know a lot of people who have 3-5 times as many files as I do but earn the same or less because their portfolio is just mediocre. I also know people with many fewer files who earn as much or more than me because their photos are simply better than mine.
16
« on: September 18, 2014, 08:31 »
Yep, people discussing going over to DPC :-(
I also don't like the credits from a customer standpoint. It's like they're trying to hide something. And to make each credit 8-15? what? Who are they kidding?
17
« on: September 18, 2014, 08:09 »
If any of you are curious as to what customers think of the latest changes, look no further than IS's FB page. What a train wreck. I was cautiously optimistic about these changes, but after reading many of the comments, that optimism is gone. Nice going Getty. You've just about killed off iStock. https://www.facebook.com/istock
18
« on: March 07, 2014, 07:24 »
Isn't the Chrome browser free? Isn't the Android software free? Isn't WhatsApp free (yet is somehow worth $19B). Do I view all my favorite web sites for free? Do I now read all my morning newspapers for free? And yet all of these things happen to be worth a fortune because they are all a portal to something else or they attract advertising fees. So being free to them wasn't a dumb move at all. Of course I can't add advertising to my images, but I can see why there are more and more apps that are free yet become worth a substantial amount of money.
I'm just a simple person. The way I see it is this: at the moment people have to search at Getty's web site to see my stuff. What if every web site in the world decides to use the Getty embedded viewer and an extra billion people a day get to see my stuff. And every one of those views sees my attributed name and a one click link to my portfolio. Will I lose money or make money? The answer is: I will make a lot more sales and a lot more money. And do I care if Getty also makes money through views or clicks or advertising? No, actually I don't care at all. In fact, I'll encourage them to do so. Why? Because I know that the more views they generate the more money I will make. It's like putting a personal link to my portfolio on every web site in the world.
I've read a lot of dumb posts on this site, but this one takes the cake.
19
« on: February 01, 2014, 21:22 »
I'm having the same issue. Haven't been able to upload there since last night.
Uploading isn't the issue. The fact that the thumbnail no longer shows is the issue.
20
« on: January 25, 2014, 10:33 »
A couple hours ago I uploaded a few images and each time a message came up saying that the thumbnail wouldn't load until you completed the upload process. Why did they change this? I can't even inspect the image as it will be shown to customers until AFTER I finish and save everything? Ridiculous.
The first stage of a pioneering new approach. Coming soon: customers don't get to see the image until after they've paid for it
That gave me a much needed laugh.
21
« on: January 25, 2014, 09:27 »
A couple hours ago I uploaded a few images and each time a message came up saying that the thumbnail wouldn't load until you completed the upload process. Why did they change this? I can't even inspect the image as it will be shown to customers until AFTER I finish and save everything? Ridiculous.
22
« on: January 22, 2014, 11:07 »
Dang, no more 9 cent commissions for my images. I'll miss that.
As was stated in the forum, I don't mind the tiny commission if it keeps customers. The last thing iStock needs is to further alienate people.
23
« on: January 21, 2014, 21:33 »
Not that I support most of what Istock does, but aren't we always complaining about prices being too low? The question in my mind is if they don't lose any of these customers will we somehow still only get the commission of an XS download? I can see them coming up with some tiered BS model that allows them to keep more of the pie.
Speak for yourself. I feel the exact opposite. Prices are too high. I think iStock has done a pretty good job of already driving enough people away with multiple price increases. Prices aren't in line with the rest of the microstock industry. There's too much supply now yet iStock keeps trying to squeeze more profit out of things.
24
« on: January 21, 2014, 21:15 »
With my own portfolio, I've noticed a trend toward buyers purchasing increasingly smaller file sizes. That makes sense with the decrease of print collateral. Why iStock has decided then to remove the XS files can only mean one thing. It's not to streamline things. It's to force customers to pay more for an image size that is overkill for some of their projects. Looks like this is just one more nail in the coffin on the small mom and pop customers that helped build iStock to what it is today. Don't understand why iStock continues to make short sighted decisions like these that continue to alienate customers and frustrate contributors in order to make a quick buck. I hope I'm wrong (I'm sure Shutterstock doesn't), but I think this will drive even more customers away to other sites.
25
« on: January 21, 2014, 21:07 »
Everything they do is not for the benefit of the customer or contributor. It's for the benefit of their bank account.
And in iStock's typical non-communicative fashion, they made no announcement.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|