|
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 - mtilghma
51
« on: March 01, 2012, 19:43 »
This is a random and weird question, I know, but I'm going to ask it anyways. Does anyone seem to get more pleasure from seeing sales at one site than another?
Now I know many if not most people here will want to say "nope not at all - to me, money is money is money"... which is fine. Say it. No need to make fun of me for being open about my peculiarities though.
For some reason, I get the most pleasure from Dreamstime sales, though they are my #3 earner. I get the least pleasure from FT I think.
Excluding art prints, which are obviously tops.
Anyone else feel something similar, or am I just endlessly strange?
52
« on: February 29, 2012, 17:41 »
What are the odds this thread actually stays on topic? I give it 5%
When I went exclusive, it was 2005 -- a very different era when things were quicker. That being said, I think it took about 3 weeks to a month. Today might be different though.
53
« on: February 28, 2012, 17:31 »
I use Microstock Report for a moble app and love it... has all the sites, but it's just earnings.
54
« on: February 23, 2012, 17:31 »
drive (walk? bike?) to the countryside and try some landscapes! Thats what i do (almost the only thing i do)
55
« on: February 23, 2012, 15:33 »
canon always got mine spick and span!
56
« on: February 23, 2012, 13:18 »
Well I caved and bought it anyways. I just couldnt live without. Glad I did, so I can go back to wasting time in class refreshing twice a minute  Lots of new sites that might interest people, too, but I'm only a member of 4 or 5.
57
« on: February 23, 2012, 13:16 »
I caved and bought it too. Didn't want to sign up for slide me, but really the fact that I was addicted to MicrostockReport overcame that. I used to have the free version, and checked it all the time. Once it got moved to slideme, I instead checked my earnings on the websites, and well it just was not the same. I couldnt take it. Had to get the app again, and am glad I did. Still works great.
As for the update, theres a lot more sites now, but that doesn't really mean anything to me. I am only a member of the ones that were on the original. The most interesting new one, though, is zazzle... I know a lot of ppl here might be interested because they are on zazzle. Though on the other hand, zazzle might email you when you make a sale, so then again MSR might be less necessary.
Anyways, glad I got it back
58
« on: February 23, 2012, 11:19 »
Isn't the title of this thread 'low earners - good income' a double negative?
it aint.. its relative actually.. it can be a good income considering its a low earner
also it wouldnt be a double negative even in theory... neither of those things is a negative. I think the word you were looking for was oxymoron
59
« on: February 23, 2012, 11:16 »
oh man oh man. I'm usually quite handy with things, but sensor cleaning I just can-NOT do. I think it's because every room in my house is insanely dusty. Not sure.
But yea, I have the 5D, and those are known dust magnets. Any and all dust finds a way to get in. As such, I've tried everything imaginable... blower, arctic butterfly, the big eclipse sensor swabs, small synthetic q-tip like things (never use cotton).... and really, every single time I have made things worse. Not ruined anything, just got in more dust. Yes I invert the camera on a tripod, I do everything carefully. But now, I just send it in once or twice a year.
60
« on: February 15, 2012, 19:01 »
Just updated the app  I'm fine with being asked to pay a small, one-time fee, but I'm not going to sign up with that weird third-party marketplace. Oh well, nothing lasts forever.
61
« on: February 14, 2012, 11:16 »
still waaaaay down, but over the past 4 or so days, better than its been
62
« on: February 07, 2012, 21:34 »
haha well iiiiii liked it
63
« on: February 03, 2012, 20:07 »
yea yea, I get how the math works, but I was taking that into account. I know there are some insanely high performers, but there are also buckets and buckets of low performers. I know the median won't be anywhere near 10, but I'm still surprised the average is.
64
« on: February 03, 2012, 15:06 »
wow, almost 20 million images, and 200 million dls? that means the average is 10 dls per image. That is higher than I would have imagined, especially with 20 million images
65
« on: February 02, 2012, 17:39 »
i hate hate HATE how fotolia's rejection/acceptance emails only contain the file number... no title? no thumbnail? COME ON! How hard could it be?? Instead, I have to dig to find out which photo they are talking about.
