|
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 - etudiante_rapide
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 79
126
« on: September 30, 2016, 11:19 »
still, .. to continue.. loyalty cuts both ways. in all my years with ss i was all 100% for ss. they were transparent, they were strict, they pride themselves in getting the best earnings for you ..$28 to 102 for a single earning is wonderful, until it disappeared with ss going public or whatnot. i was proud to be a ss loyalist, until everything started to f**kup... then, loyalty went down the poop-sewer with the flush... and the only thing that went up for me ..  is my middle finger.
127
« on: September 30, 2016, 11:11 »
Employees who condemn or insult their bosses in public or on the net get dismissed or even taken to court since they damage to the interests of their company. What will happen to contributors who do the same to their stock agencies here in this forum? What will be the consequence referring to their sales?
I suppose they just lose.
yes, in many "despotic" countries they do allow the corporation to include that in your employment agreement. you can be sacked for opening your mouth, and if you do it in stealth mode, you might still end up quitting "to spend time with family"  in other countries, you have a middle man that you can hire , some countries also have free legal aid, whereby the employee can approach an "ombudsman" . in one of the countries i was based, i knew of corporations quietly settling issues with the ombudsman as opposed to being reported as being "tyrannical". i guess it all depends on where you live, and how you are brought in. yes, some ppl do fear or prefer to be the eternal brown nose, or the lackey. you find someone here who is of that sort
128
« on: September 29, 2016, 09:44 »
Maybe the change is not to the release itself but more around the policy of it. SS are saying that if a model signed a release, for example 7 years ago, should that same release still be valid if you rework the images, composite them into new images, etc? They are saying that the model should sign a new release which relates to the images you want to produce now. They are making sure that the model is aware of the new work you are wanting to produce and have agreed to it.
The whole POINT of having models sign a release is so they DON'T get to come along months or years later and complain about how the image was used or reworked.
true. even if the model suddenly becomes say, a political figure or famous as in the case of those famous actresses or Miss America,etc.. who had posed nude as a newbie, the MR they signed held water in court. i can't remember their names, but it was holding in the cases of that Miss America who later became a singer, and that actress , i think suzanne somers the only exception being the models who added clauses whereby it states something like eg. you cannot use her parts as a composite with another model ... but when it is re-used in a later date, the original MR all covers that .
129
« on: September 28, 2016, 12:32 »
The next quarterly report will be interesting not sure when its due? I like evidence rather than anecdote and with the best will in the world what is on this site is a tiny sample. However, things do seem to be going off the rails and Adobe are probably the first serious competition they've had for years.
adobe, and as pauliewalnuts say, go indie. i started my own project ie to contact the bloggers who bought my works at ss ... food bloggers, travel bloggers, sports bloggers, .. even the ones like biggest xxx, hottest xxx,.. etc.. which are claiming the largest traffic. i got my first commission with one of them, which comes up to more than what i got from ss this month. as pauliewalnuts stated, eliminate the middle-man, who is taking the biggest chunk of your earnings giving you peanuts. without the middle man, the earnings could look less, but really much more than even one sod or all the sods you missed these past years with the disappearance of the 28 to 102 bucks single earnings. i read from one of my emails from the bloggers about geo-strategic marketing... which goes past my head... but it says from my old school mind understanding, you learn this and you can make back more than all you gave to ss in your 15 years. better energy spent than come in here to let my a$$ sniffer sniff my @rse, LOL
130
« on: September 23, 2016, 11:08 »
My Fotolia sales are definitely picking up now more than they were. I make sales more consistently there than at SS nowadays.
i would not be surprised, given the consensus of zero days at ss forum. adobe has the credibility factor, and fotolia, even in my early days in the days when we only had 5 contenders is, fotolia, ss, dreamstime and bigstock, was always giving me good earnings. i only stopped because it was too much work giving to all 5, when ss started making me regular money with whatever i submitted. as i said, it will be good if we do get back to 5 contenders say, stocksy, alamy, adobe and canva as this will prevent us putting too many eggs in one basket... like we used to do with all istock or all ss.
131
« on: September 23, 2016, 10:54 »
Looks like customers died only for some of you....ain't that weird
puppy chasing ballsmuch??? who says it was me i was referring to, dumc(koff) are you so obsessed with following my behind, LOL  if you read in the other thread, ie. if you only can read beyond my shadow LOL, i said i already got paid off to my studio , equipment ,etc.. and anything else is just paying for my daily pint... i was talking about the posting in general here and ss forum re zero days. and stop following my b*tt ok? if you can smell me, you're driving too closely LOL
132
« on: September 23, 2016, 08:04 »
September is normal for me. It's not a lack of customers, its that you do or don't have what they want. Simple as that.
