|
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 - wds
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 33
126
« on: May 01, 2023, 07:54 »
I think it may depend on the type of content.
127
« on: April 24, 2023, 08:08 »
I've had some in the queue for a long time (png), but I submitted a couple of editorials that got reviewed overnight.
128
« on: April 23, 2023, 09:57 »
I always wondered why iStock doesn't have a tool that would tell you what you would be earning if you were exclusive with them at your current sales levels. I understand it is not totally straightforward in that exclusive assets can be more expensive which might impact sales. but they tend to keep it more of a mystery than it need be.
129
« on: April 21, 2023, 07:53 »
Love Adobestock, but have to say, these looonnnngggg review times are frustrating.
130
« on: April 13, 2023, 16:42 »
My results generally agree with the survey in the right column. Adobe is ahead of SS.
131
« on: April 04, 2023, 16:09 »
Why the heck are they limiting it to a square format?
132
« on: April 04, 2023, 09:08 »
I was just thinking, does it make sense to make my files bigger by shooting at 30fps? What benefit would there be in a world that accepts 24fps. Why not save a little file space (and processing resources) and go with 24fps? Is there a downside?
Of course there are disadvantages:
1. Video becomes less smooth.
2. Buyers buy videos for projects at 30 fps in general.
3. Television in buyers' countries is 30 fps standard.
4. You can make 24 fps out of 30 fps, but you can't make 30 fps out of 24 fps.
Yes, valid points. There are solutions for #4 (3:2 pull down). I guess it's really hard to know how much of an impact it would have on sales, and of course we never get data from the stock houses how many 24 vs. 30 fps sales they have (#2). That would settle it. Odds are 30fps is probably a "safer" bet. I just hate those big file sizes, anything that would reduce them would be nice....but of course not at the expense of lower sales.
According to my observations, mostly people load 30 fps there. Use H.264 codec, lower compression bitrate, shorter clip length, but 30 fps is the industry standard. All other fps, like 24 or 60 is a risk for sales.
And what difference does it make to you what size the file has, the main thing is that the stocks are accepted  .
Yea, you're probably right, for the small savings in file size, not worth potentially risking sales.
133
« on: April 04, 2023, 08:51 »
They need an introductory user's guide....perhaps entitled: "Hello DALL-E" 
134
« on: April 04, 2023, 08:41 »
I was just thinking, does it make sense to make my files bigger by shooting at 30fps? What benefit would there be in a world that accepts 24fps. Why not save a little file space (and processing resources) and go with 24fps? Is there a downside?
Of course there are disadvantages:
1. Video becomes less smooth.
2. Buyers buy videos for projects at 30 fps in general.
3. Television in buyers' countries is 30 fps standard.
4. You can make 24 fps out of 30 fps, but you can't make 30 fps out of 24 fps.
Yes, valid points. There are solutions for #4 (3:2 pull down). I guess it's really hard to know how much of an impact it would have on sales, and of course we never get data from the stock houses how many 24 vs. 30 fps sales they have (#2). That would settle it. Odds are 30fps is probably a "safer" bet. I just hate those big file sizes, anything that would reduce them would be nice....but of course not at the expense of lower sales.
135
« on: April 04, 2023, 08:05 »
I was just thinking, does it make sense to make my files bigger by shooting at 30fps? What benefit would there be in a world that accepts 24fps. Why not save a little file space (and processing resources) and go with 24fps? Is there a downside?
136
« on: March 31, 2023, 11:56 »
I am not happy with Adobe sales.
Too few extended licenses (only 1 in 2023).
In March, Shutterstock (I'm level 5) did 3x better than Adobe, and the RPD (SS $0.84 - AS $0.73) is also better thanks to many great value single and extended license sales.
Interesting. Are you primarily stills or video? I am primarily stills and my experience is the opposite. It used to be that SS was the clear $$ leader, but AS seems to be whizzing by with SS in the rear view mirror.
137
« on: March 30, 2023, 11:45 »
Are file sizes for 24fps vs. 30fps proportionally smaller all other things being equal?
