|
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 ... 28
26
« on: March 26, 2010, 12:39 »
DT was slow and lackassed last year for me, but this year it's really doing well for me.
no, not enough to make me jump for joy to run naked in the streets, (no micro does that for me, lol)..
but it performs best of all. even IS and FT is slow compared to DT .
the only one site that was better than DT was StockXpert before Getty killed it.
for IS, i assume it 's because i cannot upload fast enough to get my portfolio size to be as large as DT to make it as good performing as DT today. esp. for now , the review time is back to slow and lackassed, after having one miraculous week of super fast review at IS earlier this month.
27
« on: March 25, 2010, 15:30 »
slightly OT. you know, I find it interesting to note that IS, as inflexible and strict as many people like to make known, is the only site that has an appeal mechanism (Scout). all the other "friendlier" sites have a hands-off rejections approach , with Support always saying they really don't get involved with questioning reviewers . also, as already stated , IS is also the only one who allows opt out choice on subscription. seems like IS is the most democratic. ,maybe it's because it's Canadian 
28
« on: March 24, 2010, 19:05 »
No it doesn't. I've had my queue full for a couple of months and never saw any faster review times.
About my previous post: looks like it was just a few batches of images that got reviewed faster, now non-exclusive files have much lower ids.
good to know. thx lostone. so it was just a once in a blue moon thing that i had a super fast review and approval of my last batch of 15. now i guess it 's back to old snail. so i won't worry to hurry and give them 15 then.
29
« on: March 24, 2010, 18:39 »
i enjoy doing dynamic range photography . and also play alot with the shad/hi in PS for non hdr images. but i would never submit these images to IS. that would be suicidal. as you're sure to get a barrel of rejections due to overprocessed. otoh, i would send the busload of them to SS who crave these sort of over saturation. one caution though. if you 're doing people, i would stay away from ext dyn. not unless you're the type who prefer red shadows 
30
« on: March 24, 2010, 17:34 »
i think the short review time happened because IS was going to do some maintenance, so they rushed to review the backlog.
at least that's what happened to my last batches. it was almost overnight approval.
so fast, i almost thought i did something wrong. lol.
but now it's back to the usual week or two.
or maybe it was due to me having full 15 images on queque for that week. something i never did before.
does anyone know if filling up the queque to have full 15 images on queque actually quickens your review time?
31
« on: March 24, 2010, 14:12 »
32
« on: March 24, 2010, 14:08 »
Great stuff there. Love the ideas and the post work.
Nice looking stuff, although on close examination, some look a little rough in the comp. On close examination you can find noise, banding, artifacting on some of them. Looks like inspectors made an exception due do the great ideas presented.
are you sure those are noise, banding, artifacts, etc.. nawww, you can't be serious. a reviewer would never let that go through. not even a speck of "lens flare" gets past them. I think it was a real smart move on her part to put it on istock. Just with the exposure alone, im betting she will be getting contacted for plenty of commissioned works. I myself have been contact many times on my vector illustrations for various projects so istock is a great portfolio for future business. I think its overkill for microstock and even vetta if you have in mind to create for the microstock market but she has created all these images before submitting to microstock i think.
yes, i agree. not everyone submits non-micro work just to expects a download. there are other ripple down benefits. ie. as you mentioned exposure to gain commissioned works.
except, i am not sure if this is permissible. don't all sites say you are not allowed to deal privately with buyers should they contact you via the agency? or, building a portfolio in micro, for future sake. should the main market dry up. you now have a truckload of work with IS. capiche !
33
« on: March 24, 2010, 13:13 »
What you can do legally, if someone sells a yellow tractor, or purple bar of chocolate, is sue them on the basis that they are IMPERSONATING your company, in order to make a sale. And by the way these law suits almost never win because it's extremely hard to prove.
Really, they almost never win?
http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bt/int/20071018/20071018_wham-o.html
Following a seven-day trial, Slip 'N Slide manufacturer Wham-O Inc. has won a $6 million jury verdict that found that rival ToyQuest willfully infringed its federally registered trademark for the color yellow for water slides.
http://www.colormatters.com/color_trademark.html
A federal district court ruled in favor of Dap and granted protection to their red packaging.
http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/news-announcements/60683-mlb-properties-settles-trademark-lawsuit-upper-deck.html
Upper Deck agreed it will not make any new sets of cards using MLB logos, uniforms, trade dress, or Club color combinations.
i still don't understand why any photographer would risk all the consequeces just for a few pennies for a dl. it isn't that you don't have anything else to shoot. oh, or is it because they think they found a "niche" because there is no one who has uploaded those images? well, the reason why they didn't is just that, the established stock photographers like Sean,etc.. know better than to risk receiving a Cease and Desist order. once, someone did erroneously stated here that it is not the contributor's responsibility , but the buyer. so you can risk anything . but i am not sure about that too. as if i am not mistaken, in the agreement it is us the contributor who gets the boots everytime. IS rejected several of my work based on "risk of IP infringement". i am actually not as informed as i should be. for that, i have since increased my priority to IS since i feel the reviewer is more informed and it sort of makes me feel more comfortable . i'd sooner accept the rejection than get an approval then rush back to delete the image after finding out i could be in deep sh*t . still, i do see other sites with these images , some even on their front page. this makes me squirm for being a contributor there. would you not? exit stage left... really quick. including deleting all my images with them, little by little. esp. if their sales is almost non existent. no wonder !
