|
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 - sharpshot
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 263
151
« on: August 31, 2017, 02:30 »
This is a bit like people that argue about sensor size with stills. It really doesn't matter that much, do your own thing and don't think everyone else has to do the same. I'm quite happy doing timelapses under 400 frames but if people want to do much longer, that's great. There's no answer to frame rate either, just choose what you want, it seems to make no difference to buyers at all.
152
« on: August 31, 2017, 01:11 »
Actually I didn't close all my accounts. I closed at IS and SS, and I'd left Fototolia, Envato, 500px and some others long before. I left my stock photos at Alamy, which still pays a few dollars, and at GL, which is currently dormant but might come back.
Any photography I do these days is either for the enjoyment of my friends, or to sell on FAA. I have no marketing, but I sell a couple big prints - sometimes more - every month through FAA.
I'm still interested in what's going on with microstock, but I see no chance of selling through those channels in the future. The market is broken, the perceived value of that kind of work has been destroyed.
I don't think you put much work into microstock. If you did, you wouldn't be quite so negative. There's a huge difference between what does well with stock and what sells on FAA, I don't think many people can be successful at both. Some of the greedy sites deserve all the negativity but there's still a few places to sell that don't abuse us and it's still better than any other job I've tried.
153
« on: August 30, 2017, 05:48 »
Found this about art, I can see how it could be used for selling stock image licences, the first site to get this right could be on to a good thing. There's so many people starting new sites that are all the same, surely someone will try this instead? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynSdOB8oV_c
154
« on: August 30, 2017, 02:00 »
155
« on: August 29, 2017, 08:52 »
Yes, they're great for editorial video, just need a bit of patience, then sales are good.
156
« on: August 29, 2017, 08:50 »
Be interesting to see if Shutter decides to remove a lot of the images that have never sold. The 'House Cleaning' should happen soon...
Why would you think that? They obviously want more images, hence almost no QC standards and an easy contributors entry test compared to previous years. I can't see them accepting almost everything, then removing most of it.
157
« on: August 29, 2017, 05:50 »
Feel free to blast me if I am off base here.
Why is it that some of my best new images are kicking butt on Adobe stock/FT and iStock but they are not even making it on the first 10 pages of SS? Yeah, I know that millions of images are flooding SS monthly but I have to believe that is also happening on Adobe Stock/FT and iStock. Something major is wrong at SS at least in my eyes on new images being submit. A few years back folks told me that if an image was good (technical and keywords) it will rise to the top. I don't buy that anymore...
You really think that SS or FT cares if good or bad images??? they just want uploads, uploads and more uploads. I doubt very much their reviewers are capable of spotting good images nowadays?
Uploads means assets and thats what its all about!
Its funny how these supposedly super modern industries make basic old fashioned errors....I remember countless years back talking to auditors and one of their biggest issues was companies supposedly having $$$$ in assets which in fact were warehouses of obsolete stuff that was virtually worthless. Like millions of images that will probably never sell (and in fact SS don't even own them ;-) )
I've always presumed that the millions of images that will never sell must be very beneficial with Google. Or perhaps the bigger collection entices more buyers? Otherwise, why are the sites with the most images so much more popular than those that were more selective? Can't think of any other reason to host all those images, as it must get expensive.
158
« on: August 28, 2017, 15:09 »
What about Symbiostock?
I passed up on the adventure myself. Maybe some folks made money on the new concept...
I lost money on that one. It did make me realise that I don't want the hassle of running my own site, so it was still worth doing.
159
« on: August 28, 2017, 02:27 »
My dumbest moment was when I decided not to bother converting some of my earnings into Bitcoin. I'm sure the millions would of ruined me 
160
« on: August 26, 2017, 10:24 »
Perhaps voters should have an option to reject people they don't want to lead their country before an election happens? Trump and Clinton seemed like two of the worst applicants for the job. It's the same in the UK, May or Corbyn, I couldn't vote for either of them. I just can't believe that the major parties of two old democracies can't find better leaders.
161
« on: August 25, 2017, 05:55 »
Things would soon change if contributors didn't supply sites that sell for low prices and pay less than 50%. It looks like my highest earning site this month will be Alamy, my 50% cut from one sale is almost $100. Imagine how much we could earn if we only supplied sites like them and Pond5 for video. Shame that will never happen.
162
« on: August 25, 2017, 02:00 »
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.
The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox. Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times). To equate the two is ridiculous.
Liberal news type of headline - White man kills black honor student
Conservative news type of headline - Black man killed while assaulting white man
These both could be the same incident, the truth and based on fact. The bias is what facts are chosen to be reported or ignored. And again you keep pointing out Fox and drawing the division line. Have you not seen any of the CNN antics? Or like the news do you only choose to point out information that supports your side of the division line?
As fas as I know CNN has never promoted a lie as fact - Fox has on numerous occasions. That goes beyond bias to fabrication. Bias in reporting is one thing, making up lies and becoming a news maker rather than reporting what happened is something else entirely.
