|
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 - Freezingpictures
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 45
126
« on: June 19, 2009, 04:29 »
If you mean me, I am not happy about that and already made the same point up a bit further up in this thread. And in addition to the diamond there is a high level, prolific gold independent who also said she's opting in. Personally I think they are nuts.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Once they actually get to see the pathetic dribbles of income they get from JIU/PC it will temper their enthusiasm somewhat.
You did well stirring the pot over there too __ it brought out quite a few more heartfelt comments regarding the situation.
Getty have sacrificed a staggering amount of contributor goodwill in this exercise which will probably end up generating very little money for either themselves or contributors.
I really can't imagine how JIU/PC subscribers are going to feel when 90% (literally!) of the entire library disappears overnight in 3 months time. Yes, they'll get a few more from IS, but even if 10% of IS images are transferred over (which I doubt) then the 3M images they've lost will be replaced by 500K older stock images that have been largely ignored by buyers up to now. I can see litigation being threatened if customers had subscribed specifically to access the 3M images that appeared to be on offer. It's going to look like a 'bait and switch' job to them.
Unfortunately it seems like 900 000 images are already opt in. Can't understand why so many contributors would opt in..
127
« on: June 18, 2009, 07:30 »
128
« on: June 18, 2009, 06:55 »
BTW the 200 2.8 L is of the same build as the 135 2.0 L and its also cheaper. It also has almost a similar rating as the 135 L.
129
« on: June 18, 2009, 05:35 »
Have used the 135 as well, totally agree with what was said about it, it's great and it's awesome. definitely a lense planned for future purchase. The 85 has no chance against it, but then it's much more expensive, but totally worth it.
130
« on: June 18, 2009, 03:31 »
I just shot a wedding with the 85 1.8. But did not try the 70-200 4.0 yet. I also had a 200 mm 2.8 L prime with me. The 85 is a great lens and I love it on full frame. I believe it is one of the lenses with the best price for quality. I however stop it down to 2.0. Its great for portraits.
But mostly I use a 200 prime for outdoor portraits. It is more flattering for people with big noses :-) With the 200 L-prime you can make also great outdoor fullbody shots wide open. Its also sharp at 2.8. a 70-200 4.0 would be to slow for me, but different people have different preferences.
Generally since I tried out the 70-200 2.8L and have the 24-70L I tend do rather invest in primes.
131
« on: June 17, 2009, 03:31 »
I just did a graph as well: Lets hope the August-November boost will come this year. If it does not come, growth will stop for me.
132
« on: June 17, 2009, 02:12 »
StockXpert is on hold for a while now, since I did not see new images getting sold. And Getty meddling with StockXpert does not exactly encourages me to upload more.
133
« on: June 16, 2009, 14:10 »
I am surprised that so many people are are upset for loosing out on the photos.com and JIU sales. There weren't much anyways and I opted out last month, because I thought these little earnings are not worth it submitting to sites which pays as low as 30 cents for a subscription download.
For me nothing changes, but yes its kind of a bad move for Getty trying to lower our commission. My bet is they will just end up with a lot less images.
134
« on: June 16, 2009, 06:48 »
And as far as I know you are locked in for one year, if you sell through zoonar at polylooks
135
« on: June 15, 2009, 02:42 »
No, it actually seems to get worse from month to month. But I am not uploading, because I did not really see an increase of earnings despite my efforts.
136
« on: June 10, 2009, 05:12 »
Did you get the report on June 4th or the sale? I got the report on June 6th and the sale is from may 26th.
But it also can be that this sales somehow fall under the new micro licenses which they started to offer, where the photographer gets 50%
137
« on: June 10, 2009, 04:02 »
Well that should be right the image that got sold has 30% checked, but sold for 51%. You seem to just get the 51% if you sell it. The increase of commission is apparently not yet official 
138
« on: June 10, 2009, 03:55 »
Yeah, you are right, I also got a sale with 51% commission although I checked 30%.. Thats a positive change panthermedia I wellcome that move! Keep up the good work! Thankyou! Finally a positive move from an agency regarding commission. You are moving up the ladder on contributor friendly agencies panthemedia
139
« on: June 05, 2009, 18:03 »
I was totally disappointed in the last batch I submitted. Almost no sales from the last batch I uploaded to SS. But good to know I will just stop uploading, if new images do not generate the sales. What actually happened was that an image maybe 2 weeks old ended up on the last place of my portfolio when sorted according to popularity. Now tell me what incentive do I now have to submit more images to SS?
For me currently there are only three left from the top 5 to which I now regular upload. DT, FT and IS. There at least I see new images being sold. StockXpert fell out a month or two ago, when I submitted a bigger batch of nice images and non of them got downloaded and hardly got any views.
