|
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 - KB
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 57
51
« on: February 09, 2017, 19:51 »
Is anyone else still waiting for the new interface to show up? I'm still seeing the old one.
Me!! I even UL'd a little bundle, hoping that might kick the system. But, nope, that was nearly a week ago, and still seeing the old interface.
52
« on: February 09, 2017, 14:38 »
.
53
« on: February 09, 2017, 11:50 »
I'm only a video contributor there, so from my POV, if they had to change it, I wish they could have given more data about video sales. You've always had to guess as to what kind of sale you've had. Often it isn't a problem, but sometimes it definitely can be (4K vs HD Prem, HD vs SD, SD vs Lores). Also, if the same clip sells more than once in a day in the same manner (pack or cart), there is absolutely no breakdown of sales. You simply see the total number of sales and earnings.  Unfortunately, neither of these things were changed in any way. 
54
« on: February 08, 2017, 17:01 »
However we are thrown the following error:
----------------------------------------------------------
We're sorry.
Your account is not currently set up for ESP access.
Please contact us if you believe this is in error.
----------------------------------------------------------
Anyone else getting the same error as we are?
By the way, all my followup emails have not been replied to.
Cheers,
Dave | ModernPics
Yes, this is the error message I'm seeing as well. I emailed them on Monday, but no reply yet. Probably before the end of the month. Maybe.
55
« on: February 08, 2017, 16:59 »
It takes a LONG time to produce and upload 39,000 clips my friend. 
Ain't that the truth. I've been at it since 2009, and my port is still only about 850 clips!  I probably would be better off flipping those burgers.
56
« on: February 08, 2017, 13:51 »
Unless he's making at least $39,000 dollars a month it wouldn't be worth quitting your job at McDonald's.
I'd heard the minimum wage has gone up, but I had no idea. I'm going to submit an application at my local McD's ASAP!
57
« on: February 06, 2017, 23:20 »
Nothing. And I am exclusive. There was a message that all exclusives should have received theirs by 2/3. Based on that I put in a support ticket this morning. It is somewhat comforting to know i am not the only one. I don't know if any other exclusives didn't get the email.
Me. I suspect in my case it may be because several years ago I received an "invitation" to ESP (I used to submit videos to iS). However, as far as I remember, I never accepted the invitation -- I did not even click on the link in the email, let alone create an account. I'm sure sooner or later they'll get this ironed out, but if I were interested in UL'ing something, I'd be really upset.
58
« on: January 13, 2017, 21:00 »
I see; thanks. I hope they don't start to happen too often (well, unless it increases sales ).
59
« on: January 13, 2017, 20:05 »
I've been on P5 for more years than I care to admit, but I don't remember getting any royalties other than 50% of the prices that I set.
But this month I've had several sales that have been discounted about 15% from my prices.
Is this a first, or have I just been lucky up until now?
60
« on: January 10, 2017, 18:16 »
We are currently experiencing higher than normal contact volumes and appreciate your patience. I wonder how they define 'higher than normal', when they have been including that identical phrase in every reply for so many years?
61
« on: January 08, 2017, 20:33 »
Oh, I moused over the daily bar graph and it only says the number of dls, not the amount of $$. (Are we talking about the profile page?)
Yes, that's the page I was referring to. But it turns out the page I'm using is different. Try this link instead: http://www.istockphoto.com/user_stats?Offset=-1
62
« on: January 08, 2017, 19:42 »
First week, $1.32 average 
How can you tell? I can see my last downloads, but not how much they sold for.
What was your average before?
If you mouseover the daily bar graph, you can see how much you earned that day. You just have to divide by the number of sales (which is almost always 0 or 1 for me, these days).
63
« on: December 01, 2016, 13:06 »
I'm not sure for 32 inch monitor (unless you do 4K) - I guess that fonts will be really tiny and difficult to see... I've just bought EIZO ColorEgde 27inch, it's a great device, specially ColorNavigator calibration software - so easy to use and with accurate result. Still think that even on 27 inch (2500x1400 res) fonts are too small. Or maybe that's only windows.
