|
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 - willie
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 28
126
« on: January 21, 2010, 12:31 »
My acceptance rate on FT is pretty good these days and better than 6 months ago.
Rejection reason "quality of image" at FT does not mean what photographers think that it means. It means they don't think the image is "commercial" enough ie they doubt it will sell.
I'm not sure but I think that rejection on the grounds of technical quality actually states that they found the 'technical quality' insufficient for FT.......usually followed with a whole list of things that could be wrong with the image eg blurry, out of focus etc.
one heart ... well spoken OM
127
« on: January 21, 2010, 12:16 »
Hi All, This is a bit of topic but we were talking about how tough it can be in this business. Every photographer that had images with Brand X that was purchased by Getty in the Jupiter take over received a letter from Getty yesterday. It said " We have realized a mistake in our book keeping and you have been receiving 30-40% from your Brand X photos since we took over their control. We were supposed to be paying you 20% so your next check from Getty will subtract the difference in the accounting error. If you do not get a check this month that is because you owe us more than we owe you. As soon as you have paid back the debt we will continue with your commissions at the standard 20%, Thank you " What about that, their mistake and we get to pay for it. I realize we did get more than we were supposed to but it was their mistake. I think the damage should be shared by both parties but Getty is not going to do that. Welcome to the lovely world of Macro.
Best,
Jonathan
I wasn't part of the BrandX issue but a similar thing happened. They mistakenly paid out a higher percentage but took it back on the next statement. Getty is different from micro. There's no community forum to voice your opinion. They make changes and you deal with it.
but at least the money you make there far surpasses even the most you can make in micro, right? and going back to Mr. Ross's comment on sharing the damage. i am not sure if this is business protocol. eg. if the bank machine had a glitch and deposited 1,000, 000 quid to your account. are you supposed to be entitled to keep 50% of it? it wasn't your mistake that you woke up and found you're a millionaire. so you hurriedly went out to get your Ferrari. now , the bank comes back and said it was a glitch. and you shake your head and exclaim, "oh shoot, i thought that was an inheritance from my dying uncle!"  btw, this "damage-share" would never wash with the taxman either. i had once a re-assessment on the 4th year. not even sure if they even charged me interest on the "over-refundement". P.S. apologies to click_click for the OT.
128
« on: January 21, 2010, 11:51 »
the approval of work with FT has been consistently on the up and up.
although initially, for months i had some shaky starts.
if you are getting rejections to your displeasure, i suggest you take a good look at those who are selling well, and see if you can find some insights.
i think it has a lot to do with subject matter . (of course , technical matter still prevails) .
failing that, i remember someone here giving no doubt the best advice when he said, "i don't care which Big 6 sells more for you or anyone. i only care which one approves of my work, and i sell it there".
you can either tailor make yourself to get approved, or you can go where which of the Big 6 appreciate your work and sell them too.
hope that helps.
129
« on: January 21, 2010, 11:41 »
Who really cares about portfolio exposure? That doesn't line my pockets. The more interesting statistic is downloads per image. That's what really tells you if you're doing a good job or not. You can have a million images in your port, but if they don't sell, you've failed. Or you can have a hundred that are popular sellers and do very nicely. My downloads per image stat is 4.1. How about you?
That's right, it's amazing to see the msg DT gauge a little up sometimes only because the user have 2000 pics... and 400 downloads. I don't see things like that at Istock often.
well spoken both. as my friend's little kids used to jokingly quote their father , "... aw callate already, show me the money, don't speak in the mic"  (translation: enough of the b s , just show me the cash"). oh btw , now that someone 's pointed out to me where to look for this stats, mine 's been 0 from day one. i guess sometimes ignorance is bliss
130
« on: January 20, 2010, 21:03 »
EDITED..
The good selection part is the fault of the contributors. If the site was cheapest and had a bunch of crap then buyers are getting what they're paying for.
The good selection part is the fault of the contributors. If the site was cheapest and had a bunch of crap then buyers are getting what they're paying for. amen . one heart again to PW
131
« on: January 20, 2010, 20:17 »
I don't think enough buyers are price sensitive to make this a big issue. Some of the sites with lower prices have struggled while those with higher prices are doing really well. That wouldn't be happening if enough buyers were looking for the cheapest prices.
or it could finally be sinking in with buyers that the ones with the lowest prices do not always have the best images. we already see a slight shift in some of the top sites both getting more strict and pickier to get new ideas and doing away with the same old same old, even to the wrath of some old top sellers. perharps there was a growing sense of complacency from the top sellers that they don't need to change with the changing demographics and the new decade. more so, trends change, and what was cool last ten years is now old hat or passe, or blase at worst, to a growing generation that has not been weaned on shopping where the cheap stuff is. lastly, i know i am for one saving the better images for where the price are higher and i am not going to placate to the sites that continue to plan on giving away my work. and i am sure i am not the only one thinking like this.