Of course. CNN would never lie to do anything shady. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/retracted-cnn-story-a-boon-for-president-at-war-with-media.html
Wouldn't it be good if politicians resigned when they lied or did something shady? I have no doubt there would be no president Trump if that happened. Every time he complains about fake news, I wonder how he fools himself into thinking nobody notices the way he uses fake news when it suits his agenda? Perhaps he really is stupid enough to believe some of the lies he has helped spread? Either way, I think he has proven to be completely incompetent and out of his depth as president and the longer he does the job, the more damage it will do to the US.
163
« on: August 24, 2017, 04:31 »
It isn't all bad. Successive British governments have messed up so badly that the British pound has fallen sharply against the US dollar, so I now get a lot more money when I convert to my currency. I also now know how to live on very little money
164
« on: August 23, 2017, 15:19 »
They don't sell a lot of photos, never tried editorial photos with them.
165
« on: August 23, 2017, 15:15 »
I don't know if my payout of $0.01 after leaving was for one sale or multiple sales but it shows that they go below $0.02.
166
« on: August 22, 2017, 14:57 »
Months after leaving, I get this Getty Images (US) Inc. sent you $0.01 USDNow I will have to think what to spend it on.
167
« on: August 22, 2017, 04:19 »
I think the point was that you could use a canon 550d for stock video. Equipment doesn't matter much... you could even shoot stock footage with canon 550d.
It wasn't that you can do stock video with any camera. I agree that the canon 550d is OK for stock video, as I still sell clips from it today.
168
« on: August 21, 2017, 04:37 »
I don't think it will ever be as big as Life after istock
170
« on: August 20, 2017, 06:23 »
Yeah but its also gone too far the other way nowadays all you have to do is salute your flag and youre classified a racist. Fortunately not many take too much notice of all this leftie crap anymore!
By who? If not many take notice of the lefties crap what do you mean you are " classified as a racist"?
Emily Thornberry is one that springs to mind in the UK https://twitter.com/emilythornberry/status/535450556199075840?lang=en. The left can take things too far but the right shouldn't use that as an excuse to not deal with racism. I'm so sick of the far left and far right, they're all as bad as each other.
171
« on: August 20, 2017, 06:10 »
Most of our images seem to be out there for anyone who wants to risk using them without a license. Shame Google aren't working on something to get payments from unlicensed use. I know a lot of people wouldn't pay up but I'm sure many businesses would have to.
172
« on: August 19, 2017, 02:17 »
Seems to me that whatever SS do it only takes a few months and adobe/ft will follow and imitate it. Now adobe have started with this captcha crap which is just so stupid its unbelievable!
Their search algorithm seems to go hand in hand. Useless! lower end contributors favoured and both are pushing subs packages all the way and both are at the moment producing crummy results if peoples comments here and everywhere else is anything to go by.
As soon as my two new macro sites have taken off oh man I am well out of these two places. So sick of seeing these 0.38c sales and the 10 hours downtime at adobe. Take my port of 5K files and upload the lot at the Getty RF or even Istock is better!...my moth there was great! 843 bucks and for Istock that is good for an indy!
Ok rant over but Im serious actually fed up with micro its just hassles and all for nothing really.
That's a great strategy until istock change their search and your earnings fall off a cliff. That's happened with lots of us. I got so sick of istock, I left. Sites like Pond5 for video and Alamy for stills appeal much more to me than Getty/istock who have treated contributors so badly over the years.
173
« on: August 18, 2017, 09:44 »
My AnySite income and downloads still continue to drop every month, despite uploading new files to AnySite on a regular basis.
I think that it is an actual trend and that I am not the only one
My sales are also better on AnySite other than iStock. iStock has become a complete waste of time for myself and most other people. The ones who are claiming they are seeing increasing sales on iStock is unusual. AnyOtherSite is definitely better.
So many of us have left istock now, I wouldn't be surprised if some people get more sales, as there's less competition. Hopefully just buyers using up their last credits before moving to other sites
174
« on: August 17, 2017, 06:34 »
We should all boycott agencies like iStock that don't respect us and our work. Both for videos and images.
I mean, 15% commission?!? Who are we, their slaves?
The more we support them with our files, the more people will buy from them.... And so we lose A LOT of money. If we sold the same files at the same price through Pond5, we'd get more than 3 times the money. So every sale we have on iStock means one less sale on other agencies where we would have earned a lot more.
I agree but we also have to accept that lots of people are happy with 15 % or perhaps even lower than that. I hope that buyers move away from Getty/istock because they make the real difference. The sites that pay us 50% should be telling buyers that Getty/istock will make this unsustainable for most contributors.
175
« on: August 17, 2017, 06:26 »
It wouldn't cost them any money if we could sell new images at the lowest rate. I would like that option.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 263
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
