|
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 - lathspell
26
« on: December 21, 2008, 18:56 »
Consistent results here - $$ consistently going downhill. There was a little hick-up in October (and a holiday gap in July), but now everything is dropping as usual. ATM I'm at ~25% of last year's December $$, estimating not more than 40% at the end of December. Here's my graph over the last 2 years: 
27
« on: December 12, 2008, 17:56 »
What confused me was that I saw the terms for the contest in the forums but couldn't find any useful information in the posting. When English is your second (or fourth) language reading through tons of legal paragraphs can be really painful and make you crying ... I was not aware that you have to check the start page and the popup for further information - I rarely see the start page since I usually enter istock via a bookmark to my last downloads page.
28
« on: December 09, 2008, 12:03 »
Further more Ive heard some pretty disturbing rumours that business in general should be at an absoloute rock bottom.
Thank God all the other sites don't know about that ...
29
« on: December 08, 2008, 19:41 »
Oops, sorry, actually there is one agency which earned me less than byestockphoto last week: Zoonar. 
30
« on: December 08, 2008, 19:05 »
For me the begin of this month is a total disaster until now. There is not one agency that I upload to which has not outnumbered byestockphoto in the first week of December, and most of them did it by >200% ... It's simply discouraging.
31
« on: December 03, 2008, 07:32 »
I'm pretty sure that they are perfectly aware of all your points, that they have never given (and will never give) a sh*t about any contributor's opinions and that there (if this posting is actually reaching its receiver) will be a big laugh about your naivity. Sorry, but how many people do you know who left fotolia after one of all the past communication "disasters"? I do know only one, and that's me ... The way Fotolia chose to handle this demonstrates either a) a very poor understanding of stakeholder dynamics ...
IMO it actually demonstrates a very, very good understanding.
32
« on: December 02, 2008, 07:25 »
My November 2008 stats compared to November 2007:
portfolio size ~130%
downloads ~25%
royalties ~35%
(and I don't mean -25% or -35% - it's actually only 1/4th and 1/3rd ...)
'nough said.
33
« on: November 27, 2008, 09:49 »
I always loved ther way of communication - it's simply non-existing. Safes time for both parties ...
34
« on: October 10, 2008, 19:58 »
*giggle* I admit that I'm not totally innocent ("Innocent? Who's inncocent?") but I know 2-3 large portfolios with thousand(s) of pictures to correct which are keyword-spammed far beyond any limits. Good luck boys - or should I say "doom on you!"? Given the fact that (IMO) there are no capable bulk tools editing all these pics must be a job for weeks ...
35
« on: October 08, 2008, 11:50 »
I agree with pixelbrat. R.I.P. See you in a few years. Oh, and wherever you are now - I hope they have forums there and a computer running Photoshop.
36
« on: October 01, 2008, 09:39 »
looking at the image ids it seems that the second one is older, so...
Good point!
37
« on: September 26, 2008, 08:46 »
Ist das nicht neuerdings auch Deutschland  Der durchschnittliche Bayer sieht das anders ... Aber man gewhnt sich dran!
38
« on: September 26, 2008, 08:22 »
What is absolutely inaccaptable is the fact that the pictures are licenseed to Bilderking, not to the client. At the end the Bilderking client is paying the full cost for a license but can't use the picture for anything that is included in the standard license except ordering 1 print while Bilderking suddenly owns a full license without any costs but with all rights of usage. Bilderking might additionally use all purchased pictures in printed material, ads or on their website etc. pp. without paying any further fees. That's a standard license plus a reseller license at the cost of a standard license - and totally free for Bilderking. Great deal for them, no great deal for the contributors.
39
« on: September 26, 2008, 08:08 »
Sorry, ich kann kein Deutsch - isch gomm ous Drsdn! 
40
« on: September 21, 2008, 08:28 »
11 days is still in istock's "limits" - the longest time I ever had to wait was 14 days, and that was AFAIR a year ago. Somebody said that the number of contributors has doubled or even trippled while the number of inspectors has been increased by only ~10 % ...
41
« on: September 17, 2008, 17:33 »
Right, we do not want any black holes in Geneva. Where would all Swiss chocolate go???
Into the black hole of course - so it's already waiting when we all arrive. Great prospects ...
42
« on: September 11, 2008, 04:53 »
Ahh, this is much better! Thank you!
43
« on: September 10, 2008, 20:26 »
I guess we are all seeing something different? My background reads 235/235/235 ...
Oh, and a dark grey background with a black font ain't good for the posting previews ...
Perhaps that solves the miracle.
44
« on: September 10, 2008, 18:52 »
My Olympus E-500's sensor died after 25 months - repair for free took 12 days in total which I consider as good.
45
« on: September 10, 2008, 18:36 »
Wow, one of out monitors is way out of calibration. The green left border on the quote box is quite subdued on my screen, ant the "dark grey" background elsewhere is a soft bluish/gray for me. Ok, agreed - it's not neon. But in a pretty-close-to-all-kinds-of-gray context it's still quite disturbing. Here's a snapshot of the article preview:  And the dark gray behind the "Ok, agreed ..." line is ~R67G67B67 which is ~75% black, not bluish but simply dark gray ... And, the line in your message where you specified arial font, looks the same as the others on my screen. Strange. Then either your browser cannot handle Arial or your monitor is broke.
46
« on: September 10, 2008, 17:17 »
Sorry, but: IMO the font absolutely sucks. Especially the quotes in italic are a pain for my eyes, and the plain white background plus a neon green left border don't help at all. Certainly not every designer's first choice ... Perhaps Arial or Tahoma or Georgia are oldschool, but at least they are easy to read.Oh, and a dark grey background with a black font ain't good for the posting previews ...
47
« on: September 03, 2008, 23:04 »
Can't join the horray club currently - September is starting slowly. Usually I get an average of 2 DLs/day, but it's alltogether 2 DLs I got within the first 3 days of September - and there even wasn't any weekend ...
48
« on: September 01, 2008, 08:27 »
4. Do you have any other thoughts about the lifecycle of an image? Yep, I do: IMO there's nothing predictable, and none of your other questions can be answered.
49
« on: August 28, 2008, 23:09 »
As far as I understood from the previous posts, the buyer is sent to FT for purchasing the image, which then they use for printing.
As far as I understand bilderking is purchasing the license in the name of the poster buyer - bilderking does neither open a separate FT account for every buyer nor are buyers sent to FT to open an account. They claim to ease the process for the buyer with doing for him what he/she basically had to do by himself/herself. I'm pretty sure that every purchased license is sold to bilderking, not to the original buyer - which makes all this in theory a reseller product because the final license holder is probably bilderking and not the buyer, no matter if they print only one copy or more.
50
« on: August 28, 2008, 19:04 »
Yep, if they sell 100 copies of one of your files then you will receive 100 times the credits for the largest possible resolution (bilderking says they always purchase the highest resolution available for a file). In this case bilderking would probably make you more money than with buying only one EL. But who has ever sold 100 prints of one file?!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