132
« on: January 20, 2010, 17:28 »
when i opted out, i expected some slowdown, but i also chose not to get excited to see lots of dls and so little money . so i'd rather wait and see one sale and more money per sales.
btw, just curious,sharpshot
was 50% of your income from subs?
133
« on: January 20, 2010, 17:20 »
not too worry mela, there is an easy instant solution. grab a mirror and .... presto... it's not 0.03 % it's now %30.0  (just kidding).
134
« on: January 20, 2010, 16:52 »
One of "liveness" signs for a site is review time. My photos are "under review" since 12/10...
Yep, I am taking time to review images. AND revising the old images our reviewers accepted earlier.
AND I am not going to accept images in "bulk".
AND we will not report 7 million images.
I am spending 30% of my time to develop and maintain the site, 40% - to work with old portfolios, 30% - to review.
Elena, that's really GOOD NEWS. looks like you're really wanting to do a general cleanup. you will certainly find me uploading to you again, if this is the direction you are taking. Best of luck to FPics. p.s. btw i have no plans to ask to delete my account. i was responding to those who were planning.
135
« on: January 20, 2010, 14:48 »
welcome here!
Yeah, well put Perseus - we WERE all newbies once. I should dig up that thread that had quotes from the big microstockers when they were just beginning. I only remember one of the quotes which was from Yuri asking how to keyword images 
edit:.. found it.
How do I apply keywords in photoshop?
Something about a file to add..
And how do I get these keywords added to the SS upload area?
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7911&highlight=#7911
and, in regards to total October sales (2005)
Seles are going great.
This month: 640 DL with 440 pics. NICE!
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=44475&highlight=#44475
no problem tyler, you owe me a pint of Guinness. also it's interesting to read those quotes from Yuri . i don't feel so bad now, still being an idiot at keywording ; at least i knew how to embed keywords in PS when i submitted my first submission
136
« on: January 20, 2010, 12:15 »
hey welcome all, we were all newbies once... pull up a chair and bring your own pint , as leaf does not supply any..  and remember... if you must fight, fight hard... but fight fair
137
« on: January 20, 2010, 12:08 »
my time with IS is so recent, i don't have historical anything but comparatively speaking extrapolating with the other of the Big 6 +3 for the similar period, my sales with IS is giving me better returns than any . and more money per dl . as i said i still have too little with IS to make an impression but so far it's optimistic.
138
« on: January 20, 2010, 11:01 »
Considering Elena's attitude in the past, should any of you decide to close your account before a payout, I am certain she would pay your earnings.
to conduct ourselves with professionalism is a two way street. i have but completely forgotten about Fpics, as i joined them when they first started, and left it unattended as i felt they were too new then and still needed to get their act together. but i also have to agree with Madelaide. even during those days when she had a whole new task and no doubt a much bigger burden on her hands , Elena had always taken the time to respond personally to my emails. and promptly too... and in the most professional and upright manner. i don't think Elena is such a petty person to take what little piddly pennies accumulated before payout and run away with it should i decide to delete my account. what would be the point? still, i have a few other sites that have accumulated piddly earnings too, and have not seen the point of deleting my accounts there. Elena is not like that. at least that's my impression of her. should i choose to delete my account, i would not discredit her unfairly and unjustified, without first at least writing her to ask (POLITELY).
139
« on: January 20, 2010, 10:49 »
that being said, you found them only because they were best sellers that you recognized. imagine how many other not so recognizable pilfered images out there not identified and still being sold as the thief's.
maybe some super genius can invent a tag similar to a GPS location tag for our images so we can embed them to our images before submitting them to stock sites. maybe this is for some of those super whippersnapping cyberpunks who pride themselves of how much of a cybersleuth they are in phishing ..... they could put their brains to something more useful like this ?