I agree, for me I find text size needs to be about 92-94 PPI in order to be comfortably readable. I can certainly read smaller, but for hours at a time, bigger is better. For a 32" 4K monitor, I would have to use scaling of 150% in order to get the text size down to that range. (Without scaling, it would be close to 140 PPI, and at 125% scaling 110 PPI -- which is borderline acceptable for me.) In which case, I've decided, I could just as easily get a 1440p monitor (2560x1440), because that's exactly what 4K scaled to 150% displays at on a 32". Even on a 27" 1440p (your Eizo Coloredge), the text is a bit too small for me. It's again at around 110 PPI, similar to 4K on a 32" scaled at 125%. So I've been looking at 32" 1440p displays, but just as with the 32" 4K, there doesn't seem to be any out there that get consistently good reviews (other than NEC & Eizo which are both out of my price range). In the end, I think I'm going to just stick with what I have now. It's a 24" HP LP2475w (wide gamut) at 1920x1200, and what's wrong with that?
64
« on: November 26, 2016, 17:27 »
Alamy used to ask for Adobe RGB but then they changed their minds and stated a preference for sRGB. Your problem with FAA used also to be a problem with Alamy, Thanks, I had no idea that Alamy no longer recommends uploading in aRGB. In the past, I recall that I had noticed a mis-match with some of my images on Alamy compared to what I see from my computer, but I'd always just ignored it. By the way, isn't it just a mistake to edit in wide gamut on an sRGB screen? Doesn't it mean you are making changes that you can't see but users with wide gamut equipment will be able to see? I would love to get an answer to this from someone who really understands this stuff (if there is such a person here -- gyllens?) I've had the same concern about editing in ProPhoto RGB, which is a larger color space than my wide gamut monitor can fully display. Though I have always looked at my final image in PS after converting to aRGB, and have never noticed any change in color after the conversion. But perhaps the file needs to be re-loaded in order to see that? I admit to never having tried that.
65
« on: November 26, 2016, 12:53 »
Wide gamut space doesn't help prevent banding but editing in 16-bit does.
You upload in aRGB... Which agency do you upload to?
Thanks, that's good to know, as that's what I intended to do even if I move to a "narrow" gamut monitor. I UL to iStock, Alamy, and FAA. FAA is my main concern, but I've noticed my recent ULs there don't match what I see on my display, so that's already messed up as is. My older ULs match fine. (All were UL'd using aRGB.)
66
« on: November 26, 2016, 10:59 »
OK, I'm an ignoramus. But as far as I can make out, there's no practical benefit from using wide gamut screens and working in Adobe RGB when your customers don't. In fact, there was a lot of discussion about how awful Adobe RGB looks on commonplace screens and browsers.
The theory I've heard and had been working with is, when you edit in 16-bits and use a wide gamut color space, then convert to 8-bits (and either aRGB or sRGB), you are less likely to get banding and other artifacts. And, obviously, if you UL in aRGB as I have been doing, you can actually see the image as it exists in aRGB. UL'ing in aRGB but using an sRGB gamut monitor sounds like a bad idea. (If you do UL to aRGB then presumably the site that you are UL'ing to converts the image to sRGB for display on the web, but maintains your original aRGB file and that is what buyers receive.) Clearly I'm not alone in this belief, but it does seem that I'm in the minority. Since currently there is such a large price premium to pay for a 4K, 32" wide gamut monitor, given the ever decreasing royalties from stock that I've been experiencing, it seems it really doesn't make sense. Except, as a contributor I've always tried to provide the very best quality I can, so it does bother me to remove what has long been a big part of my work flow. Obviously I'm trying to convince myself it's ok, and the poll results do seem to support that so far. Thanks for the posts so far, and to all of you who have voted in the poll.
