|
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 - Perry
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 57
626
« on: August 18, 2011, 05:17 »
My unpaid earnings says 134 but my pending payment says 0 ? bug ? or glitch?
You are doing fine  After the month has ended (and you have $100 or more in your pending payments) the money is moved under "pending payment". And then it's paid out about the 15th day of the month. So the SAME money is never both "unpaid earnings" and "pending payment", only either one of them. And this time of the month you shouldn't have any money in pending status. My issue that I had was some glitch, I emailed the support and they fixed it.
627
« on: August 10, 2011, 11:25 »
It seems that many contributors have fogotten that money isnt going to be what makes you all happy.
Oh no, I'm not fooled with that one for a second time! 
628
« on: August 10, 2011, 09:46 »
Great! As well as Sharpshot, at 40% I would be very interested!
Heck, I would be interested even at 35%
629
« on: August 10, 2011, 07:06 »
To be honest, we share the camera during some assignments 
I think you really should be something else than taking turns pressing the shutter button. How about having your own shoots; one of you shoots and the other one is an assistant? You know; "This is my shoot, tomorrow is your shoot."
630
« on: August 10, 2011, 07:03 »
After thinking I think I'll pass on this one.
pros:
+existing Envato customers
cons:
-low royalty rate
-low prices on high resolution images and extended licences
-low sales volume
If at least one of the cons change, I'll reconsider. I'm already submitting to too many low earners...
631
« on: August 10, 2011, 04:47 »
I submitted a batch of images where the important part of the image had a carefully placed spotlight. The rest of the image was also lit, so nothing was too black. 100% rejected for "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect."
632
« on: August 09, 2011, 00:24 »
1. I want to be able to criticize the sites withtout the fear of getting thrown out
2. Microstock isn't my main business, my comissioned work is. I don't want people to make connections between my rants on forums and my business.
633
« on: August 08, 2011, 17:24 »
let me explain:
1. usual registration
2. quiz about photodune (10 questions, not easy, needed like 5 times)
3. zip with 5 to 10 pictures (lowest size is 2000px x 2000px)
now I am waiting!
Yes, but how is the submission procedure when submitting the "real" images?
634
« on: August 08, 2011, 16:53 »
So how is the uploading procedure? Is there categories or other things that needs to be clicked for every image? FTP? What is the minimum size in megapixels?
If I can dump my portfolio there easily, I might try this one too. Otherwise: nah!
635
« on: August 04, 2011, 03:52 »
The same issue seems to be back (or am I the only one?). I'm waiting to get a $200+ payment, but my "unpaid earnings" and "pending payment" both went to $0 a couple of days ago... 
636
« on: August 02, 2011, 04:14 »
You could also contact FB, I don't think the terms of FB allows you to have a "fake" profile picture.
The nice way would to try contact the person that has uploaded the picture, explain the situation and tell them that it would be wise to remove the image.
637
« on: July 31, 2011, 09:14 »
I don't share the Slovenian's "obsession" with people shots. Shots without people can sell well too, if they are properly styled, lighted and fill some gap in the collection. In other words: The images need to be better or different that are already there. And images without people often doesn't even need to sell that many times because typically they are cheaper and faster to produce. But I do agree, photos of landscapes and lighthouses need to be really spectacular in today's market. Here are some examples for the original poster: This is how the competition looks like: http://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/374692-001/Stonehttp://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/200328037-001/Iconicahttp://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/sb10065734i-001/The-Image-Bank(these are just random selects from a Getty search, they have over 6,000 images that comes up with search "lighthouse")
638
« on: July 22, 2011, 09:37 »
I'll put it this way: A Couple of years ago I had dreams of being a full time stock shooter, not anymore.
639
« on: July 22, 2011, 05:29 »
Remember the day when IS had the pickiest reviewers? My current observation is they seem to accept almost anything i submit. They are propably desperate for new material (?)
In the other hand, SS, DT, FT are getting more and more difficult to submit to. I used to have a 90%+ acceptance ratio, but now its more like 50% (I haven't got the courage to check out my numbers...)
This is how the tables turn...
(Bottom line: the sites should accept almost anything that is technically good enough. Let the customers vote with their clicks and buys and weed out the non-selling crap after it has been online for a couple of years. It's getting really frustrating to submit decent images and get them rejected because they are "too similar" oor "limited commercial value" or something else)
640
« on: July 15, 2011, 12:15 »
I took the survey
disambiguation, tips, ... all good but with 20+ sites I am afraid we don't have the time to choose keywords for any specific site - I try to do my best at IPTC level and then just click submit, this is my ideal keywording experience: less is more
+1
+1
641
« on: July 15, 2011, 10:55 »
cthoman's video said it all...
643
« on: July 15, 2011, 02:12 »
That's the thing I hate! Microstock isn't about selling what you love to shoot, it's about selling what sells well and what the market wants. In that sense it's just like any other job. What was your opinions of the purple flower? I wouldn't try to send them flowers, especially not in the first test submission. Stock sites are already filled with images of flowers. Flower shots should be really spectacular to get accepted.
644
« on: July 15, 2011, 01:50 »
To the original poster: I can't see how these images could be used in commercial or editorial contexts. Maybe the hot air balloon has some potential, but the rest are just snapshot of random things and views. The competition is very hard these days, I think you should first concentrate on photography and AFTER that start selling stock. And start to look at images in magazines and advertisements and try to get into the mindset of the image buyer: which kind of images are used for which purposes.
645
« on: July 15, 2011, 01:23 »
Fairly simple. Designers can take your color image and make them B&W, Sepia, or whatever.
But 99% of designers doesn't know how to do a GOOD B/W conversion with filtrations, local contrast enhancements etc. The really good B/W conversion isn't just some "effect" that is achieved with a press of a button. I have a few black and white images (and they do sell some). Those images exist because: * The image are the kind that just are much better in black and white: B/W supports the idea and mood. * The image has bad color, for example mixed light sources. I never submit the same images as color and B/W versions.
646
« on: July 15, 2011, 01:01 »
647
« on: July 13, 2011, 10:04 »
Before the pessimists are saying "It's still too little money", I say: "Good move to the right direction!"
648
« on: July 08, 2011, 14:13 »
I'm really getting pissed here... I have submitted some scans from old magazines (that are clearly in public domain because they are printed in the 1860s).
They seem to reject everything with always different reasons. If I correct my submission according to them, they get rejected for some other reason.
-> submit with information about the source in the description -> OK, I'll try to cram that in 200 characters somehow, I have to leave out much of the information what the image is about -> submit as editorial with editorial caption -> OK, I need to cram the information in 200 characters again, the description is getting ridiculous! -> not newsworthy -> Trying to resubmit non-editorial -> need to include property release (oh, but anybody doesn't "own" the source material any more!) ->
I'm really getting bored and sad. I have some PD images accepted and some of them are selling fine, but I can't seem to get any new ones online. If they don't want any more of such images, they should say so (and maybe throw away all old engravings and such).
If they want public domain images, they should have a tick box or a pipeline or something that someone with knowledge would look at the images.
649
« on: July 03, 2011, 10:10 »
(I don't have kids, so this is just theory...)
If the money goes to the kids benefit, I can't see how it would be exploitation.
I would perhaps sell my kids images as RM, just to stop them circulating over time.
650
« on: July 01, 2011, 01:15 »
Worst IS month since January 2009.
OTOH Shutterstock made me a BME
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
