|
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 - polar
76
« on: July 14, 2016, 14:33 »
I started with IS exactly 2 years ago - can I still delete all the crap I uploaded there in the beginning or is it too late? I always meant to do it..
And do I get it right that it is already not possible to edit keywords? 
We should be able to delete images until 20th August. I deleted a couple of images today without problems. I also tried editing keywords and I was still able to (I dont know if 20th August is also the date for editing keywords though...).
I think you're actually "deactivating" them, not deleting them. Keep in mind that iStock can and has sold deactivated files.
Yes, well, that is the term they use. I have deactivated a lot of images in last couple of years and they always disappeared from my iStock port and Thinkstock port within next day... there is no way for me to find out if they sold them after deactivation since we dont have further control over it :-/
They do actually pay you when they sell a deactivated image, so you get an email about it. I'm not sure what would happen if the contributor has actually closed the account, though.
77
« on: July 14, 2016, 13:00 »
I started with IS exactly 2 years ago - can I still delete all the crap I uploaded there in the beginning or is it too late? I always meant to do it..
And do I get it right that it is already not possible to edit keywords?
We should be able to delete images until 20th August. I deleted a couple of images today without problems. I also tried editing keywords and I was still able to (I dont know if 20th August is also the date for editing keywords though...).
I think you're actually "deactivating" them, not deleting them. Keep in mind that iStock can and has sold deactivated files.
78
« on: June 06, 2016, 09:13 »
...
Another thing I noticed over the last 18 months is how the best match on iStock hasn't really changed much at all. And what the best match mainly has been driving for the last 1.5 years is the newer content uploaded by exclusives and independents, plus some of the older stuff put up by exclusives which hasn't sold much in the past
...
The current best match algorithm is also not showing the older and best selling exclusive content at the top of the search results, which results in minimal sales to exclusives of their high quality best sellers from the past that they spent more money to create.
So what does this all really mean for contributors?
In my opinion it means that iStock is discouraging buyers from easily finding the more expensive, high quality exclusive content and instead putting a mix of new, lower quality and lower cost indy content, with some older, poorer selling exclusive content which isn't going to interest buyers much anyway.
I didn't vote because my portfolio is so small as to be microscopic. I stopped uploading in 2010 after whatever major debacle iStock caused that year and deactivated a significant number of images after the Google freebie event. I'm not contributing to microstock any more -- just letting the game play out to the end, which seems nigh. Nevertheless, I had a handful of images that continued to sell quite well (as credit sales too) until the last year, when everything went off a cliff. Your comment above would perfectly explain why this happened. Unless best match changes to show older best-sellers again, I'm pretty much completely dead instead of just almost dead. FWIW, I estimate earnings this year will be 9% of what I earned in 2012 and 3% of what I earned in 2010, the last year I uploaded -- losses of 91% and 97% respectively.
79
« on: May 29, 2016, 14:00 »
When I have a photo with 2 plates one is leaning to the right and the other to the left. Then rotation won't work. But it worked great on the photo with one plate.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Did you only use the rotation slider? The distortion slider would probably be more useful for something that needs to be adjusted on both sides. The vertical and horizontal sliders might also be useful. Once you develop the image and are in the Photo persona, you can go to Filters>Distort>Perspective for additional options for adjusting both sides of the image. (I find this useful for adjusting leaning buildings.) This list also includes the lens correction filter, similar to what you have in the Develop persona. You need to use a delicate touch with all of these tools to avoid making things look unnatural. Depending on the nature of the original shot, you won't necessarily get a perfect result but you can usually get closer to what you want. ETA: if you think you're going to have to use these tools, it would be a good idea to allow enough room around the outer edges of the image while shooting to permit the inevitable cropping that occurs.
80
« on: May 29, 2016, 13:08 »
I don't have Photoshop. I use Affinity Photo but mainly Lightroom.. I really want to get that right when I take the photo. I don't have much space where I am taking the photos but a huge window front. I can only free up another 50cm. People who do microstock have to be ready multi talented. You have to be food stylist, photographer and editing genius all in one.