140
« on: January 20, 2010, 10:36 »
Hurray for Race!!! you know, i am not computer savvy to even locate my lost pint of Guinness, lol.. but it is times like these, ( contributors looking out for each other) ,that i truly feel that so long as there are thieves who think they can outsmart some of us, there is also always one mean kick-ar-e photographer/illustrator like Race, who will outsmart them and find them. very soon we will see a DC comic character named RAcePhoto who flies around, um sorry, race around in his super sportscar to rescue computer ignoramus like me, to seek and destroy these lowlives who not only have no talent to create their own work, but have the gull to be so proud of stealing other people hard work. why costume do you want DC comic to get you to wear, Mr. RacePhoto? you got my vote for Superhero for this month p.s. that being said, you found them only because they were best sellers that you recognized. imagine how many other not so recognizable pilfered images out there not identified and still being sold as the thief's.
141
« on: January 20, 2010, 10:22 »
Istock likes submissions to be noise free and silky smooth. Shutterstock likes sharpness and bolder saturation. The nondescript technical rejections at Fotolia have be baffled. Does anyone know what Fotolia's technical preferences are?
I'm not sure I recognise your description of SS and IS to be honest. The odd rejects that I get at either place are for the most part somewhat haphazard and unpredictable __ I wouldn't generally upload an image if I assessed it to be technically borderline without addressing the potential issue. But still occasionally they 'find' one.
I get the impression that FT are more commercially oriented and are actually assessing the history and sales of the submitter as much as the image itself. If they consider you to be proven as a time-served stock photographer, say with 5-10K of sales behind you, (and you don't have a tendency to upload multiple similars) then you'll get very few if any rejections for technical reasons.
i have to agree wholeheartedly (this time ) with gostwyck as far as his insightful response to you on FT. he took the words right out of my mouth... except for the part (proven sales of 5-10K behind you... that certainly does not apply to me, as both IS and FT are my most recent entry. but yes, i too feel FT has been really quite "predictably" consistent , and have been approving most of my work. except for the strange rejection i got during Xmas, which as i already said before elsewhere could have been due to temp reviewers , since the regulars do deserve their time off . i don't know who also pointed out that FT is placing themselves rather favorably to be a new equal to IS. funny, i actually feel all these past 5 months that FT and IS were actually thinking the same as far as reviewing goes. except that there are certain images that i think FT would lean towards taking , which i think has more to do with my guess that FT's buyer base is more EC than USA prodiminant. thus, the obvious preference to a certain genre, or perharps i should say, a certain "allure" that Euro publishers have traditional favored vs North Am more flashy ads. not sure if i described it well. it's way too early to think ( i haven't had my pint )..
142
« on: January 19, 2010, 13:54 »
in the 80's till the time i "half-retired" i had both Rolleiflexes.
SLX for its motodrive for fashion, sports,etc..
the old Rolleiflex SL66 for its bellows Schemplufg advantage.
prior to that i was only carrying the Zone VI view, but after i got the older Rolleflex SL66with Schempflug, i used this more than the view, for obvious reasons, you 're more mobile.
if i were still working with the pro store, where i could get tons of films at a discount, and perks to all that's film, equipment,etc...
i would forget about digital. with film you don't get the new problems that comes with digital medium. the only problem being RF (reciprocity failure), and grain (which is not really a problem in our days),etc..
which are less complicated to prevent that the new anal monsters (banding, noise, CA, fringe,etc).
i only went digital because it's cheaper for my wallet . but if money and cost were the issue, i would still shoot with film . except with film slowly going obsolete , your options for films will be a problem today.
p.s.
i still have the 4x5 slides and 6x6 and other medium format films in my archives of old print boxes. they're impeccable. i wish i could pull them out of storage to scan them for stock. but i don't have the cash to get a scanner that will do these gorgeous images justice. anyone who has shot or seen an 8by10 slide or even 4 by 5 or the lesser 6by6 will tell you that it'll be a long time before digital can match . yes, in this sense, those were the best old days.
143
« on: January 19, 2010, 13:24 »
3 wondering questions really: ya, i wonder alot over my pint of Guinness are these the only two that demand holding time and do not provide you with DELETE option? i know their reason is that buyers need time to decide. but if so, why do IS,etc still allow the DELETE option ? is it because IS and say StockXpert have more staunch contributors that won't simply delete after they submit? just wondering. also , is DT the only stock site (micro, mid,etc) that provides IMAGE EXCLUSIVE? wonder why no one else gives us that option. do you find DT EXCLUSIVE IMAGE really improve your dls ? i should expect so, or at least i thought they would be given priority in the search process. but there is no evidence to back this up. what's your experience on this? THX and have a great day !
144
« on: January 18, 2010, 22:23 »
It's one more reason to remove portfolios from cheap sites!
