|
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 - puravida
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13
51
« on: July 29, 2009, 10:49 »
for the handful of us whose portfolio was left in limbo, it really doesn't matter if the site lives or dies. we have already given up on not seeing our pay out which is almost but not quite there.
maybe if Getty killed StockXpert, we could indeed get paid, instead of deleting our account.
so i think either ways, it 's no big deal to us.
52
« on: July 28, 2009, 17:00 »
the point that OP and others have been making is that veer rejects images that the big 5 accept [and sell], yet they don't have the courtesy to give a decent review -- "not suitable for stock" is BS - my application was rejected without any meaningfull comments - and they expect i'll just send them another set w/o knowing what they're looking for? i dont have time for guessing games with an unproven nano-stock site
i'm willing to try new sites, and will give them awhile t meet their claims; i still have portfolios at cut, most,panther, albumo, tho none of them have sold much; i still upl to yay since the submission is easy, again, even tho sales are slow.
but it's nt worth spending a lot of time uploading when there are batch rejections. i've stopped upl to FT for that reason, and 123 has been getting there
s
cascoly sorry, i have to disagree on 3 counts in the first place, Veer is NOT an unproven nano-stock site. in the second place, you just said you stopped upl to FT for the same reason. so maybe you should ditch the ego and start looking for valid reasons to the rejections. finally, even if Veer is unproven nano-stock site as you incorrectly call them, i would prefer a new and unproven site to be strict so that they can indeed produce sales , rather than have them give every tom , dick and harry 100% approval like all the previous new sites. after all, it's sales we are looking for, not 100% approval.
53
« on: July 28, 2009, 16:50 »
wow seriously gostwyck, sean,
jonathan, i would not be writing a polite "thanks but no thanks " note, i would instead award that unfortunate person with an honourary mention for persistence .
unbelievable.
54
« on: July 28, 2009, 15:11 »
There's a couple of people who have like 12,000 portraits up, and no sales. I'm amazed they can spend the time doing it.
surely you're pulling our legs huh ? Sean? if I had even 1k images and no sales, I would 've packed it in. never mind 12k. um, you are serious, aren't you ?... 
55
« on: July 28, 2009, 00:05 »
Sounds like Atilla has got a job at Veer. 
Maybe Clivia is right. 
56
« on: July 27, 2009, 23:59 »
57
« on: July 27, 2009, 21:39 »
Fotolia Members Get it All with Premium Subscription Plan
NEW YORK, NY, July 27, 2009 – When a membership of over one million speaks; Fotolia listens.
Ben Dover Translation: Fotolia are idiots... 
naw Sean, you're pointing in the wrong direction (idiots)... not Fotolia. they're not the ones taken , we're the idiots. 
58
« on: July 27, 2009, 20:49 »
hey, cool, and so awesome to see this discussion growing more and more insightful.
i realise that there is a sector of closed minds as well as the other that sees this as an option.
we can debate all we want until the cows come home, and neither side will change their opinions. which is all fine with me, as discussion is healthy.
touching base on the side of the gallery photographers. here' s another part which came about with , like phil, chatting with them.
we discussed the promise of stock photography. i even exclaim how a good stock photographer would be able to make $135K a year. and at level best, at least 25K annually.
naturally , it would profit me (ulterior motives, yes), to get some of these photographers to join stock as my affliates.
now, here's the irony. not one , to date, has taken on this "bait and switch".
yes, they have heard about SS, IS, DT, etc.. but no, they are not interested in trying out micro stock.
"even if you could end up making lots more than selling prints locally?", i asked.
"even if I could end up making lots more than selling prints locally. " was the answer i got.
conclusion:
not everyone thinks there's a pot of gold at the end of this rainbow.
hey, thx all for the participaction. so wonderful to hear from all of you.
59
« on: July 27, 2009, 12:14 »
@puravida
As a matter of interest what was the $400 print size, mounting and image content?
