|
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 - OM
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 36
251
« on: October 04, 2015, 07:07 »
They cleared all the spam yesterday but haven't done anything to prevent the spammer doing the same again today which, of course, they have.
252
« on: October 04, 2015, 06:50 »
With older versions of PS (dunno which versions) the workaround was to open the file in Image Ready.
253
« on: October 03, 2015, 06:11 »
I seem to remember in NL that someone set up a franchise for photographers to do this sort of work in an area defined by the 'franchise'. Payment was just super low and was including all your travel expenses. I think it was around 100 for a house and maybe more for a commercial building. Most estate agents here use their own camera anyway so you would be in competition with 'free'.
I've seen other ads by estate agents on freelancers websites and that was basically crowdsourcing which means that someone will do it for nothing just to be able to say they've been published!
Possibly there are openings in the top segment of real estate in which the quality of photography has to be apparent to a client spending millions but often it's the architect that provides the high quality photo's taken by their own architecture photographer for that type of building. Very difficult market to break into, I think. Just my 2 cents' worth.
255
« on: September 19, 2015, 13:13 »
I see always in new images in vector category, 2 page, same or similar crap pictures accepted? Why?
For example check this portfolio http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2940841p22.html?safesearch=1
Scroll in this portfoliop few pages. And many many crap portfolio. The quality of the pictures suppress a lot of waste.
Why? I dont understand
An interesting port to be sure..not! Started off in April this year with a few (~150) 'normal' photos and then seems to have gone into robot mode with ~5,000 images uploaded within 6 months. Just something weird about this and other ports like it getting accepted. Maybe SS want to be able to boast that they're on target to get to 100 million images before the end of 2016!
256
« on: September 19, 2015, 12:54 »
Had a rejection recently that I uploaded as a bit of a test...just to see whether it would be rejected and on which grounds. A completely defocused/blurred shot of a restaurant outdoors with al fresco dining. Nice afternoon sunlight and perfecly lit. Nikon D600 at 125ISO, virtually no post-processing and certainly no sharpening.....rejected on noise! There was no noise.  They need an 'honesty' rejection key, like 'IMHO LCV' or just 'Crap'!
257
« on: July 31, 2015, 17:17 »
On SS I've seen a whole series of Buddhist monks recognisably portrayed but without model release. I'm sure I don't know how that works.
258
« on: July 31, 2015, 17:08 »
I've been a Nikon girl for a decade and happy about it... (upgraded from the D80, which was even worse) although I do have serious envy for that 50mm 1.2 canon lens.
Get a Sigma Art 50mm f1.4. better and cheaper apparently and they make it for Nikon. 
259
« on: July 24, 2015, 08:11 »
I have a fair number of old 35mm/6x7cm/4x5" slides accepted at Shutterstock; all (scanned)/shot with my DSLR cameras D80/D90 and a 105mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor with 25mm extension tube using a home-made diffused 'light-box' with either a Sunpak 120J flash or an Elincrom RX600 for light. It can be done but the main determinant of success is the quality of the original slide. It has to be pin sharp. Dust was not a problem, blew the slides clean with a blower first.
260
« on: July 18, 2015, 16:51 »
They have up and down votes for posts, and what are warning points?
They seem to want to go social - friends, friends' comments on your profile, show who your friends are....
From what I see, you only get to see your own 'warnings'. Others are not visibly displayed.
261
« on: July 11, 2015, 14:10 »
Polar bears and penguins have great difficulty in opening an account with Shutterstock, I'm told.
262
« on: July 11, 2015, 14:01 »
Been at FT since 2008 but still only have 600 images there which is 100 more than at SS (since 2012).
Sales at FT have enjoyed a checkered history going up and down as they messed with the search but have never amounted to more than 30% of sales at SS and are presently averaging around 15% of sales at SS. Decided to opt out of DPC because I imagined that could hit sales of ODDs at SS. In recent months, ODD sales have been down anyway but seem to have come back recently. So, no opinion possible. For me FT is just a bit of extra pocket money.
263
« on: June 18, 2015, 03:26 »
deleted
264
« on: May 31, 2015, 08:20 »
In Firefox Private Browsing, 'Latte coffee' +'relevant' also gives me that same selection as Teddy showed. Which is the same selection approximately if I go via 'normal' channels. In EU.