140
« on: June 05, 2009, 12:27 »
FT is my most recent site, and I am very happy with it as I am selling better than all the others I have been for much much longer time. But the ranking confuses me.
For example:
this is what I had a couple of weeks ago after getting my first EL:
27200 8320
and then a couple of days ago after getting a tiny sale :
26200 5789
and this is where I am a day later:
26300 8120
do you really jump 3K up in one week and then fall 3K down the next?
I am not complaining as I have been rising in either ranking since I started.
But I wonder how the ranking works. Is it based on dls + approvals? or just dls?
I think the ranking works according to the credits you earned. So an EL in this ranking areas can make quite a difference.
141
« on: June 04, 2009, 11:16 »
Good. Actually BigStock, if you had been with them, would also have insisted on their 90-day-following-acceptance rule too.
I was! guess what they let me go
Well, it turns out your portfolio must be quite expendable.
rofl. no seriously, Dan P68 could be right. Bigstock insists on 90 day rule because clients do bookmark your images and if they come back to buy in before your 90 days hold to find it is not there, they can be quite pissed off with Bigstock. At least that was the reason Support gave me for needing to hold our images for 90 days.
Thats a weird argument. What if when the buyer bookmarks the image one day before the 90 days are over? But I understand that it can be quite annoying for a buyer. Yesterday I had to relicense a few images from a design for a client, and it would have been very bad, if the images would not have been there anymore. Non the less I have no understanding for the 6 month policy of Dreamstime. It's just making life more difficult for the contributors. It works at other agencies without this policy, why not with DT?? Anyway I rather accept this policy than not submitting to DT at all. Otherwise DT is quite a good agency.
142
« on: June 03, 2009, 05:05 »
I have not uploaded last week, must have been all the Americans I do not think they should introduce upload limits, they should just reject much more. They accept so many crappy images... like isolated vegetables and fruit, come on  
143
« on: June 01, 2009, 16:29 »
...
Any other possible theories?
It's pretty plain to me: You've benefited from search engine streamlining/revamping at several key agencies. Your aim should now be to capitalize on your increased exposure. Sure, you could upload more, but that isn't absolutely necessary. So you need to ask yourself - what else can I do?
Agree with Stephen. But would be interested as well what you mean with streamline. Could you extrapolate? The only agency where I believe this would make sense is Dreamstime, because there focus is so strong on title, description and keywords.
144
« on: June 01, 2009, 12:21 »
Wow! A lot of variation in people's results this month. Marek, great work on your continued rise. I envy your consistency. Congrats to Laurent too on your record month.
I can't understand why, but I hit a new record this month and finally met my goal of US$1,000 in a month (more than a year later than my target date). The last time I uploaded was in December, so I'm baffled as to why my sales are still rising.
Congrats to your goal Lee! Nice milestone!
145
« on: May 27, 2009, 10:27 »
This would make sense except for the fact that StockXpert is owned by Getty. And on top of that their management seems to be in a shambles.
I doubt StockXpert are in any position to decide what they are or are not involved in.
We might be saying the same thing about Istock in a few more months. Hmm.
Why that?
146
« on: May 26, 2009, 07:50 »
The US had Memorial day and I believe in the UK there was also a kind of holiday. Parts of Germany had a holiday on Thursday with many taking off on Friday as well. Next Monday is another holiday in Germany.
147
« on: May 25, 2009, 03:23 »
something really strange here. some reporting payout limits, and the rest of us not one single sale. very weird.
If you look on their blog, they are selecting another 20,000 images for their 3rd party site. That is where most of my earnings came from. It shows they have been doing something, unlike some of the new sites that don't seem to be doing much to find buyers. Hopefully they will have success with more buyers.
Sounds great, but I have a problem committing my images to an agency for three years. In the fast changing world of stock photography, this is much to long.
148
« on: May 23, 2009, 08:20 »
You are of course right! Its amazing how much money I make for iStock.
149
« on: May 22, 2009, 08:29 »
From my bed to my desk it's about 2 seconds. If I jump I might make it in less than half a second
150
« on: May 22, 2009, 02:54 »
Really for non-exclusives this deal makes absolutely no sense at all- 25 cents, thats Crestock standards. Oh and have you noticed that they offer 20% for single file downloads at Photos.com even for Exclusives? Thats worse than for non-exclusives who submit through StockXpert.
I guess there will be some dissapointments for many Exclusives if they notice what a "great" source of additional income photos.com and JIU is.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 45
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
is also a wise choice 
But still waiting for the 135 which is on backorder. 
