|
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 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 33
476
« on: May 15, 2019, 22:32 »
Sales typical in volume....but then there's the 40% instead of 50% commission thing 
477
« on: May 15, 2019, 10:39 »
it is a dumb idea because no one reads the description when making a decision to purchase an image.
it might not be a big deal for people with small portfolios, but when you have 60,000 photos it is a big deal when you have to go back and retitle 10,000 photos just to comply with a requirement that has no effect on sales.
I have had to do this for bigstock and all it does it lead to stupid titles. "smiling young girl" becomes "smiling young girl with long hair" which has no impact on someone's desire to buy the image. it is just a waste of time.
these companies should be making it easier for people to contribute, not harder.
to say you like this idea is just stupid. why shouldn't someone have the right to make a title with 4 words? seriously you think it is a great idea to force everyone else to increase their title length, when they can do it voluntarily anyway? you are opposed to 4 word titles for other contributors?
Are they saying you have to go back and re-"description" images that are already uploaded?
478
« on: May 05, 2019, 09:13 »
I am by no means an expert, but I think you could set up multiple masks on the same "layer" or node. If that doesn't work, you could add additional nodes. I think if you kept them on the same node, all displacements or tracking movements would be identical. Again, I could be totally wrong, but that's what I would try.
479
« on: May 05, 2019, 07:11 »
I have the 'free year' for Photoshop/Lightroom, which runs until sometime later this year.
What happens if I wish to upgrade to the whole CC package? I can't cope with Premiere Pro CS6 any longer!
Try Davinci Resolve to break the chain of servitude. I dropped Premiere Pro and glad I did, Resolve does everything I need and does not force you into a strangle hold cloud plan... worth checking out.
I've spent the whole day trying to work with Davinci Resolve and really struggled with it - apart from the colour correction features which were a joy to use. I've downloaded a 7 day trial of the latest Premiere Pro and I'll compare side by side tomorrow and decide which way I go. I'd like to go with Resolve, as I hate the fact that I can't own the Creative Suite as I used to - I've only paid for Photoshop until now, and stayed with old versions of Illustrator, After Effects and Premiere Pro.
There certainly is a learning curve... just like Premiere the first time. I spent a day just going through Youtube videos and how to's and now find Resolve to be acceptable. At this point I only use the free version and that said I am only doing basic editing, clipping, and color correction. I was used to Premiere and could zing through my workflow, and am fairly certain I will zing through with a bit of training on Resolve and save $$$ in the process with the same results.
Yes, but I set myself a task that I can do in 10 minutes in Premiere Pro and, even with the help of video tutorials, I can't yet get the same result in Davinci. I will give it another go today, as I maybe just need to get my head around it.
What exactly is it that you are having difficulty replicating in Resolve?
480
« on: May 01, 2019, 13:12 »
How do the adobe stabilizers compare to the DaVinci Resolve 15 stabilizer?
481
« on: April 26, 2019, 07:57 »
Let's not forget editorial content!
482
« on: April 04, 2019, 12:11 »
I believe it is automated sometime around mid-month. Not sure about threshold.
483
« on: April 02, 2019, 15:30 »
Got the message as well. It was odd in that the "new" terms were dated June 2018.
484
« on: April 01, 2019, 11:15 »
There is room for a Stocksy style coop for the common folk. Stocksy has done a great job of creating an artsy boutique agency... a larger big tent coop could also succeed.
Symbiostock failed because it did not unite everyone around a simple effective search engine and user interface. A uniformed landing page with clear licensing terms would do better than a collection of different looking semi-connected portfolio templates.
pond5 still pays 50% for photos just like Stocksy, but you can set your own prices. If you want to organize something, why not on a place that already exists?
Maybe talk to pond5 and ask them if you can open a joint exclusive account or something like that, with a fixed price for all the content. Then you just have to organize people legally under one umbrella for that exclusive content and decide who will preselect and edit content.
Or just generally support pond5 and promote them with your content. Who knows, if their exclusive video content with 60% works well, maybe they will offer exclusive photos at some point?
Photoshelter also offers the option for producers to set up a virtual agency, where the content is pooled. So the framework for accounting etc...is already there.
https://photographersselection.org/what-is-a-virtual-agency/
Photoshelter pays out 90% or so, depending on the contract. I don't know how much they charge for the VA.
I don't know which place would give more sales, but at least being part of a much larger setup, means you don't have to go it all alone.
So basically, if a group of people wants to unite and pool their content at a certain price point, or over a certain theme, you can just go and do it. The tools are all available out there.
Isn't doing something better than complaining how the industry takes advantage of you...? 
Regarding photos on P5; they seem to have (almost literally) no photo sales. So while it is great that you set your own price, to build something there around photos wouldn't be very useful.
485
« on: March 28, 2019, 10:35 »
We've been successful as a group a few times. iStock has plummeted after many people pulled their work;
I doubt very much if, in this case, people pulling ports has been reponsible for iS plummetting. It's far more likely to be the result of very poor management decisions (which were, after all, the reason for people pulling ports).
What is the definition of "plumetting"?...my sense is that there are many exclusives still there that are doing well. If they truly plumetted they wouldn't be in the "top Tier" of income in the poll results....just trying to understand here...
486
« on: March 22, 2019, 07:49 »
I did it, yep for 8 years I was an Getty Exclusive. When I dropped it and spread my work out it was really tough! I barely made it through on income and my hands ached for typing and uploading all my clips. It was worth it in the long run. I do a lot of model released work so I may give the Pond5 exclusive a go for at least a year. Good luck to all of us on any path we choose!