In Affinity Photo, when you have your image in Develop Mode, select the Lens panel on the right of the screen and then check to enable Lens Correction. There are several sliders there that will allow you to make various adjustments that might help.
81
« on: April 04, 2016, 17:20 »
Got e-mail this morning asking if I'd like to re-enable my store on Marketplace as a customer wanted to license an image. I replied that if the royalty cut to 30% had gone into effect today as planned, then no, I wouldn't. I haven't heard anything more 
Good for you. You should have added that they could always just pass the customer onto you so you could get a fair-trade 100% of the sale.
82
« on: March 29, 2016, 15:18 »
Support tells me that these adjustments are for very old transactions - from 2010 and 2013 was what they said. They confirmed that the sales occurred when the files were active
Your Mileage May Vary (and your brain might wonder how this comes to light in 2016 and why there was no text explaining this in the e-mail and probably some uncharitable thoughts about their competence)
But they still sold "adjustments" to these "old transactions" in 2016 after the files had been deactivated, when their previous email noted that " license adjustments should not occur for files that had been deactivated and that we do audit content prior to these negotiations to ensure that the files are still active." So they still have not provided an adequate explanation why this was allowed to happen again, nor any assurances that it will not happen in the future. In fact, this latest round did happen in the "future" since they told you in 2015 that this "should not occur." People deactivate their files for a variety of reasons, some of which might be to avoid potential problems with inappropriate uses, model/property releases etc. Deactivated files should be totally off limits, even for different or continued usage of an image purchased when the file was active, unless the photographer agrees to it.
83
« on: March 28, 2016, 23:57 »
You won't get a coherent explanation but the bottom line is that they can and will sell deactivated images.
Licensed download before deactivation, buyer is paying for another use or continued use. Ask Jo Ann Snover
Jo Ann is always coherent. IS, not so much. After months of emails, I got no useful explanation from them. Initially, they even denied they'd sold the image despite having added the money to my account.
84
« on: March 28, 2016, 19:44 »
You won't get a coherent explanation but the bottom line is that they can and will sell deactivated images.
85
« on: March 27, 2016, 18:18 »
As far as I can see the free download is not standalone, therefore it isn't a product which owners of newer ACR versions would pay for, IMO. There are always the presets which are fun, but probably not worth over $100.
I bought the Nik software a couple of years ago but I think my versions of the apps are the ones being offered for free. I was able to use all the modules as standalone apps, although some are fussy about the file format.
86
« on: March 23, 2016, 13:45 »
I was debating whether to join 500px marketplace but was waiting to see if they sorted out the watermark issue. Now that they've chopped the royalty rate, I'm no longer interested, especially since I wouldn't have been willing to give them exclusive images in any event.
I do wonder, however, if there's any value in displaying small watermarked images in a free basic account. Do others who have done this ever generate any sales this way? Are you allowed to explicitly let viewers and potential buyers know they can contact you for direct sales? Flickr never allowed this, which was one reason I quit posting there.
I thought I read on this thread or another one a comment from someone who said 500px allows this but I can't find the reference right now. When I read their terms and conditions, it seems that they, like Flickr, don't permit it. I'd appreciate any feedback from people who know about this firsthand.
Of course, there's the larger question of whether uploading images would be worthwhile even if direct selling is allowed. Many people have been commenting on how poor the sales have been in the 500px marketplace, so perhaps there's no reason for optimism that images in the basic account will sell either.
87
« on: February 12, 2016, 11:17 »
I've a lot of infringed images. Any copyright infringement tracking agency you guys can recommend? I'm not wasting my time going over them myself.
I saw this site recommended on a forum recently. https://www.imagerights.com/I have no personal experience with them so I don't know how good they are.
88
« on: February 11, 2016, 22:43 »
The last time this happened to me I got in touch with support and the explanation was that an existing customer had come back for extended licenses. I had a bit of a go-around with them as the images had been deactivated between the time they were originally licensed and the EL was sold.