And one more reason to consider IS exclusivity.
well said Digital66, i suppose we can safely say in this case, microstock sites persistently pushing for subs are actually doing us a favour (cough cough) by making it a lot easier for us to decide which sites to remove our portfolio. except for the ones that have a "hold time" (eg BigStock 90 days... ) . this will certainly help us "spring clean" in prep for IS exclusivity.
145
« on: January 18, 2010, 21:47 »
EDITED FOR BREVITY
it takes tWo to fight and I was just as responsible if not more so for the disagreements that took place
you got that right too Jon. but it also take a bigger man to admit he flipped his lid . take care old fella
146
« on: January 18, 2010, 20:54 »
sorry it involves one of your own.
it looks like there are a couple of batches of a certain photographers, since many of the photos look rather similar . i wonder if those are the dude's own.
or perharps the dude (or duda) bought it with a sub and thought, "yea... ROYALTY FREE!!!"
147
« on: January 18, 2010, 20:48 »
Great service, but it does make clear why it is a terrible idea to put something into a premium collection on one site (an EVO example from 123rf is used by SpiderPic) and sell it at regular prices elsewhere.
Why on earth would a buyer pay $120 for an image when they can get it for 1/10th of that elsewhere.
It also points out the rotten deal selling large raster versions of a vector for $50 at ClipArtOf when the vector itself can be had for $15 at IS.
For image sizes up to L, the prices are more in line (excepting things like CanStock which is just way too cheap) but at XL and up, the contributor is not really getting that much more at the sites other than IS. From the buyer's point of view, going to FT, BigStock or StockXpert for an XXXL image would be a huge savings.
One more reason, if one were needed, not to put exclusive IS content on Photos.com/JIU or other partner sites for much less money...
as always good advice jsnover. so not giving micro any larger than 4MP was a good move for me , huh? i also wonder what some contributors were using as thinking caps for putting same size images that sell for XXcents and expect to sell the same for $XX . oh well, bad weed i suppose. thx again jsnover.
148
« on: January 18, 2010, 20:29 »
Come on guys, no need to argue about this.
having a difference of opinion is healthy. but let's agree to disagree, but let's also allow the other person to speak up without being clobbered on the head. btw, it's nice to see some of the old familiar names back out here again , although sadly another replay of the same unpleasant circumstance. i thought you guys have all but gone senile and / or left this world due to a cardiac arrest or CVA during your usual fit of tantrum just kidding. but really, chill guys, or else the CVA or cardiac arrest may in fact catch up on you. hate to read your obituary here like..."he kicked the bucket ... screaming his frigging head off, as usual. poor old sod won the battle but lost the war"  LIVE LONG AND PROSPER p.s. i'm not choosing sides, i like both Mr. Locke and Mr. Ross. and yes, i've metaphorically thrown valuable stout in their faces every once in a while too... and survived
149
« on: January 18, 2010, 20:15 »
afterthought:
i suppose the only thing to do, which i am doing in 2010, is to give the generic stuff to micro, and go a little for niche to specialized images and increase my port in RM.
and not even care if there is a horde of new ppl to fill the void or not.
but that's my project for this new year.
i suppose it's easy for me, as i am not dependent on micro stock.
but i sure would like to hear from those who have been .
150
« on: January 18, 2010, 19:59 »
i think it's not alarmist, but inevitable.
no matter what business experience you 've had, the only thing that has prevailed is that prices salaries,etc keep falling while shareholders, CEOs ,perks of the top brass continue to sky rocket.
getting closer to photography, it's been like that too since the 80's.
blame it on globalization, low cost of equipment, erasing the invisible line between amateurs, dabblers and professionals.
i remember pros complaining to me in the early 90's when i was working with the best in the business. i need not elaborate on it, if you were a photo correspondent, wedding photographer, or whatever, you know .
as for moving your port out of the sites that seem to perpetually drop your earning baseline, i don't even know if this would change things.
what's the percentage ratio of top earners like Yuri,SJLocke,...(enter your name here)... etc to the rest who "haven't a clue about photography" before they got into micro stock?
i am not sure, can anyone make an educated guess?
so, say Yuri,Sean,Avava, etc..quit en masse contributing to any of the Big 6 +_3 that sells pictures for peanuts. these sites will still have new contributors to fill the void.
and the sites know that.
p.s.
oops, sorry, i should not include SJLocke because he is exclusive with IS and there one can opt out on peanuts and 3rd party etc.
you know what i mean anyway. and yes, i welcome Mr Locke's and other exclusives to comment on this as well, as the thread is about microstock in general
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 28
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
