|
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 - tdoes
76
« on: August 10, 2009, 07:26 »
 Just had this one rejected because they didn't like the quality. I wouldn't bother with that site if I didn't get sales there! I just wish their reviews where consistent! I've had much less stock worthy files approved by them. Noticed that their forum isn't active today.
77
« on: July 27, 2009, 11:07 »
I have read about several Artists and Photographers creating a gallery collection and for most it seems to be a loss leader, it actually costs more than they make.
Did you ask as a collective how many prints they have sold during the exhibition, what it cost to put on the show, how much each print cost to prepare as these type of prints can cost a couple of hundred each to supply for an exhibition.
Lets look at the $400 and say if the gallery was working on comission only then the gallery take 40% - 50%, you cannot knock these out on your InkJet they should be done by a specialist company that is part of the unique experience, so the cost of the Gicle Printing, mounting and delivery around $60 - $100 a print, so the Photographer might get 25% - 40% of the sale, remember that the photographer spent time and money perparing the original prints for the show and more time at the gallery, so overall likely lost money rather than made any.
The key to the business is return on investment, there is a big investment in gallery images for often a small return, just like stock.
Just as a guide a 20ins x 14ins (508mm x 356mm) Canvas Gicle Print on 45mm Stretchers (Image Gallery Wrapped) is 73 just over $100, if you were showing 5 prints then you have an initial cost of $500 plus any other charges to exhibit, at $400 a print with a gallery comission only show taking 50%, it would take 3 sales just to break even on basic material costs.
David 
You summed it up nicely!
78
« on: June 24, 2009, 07:41 »
I actually passed one of the $100s I printed to some dumb drunk guy at a bar. Got a $75 and a $25 bill as change.
That's funny! Who got who! LOL
79
« on: June 15, 2009, 12:31 »
Why not opt-in on IS after this!?
Can somebody explain...
Their subscription pay out will be the lowest in the industry coming from the most powerful company in the industry. This will become a larger problem if most contributors opt into that deal because the competitor sites will take notice and most likely lower their payouts. Losing situation for the contributors.
80
« on: June 15, 2009, 12:23 »
I was opted in at StockXpert but I still won't opt into IS's deal!
81
« on: May 28, 2009, 13:20 »
Taxes are a pain in the AZZZ! I'm a US citizen and don't understand why non-US citizen submitters need to be taxed by my country. It should be set up this way. Shutterstock pays taxes on money made off of submitters and submitters pay taxes to their country on money paid to them from Shutterstock. Maybe this is just too fair!! 
82
« on: March 24, 2009, 13:56 »
Fotolia's rejections are still hard to explain but their buyers keep me uploading there. Just wish I could get more accepted then I'd really clean up!
83
« on: March 12, 2009, 10:54 »
Wondered the same thing!
84
« on: March 09, 2009, 07:29 »
I made 2 files, sold them 4 times and earned $21,27. I think it's worth it.
It just seems to me that an awful lot more effort must go into creating a sound clip - like yours - than an image and yet I'm not sure their prices would make that much more money.
Also, would hate to put something up there, get $20 for a dl and then here it as a big hit or movie or TV show theme.
At this point I've got a lot more equipment and software than talent but it does sound like fun.
I have a track that is about ready but it includes another musician (a real one) any idea if iStockaudio will allow a joint piece/copyright?
Thanks
fred
Since Istock doesn't want you to submit music if your a member of a recording rights association like ASCAP or BMI, then they probably aren't looking to share the copyrights! If you have some music that you think would be commercially successful then I wouldn't post it on Istock!
85
« on: February 23, 2009, 14:23 »
My payout request took only two days to have it in my bank account! Never happened this fast before! Let's hope it continues.
86
« on: December 15, 2008, 14:55 »
I'm only going to remove and re-submit some images to Fotolia where I used keyword phrases and _ to represent spaces in vrs1 because this format no longer works in vrs2's search engine. This is approx. 1/2 my portfolio that is affected!  I would caution anyone about deleting images that no longer fit your higher standards because the buyers at this site still download ugly images!
87
« on: December 15, 2008, 14:46 »
JIU will bring in sales!
