|
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 - Noedelhap
Pages: 1 ... 69 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77 78 79 ... 89
1826
« on: December 04, 2013, 04:05 »
Thank you very much for you time and advices, it was very helpful.
Yeah, i know they are pretty simple and made of simple shapes. The things is I didn't do it
from the sketch and I didn't use my style, I wanted to try something completely different, but I guess
i failed big time.
This is what I do, for example http://www.artween.com/var/artween/storage/images/students/barbara-ismailovic/theme/mermaid-animal-spirit/1029364-1-eng-US/Mermaid-animal-spirit_oeuvre_grand.jpg but it's not vector.
I will practice more with illustrator and I will listen to you advices.
Thanks again a lot guys!
That's great work. You should really draw on paper, scan it and (auto)trace* it in Illustrator. The hardest thing would be to replicate the color in vector style, but it's not impossible. *Keep in mind, autotrace almost always needs clean-up with the pen tool afterwards.
1827
« on: December 02, 2013, 10:37 »
Frankly, it looks a bit like beginner's vector graphics. The vector illustrations are very simplistic and basic, almost devoid of a recognisable style.
You could pass it off as a artistic choice, but to be able to do that, the style must be consistent and the execution must be flawless. And that's what's lacking in your illustrations.
For instance:
1 The kitchen illustration is made up of standard shapes, some outlined, some without a stroke. The fonts are ugly. Some shapes appear rounded, others are flat. There's one gradient shape that looks off. The color palette is dull.
2 The perspective is incorrect. A deliberately distorted perspective could work as an artistic choice, but here it just looks amateurish because of its inconsistency. The banner and font are too basic. The face is anatomically incorrect and a bit skewed.
3 This one has the most potential in my opinion, but its composition is boring. Also, use a better color palette and be consistent with the level of detail.
Maybe it's because of your technical skills (which need a lot of work), but your artistic skills could use some work as well. My advice would be to take a good look at some professional artwork on istock and try to reach that level.
Could you show some of your freehand work?
1828
« on: November 30, 2013, 08:20 »
I've had only 25% of my usual number of downloads, and the worst month of the year. This can't be right.
1829
« on: November 29, 2013, 18:32 »
That's sad. My condoleances.
1830
« on: November 27, 2013, 08:46 »
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this.
1831
« on: November 21, 2013, 13:45 »
Yes, we get at least 50% less RPI.
1832
« on: November 21, 2013, 08:26 »
As if prices weren't cheap enough already...
I have not received an email telling us about this sale, so where's this coming from all of a sudden?
1833
« on: November 18, 2013, 13:01 »
The https thing worked. I have regular Monday sales.
1834
« on: November 18, 2013, 08:44 »
How long has this been going on? What made them break their own site?
Hopefully this will not cost us sales, although it seems the buyer's side is up and running...?
1835
« on: November 14, 2013, 21:49 »
Does anyone know if these Getty 360 sales will show up on the "Stats from Partner Sites" page? You know, if you click on Details in your portfolio and then select the Partner Program section.
1836
« on: November 14, 2013, 10:53 »
The extra money this month is something to do with the Getty 360 scheme. Lobo has confirmed that Getty 360 sales are being reported in the PP.
For those who are not aware, a few months ago Getty announced a new scheme called Getty 360. This is a private web site available only to Getty's largest customers. The site merges all Getty, iStock and PP content into one place and allows those customers to browse everything on the one site.
I presume that one reason for reduced 'normal' sales from iStock is the transfer of large accounts to the new Getty arrangement. However, 'lost' sales from those accounts are now being credited in the PP numbers.
I hope this makes sense.
This makes total sense, Hatman. There must then be a phase two because Shadysue (Liz) brings up a good question about exclusive income. I wonder what the whole value proposition is by Getty 360, whether it's simply customer convenience, or a better, less transparent way to keep chipping away at commissions. People who don't understand and may be blinded by the hike in commissions must ask how much would they have made if those same images were sold on Istock? Moreover, since they are recorded as PP, it's a RC KILLER, thus ensuring that the lions share of contributors on IS do not meet their current levels and drop to a lower commission. While I too like the hike in revenue, I am suspicious of the broader intentions.