They never explained by this was processed off books but I did get an amount for each file versus just a file list and total amount. They have the details if you don't mind waiting for answers to support tickets.
It's worrying that these mysterious deals can be done with deactivated files. One of the reasons people deactivate files is because of concern about potentially inappropriate uses. At the very least, contributors should be asked whether they'd like to allow the usage of a deactivated file.
89
« on: February 04, 2016, 09:45 »
Swimming did the trick for me. I swim five days a week. I can sure tell the difference when I travel and can't swim.
Tai Chi is also good. Once you learn the moves, it's easy to do them at home.
Stretching and weight-lifting exercises can also make a huge difference. I was having horrible problems with my lower back and hamstring muscles until I started doing a few simple exercises three times a day at home -- leg stretches, squats, the sissy push-ups, back bends. Takes less than five minutes, but it keeps me going all day.
I think the most important thing is to get away from the computer several times a day and move your body. It was designed to move. Set an alarm every couple of hours and listen to it. I'm sure we all get absorbed in some project and end up sitting there for hours on end. That's the real problem.
ETA: As you get older, arthritis will also be a consideration. It can make you stiff and sore and less likely to want to move at all. This is something you need to fight. This is one reason why I like swimming; I do it in a warm therapy pool so my muscles and joints don't hurt while I'm doing slow laps and stretching exercises. The fact that I know I won't hurt when I'm doing them in the pool gives me the motivation to keep at it day after day.
90
« on: August 23, 2015, 21:20 »
This is how "scandalous" Canadian politics get...LOL
There's a LOT more to it than that.
91
« on: August 23, 2015, 18:39 »
92
« on: August 12, 2015, 10:36 »
It's clear that subs have cannibalized my credit sales. Just the other day, I was idly speculating why what used to be my best-selling image was no longer selling at all. Guess what? It has been selling. It's at the top of my subs list, earning only a tiny fraction of what it used to.
Oh yes, and for sure my newish files (past couple of years) only get sub sales.
Does anyone know for sure if Subs buyers see a different best match?
E.g., I have one particular file of a species unique on iStock, and not available 'in the wild' elsewhere in the top 4, which has one view and 4 dls recorded (mine is wild in native habitat). Two dls have shown up as subs and presumably two have still to show up. I'm pretty furious about that; what's the good in that? - they lose even more than me!
I guess that's why iStock makes it so awkward to find the images sold as subs. They're trying to keep contributors from realizing how much subs have damaged their sales. Not that it matters much to me anymore. I only have a small rump portfolio left after deactivating most of it a couple of years back and I'm not uploading there anymore. I've left the remaining images in place to collect whatever pennies they can. And pennies it is. I do a lot of wildlife photography too and I really wish I could find a good place to sell them. To me, none of the micros seems to work very well for this category. Any suggestions? p.s. I'd be interested in seeing your unique species if you're willing to share.
93
« on: August 12, 2015, 08:44 »
To see which files sold without using Theasis' script for Chrome browser, go into My Uploads, then click on first of all the Partner Program link in the left hand column, then click the word 'Royalty' at the top of the right hand column and that will sort your sales into order by which has earned most.
Then click on 'Image subscriptions' (not credit subs) then click twice on Last Sub DL (furthest right column) to see which files sold as subs. ATM they have just started reporting subs.
Thanks for this information. I never knew you could check the specific images downloaded as subscriptions this way. It's clear that subs have cannibalized my credit sales. Just the other day, I was idly speculating why what used to be my best-selling image was no longer selling at all. Guess what? It has been selling. It's at the top of my subs list, earning only a tiny fraction of what it used to.
94
« on: July 23, 2015, 17:28 »
You do not need to be an active participant in the community to license photos and there's no bias for people who are commenting or liking / faving more than others. However, photos that are popular in our community will of course, organically, have higher visibility and SEO traffic.