David
the latest gallery prints are filled with variety . everything from architectural with emphasis on texture and design, people from travels, arctic scenery,etc.. not very different from the "artistic" side of micro. lately too, the local reviews, tabloids, niche papers,etc.. have been coming with reprints of $5, $10, $20 each of "events photographs" that would be considered "snapshots" and poor ones too , for all that matters. beauty to it all, no MR or IPR whatsoever , even though one would think most of those "editorials" are now considered commercial when you charge for reprints. the point being, people will pay if they don't know where else they could get better images for less. on the other side of the coin, our new micro sites' are having marketing departments are neglecting the other side, ie. there is a section of the public who will pay more. only they just don't know where to look for these images that micro sites possess. somewhere between the two extremes, i think is the solution to giving contributors the credit they are due, long overdue. we have some sites with a great vision, but poor marketing to tap an untapped source of buyers. simply because they have been looking at the wrong section of the economy. ie. the same traditional section that usually buy stock photos, which now no longer intends to pay for anything that fulfills the contributors' expectation to get just and fair commissions. it's time the marketing dept of these new sites with sincere vision of a win win solution with mutual interest to look elsewhere ie. the market that looks to buy gallery prints and is willing to pay for them. The proverbial well has run dry. They have to look elsewhere with their divining rod to dig for a new well. and hopefully, when these new sites are successful in tapping this new "old market", they don't turn around and throw us a curve ball with another version of subs, and over saturate this new untapped old marketplace.
60
« on: July 27, 2009, 10:05 »
...
maybe perharps, I am a bit over obsessive with looking for the bandings, subtle fringe, CA, pincushion, barrel,etc.. When we pose that to the layman, they look at us strangely like... "what are you talking about? "
lol Perseus, i did that one summer at a gallery exhibition ,actually! i casually stood behind a bunch of people with my free champagne and truffles (the main reason i attend them , ha!ha) and nonchalantly said, "my goodness, this would not be approved in the stock agencies i work for. look at the noise in the sky, and that edge vignette... , that... ,that... blah blah blah " i got the reaction which mostly one gets if one walked into an "only smoking, please " function dressed in hawaiian (crazy foreigner) tshirt , straw-hat and flip flops. P.S. btw, good points all ! thanks for your responses ! always good to hear from y'all
61
« on: July 26, 2009, 21:22 »
I just came home from my local gallery where a co-op of photographers run their own gallery. While I was there, I chatted with this week's exhibitor about her experience as an artist, and my own as a stock photographer. And the end of a long and insightful exchange of our own experience, and our common aspiration ie. passion in photography, we were interrupted by a couple who asked the exhibitor if they could see her on one of her exhibits. As I was browsing around in the meantime, I overheard the couple arranging to buy one of her exhibits. Not the original one on the wall, but a copy . Priced - $400 .
As I left , I couldn't help asking the exhibitor why a buyer would pay her $400, while another buyer would pay us "stock photographer" 30 cents. Her insightful response was , "I suppose because they (the couple) know I won't be selling it for less than 400 dollars, and the buyer of your stock photos know that they can buy it for much less.".
This profound answer made me think about our "career" as stock photographers.
We have heard that during this recession, no one has the money to pay us the highest price of stock photography. Yet, someone just paid this lady $400 for her photograph. There is a recession here in my city as well, and the couple I am sure is not an alien who is immuned to the recession.
I suppose she is right. Why would anyone want NOT to pay $400 for our photograph? When they know we will sell it for 30 cents.
Something to think about, the next time we call ourselves proudly "stock photographers".
62
« on: July 25, 2009, 14:57 »
i agree with cclapper.
repeat: if all the sites rejected my images, i start to look hard at my submissions.
but if only this one site rejected them , then i say it's atilla and or relative . i would not lose any sleep on it.
if second time, the next batch images are approved by the other sites and still got rejected again by the same site, i will stop uploading to that site for a bit. since this is summer in most places, i would assume atilla found a summer job . and wait till summer is over to resubmit the same images to that site with the rogue reviewer.
63
« on: July 25, 2009, 14:51 »
I've seen plenty of times images accepted by StockXpert but then rejected by IS or DT, but never the other way around, and that's what I'm having a problem understanding.
