|
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 - mantonino
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23
101
« on: May 18, 2010, 13:06 »
There was a bigger topic about this not long ago.
102
« on: May 18, 2010, 12:56 »
Oh well, I thought you guys were educated? Status quo, not statue quo. A statue is a piece of rock shaped into something at a park. A statue quo would be a replica, I think.
103
« on: April 23, 2010, 19:30 »
Well, Thomas, let me put it in a different wording: "Would you please be so kind to refrain from making irrelevant wow-style comments. Many thanks in advance."
@ Claude: Nothing personal, really (even in spite of your BTW addendum). Obviously, I just don't appreciate unsubstantial speculations when it comes to money, no matter how princely amounts are involved. Email support. And take your foot off other member's necks. kthx.
104
« on: April 20, 2010, 15:08 »
ROFL this thread is funny to me because now last 2 days are 2 of my 3 best days ever - best had an EL and a big day so that's harder to beat. But on strictly just DLs I have made about $32 in 2 days and only had 2 sub DLs out of about 16. Avg RPD is like $2 for this week. It's been CRAZY there the last few days.
106
« on: April 15, 2010, 12:37 »
Yeah it's kinda BS that some photographers got moved over and others got the shaft. But, what did we expect?
107
« on: April 13, 2010, 20:30 »
I stopped reporting because I did get tired of negative comments either saying something about my progress and how I should do x or do y or give up because they started the same time as me and were doing better. Well yippyF-ingkieyay for you. I also stopped reporting because NOBODY would stop talking about iStock. I don't really submit to iStock and I was sick of hearing how much better my life would be if I assimilated. TBH I don't really give a flying isuck if they take my images. Yes, I'd make more money and yes, that's the point but when 95% of your job stress comes from one thing and you can successfully avoid that one thing you may want to do that. Add that to starting to joining sites I have no interest in reporting on - so my numbers aren't accurate - it just doesn't make sense to report 80% of my sites. So at least in my case, increased earnings from various sources I didn't wish to disclose + negative commenters + [email protected] means I stopped reporting for the most part. I am usually a few months behind. Right now I've reported Feb but not March. March was a BME by a LOT. But why bother reporting that so someone can go see what I'm doing and do more of it. I hate to say it but the fewer microstock photographers there are, the better my sales will be. It's actually kind of idiotic to post things that make people want to do this job more.
108
« on: April 11, 2010, 23:02 »
Your comment about iStock seemed to be in line with your other posts on the subject... explaining why you don't see the point in submitting to IS. Sarcasm or not, you really should put the effort into building an iStock portfolio... that strategy, more so than anything else, will help you get from Nil to Mil. I agree - and I KNOW that iStock can be a great producer - maybe even for me. I already make more than .50 on iStock though so sorry, yes, I was being a bit funny. iStock has a lot more potential than FP - obviously.
109
« on: April 11, 2010, 21:08 »
 ??
If you learned iStock you should make much, much more than an extra $.50 a month.
ROFL Sarcasm not your strong suit?
110
« on: April 11, 2010, 00:33 »
At least I got a fast reply - 3 days to close account. Seems fair - good deal.
111
« on: April 10, 2010, 23:54 »
I can't believe I pasted in the wrong image! ROFLROFLROFL I'm an idiot and it's late and it's tax week. I love my life.The second picture here was rejected for "similar" to the first. You know - a whole loaf of bread on a cutting board vs. one serving on a plate closeup. I dunno, didn't strike me as similar.   I'm a big believer in the LONG tail. 28 sales, $50 in 2 years on 3000 images - that's NO tail. Time to lose this site - I closed up just a few mins ago. They were doing better and then decided to change and be more like everyone else - let's see subscriptions and start rejecting a lot of stuff, let's tighten the collection, change the site like everyone else has, modernize... Good job, you became Crestock. I need to go learn iStock so I can make an extra $0.50 a month to make up for the loss of this site.
112
« on: April 08, 2010, 09:32 »
But a yoga mat IS a yoga mat.