So you feel that the 6/5 increase in royalty rate on P5 will make up for your income from the other agencies going to 0?
487
« on: March 21, 2019, 22:26 »
I think they have heard that loud and clear so I am waiting to see how it shakes down. If they do nothing then bad news! I do feel they have been a good agency to work with so I am trying to think positive here.
But what about the simple math here? Do you see it such that dropping out of all other agencies and going exclusive at P5 will earn you more money? And as for stills, there are virtually 0 sales at P5. Stills content that sells almost every day and sometimes multiple times per day on other sites has not sold one copy at P5 in over a year.
488
« on: March 21, 2019, 12:17 »
I think their (P5) point was that if the content is only available on their platform, they control the price therefore the price would not be slowly eroded by different agencies competing with each other selling the same content.
That's not what they said.
They specifically said that the buyers didn't want the clips being used by other buyers. Which of course makes 0 sense dealing with any stock asset. Do they know what a stock asset is? It is an asset that is in stock, ready for anyone to buy and use immediately. If you want exclusive content you film it yourself or hire someone to do it.
Good point!...they said that, but they also used the example of stock photo prices declining due to vendors competing with each other with the same content. So yes I agree with you that the "...buyers didn't want the clips being used by other buyers..." argument never made sense since it is stock content.
489
« on: March 21, 2019, 12:06 »
Well, that was a long way of saying "sales are going down, business not so good, we need a bigger cut".
The lack of logic is amusing, since the very nature of stock footage is that it is never exclusive. The goal is of course to sell it multiple times. Will the client feel better if 99 other Pond5 customers used the same clip? But not if Shutterstock customers did...
And going from 50% to 40% is a 20% cut. From 60% to 40% is a 33% cut.
So effectively, a 20% cut for 99% of us.
FWIW this is the same logic as iS (or for that matter any stock vendor) charging more for exclusive content. In one sense I never understood it because the content can still be seen "all over the place" if purchased many times. I think their (P5) point was that if the content is only available on their platform, they control the price therefore the price would not be slowly eroded by different agencies competing with each other selling the same content. I think that makes sense, but what doesn't make sense is that it seems the individual contributors will be taking a hit by only selling on P5....unless they(the contributor) significantly raised their price points
490
« on: March 19, 2019, 08:35 »
I understand the "buyer confusion" argument. But maybe if the scheme was a simple one with maybe two tiers of pricing.
Currently, some sites have "premium" collections (or the entire site is premium). This premium content is judged/dictated by the agency whether the actual content is in fact desirable or not (I would guess the majority of premium content never sells...just like any other content).
If you have content that sells nearly every day, it could earn more money with appropriate pricing.....it can be frustrating when it is priced at the same point as content which never or rarely sells. Content which has demonstrated strong salability should be appropriately valued/rewarded! And of course this would be best as a contributor opt-in.
491
« on: March 18, 2019, 16:58 »
Wouldn't it make sense for agencies to boost prices of images with strong sales? Or maybe to give the option to the contributor to do so?
492
« on: March 10, 2019, 09:36 »
I like Adobe, I actually i preferred Fotolia and sell more videos there.
But the SS video sales for me are fantastic. Much better than Adobe.
Same videos, tags etc .... however every month SS improves sales and Adobe falls and falls.
In video earnings for me:
1.SS
2. Pond5
3. Getty
4. Istock
5.Adobe
6. Storyblocks.
Istock pays infinitely less than Adobe or SS as a percentage of commission, but sells very well and generates a lot of revenue. I've always heard about Istock. In fact it is ridiculous commissions of 1 dollar per video in some cases. I took too long to upload. In the end it is much better than Adobe. Will understand?!?!
So 50%, 35%, 30%, 20% or 15% in my opinion is relative.
Some give you more luck or chance depending on the agency and content.
Anyway ...
Do you have editorial video content or all commercial?
493
« on: March 08, 2019, 17:15 »
What's a poster frame? I guess I don't know or use that.
A poster frame is the still frame you see that represents the video file shown in a search or your portfolio.
494
« on: March 08, 2019, 10:08 »
Is there a way to set or change the poster frame on a video file on Adobestock?
495
« on: March 06, 2019, 22:33 »
Talking about both editorial photos and videos here. Have both on other sites and they sell.
496
« on: March 06, 2019, 08:47 »
Hi,
Where is the proper link to enquire regarding a file rejection. In this case I did a number of green screen silhouettes and they were all rejected for "technical issues". A generic response, plus they were all accepted at SS. I need to know exactly what the perceived "technical issue" is so I can address it.
Thanks!
497
« on: March 05, 2019, 09:18 »
I am amazed how well editorial video sells and some for very high prices.
You just need to look at the pond5 thread where people post sales results, a really superhigh percentage is editorial.
There are so many local festivals, daily life situations that professional suppliers cannot provide.
The world is a very large place, so please Mat, ask them to reconsider, at least for video.
True for stills as well!
498
« on: March 04, 2019, 09:11 »
Have you seen a sales benefit to an alpha channel or "transparency" vs. green screen?
499
« on: February 24, 2019, 09:07 »
Not sure what cameras people are using, but if your camera is putting out H.264 and you aren't massaging the video much, seems like a wasted to go Prores delivery. Kind of like resaving a .jpg. as a tiff...the "damage" is already done.
500
« on: February 21, 2019, 14:23 »
Just curious, Do you upload your photos in Adobe RGB or sRGB to Adobe Stock?
Thanks
You should upload to Adobe Stock in sRGB.
-Mat
Mat, what is the reasoning for that...as I have uploaded my entire library in aRGB?
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