You have a point, it's always been StockXpert easy on reviews, not the other way around. But now, me too, images all approved everywhere else mass rejection on StockXpert. I amthinking maybe StockXpert is now being used as the bad boy in the IS relationship to get more people to move to IS from StockXpert. I am even more convinced when I see images on IS that would traditionally be rejected , that is now even being on featured lightboxes. Not just selective focus, but really out of focus, bad macro , really.. really bad depth of field, and outrageously bad still life. Like, horrible composition, and worse, terrible choice of objects. Maybe to have them get past a reviewer is sometimes expected. But to get it featured as lightbox of the week. Now, that's something you expect from StockXpert, NEVER IS. So my guess is Getty wants us to get our stuff to IS, and forget about StockXpert.
64
« on: July 23, 2009, 17:53 »
I just had the same problem right now... Microsoft changed the delete history in the last update, now all is disfunctional. "How to change things who are working properly for something more disfunctional" - Microsoft
That's what happen when you leave the developement business to bored nerdz
i think it's called "built-in obsolescence". It's to keep the IT dept employed. What would it be if we all stop needing to update every other day? Our whole life on the web would change. Much like our real life if our politicians suddenly decided to stop making lots of symbolic changes that really serves society nought.
65
« on: July 23, 2009, 08:14 »
I really think subs are the explanation, because I opted-in when they started and I didn't notice any negative trend. The site looks stronger than ever to me, now that getty bought them
I do believe that subs must be the reason why people complain. Because really, my last 3 months are my best 3 months!
and no new uploads if you are wondering!
i think it's half of the dozen and half of the other: a) getty wants to get more of us at StockXpert to move to IS , as they mentioned . so , a slow "kill-bill" nicely and quietly, so as not to get the buyers pissed off. b) those who opted in, then opted out, are getting the shaft. but, from seeing some of your responses here, there is still some lucky ones who are getting dls, so it's a bit of a mystery why some are still seeing the light at the end of a tunnel as sunshine, while for the rest of us it's an oncoming train ,,,head-on collision !
66
« on: July 22, 2009, 14:38 »
Anyone else having a murderous time trying to get paid by StockXpert lately? They used to pay out regular as clockwork. The site still says 3 days, but the last time I got paid it took over a week and only came after I contacted support to find out what was up.
Now it's been over a week again since requesting a payout and letter to support was not responded to this time.
It's really so sad. This site is still a good performer, but Getty seem to have written them off. Now apparently they don't even have the staff necessary to keep up with payouts?
what is going on over there
I agree PB, StockXpert used to be such a good site . Now I am not so sure anymore.
Perharps Stockxpert is like the step child of a new marriage between divorced parents. Once a favourite child now completely left out in the cold.
Poor baby, I miss those days when Stockxpert was so vibrant and the reviews were so there.
Now, it seems like nowhere , man !
What a way to kill a good site ! Pity !
tan, this is no Brady Bunch for sure ! it's as someone once call them, a dysfunctional family ! i wish Getty would let us know once and for all, kill StockXpert or revive it ! * , get it over once and for all !
67
« on: July 22, 2009, 14:28 »
My sales have dried up for months after the best performance earlier this year. I am almost reaching payout ; close but no cigar. I am wondering if I ask to delete my account , would they pay me what's been cumulative even though I have about 10 bucks left for payout.
I don't even think I would reach payout at this rate as there has been no sales for 3 months already. Like they abandoned me for dead.
Any suggestions?
Sorry to hear your situation Puravida.
I seriously doubt they will pay you before you reach payout level. Most of the sites have language in their TOS that states if you cancel your account before reaching payout level you forfeit the money.
I would hang in there and pray for that extra $10.
thx pixelbytes, it would take a great miracle for me to reach payout at this rate. it must have been because i decided to opt out on subs. anyway, if you guys are having trouble getting paid, i highly doubt if they would pay me if i quit now. so let's hope StockXpert Easter comes soon for me, lol.
68
« on: July 22, 2009, 13:55 »
I must be an exception or the ugly stepchild. Mine are getting reviewed fairly rapidly but nothing like an eight-hour turnaround.
it could be that with this thread being up , there has been more uploads . but last friday i had my uploads reviewed on the same day (+- 6 -8 hours). i will upload more this week . i will let you know if it's still that fast
69
« on: July 22, 2009, 13:48 »
I think StockXpert has forgotten my portfolio existed. I am thinking of deleting my account. I wonder if they would give me my money even though I am about 10 bucks shy of payout. Any ideas?
