MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Show Posts

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

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
Who knows, maybe someone bought your image on IS, and someone else saved it and used it in his blog...
Most people who make blogs are ordinary people who don't even think they should buy images instead of saving them from Internet. Having a blog is free, having an email address is free etc. People think nice images are free too. Why it's possible to save them so easily if they are not free?
People still look at me like I'm from Mars when I say that I'm selling images on Internet. They always ask same few questions:
What?? How?? To who?? Most people think that all images in magazines are taken especially for the magazine they hold in their hands at the moment.

Yes, very good point.
One time a few years back at my old workplace I met a guy who was in the business of webpage design etc
so I expected him to be well informed about copyright images and IP issues. But he was not. He showed me his facebook or FLickr, I cannot remember, and lots of very impressive photos. I said wow those are very good, you should go into stock photography, you take good photos. He told me he is not a photographer, those are pictures he found on the internet and he put them in his photos section.
Naturally, when you  put it in your website, people will think those are your own photos.

General Stock Discussion / Re: Reaching a certain level !
« on: July 28, 2010, 11:09 »

I'd agree. They should put newer files toward the front along with popular files. If it's a good image it will start selling, become popular, and stay at the front. If it doesn't start selling after a couple or three weeks start moving it down in the search.

I also think contributor performance should somehow be factored in. If a contributor has good sales performance it probably means they're submitting quality sellable images and should be given preference. If they have really poor sales performance over a long period of time it may indicate they're submitting crap and/or aren't learning to improve. This might help to keep poor images from the front. And will start weeding out people who are submitting stuff that isn't up to par.

Is this not what Shutterstock do? It is the only site that we get downloads the same day we get our photo approve.
As far I know, no other site do this for me. And of course, no surprise I have the most download with Shutterstock.
But this only from my perspective.

78 / Re: Crestock - new owner?
« on: July 27, 2010, 11:23 »
Well, I am pretty optimistic about Crestock's chances now.  I just had my portfolio reactivated and Gudmund and Steve both could not have been nicer or more helpful.  :)
Traitor!  ;)
I had so much trouble leaving them (I even had to scorn them on a couple of forums before they finally reacted) I would rather swallow a living rattlesnake than do business with them again. Especially since the nitwits that ruined the site were recycled as "consultants". Old Wine into New Wineskins.

Maybe bit off topic, but is really a big temptation for new people to join too many. I think I learn my lesson and now only stay with Shutterstock, Istock and maybe Dreamstime because Dreamstime old stuff sell better than new stuff.
Only now my problem, and I want to ask you all, what you do with your dead stuff in the other dead duck agencies? You  delete work? Is too much work ?.
What do you do youself ? You leave the old mouldy stuff  and hope everyone forget them, or you actually go in to delete account? Thank you .

General Stock Discussion / Re: Ansel Adams photos found
« on: July 27, 2010, 11:14 »
Shame, to have to lose your copyright ownership because your estate is not retroactive ,etc.
Then again, if this person was a good aide of Ansel Adams , then maybe deserve more than the beneficiary to own the master work.


whereever possible I try to deactive Extended Licenses because I feel that they are priced too low at many microstock agencies. Combined with the fact that I mostly do people shoots the risk of finding an image in use where me or the model wouldn't like the deal is higher. I can live well without ELs... :-)

P.S. I already had your blog in my RSS reader...

Oh? fotorob, why is Ext Lic ofr people not good idea? Pls explain. TY

Hello, good report.
I am also new, but also not good for report so I am sorry no report to give you.
But for me is like this:
SS - the most sales and the fastest to make money for me, even new images.
FT - the least sales but the faster to gain for EXt Lic.
DT - the best for old old old images but the worst for new stuff.
IS - the best single $ per dl but the difficult to bigger portfolio .

of course, I have to say, SS give me the most downloads but also same time the smallest $$ per dl. But if I increase my portfolio I believe SS will make still best money for me because I get download the same day my photos get approval.
No other site do this for me, so I believe SS placement for search is the best.