34
« on: March 24, 2010, 12:55 »
i am not even sure if a microstock contributor revolution is going to change anything. subs is here to stay, and trickle down business is getting worst. does anybody want to replay Les Miserables and be the leader of the revolution? Yuri? Sjlocke? any one?  man proposes (contributors) , "gods" (stock agencies ) dispose...
35
« on: March 24, 2010, 12:49 »
This discussion is pointless. You cannot argue with facts:
1. Agencies already got enough images so they do not really need new supply
2. There are more suppliers everyday so they also do not care if you stay there or not there are hundreds who can take your place if you quit
3. It's no longer true that you can grow from nothing to something and earn money at they same time. Now you have to start from something and keep growing but there is no guarantee that you actually earn enough to justify time spent.
4. Better make sure you got some other source of income to pay your bills. For pros it would be place to sell their leftovers. Amateurs will have to change to pros or die here. Anyway times where you can have full time income from this are over.
5. If it's not your major source of income just face the facts, relax cause rejections across the board will rise. You need to improve your skills rather than spent time ranting :-)
That's all true of course, but it doesn't mean things can't change. Ok maybe the big 4 can no longer change, but new sites could do things better, and I expect they will in time.
Wait - did I just say something optimisitic? Someone please tell my wife... 
oh come on Stockastic, my old friend, don't make me laugh. can you believe what you say yourself? lol.. new sites could do things better, and I expect they will in time.like how? - pay you to upload xxx images -promise bigger commissions -approve everything you send -put garbage images (over exposed, flare,etc) on front page but reject much better images saying "lighting restricts stock sale potential" - and oh, before my oldsenile pensioner's mind forgets, shut down the site after two , three years, and then say "not to worry, we 're starting a new site" etc etc etc.. you make me laugh, friend !
36
« on: March 23, 2010, 18:28 »
Who was that guy? He took an extremely famous photograph of a starving African baby on a barren landscape, with a Vulture in the background, that looked HUGE compared to the baby, and it was like it was waiting for the baby to die..
Anyway apparently he took the photo home, but when people asked him how he as a human, felt about watching a baby in that position, he said he had only been thinking of how to make it a better shot, and he said he knew it would be a better shot if the vulture would open it's wings, which it didn't.. he later committed suicide a few years on, after scooping the Pulitzer prize, but he had said to friends that the whole thing haunted him, he just couldn't cope with it in the end.. very sad story but it did make me realise where that line is..
interesting anecdote, hqimages. in some cultures, it is indeed a curse to photograph suffering. with other cultures, it is a belief that you rob someone's soul,aura, etc.. whatever they call it. and yet in other cultures, they are said to put a hex or curse on you if you take their photographs. so really, when it comes to shoot or not shoot, i'd give them the benefit of the doubt. i'd sooner take photographs of people having fun.
37
« on: March 23, 2010, 18:13 »
EDITED
Nobody knows what is in this "secret sauce". Maybe you need to write nice comments on a forum to get highest ranks in search results. IMHO search results should be sortable by any meta data and statistics.
hmm, that's a thought worth investigating. maybe i am wasting my time writing threads here when i can placate to the sites writing blogs there to improve my ranking in search . i really must try that. thx mela for the idea. you may have just found the secret formula .
38
« on: March 23, 2010, 18:02 »
Very Interesting
39
« on: March 23, 2010, 17:21 »
perharps this would be an indication that the CEOs of some micros are now wishing they didn't bring subs into their options.
it's no wonder some sites are just accepting literally garbage to fill the vacuum left by contributors who had reduced their uploads as a protest to not being able to opt out on subs... and giving their images to IS since they still provide contributors with that flexibility.
40
« on: March 23, 2010, 17:05 »
golden fish , mela? is that something like the magic genie? i can see that the silence is defeaning. all believing that even making a wish list is an act of futility. shame. to be silenced and be a fawn. amazing what "talented professions" will do to for a handful of pennies
41
« on: March 23, 2010, 08:59 »
no one site is perfect. but we can all make wish lists to see that site becomes your ideal site and perfect site. what changes would you wish most for that certain site? i start .. Site 4 - i wish to see an opt in / opt out for subs Site 7 - i wish to see a delete/disable image option Site 2 - i wish to see exclusive image option for those who cannot choose exclusive contributor at this time ( I think you all know which one for this). Site x - i wish no more new sites appear as they really do nothing but approve all (or reject most ) images , promise bigger commissions and sell nada (or close shop after two years, and /or restart another one under a diff monicker). the names of the site have been withheld to protect the guilty p.s. i wanted to make a poll but this old senile senior citizen does not know how. perharps someone else will do it for me, and i will gladly delete this thread.