67
« on: November 26, 2016, 00:35 »
I'm considering buying a new (32") monitor. I edit for stock in ProPhoto RGB, usually upload in aRGB, and use a wide gamut (99.5% adobe RGB) monitor. But I wonder if I'm in the minority or not.
Do you usually edit in a wide gamut (aRGB, ProPhoto RGB, etc.)? Do you use a wide gamut monitor?
68
« on: November 25, 2016, 19:00 »
So sick of this topics....
Yet you still felt compelled to read and respond; imagine that!
69
« on: October 31, 2016, 15:10 »
What does ESP mean in this context?
Extremely Screwed Photographers
70
« on: October 25, 2016, 23:07 »
So are exclusive subscription percentage rates the same as whatever credit rates they are currently on? I think that is what I'm reading? Yes, that seems to be correct. Does anyone know how many exclusives are left on iStock?
I know of at least two (counting myself). Will the last iStock exclusive please remember to turn off the lights?
71
« on: October 25, 2016, 12:20 »
Too busy at the work now, and also looking forward to some of the smartest on this forum to digest the news and share their prognosis, but a first glance on the example of PPFs given in Getty's email makes me tremble:
Category Minimum PPF Example royalty % Example royalty payment
Non-Exclusive $0.10 15% $0.02
2 cents? What?...
2 cents is the MINIMUM, folks. Let's not get all bent out of shape. The maximum is probably at least double that.
72
« on: October 04, 2016, 19:09 »
I get a lot of $11.55 sales, so maybe that's a discount on a standard def version?
Yeah, I get a lot of sales like that (that don't fit in the price range they are supposed to). I assume like you that it's a discount on the next higher bracket. So a $16 sub sale is most likely an HD, and a $8 or $10 sub sale is likely an SD. ($11.55 is close to the normal range, according to my notes.) It's a bit annoying they don't identify them as such, but it's always been that way. It happens with cart sales, too, but less often.
73
« on: October 04, 2016, 16:02 »
I was talking HD clips Don't see many 4k sales (even though almost all my clips have a 4k version) so that's not a reality right now. Oh! Sorry, since the last several posts were all about 4K, I assumed that's what you had meant. You're right, HD clips are supposed to be priced at $79 for cart sales, giving us $23.70, but sometimes (often) are priced less. Same goes for sub sales -- they're supposed to range around $68-74, giving us $20-$22, but those are frequently showing up at < $20. 
74
« on: October 04, 2016, 12:14 »
And of course other agencies give very high discounts, so the 200 dollar 4k price might just be window dressing.
Exactly, the good people at Shutterstock do it all the time. I believe the average price can be somewhere closer to $59 rather than $79... That's 75%.
Are you talking about commission or sales price? Subs (packs) or cart sales? 4K cart sales are priced at $199, we get $59.70. I have not seen discounts from that. 4K packs are priced from $185.80 to $170.36, netting us around $51-$56. I also have not seen anything lower than that. Not that I've had that many 4K sales -- probably only about a dozen over the last few years. So maybe you've seen some discounts I haven't.
75
« on: August 16, 2016, 10:32 »
All my HD stuff was originally priced at $25 and $49 for 4K. I started selling stock on VideoHive back when it was $6 for HD and now it's up to $8 for HD. If I'd started on SS or iS then I probably would have been pricing my clips at $79 or something.
Anyway, so a month ago I decided to double all my prices... $49 for HD and $99 for 4K.
Those are insane prices that you've been selling your clips for. I'm familiar with your port, and even $49 for HD and $99 for 4K seems too low to me (but at least, more reasonable). IMO, you shouldn't support a site like VideoHive that sells clips at even more insane prices, but WDIK? I average about a dozen sales a month on P5 (my HD clips have always been priced at $45, but they are far less unique than yours). This month (halfway over): ZERO sales. That never happens ... until it does. So just be patient. Keep your prices where they are (or raise them even more). The sales will come (unless there's a permanent decline with P5 sales, which is possible due to their stupid membership program).
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