This my own story. And this, I give SS all the top attention for my new stuff
because also noting SS is my newest agency and already earning same $$ than
IS, BigStock, FT which I have already 2, 3 years. 
When people told me I must have SS I did not believe it. Maybe I should believe
2 - 3 years earlier, then I am sure I making more today with SS bigger portfolio.

Big stupid dummy should listen more to Shutterstock people . It si no big surprise SS is number one.
I hope the abbreviation I used correctly ? FT IS SS DT ? Thank you.

I don't think BigStock has exclusives either.

I have three exclusive images at DT and it would be the fairest thing to be able to opt them out of subs (the fact that I make more than from a non-exclusive doesn't entice me). One of them is a level 5 and it doesn't prevent it from giving me some nice credit sales.

True, but I like and hate DT because one day I get a big non-sub sale for small size  and then I am happy.
Then I get same picture download for sub XL for tiny commission and I shake my head.
I think worse still,  buyer of  large size paying  non sub money will not be happy to know another buyer get much much bigger same picture for 1/8th of money .

I am not sure if it is good for DT or for me and you, this big difference.

Computer Hardware / Re: you use this for on location backup?
« on: July 23, 2010, 15:55 »
yes, i see now, no point.
 better to buy mem card,  you don't risk loss.
also no time wasted doing backup transfer.

Computer Hardware / you use this for on location backup?
« on: July 23, 2010, 13:38 »

I am thinking to buy this so I can backup my Memory Card if full during a shoot
and then format and shoot some more.
Is this safe and good idea to do with this?
Can you do it from Camera out USB to this gadget?

Would you do it , or is it safer to wait ,come back to studio backup on HD?

I also think maybe can be useful during travel.


This model is suing for US $2 million over use of her image.

As someone else said, it's not even anything that micro would approve. Wrong white balance, look more like a polaroid. I am not sure what it got to do with Vampire.
But yes, she has a look that is very pretty but the quality of the picture is like snapshot.

I think model will not care if you use picture if you get paid 25 cents, or $2. Maybe the fact that famous band use the picture, she might think photographer get million dollars for use of her photo which was maybe she get no money or anything from photographer.

The use of her picture with the word vampire is not nice too. You don't want your daughter or girl friend to be used in a title like Vampire Weekend.
My thinking is this.

86 / Re: review time and rejections
« on: July 21, 2010, 04:20 »
I think you ask same thing in another posting, no?
but here I answer again..
 Dreamstime new review is sometime mystery too  expecially when new reviews
use mostly subjective reasons. but no big deal for me. My sales are good for the oldest stuff and no sales for new stuff, so no reason to worry for new uploads because I don't give new stuff anymore.
Shutterstock is opposite. New stuff get download instant. So I like balance with Shutterstock for today and Dreamstime for 2 years older pictues in port

87 / Re: Dreamstime are driving me crazy!!!
« on: July 21, 2010, 04:17 »
Dreamstime used to be your favourite agency. But then, one day, you decided to go exclusive with IS. Suddenly Dreamstime became a horrible place to be. 'The' most horrible agency.
Quite a sharp turn around I would say.
Was it because of the 6 months lock in?
But you were a long time contributor. Weren't you aware of it already?

People are blinded by personal conflicts, but the reality is that Dreamstime is a reliable, solid agency.
I like them and I sure hope they stay this way for a long time to come.

I think like that too Eireann. allso Dreamstime new review is sometime mystery too  expecially when new reviews
use mostly subjective reasons. but no big deal for me. My sales are good for the oldest stuff and no sales for new stuff, so no reason to worry for new uploads because I don't give new stuff anymore.

Shutterstock is opposite. New stuff get download instant. So I like balance with Shutterstock for today and Dreamstime for 2 years older pictues in port

I think the tightening down on model releases will decrease submission of the amateur's friends and family sorts of pics over time.

