|
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 - BelieveInStock
51
« on: January 16, 2017, 11:08 »
Any holiday today ? Having a terrible day at Shutterstock.
52
« on: December 03, 2016, 07:09 »
I hope Adobe/Fotolia appreciate Mat's work for making contributor-agency relations so positive. I believe it already pays off.
The last time any agency was really concerned about honest positive communication and working towards contributor's best interest was a few years ago, and it was Shutterstock. I guess it come to an end with Scott Braut leaving SS.
Now lets compare the two worlds - Adobe/Fotolia vs Istock. The first is a knight in a shining armor and the latter is a miserable Gollum creature  .
I didn't like Fotolia at all until Adobe took over. Fotolia were like istocks little brother, copying their commission cuts and setting top level rankings almost all of us will never reach. I'm still not that impressed because my earnings fell off a cliff under Fotolia and there's been no real recovery under Adobe. We are still paid too little and have those crazy top ranking levels most people will never reach. I hope things will change but until now, not much has happened to make me enthusiastic.
SS set a top tier level that's possible for almost anyone to reach if they put in the work, if Adobe want to go up in my estimation, they need to change their ranking system and give us an incentive to sell more.
The higher ranking tiers are not that impossible to reach. It depends on from what perspective you look at it. I am Sapphire and I am happy being paid 40% especially when it relates to big credit sales. Fotolia/Adobe know how to respect and value the experienced hard working contributors.
53
« on: December 03, 2016, 06:29 »
I hope Adobe/Fotolia appreciate Mat's work for making contributor-agency relations so positive. I believe it already pays off. The last time any agency was really concerned about honest positive communication and working towards contributor's best interest was a few years ago, and it was Shutterstock. I guess it come to an end with Scott Braut leaving SS. Now lets compare the two worlds - Adobe/Fotolia vs Istock. The first is a knight in a shining armor and the latter is a miserable Gollum creature .
54
« on: November 23, 2016, 11:38 »
Another reason for a decline since Monday is Thanksgiving holiday. Maybe people from the US are getting the whole week off.
Thanksgiving is not obvious for us Europeans.
55
« on: November 23, 2016, 10:15 »
I am a contributor since 2007, I upload reguraly.
They did something to the search engine around Monday and, for me, the change is very unfavourable. Hope things get back to normal soon.
56
« on: October 19, 2016, 12:16 »
With top 200 you would not need too much verification or review process as they (me included, sorry for my anonymity) do have expertise what images are needed, are quality aware etc. Lets say every photographer/illustrator from top 200 has on avarage 5000 images (at least). 200 x 5000 of the best content is an awesome start. I really like this idea and did think about that. But I dont think with 200 microstock contributoers, I will get enough high quality photos, verification process costs way alot of money too.
My suggestion is contact 200 best microstock photographers, illustrators and build a separate database. I mean separate from any API as they are unstable, and you are a serious businessman aren't you?
An established photographer/illustrator would happily get $1 per image uploaded and 50%/50% royalty split thereafter.
What about that ?
57
« on: October 19, 2016, 12:02 »
My suggestion is contact 200 best microstock photographers, illustrators and build a separate database. I mean separate from any API as they are unstable, and you are a serious businessman aren't you?
An established photographer/illustrator would happily get $1 per image uploaded and 50%/50% royalty split thereafter.
What about that ?
58
« on: October 03, 2016, 07:29 »
I consider myself an experienced and successful microstock artist. I can offer you my expertise for $70,000.
59
« on: October 03, 2016, 04:42 »
With all due respect, do you really think that people who have been doing this business for all these years and have gone through good and bad times in order to learn, will share all this knowledge with you just like that ?
60
« on: September 27, 2016, 09:14 »
Thanks Mantis. It's not a diving specific resort, it is rather a super luxurious resort, a very tiny island with amazing coral reef a few footsteps from the beach. What do you think about Ewa Marine system ? Their underwater camera housings are in the price range of a new Go Pro camera. Hi!
Me and my wife are going on Maldives for two weeks on our honeymoon to some super duper 5 star island hotel. I want to some snorkeling photography. Unfortunately I've just become aware that the waterproof case for my Canon 5ds R costs thousands of dollars. I don't want to spend that amount of money on a thing that I will use only once.
Are there any alternatives ? GoPro would be good but the image quality is not satisfactory nether for me nor for stock.
Thanks!
Congrats on the marriage. Maldives is fantastic. Enjoy every day you are there.
As far as Uw photo the first thing I would do is ask the resort if they rent cameras. If it's a dive specific resort they probably do or can get you a local rental resource. I don't know where you are but in the USA you can rent housings and cameras at www.borrowlens.com. However, if you are worried about quality, you would have to rent a lot of gear, including lighting. That gets expensive and heavy with such paltry weight allowances fo divers. They only value a housing will bring with no strobes is some creative split level shooting. However, I think a GoPro with a red filter will be sufficient. The red filter brings back the red in the light spectrum, which is the first color to be absorbed in water......red then orange then yellow, then green, then blue, then indigo then violet. The reds go in the first 20-30 feet. This means that without artificial ligh your images will look green ........because the red is gone or minimized. The red filter corrects for this and you can get attachments for your go pro.