265
« on: May 23, 2015, 17:41 »
It's probably because he has 30,000 plus images they will see him as a major contributor and cut some slack
Well, from the 12 pages of images of "Candy" (of all sorts) that I looked at on his portfolio, before I got bored and stopped clicking forward, I'm guessing that his entire 30,000+ collection probably consists of (maybe) 40-50 different subjects.
That SS is allowing those shots into its collection right now, when they're excluding so much other work, truly is depressing.
Looked at the first couple of pages...you know what's there! Skipped to page 300...deja vu all over again...skipped to last page, 357, he started as he meant to go on. Simply mind boggling that SS accepts it all. Makes me want to reconsider adding to my own port.
266
« on: May 08, 2015, 20:13 »
Here I'm completely guessing...but how's about all uploaded images for review are first passed through various proprietary software checks and 'flagged' for the reviewers attention (maybe camera types, sharpness, white balance, histogram etc). If a whole batch is flagged by some piece of software first, the reviewer can be 'lazy' and just reject the lot. Gets paid anyway without the responsibility of letting through something that might not be 100% which could come back to bite them later.
Alternatively, reviewer takes the time to evaluate every 'flagged' image separately and carefully deciding that the majority of the batch is up to scratch and OKs it. Which of these two scenarios is most likely?
Let's face it, a reviewer would have to be very confident in their own abilities to OK anything that has been flagged as dubious by software and passing the image for the collection would take time that the reviewer doesn't have when they're on a piece rate. Plausible??
267
« on: May 03, 2015, 07:22 »
Their ftp was frequently down so I always chose the screen uploader. Now that is restricted to max 30MB total/time....less than 3 full-res jpgs. No object category and I get that incomplete indexing thing which FT didn't bother to explain that only 30 keywords accepted and 64 characters in title.
Too bad. Won't bother there any more.
268
« on: May 01, 2015, 19:37 »
.... when you make less money this month than last ...
.....because you know, that no matter how many more images you added, some other 'b****r' added ten times as many and buried all of yours.
269
« on: April 26, 2015, 04:49 »
Well, For the time being Paypal=eBay and every time you advertise something on eBay you send 'em your content? But as Paypal and eBay are about to be split, perhaps Paypal is coming up with something of its own....or maybe they're just going to hold a promotional photo-competition.
270
« on: April 17, 2015, 18:20 »
271
« on: April 17, 2015, 12:17 »
As a private individual, I have come to expect nothing of benefit to me from large publicly-owned corporations.....and, so far, I have not been disappointed. Every individual, whether employed or as freelance, has to work harder and harder for less and less reward to satisfy the demands of the stockholders for ever greater return. It's the way the system works and I'm used to it by now. 
272
« on: April 17, 2015, 05:18 »
Maybe there is a payrise planned?
Lets hope so. As Jo Ann mentioned, maybe in a few months.
Not going to make a huge difference if dls/ODDs&SODs decrease more! Get 10% price increase but lose 30% of dls. especially in ODDs where it hurts most.
273
« on: April 17, 2015, 02:35 »
Can't help correlating this change in subs packages with a reduction in downloads and, more importantly, a dearth of ODDs on which most contributors are dependent to make a decent month's payout. Will have to wait and see whether there is correlation or just coincidence. Not too optimistic though looking at April so far.
274
« on: April 16, 2015, 18:07 »
They added the 350 image option for the US too. Expect more changes to combat lower margins with the new monthly limits.
But their margin on a month subscription went up by 81%
Yep, I don't think that's the end of the changes though. Did they get rid of 750 dls altogether in Europe? If they do that everywhere else what will that do your sales numbers? I think a lot of their sales come from Europe so I would expect dls to start decreasing a little in the coming months.
I am in Ireland, still seeing 750. I dont know where the other screenshot was taken.
NL.
275
« on: April 16, 2015, 16:35 »
I have no idea why 25/day subs were sold for ~$200 in the first place. If a 'customer' were to download their full quote of 750 images, then at 38 cents paid to the contributor Shutterstock would pay out to contributors @38 cents $285.
Now, with only 350 images, SS can never pay out more than $133 to the contributors.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 36
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