Yeah, me too. I suspect the proverbial fly in the ointment will rear its ugly head soon. Losing out on RC's is not that bad for me anymore, as illustrators have a standard 20% again since the change this year. So for now, I'm gladly welcoming the sales.
1837
« on: November 13, 2013, 05:22 »
Compared to earlier PP sales, these seem to have a huge increase in RPD. For instance:
Nov 1st: 9 PP downloads, $47,55
Nov 2nd: 9 PP downloads, $6,52
That's more than your average $0,28 (although I see some of those as well)!
1838
« on: November 06, 2013, 06:40 »
It's STILL not fixed? I'd love to pay them a visit, just to see what exactly it is they're doing overthere. This is beyond comprehension.
1839
« on: November 04, 2013, 19:56 »
How much I loathe those RC levels. We're getting punished for the fact that the site underperforms. They promised we'd double our sales after the commission cut, but that was a blatant lie. I have seen no increase in sales whatsoever. Basically they're saying: "No sales? We'll lower your commissions, because it's your fault you're not getting any sales, not ours!"
I know 123RF never listens to its contributors, but let me try again: get rid of the RC levels and reinstate our old commissions!
1840
« on: November 02, 2013, 07:45 »
It's been a very long time indeed, now. I wonder if it is high enough up the priority list ever to get fixed. Or maybe Gostwyk is right and they would rather people lost track of what they make each month.
It's not hard to lose track if my earnings are zero 
1841
« on: November 01, 2013, 22:26 »
Well, it's a bug resulting from the incompetent IT department trying to 'untangle' their own code.
1842
« on: October 25, 2013, 08:46 »
It's nearly impossible to get a reasonably high level of video sales, so the RPD will be much lower than on most sites. Doesn't sound very appealing to me.
1843
« on: October 21, 2013, 13:20 »
Sounds like a useless feature. Buyers will likely only leave a comment or rating if they feel very strongly about an image (either very positive or very negative).
1844
« on: October 16, 2013, 12:21 »
Yup! They are early (or on time) this month. Looks like they've processed the partner sales till september 17th. So far, so good 
celebrating 28 cents won't take us anywhere, that is why they have no respect for us but yep let's all cheer with PP 
Sometimes they throw in an occasional extended license download of $24, so it's not all as gloomy as you think. To me, PP gives a nice additional income stream. It doesn't fully replace iStock sales either.
1845
« on: October 09, 2013, 16:55 »
Why can't they even improve a site's speed without having to remove profile pages and blogs? What does a member's profile page have to do with overall site speed (specifically regarding search results)?
I have added contact information on my blog for those clients who would want to seek contact with me. They should at least allow us to show a small biography or something.
The 5 minute delay after uploading is bothersome and could greatly disrupt uploading workflow.
The only thing that sounds good is the removal of the completely obsolete and irrelevant rating and comment system. Same thing goes for the Logos section, which was an epic failure to begin with.
1846
« on: October 09, 2013, 08:39 »
Horrible sales. Hardly worth any effort, actually.
1847
« on: October 09, 2013, 08:19 »
I don't understand the criticism on their commissions. I'm getting 44% royalty, which seems fair.
The only thing that kind of bothers me is that there are too many subscription sales, but most credit sales earn me a few dollars (plus a recent EL of $35), so for me they're doing okay.
1848
« on: October 07, 2013, 21:18 »
I had submitted an application to them to become a video contributor, but it's pending for over 4 weeks now.
1849
« on: October 06, 2013, 16:51 »
They run a few subsidiary websites, such as iClipart.com and iPHOTOS.com.
1850
« on: October 03, 2013, 11:52 »
My last sale was in June(!), and now I'm seemingly forever stuck at just $1,50 short of a payout. Unbelievable.
The opportunity to gain some market share and use the momentum has passed long ago. Sales are horrible, there's no marketing campaign so the site doesn't attract new customers.
They're almost 3 years old now, and they haven't grown at all in terms of sales.
Pages: 1 ... 69 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77 78 79 ... 89
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