So I would say that GoPro is sufficient if the light is good, but if you are looking for more then it will cost and I'm not sure it's worth it.....from a cost, complexity and weight perspective.
61
« on: September 27, 2016, 05:21 »
Hi!
Me and my wife are going on Maldives for two weeks on our honeymoon to some super duper 5 star island hotel. I want to some snorkeling photography. Unfortunately I've just become aware that the waterproof case for my Canon 5ds R costs thousands of dollars. I don't want to spend that amount of money on a thing that I will use only once.
Are there any alternatives ? GoPro would be good but the image quality is not satisfactory nether for me nor for stock.
Thanks!
62
« on: September 06, 2016, 15:26 »
My works are stolen as well. Looking forward to get compensation (at least the royalties earned by the thief on my images) from Colourbox.
BTW it is a shame that my images appeared in such a lousy agency as Colourbox.
63
« on: March 21, 2016, 08:45 »
Has anyone noticed an increase in the number of EL's? I haven't
Maybe a bit of increase in the number of EL, but it doesn't compensate financially the huge loss in commission.
64
« on: March 21, 2016, 08:26 »
Some days ago I got a bit over $13 for EL. This is extreme. It is over 50% pay-cut and I am on the highest tier, I can't imagine what it would be if I was on first royalty level.
65
« on: February 24, 2016, 10:19 »
its obviously an error to receive those amounts. doesnt entitle anyone for compensation either.
When you find e.g money on the street and return them to the owner, you are entitled to receive 10% of the lost property.
66
« on: February 24, 2016, 07:05 »
UPDATE:
$500 removed today. We deserve explaination and at least some compensation.
67
« on: February 24, 2016, 05:37 »
Same here. Over $500 for one sale for a standard licence.
Good that you BelieveInStock!
Haha as you can see believing causes miracles 
68
« on: February 24, 2016, 04:45 »
Same here. Over $500 for one sale for a standard licence.
69
« on: February 23, 2016, 07:37 »
OK, but still there is Disambiguation needed to be done so I don't see how it might be easier to upload to Istock.
70
« on: January 27, 2016, 16:12 »
Same here. Maybe even more than 4 hours.
71
« on: January 27, 2016, 04:15 »
This feels like the true nature of crowdfunding exploitation for the sake of higher profits for the shareholders. It was bound to happen when shutterstock went public and the new boss is wall street.
Letting more contributors in (releasing the floodgates) is bound to have a negative impact on everyone else's download numbers.
I'm just giving a probable scenario. When as a business decision to raise profits, you designate 3 image slots the first 3 pages only to the lowest tiered group to give them the unfair boost over the higher tiered images just for the sake to get more revenue. You would be stupid as a business NOT to do this especially with this new contributor payout scheme. More slots given = happier noobs... more money for SS. Lets just say the images are comparable to mine in quality. Why should they get seen while mine doesn't get a fair chance? This type of stuff isn't accountable but most likely probable. Maybe I am a conspiracy nut to think these thoughts but they make so much sense to me. hehe
Nope. Buyer wants the best image, fast. If Shutterstock was to favor low-tier or as you call them "noobs" in the search engine, they would very quickly lose clients who would migrate to Fotolia etc. QUALITY WILL ALWAYS WIN.
72
« on: January 26, 2016, 14:03 »
I got today $29.85 Enhanced sale.
That's completely impossible. Everyone knows that this new change has only one purpose, to screw contributors and help shareholders buy a new solid gold toilet.
Oh, wait, did you ever consider that you really "should be" getting $40.00 for that EL? I'll bet SS made a huge pile of money off of it. Besides all of the image hosting, sales, advertising, providing buyers with a place to consistently find a huge diversity of images, dealing with financial transactions what did they do to deserve to make ANY money off of your image? Practically criminal I say.
What  I just reported the amount.
Strange that BelieveInStock did not mention the $$$$$, resources and time investments that contributors provide.
The list is long and longer still for quality creative images and illustrations!
You are right. In the perfect world of mine it would be 50-50. I have no idea why Shutterstock considers 30% (or even less) a "sweet spot".
73
« on: January 26, 2016, 12:54 »
I got today $29.85 Enhanced sale.
That's completely impossible. Everyone knows that this new change has only one purpose, to screw contributors and help shareholders buy a new solid gold toilet.
Oh, wait, did you ever consider that you really "should be" getting $40.00 for that EL? I'll bet SS made a huge pile of money off of it. Besides all of the image hosting, sales, advertising, providing buyers with a place to consistently find a huge diversity of images, dealing with financial transactions what did they do to deserve to make ANY money off of your image? Practically criminal I say.
What I just reported the amount.
74
« on: January 26, 2016, 12:01 »
I got today $29.85 Enhanced sale.
75
« on: January 25, 2016, 16:03 »
Why do "vets" consider they should get more than "newbies" anyway.........? Just curious don't want to start a war
Maybe because 'vets' are the ones who made their company successful ?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
