|
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 - jen
51
« on: June 13, 2014, 09:23 »
what should be the minimum size of 25 sample images ? and as it is for evaluation purpose so can one send images which are already on any other site ?
I'm not sure about the number of sample images but yes, you can submit images for your application that are already on other sites.
52
« on: June 12, 2014, 16:09 »
You can have content that was previously on other sites as long as it is deleted. You can still sell POD.
This. And you can submit images to Stocksy before you delete them from other sites, as long as you do so if/when they're accepted.
53
« on: June 02, 2014, 09:51 »
Which magazines do you like? I've been looking for some besides Kinfolk.
Feast Journal is an Irish magazine with a similar outlook to Kinfolk. We came to it via the always lovely farmette blog btw.
Thanks for the suggestions!
54
« on: May 07, 2014, 12:35 »
Being ... a fan of contemporary lifestyle magazines Which magazines do you like? I've been looking for some besides Kinfolk.
55
« on: May 07, 2014, 11:21 »
I've said this before and it bears repeating.
A friend's brother is an assignment photographer, specialising in aerial photography.
He watermarks the photo on his website, pretty lightly.
Someone (not a client) phoned him to complain that he couldn't use the images from his website because of the watermark. When he checked up, the complainer was a commercial company.
That's pretty ballsy. I'm laughing a lot at this (and crying a little inside).
57
« on: September 23, 2013, 10:26 »
What would be significant would be knowing whether it's the less usual styles of pics outlined above or the 'traditional micro' style (e.g. the top of their front page) which sells more.
I can answer that from my personal experience in the last few months. I am working with a relatively tiny amount of data here, so take this with a grain of salt. Out of my top 10 bestselling files on Stocksy: #1 and 2 are from the same shoot. One was rejected with no resubmit on iStock for lighting, and the other only got a handful of sales in 4 years. I converted to black and white before submitting to Stocksy, and both are now selling like hotcakes (well... warmcakes). The one that was deemed by iStock to have such bad lighting it couldn't be saved was curated on Stocksy. (That has actually happened a lot. Almost every single iStock reject I've sent to Stocksy has been curated. Not that I'm sending them all my rejections, just the images I loved to begin with.) #3 is from a pretty but basically commercially-useless dance series I had on iStock (several of which were in Vetta), but it's a way more artistic black & white version I never actually submitted to iStock. The other less processed ones are on Stocksy as well; most of them have sold once. #4-7 are business images, but they're ones I took in natural lighting with no smiles, just people focused on their work. Which is what every single designer I've talked to has said they're looking for, but is the opposite of what used to sell for me on iStock. #8 is another black and white similar to #3, from a newer shoot. And #9 and 10 are close up artsy studio portraits that never would have sold for me on iStock. I didn't realize until looking at my stats that 4/10 of my bestsellers are black and whites. I hardly ever sold b&w on iStock. So I don't know if this information is useful at all, but maybe it satisfies the curiosities a bit?
58
« on: September 20, 2013, 11:39 »
I really don't understand all this hate.
Who's hating? There's a lot of incomprehension, that's different altogether.
Well, there's the comments about how the images are "the worst miscoloured amateurish snapshots I have seen in a long time", "flat and washed-out", or your sarcasm about the Chosen Few and repeatedly pointing out that you find the results for "Scotland" not up to standards. It's not all that productive IMHO.
59
« on: September 19, 2013, 09:52 »
You can see some of the content in my "stocksy" folder here: http://www.jensstolt.dk/stocksy.htm
The images are selected because they are MAYBE pictures, Maybe a bit different, maybe a bit artistic, maybe, maybe.
Please comment!
Jens, do you think these are your best ever images? If not, don't submit them. IMHO you should submit what you consider to be your absolute best work, whether or not it fits into what you believe to be the Stocksy aesthetic. I can't explain the technical requirements they are looking for because I do not know them, but I think it's a mistake to try to find a "Stocksy look". You have your own style, so show them that.
60
« on: September 02, 2013, 19:36 »
Did you put your email address in their "put your email address here if you're curious" page before the site launched?
61
« on: September 02, 2013, 18:29 »
they lost me right at the beginning due to what you mentioned above, mainly the arrogance. send us your link to your successful folio on another site and we 'might' invite you.
That's not what they asked for, is it? This is the text I got: If you're interested in being a contributing artist, please reply to this email with a link to your portfolio (500px, flickr, etc) and we might send you an invitation.I guess you could be put off by the "might", but it wasn't "show us how successful you are elsewhere", it was "show us your portfolio".
62
« on: September 02, 2013, 16:18 »
Stocksy is a newcomer but after almost half year probably most active contributors should have sales.
I like the idea of co-op and all artistic and human approach of this site. But what about a business side?
I'm seriously considering to invest my time and money to participate but is it worth? Do they have any chance to be successful?
Any thoughts after 5 months?
In August, 64% of my earnings and only 8% of my downloads were from Stocksy. I'm making much less than I was making as an exclusive contributor elsewhere, but I feel confident that things are picking up and it will take far, far fewer downloads to get to where I was before. So personally, I'm happy.