42
« on: March 23, 2010, 08:19 »
dp 
43
« on: March 22, 2010, 18:59 »
finally get a reply and it's a stupid email from istock asking me to reconsider and asking me to include my port on thinkstock
hmmm...that's pretty interesting
i am not surprised. it is always better to try to keep an exisiting contributor or client, no matter what the situation. if Support simply shrug and say , "buf good riddance!" . consider the consequence if you delete 50 accounts of StockXpert contributors. i am sure there would be an impact to your inventory, even if some are non performing. no matter what, it's better to have a happy camper than one who will move on to say " i quit those ppl " !
44
« on: March 22, 2010, 18:49 »
No, I just think they tolerate it with exclusives doing it but aren't prepared to increase the queues even more (or pay more inspectors) to do it for independents. They should have some benefits since they've put all eggs in one basket.
Besides maybe major offenders might get some kind of a warning about spamming?
ah, fair enough ! of course!.. i don't contend with that reasoning. honorary badge of merit to higher tolerance for rubbish in return fortheir putting all their eggs in one basket. sounds fair . cheers for the quick clarify
45
« on: March 22, 2010, 18:42 »
I contacted them via Contact us link but only got a response that it is a different department that does reviewing. I then asked if they could give me a contact of the reviewing department and they said they couldn't. I stopped at that point. If buyers really want my images they can find them on other sites.
Good point
46
« on: March 22, 2010, 18:20 »
This is true to some extent but think about how many people would just spam the keywords until they had 50 and let the reviewers decides which are valid. That would take a lot more time and it would take even longer for images to get accepted.
not sure if i understand your gist to this argument. are you implying that no IS exclusive would "just spam the keywords" but all independents would be prone ? that is why IS exclusives get this benefit and the independents don't? why is this? do you think that exclusives are created differently ? or that independents are mental midgets?
47
« on: March 22, 2010, 16:00 »
48
« on: March 22, 2010, 15:52 »
Put another way, iStock exclusive don't get rejections for bad/inappropriate keywords - the offending keywords are removed for them.
I think that should be natural thing to do for everybody. It should take same amount of time (human or cpu time) to remove offending keywords. They must to do it anyway to generate email. I would gladly agree to make it happen by running a script. I got a feeling that in many case it's just an excuse to reject without give valid technical reason.
good point mela. the reviewer actually waste more energy writing the rejection email asking us to remove the offending keyword(s) or / and category. then we waste another email to them, giving Support or the reviewer another job, which then , in most cases, gets the images approved subsequently. by this time, two, three, four weeks have past ... and the loser would be the contributor, the buyer, and Getty .. for potential sale delayed. maybe some CEO at IStock can explain how this builds goodwill between independent contributors or make a reviewer look "good"... or maybe the reviewer gets paid twice? not sure !!! i am sure this is the work of only certain reviewers at IS. at most times i get the appreciative reviewers who approve my work. but 20% of the time, i do get this "pig" who just loves to aggravate the issue
49
« on: March 22, 2010, 14:54 »
my first "break" in journalism was in fact an accident.
i had at that time just bought the latest SLR by Olympus (... OM2 .. lol, ya a long time ago).. and was driving home from the store when i drove into a traffic jam where the accident occured. i parked my car, grab the camera out of the box, load my camera with a roll from my emergency ilford film carton that i always carry in my glove compartment, shot every single move of the ambulance and paramedic , plus the wreck from every vantage point. then i drove off.
as i was driving off, the local reporter saw me and we stopped to chat a bit .
later i got a call from him asking me to sell him the roll as he was late to the scene.
i told him forget it. i don't sell to no one, esp some hotshot from the papers, lol.
i made an enemy in the local press, but i got a contract from their competitor when that photographer mouthed off about me at the press canteen. lol.
but no, i did not sell those photos. i felt it was too tragic after viewing the shots.
i wouldn't want the parents or relative of that driver seeing them. they already suffered once , no point in making them relive the horror.
but that's my own reason for not selling nor wanting to shoot suicide, accidents, etc... i decided to be a photo correspondent covering everything except that.
50
« on: March 22, 2010, 14:35 »
Why on earth would you keyword minimally? Proper and adequate keywording is one of the cornerstones in getting good exposure - you are literally selling yourself short by spending a trivial amount of time with keywords. I leave out most concepts (unless it's the focus) or emotions. Those are the ones that reviewers mostly reject. It's better to have it accepted with sparse keywords than not have it accepted at all.
there i have to agree with FDamateur. of the times i get nabbed by IS reviewer for irrelevant keywords, there were all conceptual which are accepted by the other top 4. nowadays, i simply leave out the conceptual and / or emotions too. sure, i sell myself short for leaving out those keywords. but if i do and get a rejection, needing to resubmit would push my image to be delayed yet another 2-3 weeks. so i play it safe now to get them approved first time.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 28
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