Yeah, what "tightening" do you envision?  It's legally watertight.  Either people sign it or don't.

I am asking too. Do you mean to say you Model Release family members less properly than strangers?
There is no difference , you do the same for everyone, so why is there going to be tightening?

Yesterday IS rejected a vertical shot (for lighting and artifact issues) and accepted a horizontal shot OF THE VERY SAME setup shot seconds apart. ???

I could go on and on....

Know what you mean.

I think it is different reviewers. I too get often rejection for "poor lighting" of the same shoot.
eg. latest from agency , no need to mention who, 7 approvals, 3 rejection.
All shot with same position and same composition.

I just let go, and say thank you to the reviwers for my 7 approvals.

Image Sleuth / Re: Keep an eye on ebay!
« on: July 15, 2010, 18:02 »
So, he is buying images and reselling them for $5.

You can not say that unless you find those images online by someone else.  I checked the first two at Tineye, the first had 0 results, the second 4 - all were websites, not stock agencies. So he can be the legal copyright owner.

Madelaide is right. I know  some people already say they want to stop using microstock part and want to do their own selling on ebay, direct,etc. So maybe this is a copyright owner who is doing same.

Off Topic / Re: Flipping burgers
« on: July 10, 2010, 14:50 »
First, I am not native English speaker so I do not understand all nuances of this language. Why flipping burgers seems to be the worst insult here. "You are lousy photographer you should be flipping burgers instead". My mom always said to me that it's not shame to do any work.
Unlike what's been said above, my take on 'flipping burgers for a living' is that it's a hot, sticky, sweaty, stressful job with zero respect, which leaves your hair and clothes (under the naff uniform) stinky every day, yet pays peanuts.

Yes, Sue's right. It is usually used to compare with something same that is not so fantastic too.
Like Racephoto , sub 25 cents per download? I prefer to flip burgers. But now in many places you don't flip burgers,
you busk in the street sing songs with your guitar and make more money than people in the office  .

Saw this one the other day on facebook. It's either a staged video or the absolute worlds dumbest wedding photographer.  If you are shooting a wedding and are that oblivious to your surroundings inside the location you have severe memory loss, don't have a clue how to shoot a wedding or just plain stupid in general. There was also no need for a camera switch for the distance at the beginning .. does he know how to use a speedlight for an aisle walk? Don't look like it. and who in the world walks the entire aisle length backwards. My guess is it was another staged blooper vid but you never know the world has plenty of morons in it.

Agree. Either staged or big dude with bad memory. Also, usually in wedding photography you have an assistant to stand nearby in case of things like this to happen or just to help carry the equipment.
But I think either he has poor memory and not remember pool there or just dumb, funny dumb.
I think also with more expensive model of camera, no water damage this quick in and out, for top line model is
water sealed . too short time in pool to damage.

Except I am sure bride and groom freak out when they saw that. Arghhh, the father of the bride must want to
strangle the photographer. After getting photos, for sure will say bye bye no more call to you for my next
daughter's wedding, or everyone in church also say, "hey ho, no way we get this dude to shoot for wedding".

I close shop if I was that photographer or move to another town, ha!ha!

93 / Re: Hot Shot Joke?
« on: July 07, 2010, 04:41 »
#1 looks quite soft. I bet in the other images there is some focal point somewhere - hard to tell.

I really don't want to judge the images themselves. Good for the photographers to find a buyer who needs them.

It just shows that more could sell than what we get approved at most agencies.

And why even bother shooting "beautiful business woman on headset" if all it takes is snap-shot style pics to sell them for a much higher price?

I think this seriously undermines the entire stock image concept.

Fine, if there are buyers that need a business team shot with 5 pro-models and the whole shebang. But then the agencies should also realize that true-life shots should have their place as well.

It's ridiculous to see the approval standards at IS, SS and some other nit picking agencies as long as P&S images sell at X times the price at Getty.

I don't get it.