Really? So, in August and July I had what they wanted and their preferences have changed all the sudden in September. It could be true though.
LOL, no dodie, we have customers who bought other contributors work for 15 years who suddenly all died in the same month of september that explains why so many zero days suddenly appear read the obituary
133
« on: September 22, 2016, 09:20 »
134
« on: September 22, 2016, 09:02 »
For me SS has been surpassed by Fotolia and Dreamstime this month. Pretty sad.
if this is true for many contributors , that would be good news... at least both buyers and sellers will have a wider option to look elswhere if they can't find what they want in the flood of bot approval at crappola-stock
135
« on: September 22, 2016, 08:57 »
No of course nobody is leaving after one month that would be stupid. However they might have been toying with the idea for quite some time you know like better prices, sales and perhaps as I have heard some say. They don't want their portfolios swamped among 100 million files. This I can understand because as SS grows our chances of sales diminishes more and more and also once the quality factor is somewhat replaced by quantity it turnes into a very slippery slope.
I was talking about buyers corrected post just after I posted....yes buyers might begin to migrate if they find it difficult to find what they are looking for because of the flood of poorer quality images.
jo ann had the same impression coming back from her vacation... it's probably not just the flood of poorer images in what's new it's also the change of search to make contributors port un-"find"-able like the disappearing portfolios last month... with lots of zero days for many
136
« on: September 22, 2016, 08:49 »
still, why would you not want to sell via AS??? given the situation is not
so good with is and ss these days???
But given that I feel kicked in the stomach when I get 75c for an iS sub sale, and worse when it's a lot less from Getty, the chance of me willingly signing up for 25c is very slight (which is why I was never in SS), but as always, I reserve the right to change my mind.
ah, good reason. it didn't cross my mind i too would be starting at 25c at AS. still, we all started at 28 c with ss and got some good earnings for a while before they went public to get a shortfall of 50%. as someone here said, it does not matter if it's pennies so long as it adds up to something worthwhile. still, i am not sure if we will ever see the days of cumulative worthwhile-ness with anyone to the right column in the future. but like you, i will reserve my right to change my mind if hell freezes over
137
« on: September 21, 2016, 13:52 »
Hi everyone,
I saw this on Bored Panda:
http://www.boredpanda.com/adobe-stock-apparel-clothing-line/
They are not actually for sale but it is making fun of stock.
Sometimes I feel embarrassed to say I do stock photography - like it is becoming a joke. I take it very seriously ... Maybe I'm too sensitive ...
Well, those photos are kind of ridiculous. Those fake white smiles, the forced poses, the crazy faces...trends change, and these photos feel dated and fake.
LOL, but you never know ; like haute couture models not smiling anorexic skinnier than twiggy... it's still the fashion and ppl pay lots of money to attend milan, paris, to see models trip on a pair of shoes costing thousands of dollars that break on the runway!!! we can do the same thing too, ... self-portrait stock photographer not smiling... "duh, what's there to smile about...1.05 for a SOD... 38 cts for a download??? ... i can't even buy a bigMac with that???"
138
« on: September 21, 2016, 13:35 »
And despite twice having unsubscribed from all adobe communications twice over all the spam about adobe stock, I got yet another one this morning inviting me (not personally, it's presumably a blanket email) to sell via Adobe Stock.
I hate adverts and I hate spam.
Stop it already. Obey my unsubscribe instructions.
maybe they know you are an adobe user and like your work still, why would you not want to sell via AS??? given the situation is not so good with is and ss these days???
139
« on: September 21, 2016, 12:28 »
I also think that editorial is a important thing. From all top sites adobe/fotolia is only one not offering it. There are lots of people designing editorial pages. Is there any editorial plan?
good point. i know at least a handful of ss editorial-photogs who are waiting for someone like stocksy, canva, or adobe to accept editorials ... before they move their large editorial ports to them... as ss used to be very efficient with editorials ... but suddenly these past months, it's like wasting energy uploading editorials to ss anymore for them.
140
« on: September 21, 2016, 12:25 »
I assume you are generating income elsewhere because given the equipment you have invested in you are running at quite a loss.
I'm probably breaking even just now after four years but yes I have also had a full-time job other than photography
i think most ppl will break-even with stock photography, unless you're really bad. in 5 years, any business is supposed to do that. that is why the taxman do not come after you for an audit until the 8th to 10th year. personally , i too have paid for all my studio and field equipment plus my internet and post-processing equipment just with microstock as a side-dish! i remember some one here (mintz, ithink.. the late great man who dares to say anything he chose... i think ) suggested spending only the money you make on microstock or any stock back on the equipment you use, and nothing more. this way, if the agencies $crew you , you're still ahead. after that, the equipment, studio, workshop... is all free to use, and you can continue to shoot for the sake of shooting... no more tomatoes, marijuana, telemarketing clerk, ...etc.. on white!!! just shoot, and if the whole business of micro disappears, you're fine with it too!!! i think that is what my colleague here... mantis ... is doing.. and i think i should do that too!!!
141
« on: September 21, 2016, 12:16 »
Rinderart is actually correct in his statement believe it or not but I even personally know a few very large contributors with portfolios of over 10.000 files that left some time in August.
I suppose they try out other ways of making their pictures pay or they don't relish the idea of being stuck among 100 million files. There are quite a few joining up with the macro agencies although I cant see how that can generate more income.
ya, me too!!! the numbers as who??? shelma??? says won't make a dent in ss shareholders-carrot bolstering inventory numbers, but personally, they are the smart ones . remember we learn nothing from history... viz istock... when only a handful left while the rest, like here today with ss, we keep hanging on... grumble... hoping oringer will listen and change ss to shift backwards to the old days!!! i don't think that is ever going to happen. deja-vu is what's going to happen.. istock all over again, and by the time the man leaves laughing with money in his big large oversize wallet, we will all once again like istock-ers, be left holding the bags of nothing !!! the smart ones left a long time ago...already, like you said!!! i like to be with them, but my position is not life-threatening, micro is just a tiny portion of my income, and it is not a priority, other than to chuck the moon and cuss like everyone here ... as rinderhart says..just killing time here... between glasses of wine !!!
142
« on: September 20, 2016, 21:55 »
I can't log in anymore, it says "Hey good looking, welcome to Bigstock" and then a window for re-entering my password.
Are they hacked or have they always used to greet every contributor with "Hey good looking?" 
Not me ....more like "what you doing back again you old fart no sales to see ;-)" would be more appropriate. No problem with site for me
LOL or... "hey dude, long time no see!!! huh, what??? sales??? like i said, long time... no (sales).... see!!!!"
143
« on: September 20, 2016, 21:50 »
everytime someone comes in here to say he/she plans to do his/her own selling,
i wish they succeed.
it's alot of work, but it can be done.
i know of several ppl who left microstock to sell on their own, and lately,
pauliewalnut came in to say he is doing well on his own.
so go for it. and let us know how you do. we can all do with a little good news
of someone who is not just sitting on their hands waiting for ss to suddenly become
the old ss it was .
and yes, a jo ann said, you can sell it for less than the agency as you are not having to
take a big chunk as the middle man. that is one good thing about going on your own.
the trick is how you are going to get yourself out to the clients that you exist.
when you succeed, come in here to let us celebrate your success.
144
« on: September 20, 2016, 09:36 »
...when is 20,000 tomatoes by example enough???...
The count is even scarier  For all media types, it's 1,371,634
For photos only, it's just 1,285,086... That's a lot of tomatoes.
Even marijuana photos are up to 52,257
The current phase of taking almost anything has rendered the Most Recent search useless - there's so much rubbish to wade through. And here we have someone new wondering why he has no sales - one look at the accepted files explains that.
as john used to say, "how many (ar$e)holes does it take to fill (the albert hall) ?" we have a new saying... "how many tomatoes does it take to fill sh itterstock???" who was it here who first coined microstock as crappola??? he was about 10 years ahead in prediction . .. the day has finally come!
145
« on: September 20, 2016, 08:43 »
actually it would be good that adobe comes up to be different from fotolia.
in a manner that would compete against getty/ is /ss...
what i mean is to bring in a higher non-microstock pricing to move away from the
micro all you can swallow for peanuts ;
if anyone can do it, it would be adobe to bring in a new market for stock photog!
146
« on: September 19, 2016, 12:05 »
In my mind it's not complicated. We all thought the web was going to create new opportunity, give everyone a chance, let buyers and producers find each other in a free, open and 'flat' marketplace. Instead, it turns out - in the case of stock photography - that the web ultimately allowed a small number of middlemen to gain control of the market and grind suppliers into dust. Like all abusive middlemen, they keep the lions share of the profit while adding little real value to the product; and they're able to keep buyers and producers from connecting directly.
It's a classic situation in economics, and the remedy - routing around the middlemen - is called disintermediation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation
Unfortunately in an internet market, cutting out the middleman is a technical challenge that hasn't been met yet - as witnessed by the failure of attempts like Symbiostock.
well said, stockastic. i think in a way we are the ones partly responsible for letting the middleman control and grind us into dust. if there was no monopoly of ss, like it was before with istock kicking ar$e as the one who keep ss on their toes, we probably would not have let ss grind our ar$e either. competition is healthy and monopoly encourages explaoitation. and as far as who says what ... arrogant or not, no one wants to be the slave or lackey for any company. we all like to be treated fairly and feel that our work is given a level playing field and we have an unwritten respect and good faith. unfortunately, it is no longer that way with shutterstock, and as i said, we made them this way !!!
147
« on: September 18, 2016, 17:23 »
Wasn't it really the brief period where Microstock was making very big money for average (at best) images the aberration? Its surprising really that a professional photographer would consider it anything other than a fill in between more lucrative work.
you are right, and i think everest, mantis , ... right too. we are constantly in an open market with too many options, and yes, too much suppliers... but at one time, microstock seemed to be going the right direction, right after getty and istock pulled it down , .. this was when ss got in with those single earnings 28 to 102 dollars that some of us saw regular extra icing to the cake... which suddenly disappeared too. it was at this brief moment when i , and i am sure...many others... felt like there was a light at the end of the tunnel and it was not just going to continue to be "free" or "the lowest price in the world" promo... but something , or someone , farked it up really bad, and we see ss taking a page out of istock and seem to prefer to choose to repeat history by going the direction of plumping up the golden goose and fattening up the inventory just to attract new investors, all at the expense of contributors. but things change so fast, it won't be surprising that maybe tomorrow we may see something change again in the game... like adobe replacing ss as the company with good faith . (but i won't be the one holding my breath ) ... i'll just be happy enough to pull down my pant and chuck moon ... like evryone here !!!
148
« on: September 18, 2016, 10:14 »
SS sales won't go back to the back old days and people need to accept that. It's still a great agency where the contributors can thrive. I like SS because it forces people to be at their best to really succeed. The only reason why anyone should want an agency to fail is when they intentionally harm contributors and buyers like iStock/Getty or agencies that try to be socialist like DT. Those buyers would move over to other agencies and it'll benefit everyone.
Having agency competition is good for the industry and it's good for contributors. That's why we need agencies like SS, FT, Envato and 123RF to stay afloat.
What a load of crap.......I wish photographers with your mentality would dissapear so threads like this would not even exists. Sorry but I cannot stand this slave mentality......
cough cough sorry, frog in my throat reading the first redded statement LMAO... slave/fan boy, i have to go with everest...!!! if ss did not abolish the 7/10 admission criterion, i would have said everest is the one talking c*ck. but today, everest wins on points!!!
149
« on: September 18, 2016, 10:11 »
everyone except Getty !!! haha, just kidding. i would say everyone except stocksy and gl ...ie the ones who charges clients more. altho stocksy is still abit eltist and artsy , much in the same way as offset, so for now, that leaves only GL. but in the real world??? see below... It doesn't really matter. Most of them are the same or interchangeable now.
150
« on: September 18, 2016, 10:04 »
BOT inspection completely take the art & creativity out of photography.
but microstock is not exactly art or creative photography, mantis!!!
also, the day ss abolished the 7/10 application submission , we already know
it has nothing to do with quality or acceptability.
oh, and the lowering of payout to 35 bucks, we know gone are the days of higher
earnings.
My point was that setting up a shot like this, for example, can be easily rejected when it is in fact commercially viable and somewhat creative. I picked this particular image because it has shallow DOF and is one of my best sellers. Granted I got this in before the BOTS, but I bet it would get rejected with a BOT today. SS misses out and so do I. I think I have 300-400 DL's on this one.
ah yes, gotcha! and fully agree! you see examples of "creative" images in ss editorial advice pages, panning, critical focus with shallow dof in the foreground,etc.. all that too, would have been rejected by BOTS. but i found a way pass that, ie. fool the BOTS into thinking it is sharp but marquee that area and sharpen edge, resubmit and approved instantly... no, correct that as chichov laughingly pointed out, approved even before you finished editing LOL
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 79
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