138
« on: March 28, 2023, 16:42 »
Still waiting for my invite 
139
« on: March 25, 2023, 21:47 »
How long does it take to get the approval to participate in the beta after submitting the request?
140
« on: March 25, 2023, 06:57 »
Funny, since I know that DPreview is likely shutting down, I feel less inclined to read the articles...not sure why.
142
« on: March 18, 2023, 08:07 »
I lost track. Is SS the only agency that doesn't require "Witness" signatures on model releases?
143
« on: March 14, 2023, 13:39 »
Was Adobe the other agency to no longer require a Witness on the Model Release or was it iStock?
144
« on: March 13, 2023, 17:18 »
Below average here.
145
« on: March 01, 2023, 12:16 »
Two charts...
Is your port primarily video? Only curious because for stills I am seeing Adobe #1 iStock #2 and SS a close #3.
146
« on: February 02, 2023, 22:22 »
Where the heck is all this documented? Specifically, this "magic" address for retrieving 1099 forms?
I just got an "Error 404 - Page not found" message when I tried it ??
147
« on: January 31, 2023, 14:52 »
It's a mixed bag with Adobe. Most of my recent submissions have been accepted but I had a couple rejected for "quality" which had been previously accepted by the notoriously picky Shutterstock.
Part of the problem is that a "quality" rejection doesn't really tell you anything. My guess is that there are one or two reviewers who are overly strict and if you are unlucky enough to get them then you get rejections.
Anyway, never mind. The photos will probably sell over at Shutterstock.
Yeah. They are mostly all translucent subjects which are back-lit. Foreground is in shadow. Its hard to focus because its a canon L macro and they are opaque. But I place a brush bristle on them so make sure it's manually focused as perfectly as the equipment will allow and checked by others. Then remove the bristle. And it's close deliberately because I want shallow depth of field for context and composition. Ligting is daylight balanced lume cubes.
I have resubmitted being specific in the title which makes clear the intention. I've even searched the database and found bloody awful semi- similar shots that fail really quite badly. I take 30 to 40 shots a time and refocus after each because it does change slightly. I don't ram the colours up post processing and I only slightly touch sharpness whilst viewing at 100%. Which is stupid really because the photo isn't composed at 100% magnification but people pixel peep. Basically what should be in focus is.
But nope. All binned again. And again. Adobe will get first submission but I won't bother submitting again any images. It's not about pride in my photos I do what I can. It's the time I object to. And on the off chance it may sell. And for the same price as entry to a public toilet.
The review process has moved beyond what is easily achieved with modern equipment, and processing power and now relies on a computer to decide. One that clearly cannot interpret translucent objects that are back-lit.
If you feel it was a "machine" rejection, you may want to contact support and explain the situation if you feel it is worth the effort.
148
« on: January 21, 2023, 10:26 »
The poll results seem indicate a decline in SS and a rise in AS.
149
« on: January 20, 2023, 08:29 »
What i wanted to say is that that there is an exponential declining trend.
If you start microstock photography you will see an increase in DL. On average for about the first 40 +/- months.
The next 40 +/- months you probably will see your DL stagnate. Even if you still uploading the same amount of images every month. After another 40 +/- months you will see a decrease of DL with a much larger portfolio.
So there is an exponential function against you.
Your uploads are linear, your DL per image / month are declining exponential.
After your first 40 months at microstock your DL per image / Month are X, after 80 months your DL per image/month are X/2, after 120 months your DL per image/month are X/4 - on average.
You can't win against an exponential declining trend.
I don't see such a trend. It's now my 5/6th year with Shutterstock and I still see a increase in DLs. It's a small increase, but so far there is no stagnation and no decline yet.
Of course an increase in downloads doesn't necessarily come along with an increase in earnings.
Would you say you've been evenly adding to your portfolio during the 5 years?
150
« on: January 16, 2023, 09:46 »
I'm trying to contact SS and all I get is:
"Something went wrong with Contact Us request processing"
It's not a temp issue, over a month now...
Is there any other way to contact some type of support?
You could try calling them on the customer line and explain your situation?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