I think everyone agree that microstock approval system bar is too high for the money they give .
Also, based on what you put here, or from others and my own experience too, the point and shoot pictures
sell more than the "dog" type (studio setting, many thoughtful time , composition, lighting,etc) .

But also, most will not go past the reviewer for "poor composition", "no focus point", "snapshot".etc..
all subjective.

Then we see this example and we shake our head.  You are right, maybe so, buyers maybe want snapshots.
Only but first how we can get the snapshots point and shoot stuff pass the reviewers :)

94 / Re: Hot Shot Joke?
« on: July 06, 2010, 19:45 »

so then how does photo #1 and 2 rate having getty images on there?

It's getting kind of ridiculous/confusing/contradictory.

maybe the day has finally arrived - if you have a camera then you are automatically a professional phonographer.  ;D

Or maybe it is bigger chance to sell if you use Point and Shoot. Is it my eyes that none of the photo is sharp
... sharp and clean that IStock want our picture to be or else it is rejected.
But I cannot see any of the picture you put here that is sharp and clean.

Can someone confirm, maybe my eyes?

95 / Re: Reviewers allergy or global trend?
« on: July 06, 2010, 19:39 »
Its a subjective game and always a crap shoot for me.  For example,  I had a couple of recent  shoots.  Whittled the 600 pics to about 20.  Cleaned them up and key-worded.

  Split those into two folders of somewhat similar subjects so that each submission did not seem to duplicative.  Same Quality, Similar Composition, Same camera, same lenses, similar camera settings.  The first batch was 30% accepted, the second batch 100% accepted.  The only real difference was one was submitted on a weekday and the other on a weekend.

So, 100% approval was on weekday or weekend?  The discrepancy ?

96 / Re: Dreamstime are driving me crazy!!!
« on: June 17, 2010, 09:25 »
About a month until I can disable my last image at DT. Can't wait to finally be free from that horrid agency.

Is it for to be Exclusive with IS?
Can work with only disabling portfolio at DT? They don't let you delete account?

General Stock Discussion / Re: No freebees!
« on: June 16, 2010, 17:51 »
Guys the concept of "Freemium" although we do not like it is here to stay. I have heard various movers and shakers on the management side of micro talking about it over the last 6 months as the next natural step of their marketing campaigns.

"movers and shakers" should do more work doing real promotion and less moving and shaking.

Hear Hear sjlocke. It takes as much energy to do real promo that will profit both site and contributors.
Maybe movers and shakers should move and shake for no pay. Then I too will agree freebee is a good idea.

But I take sjlocke meaning if you have one good seller of a man with a big fish. You do not want to upload 10 more man with big fish from the same shoot with only slight difference ,ie. camera placement is an inch different, .

No, more like, if you have 1000 images, by the time you upload 1000 more, the first will have dropped in sales, so you didn't double your money at all.

Ah, ok, understood now. I forgot the percentage. Thankyou sjlocke.

Year 4: Only 33% increase in port over the year and by now some of your older best-selling images will have been bettered by others. There's less new stuff to learn and help you.

Year 5: Only 25% increase in port. The agency collections are now growing at about the same rate as your port and, with older images dying at about the rate you can produce new ones, your sales will probably stagnate. You've hit the wall.

Exception is Dreamstime, your oldest pictures still outsell your new. So you stop giving new pictures and sit on backside to let old porfolio sell  ;D

Double your portfolio = double your income?
Yes or no?
Possibly, if you have 1 image, and you upload another similar quality different subject.  More likely not.
Hm, not sure if I understand sjlocke.
But from my own portfolio, I say first you look for the type or category that sell well for me. Then I increase that topic or category.  Not similar but same category.  But some time even similars be successful too.
I think depend on site.

But I take sjlocke meaning if you have one good seller of a man with a big fish. You do not want to upload 10 more man with big fish from the same shoot with only slight difference ,ie. camera placement is an inch different, .

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle