|
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 - lefty
101
« on: June 15, 2010, 20:41 »
I've seen nothing, but prices going up. I've heard nothing, but the main agencies talking about increased revenue. "Free" just sounds naive. If you're worried about free, stop submitting to 8 million agencies all trying to make the same dollar. Back the sites that are making you real money and keep prices moving in the right direction.
Is excellent point. You waste time giving sites that do not get your downloads. Big waste of time. Better to kill the proliferation of lame duck site and support the one giving you downloads regularly. Also, when site boasts wow look we got 8 million pictures. You don't encourage with free , you said no, not 8 million, maybe only 6 million if you stop count on free. Time we tell agency and lookers, Sorry no free lunch. I want the money .
102
« on: June 15, 2010, 17:46 »
Obviously, I'd rather sell things, but I don't think the concept of free is all that horrible. It really depends on how it is done.
No it doesn't. Giving away your work is idiotic, "advertisment" or not.
Agree it is idiotic. Idiotic and desparation. Devaluation of your hard work. Silly and stupid, I agree. Only amateur who live with mother and father with no rent to pay can see freebie as sensible. If I want to give freebie, I shoot landscape and give to grandma to hang in house. Why I give to some * stranger to use to make money for them?
103
« on: June 15, 2010, 17:40 »
Indeed, they have a silly rules, but that's their problem.
I tried to make some collection , they accepted 3 and the rest 5 not, because these 5 aren't stock oriented - but previous 3 was. And that's just a one of the many DT absurdities
Ha yes, sounds familiar. I got too. But I agree no good point to argue because rejection reason by reviewer is very protected to debate. It is not objective reason that can be overturn like noise artifact fringe. 10 reviewers can see noise fringe artifact white balance wrong. But when reviewer used subjective reason, is big sneak to abuse. Me? I decide to go to IS and SS and give to them . Don't do nothing to me to bust my butt for now dl there anyway. Only oldest stuff selling, so why bother me to give new stuff ?
104
« on: June 14, 2010, 12:36 »
lisafx, for me IS selling only older stuff, same picture get regular download.
Can I say too, permis, only Shutterstock is up up up for me. Across board all other down down down. I am happy I am with Shutterstock, phew !
105
« on: June 12, 2010, 20:27 »
Only I can say by my own instance, Yes, successful pictures successful from start.
It is good stock picture, it pick up sales with big bamg like cidepix say.
And bang bang again and again...
Sometimes, yes, also an exception. No sales than one big EL. But after that, the picture fall down dead for no sales back again.
But the best pictures sell everytime. Maybe not every month, but come back to see sales continuation.
106
« on: June 12, 2010, 20:22 »
Yes, I think everyone is not happy with 25 cents . Already I talk to three friends long time in microstock and they stop caring for making new contribution . It is not fair to photographer with inventory and expenses to take 25 cents.
But who will start give better deal? PaulieWalnuts say already some agencies listening to contributors feeling and trying to make a compromise .
But I am not sure if agencies want to do this, because if you me and many old friends quit microstock, new amateurs from country with low standard living will replace you me and friends who quit.
It's a problem , I think. A big one.
107
« on: June 11, 2010, 15:15 »
Congratulation.
I want to know one thing. With SS, do you need to activate interest in EL and OD?
I see with Bigstock and Dreamstime,etc you must be careful to remember to mark your interest in each licence. Like you want to Opt Out with IS.
But I don't remember to see anything like this with Shutterstock.
Is subs, OD, EL.etc all automatic choice or did I miss something when I join?
it is automatic
Thanks luissantos84.
108
« on: June 11, 2010, 13:15 »
Congratulation.
I want to know one thing. With SS, do you need to activate interest in EL and OD?
I see with Bigstock and Dreamstime,etc you must be careful to remember to mark your interest in each licence. Like you want to Opt Out with IS.
But I don't remember to see anything like this with Shutterstock.
Is subs, OD, EL.etc all automatic choice or did I miss something when I join?
109
« on: June 09, 2010, 16:46 »
I must be catching on, I liked the brown cows shot...
Are we collecting non-informative rejections again?
SS is home of LCV: "Composition--Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition." (fair enough?)