500px is primarily a photo community site. We didn't want to create a new company or abandon what we had already bulit. We're the same company, doing the same community site stuff we did before (and always will do) but now with a licensing platform tied to it due mostly in part by the demand of buyers in our community who wanted to legitimately license content. It's not for everyone and as a photographer, there are a few platforms I don't have the time for or don't want to participate in too. I think that's completely normal.
The comments regarding the watermark are being heard loud and clear and we'll continue to work on it for sure. As I mentioned before, on this forum everyone wants watermarks, on other forums and channels people hate watermarks on 500px photos. We're trying to find a balance and it's not perfect and maybe never will be.. but we'll continue to work on it.
I appreciate your efforts to accommodate both sides of this debate. It speaks well of your company that you listen to and interact with users and potential users. That's rare these days. But as I mentioned before, there are some inherent incompatibilities between photo-sharing and photo-marketing and this is one of them. As far as I can see, there doesn't appear to be any realistic way to resolve this incompatibility except to allow the two sides to function in a way that best suits their (very different) fundamental purposes. Not if you want to attract photographers who are primarily or solely interested in licensing. Thanks for confirming that community participation is not a factor in search ranking for licensing purposes.
95
« on: July 23, 2015, 14:57 »
Is there any way to find out which photo was sold via the PP? It's not listed with the regular credit sales. I agree with you that IS's royalty reporting system is frustratingly opaque.
There is a 3rd party script that runs on Google chrome. The old forum (which will go away end of this month), has the details. You can follow this link to read more about it: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352385&page=1
Since the old forum is going away, I am also going ahead and pasting the link to access the 3rd party script: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/istock-myuploads-fixes/ckloododgagaeepfamopjnjgbhbanlcg
Correct, there is also that Android app.
However, both apps have a limitation in terms of sales reported. If you have "too many" sales in a month, you will only see the latest ones. In my case, the Android app list sales only down to June 10th. I can't see sales made between June1st and June 9th, let alone May.
Similarly, with these 3rd party Chrome scripts, a lot of popular photos only show June sales. There is now way I can figure-out what was sold in May.
Thanks for this information, but honestly, I don't think I care enough to go to all the trouble. It's only one sale. "Too many" sales has not been much of a problem at IS lately. :-(
96
« on: July 23, 2015, 14:53 »
Today, I received a payment that puzzled me until I read your comment and discovered that it was from a PP sale in June. I've stopped paying attention to what's going on at IS so I'm not sure why I'm in the PP program. I opted out of it long ago when that was allowed. Have they now forced everyone into it? I thought some of the exclusive collections were still exempt.
These would be Getty Plus (formerly Getty 360) sales. They are reported under the Partner Program, but are not Thinkstock sales if you are opted out of the PP.
All iStock files are in Getty Plus, but not all Getty buyers have access to them.
http://istockfaq.gettyimages.com/what-is-getty-360
Ah, thanks for that. I noticed that there is a category called "GI sales" and I've occasionally had royalties reported there. I wouldn't have guessed that PP sales would actually be GI sales. Why would they do that? (I know, I know, why would they do anything they do?) And why can't they just list the * images sold?
97
« on: July 23, 2015, 14:39 »
I'm still confused about the watermark situation. From previous reading on these and other forums, I was under the impression that the images on prime.500px are drawn from what the photographer posts on 500px and the watermarks are added in prime, leaving the original images on 500px unwatermarked. There was some discussion about the fact that if you wanted the 500px images watermarked, you had to upload them with your own watermarks and your post above seems to confirm this. But doesn't that mean the watermarks would be embedded in the images for sale on prime? And wouldn't the prime photos be double-watermarked?
Some people suggested uploading two sets of images to 500px -- low-res watermarked images for viewing on 500px and high-res unwatermarked images to be mirrored on prime. This would require a lot of extra work and unless the high-res images can be hidden on 500px (i.e. only visible as watermarked images on prime), it would be pointless.
I'd appreciate it if you could clarify these issues for me. I very much agree with others who've said the simplest solution would be for you to automatically watermark all the images from the get-go. Agreed, they're not bullet-proof protection against theft but that's no reason not to provide as much protection as possible.