113
« on: April 07, 2010, 15:16 »
So did PPA.
114
« on: April 04, 2010, 19:51 »
now for the real surprise .. how many people will read this and go .. I'm gonna upload all my photos anyway and see what happens because last year I made 50 whole bucks off another low-earner and that's $50 I didn't have before ... there's a lot of *ahem* smart thinkers out there.
LOL Where are my 2 cents!? 
115
« on: April 04, 2010, 19:24 »
87 so far.
116
« on: April 04, 2010, 10:26 »
Yes, but how much is the revenue per picture? You never know until after the last day of the month how much you have made. Here's an example of mine from many months ago: 62992 145 2 $7.21 $0.04 User #62992 downloaded 145 total photos for his $7.21 subscription. Two of those were mine so for both I made .04 That's .02 per photo download. Extra, extra, read all about it - the new low had been broken! lol
117
« on: April 03, 2010, 19:42 »
Yep, sales for .03...almost-free = still alive.
118
« on: April 02, 2010, 20:50 »
My mistake, I'm wrong. iStock is the best. They rule. That's why they're #2 on the poll... Shutterstock users are just lying. Whatever - if you're happy with what you're doing, you're fine. I started in 2004 and iSuck is not my #1 - therefore the title of this post is in error.
119
« on: April 02, 2010, 14:00 »
That seems backwards. I think we'll all agree that iStock has the highest standards. So doesn't it make sense to aim to meet the toughest standards with everything you do, knowing that if iStock accepts it chances are everyone else will? ...If you want to aim for the highest revenue possible, you should aim to meet the highest standards possible, and that means aiming to meet iStock's criteria. I think you misunderstand me. I think IS and SS have *different* standards. IS prefers less editing at all. SS prefers (and sells more) with higher contrast, higher saturation, more sharpened images. It's two opposite approaches. I have a hard time getting stuff in at IS (35-40% usually) and I'm not going to do what feels like a half-ass edit to make IS take it. I want the image to look the best it can so it sells. I don't think slightly undersaturated, slightly undersharp, slightly low contrast is a good image. I know IS wants the designers to have leeway - and that's fine - but I'm not editing twice. So iStock takes what they want from what I send em. And like I said, I'm good with that.
120
« on: April 02, 2010, 09:54 »
Agree with Sharpshot sorta. There are istock people and non-istock people. I WANT to be an iStock person - but I'm simply not re-editing everything twice. I don't do stock full time so for me to edit once for SS (which makes me $1000s a year) and once for iStock (which so far makes me about $100 a year) doesn't make sense. I edit for SS and if iStock likes it, great. If not, oh well. I usually get buzzsawed at iStock reviews so then I don't sub again for a month. I've been on since late '04 but refuse to push every week just to get them buzzsawed so I don't bother. I cashed out $997 from stock last month - I'm happy enough with that. Yes, I want to increase iStock but it's not a high priority for me.
121
« on: April 01, 2010, 11:20 »
Didn't getty acquire crestock LAST April 1st? They have a history of this. lol
122
« on: March 29, 2010, 12:29 »
Albumo
Lucky Oliver
Zymmetrical
Snapvillage
StockXpert
ThePhotoStorage
ImageCatalog
StockRiot
Fotomind
Which did I miss?
123
« on: March 25, 2010, 19:45 »
Did you have the word FIFA?
124
« on: March 20, 2010, 00:21 »
I guess most thinkstock supporters must be either very low Istock sellers who think they have nothing to lose or very greedy people who can't help leaving money on the table and can't see the damage they are causing to themselves. The other group would be naive newbies. 115 images on Istock. 2700 images on ThinkStock. You tell me.
125
« on: March 19, 2010, 18:26 »
What does it say about this move that since iSuck at iStock and don't have more than .3% of my gallery there that I'm happy with this? I think it should say they shafted you - but I think everyone already knew that. It doesn't shaft me - I have 2700 pics on ThinkStock through StockXpert. More business there helps me - but hurts true iStockers.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