Here's the Fotolia version: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality." 
Dreamstime: "Our agency applies a pre-established set of criteria, against which each image is checked. In order to maximize your sales we maintain the right to select all images included in the database." (Also - Reason: This is a very well covered subject in our data base or the subject of your image is too specific.)
Bigstock: "Low interest subject: Probably little demand/selling potential for this image. Try for more marketable shots. thanks."
I don't want to leave out IS, this is the best I could do:
"We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved. Some of the technical aspects that can all limit the usefulness of a file are:
-Flat/dull colors
-Direct on-camera flash and/or flash fall-off (bright subject, dark background)
-Harsh lighting with blown-out highlights that lack details and/or distracting shadows
- Distracting lens flares
-Incorrect white balance"
I don't really get LCV rejections from IS? I'd guess the important word in the above example is Composition.
The shots rejected with this have been without flash, black and white points set using levels, no blown out highlights or lens flare, positively not flat or dull colors! Which leaves? We didn't like the lighting so we sent a shopping list of irrelevant reasons.  They may be right, but the rejection had nothing to do with the reasons listed.
In the end, they are all saying the same thing. Maybe a nice shot, but we don't need it. Dreamstime has it right, not that the others have any problems doing the same, with their right to select all images. Some of us forget that they are the agency and nothing says they have to accept us or anything we submit. Bigstock is kind enough to say "probably" and leave it at that.
Real short, FT and DT decided that the same images that sell best for me on IS and SS, "don't sell well". They started wholesale rejections by type of image, regardless of content or quality. That's their right. I exercised my free will and closed my accounts. No big deal. Everyone is happy.
Hahahahahaha! too much ! My hero ! One heart. No, two hearts you win for this fantastic collection , It will one day go into Smithsonian Archive for Microstock Hall of Fame, ha!ha! But Racephoto forgot we are human and we make mistake from Crestock, no?
110
« on: June 09, 2010, 15:23 »
OK, now that bring another question to you cthoman.
Can it be possible to make bigger income and RPI when you eliminate all low paying agencies and maybe only keep one. You give 100% time to agency #1 , your portfolio is bigger faster , you feed monster.
So your RPI increase with single agency that is historical best performer and money maker for you.
Definitely, I think iStock made exclusivity very tempting this year. I kind of hoped the other agencies would have had more of a response to it. Right now, I think there are three things holding me back from being a one agency man:
One, the transition would be financially painful. It would take me a while to get all my images up there to equal what I get from the rest. Two, I worry about rejections. I used to be golden there, but the policies have changed a little. Third, is opportunities. Maybe, I'm a dreamer, but I just think I'd be sacrificing some great opportunity.
It's funny. I almost wish they hadn't done the exclusive change because it made my decision harder. 
Thank you for reply Cthoman No, no, I don't mean Declaration of Exclusiveness like with IStock. Some sites still do not expect exclusivity, so it is not necessary for me or you to remove all images. I am saying, maybe stop feeding everyone, and just keep feeding one beast. ie. the beast that by historical data provided the best earning. This will cut down spreading too thinly and wasting time to upload to everyone. And the time saved will mean we feed this one beast regularly . That would work to increase our potential earning, that the other not so efficient sites fail to give us our return . Did I explain correctly?
111
« on: June 09, 2010, 13:41 »
I think cthoman and PhotoSales are correct. Strangely, you make more money when you are new and when you increase your collection suddenly you cannot find your picture in the keyword anymore.
Is this evident that the agency put new contributor on front page?
But this is only my personal observation.
Actually, I was talking about my RPI going down at smaller agencies as my portfolio gets bigger. Some of them only have so many customers, so increasing your portfolio doesn't always increase your exposure. My overall earnings have been going up as my portfolio has gotten bigger.
OK, now that bring another question to you cthoman. Can it be possible to make bigger income and RPI when you eliminate all low paying agencies and maybe only keep one. You give 100% time to agency #1 , your portfolio is bigger faster , you feed monster. So your RPI increase with single agency that is historical best performer and money maker for you.
112
« on: June 09, 2010, 13:31 »
(clip) It is because some time I get photos rejected by Istock for possible trademark infringement, so it is better we reject this image for the protection for everybody,.something like that.