Also, I'd like to know whether you offer image exclusivity or artist exclusivity. I'd be interested in the former, but not the latter.
What we've done recently is enabled a checkbox in the upload / photo manager interface to allow you to specify if you want the 500px watermark on your photos. We take the original and apply the watermark on the Prime site automatically and depending on your preference watermark on the 500px site. It won't double watermark and simply applies two different watermarks to two different versions. If you upload a watermarked photo (where you've added the watermark yourself) AND you select the option to watermark, then yes your photo will be double watermarked and ultimately rejected in the marketplace since we need unwatermarked versions.
We offer image exclusivity, and do not insist on artist exclusivity.
Thanks for this information. However, I agree that the watermark is inadequate. It provides no more protection than no watermark at all, especially for exclusive images. I'm really interested in trying 500px but this watermark situation has to improve first. This is really why I asked about the community participation issue. There are some incompatibilities between photo-sharing and photo-marketing and this watermark issue is one of them. Regarding community participation, I have another question. I understand that participation can increase your visibility among potential buyers but it's also time-consuming and it's hard to quantify the benefits. This was the reason I left Flickr. I agree with others who say you should separate the two services or at least let those who are only interested in photo-marketing opt out of the other. As things stand now, what I'd like to know is whether community participation affects the results when a buyer types a keyword into the search box on 500px prime. Does a photographer's community participation influence whether his/her image comes first on page one or last on page 50?
98
« on: July 23, 2015, 12:34 »
As a matter of curiosity, why do you have to force everyone into a photo-sharing community? I did that with Flickr for several years but I'm done with it. I'm interested in your photo-marketing site and I'd prefer to concentrate on that and not be bothered with the other.
99
« on: July 23, 2015, 12:28 »
Hi PZF,
I'll try to clear up some confusion here, but always feel free to email [email protected] directly.
As with any stock photo site, we need you to upload the high-res versions of your photos. We display thumbnails and watermarked versions on the photo page on prime.500px.com. Since 500px is ALSO a photo community your photos also live there on your 500px profile page and photo pages. You can choose to watermark those photos as well (or not depending your preference on how you want your photos displayed).
I'm still confused about the watermark situation. From previous reading on these and other forums, I was under the impression that the images on prime.500px are drawn from what the photographer posts on 500px and the watermarks are added in prime, leaving the original images on 500px unwatermarked. There was some discussion about the fact that if you wanted the 500px images watermarked, you had to upload them with your own watermarks and your post above seems to confirm this. But doesn't that mean the watermarks would be embedded in the images for sale on prime? And wouldn't the prime photos be double-watermarked? Some people suggested uploading two sets of images to 500px -- low-res watermarked images for viewing on 500px and high-res unwatermarked images to be mirrored on prime. This would require a lot of extra work and unless the high-res images can be hidden on 500px (i.e. only visible as watermarked images on prime), it would be pointless. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify these issues for me. I very much agree with others who've said the simplest solution would be for you to automatically watermark all the images from the get-go. Agreed, they're not bullet-proof protection against theft but that's no reason not to provide as much protection as possible. Also, I'd like to know whether you offer image exclusivity or artist exclusivity. I'd be interested in the former, but not the latter.
100
« on: July 23, 2015, 11:41 »
Today, I received a payment that puzzled me until I read your comment and discovered that it was from a PP sale in June. I've stopped paying attention to what's going on at IS so I'm not sure why I'm in the PP program. I opted out of it long ago when that was allowed. Have they now forced everyone into it? I thought some of the exclusive collections were still exempt.
It doesn't matter much because I have only a small portfolio remaining there. I deleted most of it a few years back after the Google Drive fiasco so there are no images that I worry about going to random partner sites.
Is there any way to find out which photo was sold via the PP? It's not listed with the regular credit sales. I agree with you that IS's royalty reporting system is frustratingly opaque.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