70
« on: July 22, 2009, 13:45 »
My sales have dried up for months after the best performance earlier this year. I am almost reaching payout ; close but no cigar. I am wondering if I ask to delete my account , would they pay me what's been cumulative even though I have about 10 bucks left for payout.
I don't even think I would reach payout at this rate as there has been no sales for 3 months already. Like they abandoned me for dead.
Any suggestions?
71
« on: July 21, 2009, 10:23 »
I liked it, nice shot whether it's all one or a composite. Here's the agency review, which goes with the rest of them above. Probably the shadows in the front are "poor lighting"
Your image did not meet our technical qualifications.
The image contains one or more technical problems:
* Blurry or out of focus
* Over/Under exposure
* Framing problem
* Over or under saturated colors
* Problems with contrast
* Noise or Pixelation
* Quality of routing
* Interpolation problem
rofl, 3 cheers for racephoto. i was wondering why no one brought up this over-encompassing mother of a rejection !!! wowee zowee, beat me racephoto ! 
72
« on: July 21, 2009, 08:31 »
EDITED
Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop by ansel adams
needless to say, those 12 significant photos per annum from Ansel Adams would be like my 12 significant photos in my whole lifetime. EDITED
And speaking of the first thousand images are your worst, and 12 significant images per month, ...
it astounds me whenever someone tells me they could produce 1000 acceptable images in a month.
let's just say some ppl edit their work more critically than others. much like jazz or classical musicians vs "musicians" with beat boxes and guitars "tuned from the factory".
73
« on: July 20, 2009, 13:37 »
At the time of this incident, a police officer responded to a report concerning a man who was taking photographs of buildings and people in Chatham town centre. When challenged by the police officer the man refused to give any personal details which it was thought was suspicious.
1) They ask, I show them my ID and they go away.
Or
2) I refuse to show them an ID, they arrest me, until they can identify me and why I'm refusing and 20 minutes later release me.
Ask yourself which path is easier?
This isn't rocket science. If someone didn't have a camera and was stopped for unknown reasons, by a rent-a-cop or security or the police, and asked for identification, wouldn't it be reasonable to show them an ID and get it over with? While I agree that someone taking photos, isn't suspicious and doesn't warrant extra attention, the guy brought this on himself.
It's all in the attitude, really. Regardless of what you think, you don't question the dudes with the authority to boot you out of the vicinity. Checkpoint, airport xray booth,etc.. Like they always tell me, "You let me do my job, I'll leave you alone to do your job". Simple as that. Most times, cooperation takes you further . My guess is, this guy just enjoys playing heavy. Or the sort who probably screams at mother calling him down for breakfast. Or the sort that stomp on his gf 's face. Or bitch when having to stand in line ,etc. If you know what I mean. You meet those sods everywhere you travel. Even more surprising that he would take a job as a photographer where you are bound to meet security, police,etc... You're a man with a camera. Be it in a supermart, mall, fashion show, etc... you show your credentials when approached. And no problem . He's lucky he isn't in a country where security's don't ask much questions after being ignored, they carry guns with bullets . Or they call the black maria and scoot you off to where no one will notice you're missed.
74
« on: July 19, 2009, 09:00 »
wow, that must hurt like constipation ! so sorry to hear this.
it's ridiculous that FT even allows XL to sell for 36 cts.
at least give us the opt out choice.
is this what the new CEOs from IS are bringing to FT ?
75
« on: July 19, 2009, 08:31 »
i did not vote yet, as i like to hear from veer first.
but to be honest, there aren't too many effective watermarks. eg. fotolia's is easy to clone off, etc.
the ones i feel is effective are the ones with a clear and large watermark covering the center. when large i mean large as in over 50% of the image.
also, i like the idea of which site, 123rf i think, that allows you to move about the watermark .
in all, i like to see a large clear watermark with movable option.
on the other hand, we have also seen how a thief who has intent to steal will take it anyway, wm or none. the deterrent is not the wm, but more so, some legal enforcement, like reporting to some kind of web-police. i think Cut's J G has done a little in this direction. unfortunately, the other Big 6 has not done much , if not anything. if so, i stand to be corrected wholeheartedly.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