I have gotten trademark or copyright infringement rejects on IS before, and after doing a search for exactly the same thing, found many that had been accepted, both before and after mine. The rejects are not always consistent.
In IStock case, I think this is possible, cclapper. I read on site that IStock is in process of deleting many existing pictures due to trademark problem possibility. For this reason, I think many of these inconsistency will be removed.
113
« on: June 09, 2010, 11:33 »
I'm going to pretty much say LCV on all the shots except for the two of Mauna Kea because they are interesting.
I'm NOT a noob and I don't know what LCV means...can you enlighten me? 
cclapper, I think it is L-ow C-ommerce V-alue. Or like some reviewer give No Stock Potnetial. But I think this is subjkective because some of my selling pictures are in my opinion LCV, and the one I shoot specific with HCV do not sell. But this is microstock , so no wonder it's a mystery, ha!ha!
114
« on: June 09, 2010, 11:12 »
What kind of money do people expect in reality to make from micro stock photography sites?
I think it varies from site to site. The $1 per image across all the sites is a good figure, but some of the smaller sites stop growing with more images. So, it makes it harder to calculate them all together.
Honestly, the possibility ended after subscription . I think cthoman and PhotoSales are correct. Strangely, you make more money when you are new and when you increase your collection suddenly you cannot find your picture in the keyword anymore. Is this evident that the agency put new contributor on front page? But this is only my personal observation.
115
« on: June 09, 2010, 10:04 »
"One of the main functions of a trademark is to prevent consumer confusion."
What comes into play, imo, is that iSyndica is not selling pocketknives. There is no attempt at confusing people to buy a knife from IS instead of Swiss Army.
Ha! good point. Thank you sjlocke. So, if photo studio buy picture of man with camera or wedding shot from microstock or mid stock or any stock, and use for photo ad it is misleading too? Maybe some wedding photographers are using stock photos . But we have no control or no evidence of consumer confusion. Other posible is interior decor from stock photo for ad, or pretty girl for dating agency on internet. But I am sure it is being used for that already.
116
« on: June 09, 2010, 10:01 »
I will not make specific on picture because it is highly subjective statement. But I agree with Paulie Walnuts, the quality of zoom lens is never better than prime lens.
Make investment option priority to buy one prime lens for stock. It is imperative and probably the best investment you make if you want success for stock.
Or you can downsize minimum requirement , 1200 by 1600 , I think, for IStock, but you lose money potential.
Zoom lens it is still possible to make clean sharp photo. Only you make test to find critical aperture and critical focal length, and you shoot only that FL and aperture.
But also, zoom lens is big convenience for hobbyists travelling safari , hiking, holiday,etc Not professional usage because you lose lens speed and full use of lens that prime lens provide.
Funny thing, one good prime lens more superior than zoom lens? It is also much much cheaper and smaller to carry. So I never understand phtographer who is proud with long bazooka, ha!ha!. Much phallus symbol.
Of course, exception with Sports photographer like if you shoot Grand Prix ,etc..
That one, you choose zoom for necessary, not to show you have longest phallic. ha!ha!.
117
« on: June 09, 2010, 09:43 »
But is not the purpose of Intellectual Propety because it is extremely recognizable?
Same like the problem with infringement of ad using Tom Waits copycat voice to be infringement? Or a design that only is unique? like door of Ferrari, specific design of new computer Apple, ipod,etc?
Maybe like Perry say the design is old 1897 so trademark is no more. But I thought you can renew trademark registration. Excuse for ignorance. It is because some time I get photos rejected by Istock for possible trademark infringement, so it is better we reject this image for the protection for everybody,.something like that.
118
« on: June 08, 2010, 19:20 »
almost 900 pictures on SS searching swiss knife!
Wow, now I am confused. They say you cannot use some products because they are unique and recognize, so they are Intellectual Property infringement. Like automobile luxury item because they make only that by the company. I know there is no other product looking like Swiss Knife. So this is very confusing that they allow this and not the others. Same reason for computers and cell phone,etc. Really confusing now.
119
« on: June 08, 2010, 18:26 »
My first topic.
You see the ad here on top for iSyndica?