88
« on: November 20, 2008, 09:27 »
The rejection rate may change for the better! I say this because Fotolia used to be alot more lenient when another agency was overly picky. Now the other agency has tamed its review process for the better and Fotolia is now hard to figure out!
89
« on: November 19, 2008, 08:04 »
Another thing to consider is since some agencies search engines don't recognize keyword phrases that alot of people, myself included, break up keyword phrases as single words and have the keywords saved in the images IPTC setup. Hence 2009 was probably part of a keyword phrase like "New Years Eve Fireworks 2009". That's my theory!
90
« on: November 03, 2008, 11:45 »
I got one and mentioned that I would like images (especially vectors) to be indexed based on their approval date and not the submittion date to keep images from being buried too deeply!
91
« on: October 28, 2008, 07:08 »
I think everyone would be better served by deleting images with 0 or few sales over a given length of time. That could be done via software. A poor image is a poor image when judged by dollars spent. Don't need an army of inspectors either. Wise retailers would never have a poor selling item taking up shelf space. So why do our sites keep adding to the clutter?
This would be a good option ONLY when the search engine at Fotolia functions on par with the other sites. Too many images aren't easily found there now!
92
« on: September 08, 2008, 11:04 »
I agree that this would be an excellent solution! It's all about the quality of the search engine and the results. Spam is an issue here - and getting rid of irrelevant search results is important - but not the total size of the collection.
You want a wide variety of relevant options and plenty of ways to slice and dice the results - perhaps, in addition to age and dowloads, buyers should be able to search by "hot this month" (lots of downloads in the last month), "oldies but goodies" (lots of downloads, but none in the last 3-6 months), "hidden treasures" (files with at least one download but fewer than 25). Search refinements based on image picks - more like this (selecting one image as the sample), or zap any like this (excluding based on a sample).
I'd like to see CoolIris (PicLens) or one of the several visual image browser startups that have very interesting interfaces for sorting through huge piles of images integrated into the major stock sites. I think if you did these kinds of things and keep your acceptance standards high, it doesn't matter how big the collection grows.
93
« on: August 26, 2008, 19:54 »
Why not use the pen tool in Photoshop and trace the images on another layer. This will result in a editable and useable image.
94
« on: August 21, 2008, 18:43 »
Finally got some OD downloads on the 19th & 20th of this month.
How cool would it be to contribute to a site that gets you constant OD downloads while being the only site where subscription downloads pay significantly!
95
« on: July 18, 2008, 08:24 »
What's consistent about Fotolias revue process is the inconsistancy of the results! 
96
« on: June 05, 2008, 10:39 »
Even though my downloads there are consistent (especially with the large files!), I am gonna stop uploading new images there as well. I do understand how Subscription Plans are attractive to companies that have a need for vast quanities of images to download but I don't like Fotolia's Subscription policy. I'll see how this plays out before I upload anymore!
97
« on: June 05, 2008, 08:30 »
Cool idea!
98
« on: May 30, 2008, 12:38 »
Why can't a credit based subscription be offered? A plan were you pay for so many credits to download images that are priced by the size. This would be fair and Fotolia would still generate alot of business!
how do you imagine that?
600 credits for 200$ ?
than FT must pay to photographer 300$, where is the profit for them? LOL!
Who said that would be the price? The concept is not far fetched for a rate to be established! After all they aren't going broke with the pay per download model!
99
« on: May 30, 2008, 10:55 »
Why can't a credit based subscription be offered? A plan were you pay for so many credits to download images that are priced by the size. This would be fair and Fotolia would still generate alot of business!
100
« on: May 30, 2008, 10:35 »
No start date, but we get from 23 to 30 credits per sale depending on rank - are they kidding?
Shutterstock goes from 25 to 38 cents based on rank and they're (a) not offering different prices based on image size and (b) offering lower royalties than just about anyone else out there.
No opt out except for exclusive images (which I don't have any of).
I'm not a happy camper about this.
I agree! You shouldn't have to be exclusive to opt out of the subscription package. Fotolia was doing fine enough for me (2nd best earner with lots of large image sales) and it enabled me to offer my photos under a different plan. 23 cents? Come-on! They have to prove they can generate a much larger buying clientle for me not to see a reduction in earnings!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