63
« on: February 11, 2013, 17:46 »
Yes, it was probably my fault - obviously too vocal on the issues.
It's true, Sean. You are a pesky guy, always wanting to be paid the correct amount, making sure your intellectual property is being protected by your agent, and informing your colleagues about important issues. The nerve of you!
64
« on: February 11, 2013, 13:21 »
Anyone know what the new stock site is?
65
« on: November 07, 2011, 18:12 »
We should also take into consideration that their stats are based on 2,000,000 internet users (1%) in the US only. They've already said they've ramped up their overseas marketing so perhaps European visitors have gone up?
66
« on: October 14, 2011, 16:02 »
You know that these are only estimates, right? Compete makes estimates based on 2,000,000 people's internet browsing habits in the US. Since a big portion of iStock's income comes from overseas I wouldn't base such a huge business decision on one website's estimates. If your sales have tanked, well, that's another thing.
67
« on: September 14, 2011, 15:54 »
In fact, if it's now showing as a google ad, that means I've already searched for it and read about it and have moved on to something else.
That's my problem with the ads. For example, I looked up GoPro cameras in July because my dad told me my brother wanted one for his birthday. I'm still getting ads for them on every single website. I also get ads for stuff I already bought, it seems counter-intuitive.
68
« on: September 02, 2011, 11:35 »
Yeah, well, you can joke about the tinfoil hats but look at a lot of people's signatures...on this forum and others...lots of blogging going on, where someone posts innocent questions and has others do all the work and research for them, then blogs about it, getting money from ads and search engine placement. Don't even think about telling me THAT doesn't go on. So it's no wonder some people are suspect.
And no, I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but after all the fraud and theft and identity theft and stealing of images and clawbacks of money and missing money etc., I would think the whole intended cut-down of calling someone a conspiracy theorist with a tinfoil hat might be tempered down a bit. After all, this is a time when anyone can be scammed at any time. I don't think it makes a difference if the OP is a plant or not; either way this is a public discussion forum and anyone can come here at any time and use your comments for "inspiration". You can be offended by my tinfoil hat comment, but I was a bit put off by the suggestion that people who replied were being stupid / not thinking. As if these aren't questions that have already been answered ad nauseam in microstock forums and blogs, and as if replying to a plant wouldn't be smart but if Joe Contributor with no ulterior motive came along it would be okay (even though the plant could still read those comments anyway). Shrug.
69
« on: August 31, 2011, 09:48 »
I checked out chromaco on DT - does not exist. I think maybe chromaco is a plant on this site fishing for information. Stop feeding him/her.
I think it's an obvious plant. Jessss don't you people think sometimes before you empty your soul?
If I am wrong chromaco the solution is simple for you. Post your real ID at DT.
Bet you don't reply.
I like your tinfoil hat. Can I have one?
70
« on: August 30, 2011, 16:07 »
1) Why would anyone be exclusive with Istock? Are there incentives that are so great that you wouldn't want to maximize your exposure by selling on other sites? I simply don't want to spend the time learning the nuances of / uploading to a bunch of different sites. Lots of people will tell you it doesn't take any more time and that's fine if it works for them. My downloads went waaaay up after becoming exclusive. I also like the revenue from Vetta and the extra money I've been getting every month from having my Vetta files on Getty. Plus I got a 5% raise this week for meeting my next RC milestone so that's nice too. 2) Why is the PP program so bad? Once again wouldn't you want to increase your potential customer base? iStock will tell you that iStock and the PP sites have different customers. However, a lot of people don't want to undercut themselves on a cheaper site. I've been experimenting with adding older/crappier files that haven't sold on iStock. So far they don't sell in the PP either. 4) There must have been something in the past that made Istock the obvious choice for contributors that isn't there anymore... what was it? A lot of stuff has changed and a lot of the competition has gotten stronger. I don't think there was any one thing that caused this shift (but the constant price fluctuations, royalty changes last September, and the broken site redesign certainly didn't help).
71
« on: August 17, 2011, 10:35 »
Shank wouldn't be so bad if he knew how to use punctuation. 
72
« on: July 21, 2011, 15:55 »
Does anyone see a spike of sales today? It is my best day for this month in DLs.
No. I only had a measly 2 downloads today. But, it's summer, so shrug.
73
« on: July 16, 2011, 18:11 »
Response to yellow bucket message from echodelta:
- You agree that you will make all images or video recorded by you during the Event available for license exclusively from istockphoto.com and through the Partner Program whether or not you are currently or later become a non-exclusive contributor.
74
« on: June 07, 2011, 17:11 »
The worst part (okay, the second worst part, after making this decision in the first place) is their habit of dumping news on us and then leaving us to rant without answering any questions.
75
« on: May 05, 2011, 11:33 »
It's so disheartening. I always hope to see commentary from Kelly (as some sort of reassurance that he's paying attention?) but it seems like every time he actually says something it's a massive disappointment and proves that he just doesn't get it. Which means it's hard to hope that things will improve at iStock because its management is on a completely different page than its contributors.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