It is Swiss Knife.
It is allowed to use that picture for stock and ad? I thought Swiss Knife is like Eiffel Tower, etc. Very recognizable Intellectual Property. There is only one Swiss Knife.
Can someone correct me? Thank you.
120
« on: June 08, 2010, 16:14 »
I would say the real question is - why would a reviewer decide that those are NOT oil tanks, and the guy is NOT a petrochemical engineer? Why not just trust the contributor, since the keywords aren't obviously and deliberately misleading?
Another interesting question: if the reviewer decided the oil industry keywords weren't justified, what keywords would he actually accept? Is it just a photo of a guy in a hard hat in front of some metal?
I live near a refinery and yeah, that's what it looks like. When you have huge storage tanks of gas and oil you don't stencil GAS and OIL on them in giant letters. Think about it.
Ha!ha!.. Heart Award to stockastic. Answer: Maybe the reviewer don't live in a land where oil is stored in huge tanks. Maybe haven't a clue what that oil industry . That is why I think is ignorance of concept on reviewer side. Much like some westerner used to think all African live in trees and swing down to market like Tarzan, ha!ha!. Ignorance is the problem.
121
« on: June 08, 2010, 13:09 »
Yes! but it becomes an IS problem since they train and employ their reviewers for the sake of IS. This type of reviewing has gone on for some time now, consequently its a pointless exercise submitting any conceptuals which is very strange.
Oh well? if generic rubbish is what they want, fair enough.
To be fair to IS. My experience, it is not majority reviewers. One, maybe two. Because my experience with IS reviewers is good experience , all very reasonable with objective rejections. But yes, one..maybe two. Scary!. Maybe you think possible to omit conceptual keyword for application. Then add back them after approval. Is not possible, Lagereek?
122
« on: June 08, 2010, 12:46 »
In defense of the reviewer, it's not immediately obvious that those are chemical storage tanks behind him - they could be even grain silos. And yes, he might be an engineer, but he could also be any of a number of hardhat-wearing occupations. That being said, I agree that the image shouldn't have been flagged for keywords, especially since this is the area you specialize in.
Oh come on, how come then that every other agency have accepted and sold it even for over a 800 bucks? no, sorry this is plain ignorance to conceptual photography.
The whole problem and which is now being discussed inside Corbis is the fact that editors must learn to recognize conceptual submissions, thats what commands the most revenue.
Yes, full agreemenrt with both arguments. But also to be your side, some agency have problem with conceptual . Send mixed signals , first, encourage conceptual keywords one month, then suddenly employ reviewer who have no idea about conceptual. Maybe education of reviewers is important. Some reviewers maybe come from country no idea about certain specialistic concepts. Again, it is NOT specific Istock problem. It is reviewer problem.
123
« on: June 08, 2010, 12:02 »
I think to be fair it is not problem solely for IStock. A month ago a reviewer with another Big 4 rejected all my picture of obvious concept and also indicated specific "irrelevant" keywords which obviously related to conceptual idea.
Maybe not agency problem, but reviewer problem. Not stress, but ignorance of reviewer to conceptual idea.
124
« on: June 07, 2010, 17:17 »
By saying, I won't sell subs, I'd be turning away money because I'm underpaid, while I accept 50c sales elsewhere and call that "good". Personally I think both aren't enough, but people want to quibble over 25c vs 30c or point out how 38c in 1000 sales makes $170 more, when 1000 sales at 25c on another site would make $250 more. They are turning money away based on percentage, instead of bottom line. The same number of sales on both sites, will make $250 more if someone sells on both, but they turn up their nose and say, "I'll take nothing, instead of $250!"
See that's where 100% of nothing is less than a percentage of something.
Oh boy. At last someone speaks my feelings exactly. I don't care if 25 cents each download or $2 or xxx $. I don't care too, if commission is 50% or 20% etc. What I care is end of month I see more money in my balance. For that, I take Shutterstock all the time instead of others who promise me big chunk commission but no sale. Racephoto, you said it. Correct , thank you .
125
« on: June 07, 2010, 16:13 »
ok, but you must admit when microstock is so shaky lately, only smartest idea is to start own agency, microstock or not. no ?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