66
« on: January 31, 2012, 19:38 »
May 29th, 2012
67
« on: January 31, 2012, 16:45 »
Noodles, you're right and I wish that true. The problem is, too many people dont plan on editing the photo, and just buy whichever one grabs them. Therefore by not including that 'pop', a photographer will probably limit his sales, even you are right, they damaged the photo to get that. In an ideal world, we could submit the exact same photo with and without the pop, and perfectly cater them to each different type of audience, but I don't see that ever happening.
68
« on: January 31, 2012, 12:49 »
You should never put a new picture online that is not better than what you already have.
There is such a thing as competing woth yourself.
and there is such a thing as portefolio degredation.
In which case people shouldn't upload the same photos to price cutting sites, new "hopeful" agencies and low earners, because they are also competing with themselves. At least that's the way I came around to see it. Why compete with myself when I have 3000 people like you, with better images, to butt heads with. 
That's precisely why I would say you should still upload photos that might compete with some of your current ones. Sure, you are competing with yourself, but also with 3000 other people. It's all about getting a bigger slice of the pie. Same reason soft drink companies keep introducing new types of soft drinks. edited to clarify: still not better than uploading photos which dont compete with your portfolio at all, but if you already have them, I think competing with yourself AND everyone else is better than not.
69
« on: January 31, 2012, 11:21 »
My first month was pretty bad too, but things did pick up. Up to ~$175 this month, on between 200 and 250 images. I think it does take time, just like like it does on all websites.
70
« on: January 30, 2012, 20:45 »
"I don't think it is going to happen immediately, but I suspect it will happen quicker than might be expected. "
hahaha way too many subjective terms in there! I can't tell what you think/expect, because you suspect three different things!
just giving you a hard time though, I agree 100% with your post. It's the same reason I left. Well that and the RCs.
71
« on: January 29, 2012, 13:41 »
wait, uploading isnt working, either! :[
72
« on: January 29, 2012, 13:39 »
hey zsolt,
still getting some sales, so still loving your new site! i just got a sale last night, and whenever I get a sale, the only way I can tell what sold is by going into "my stock" and sorting by downloads.
Today, the 'sort by downloads' isnt working, either for my stock or the whole library. Just thought you should know!
Matt
73
« on: January 28, 2012, 19:28 »
loooove the crabs.
would pick crabs, roulette, and christmas tag.
74
« on: January 27, 2012, 13:03 »
We all have our own personal litmus tests for this. Mine is 'scotland'. I have the #3 most downloaded "scotland" image, #2 if you dont count a vector of the flag. It used to be quite high, and after the recent changes was totally buried.  This recent change did nothing to improve it its location, or at least I havent gone far enough back to find out where it actually is. But when this image is on the front page (by 200), and mine is nowhere to be found by page 11, well... color me dissatisfied  (fyi i know that the "scotland fold" is a recognizable cat mutation, but this cat doesnt even have that) (and in case the contributor is around, yes, this is a wonderful image by a talented artist... just not sure I agree with it's location in a Scotland best match)
75
« on: January 22, 2012, 11:09 »
As I said, we know nothing about the actual situation. He might have put up a hell of fight, won some, lost some and probably fighting with one hand tied behind his back most of the time. We can't judge anyone, he probably had to navigate very difficult waters and I just think it is wrong to tarnish someone when we don't have the complete picture or when said someone can't freely talk/defend themselves. It is always very easy to put blame on someone.
You're right -- he was definitely in charge of navigating through some very treacherous waters, and I don't envy him that responsibility. He had to thread the needle through Scylla and Charybdis with reefs on all sides. However, in truth, we the contributors are one of those hazards. We are part of those perilous waters, and he did, or should have, known that. We can't just forgive him for all the other hazards he had to navigate... instead it is our duty to eat him alive for not minding us as much as the other hazards.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
