|
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 - beketoff
126
« on: March 01, 2016, 16:00 »
Hi all,
I'm just looking at MicrostockGroup's poll results and what do I see?
Alamy 25.1
Fotolia 22.5
Not only Fotolia didn't surpass the 25 rating in recent months since Adobe acquisition, it just gave it up to Alamy which was in the middle tier just months ago. Curious to see how this unfolds, since personally my sales at Fotolia shot up as of last December-January, almost catching up with SS, whereas at Alamy I have...0 all-time total sales (ok, with a smallest port among other agencies, but still with a few hundred nice landscape pictures).
127
« on: February 26, 2016, 06:23 »
Hello all,
Just a very general question about SS tier levels. I'm about to hit my first upgrade very soon (>$500) and I was wondering how quickly the new tier level (and, respectively, the new commission levels) enter into force? Immediately? Starting from the following month? Otherwise?
Thanks.
128
« on: February 24, 2016, 08:29 »
I recommend you all subscribe to their Twitter account. They have posted yesterday literally: " Sorry if we've been slow with email replies lately, we're working overtime on finishing the Match All feature. Thx for your patience." I also have some parsing issues with iStock, and they responded to me that they're aware of the problem and will address it and other bugs in upcoming new build, including the "Match all" feature". So be just a little bit more patient. Your income from microstocks won't disappear because of this temporary glitches 
129
« on: February 22, 2016, 09:07 »
... That is where PM ends up  Sorry for not getting back to you sooner - see my response, the correct username should solve the problem
Do you suggest using username for logging into Qhero? If yes, then this still doesn't work, since Qhero asks for an email instead, and if I put only my username, it returns an error saying that "please include "@" in the email address". If you mean that I should use my iStock username instead of email address when linking my Qhero account (once logged into) to my iStock account via the button "Connect to iStock account", then this returns the same result as using my email address. I'm really perplexed, so say the least...  I have replied to your PM, together with a screenshot of my Qhero interface.
130
« on: February 22, 2016, 06:11 »
its like communicating vessels.
It's an interesting concept! Since I can also confirm that although my earnings at FT have caught up with SS since December or January, this is primarily due to the fact that my SS earnings have dropped significantly since December (plus a small increase of sales through FT, to make things equal at the moment). As for SS sales, they are not picking up despite all the winter holidays, days off, blizzards etc. being over on one hand, and gradual increase of the portfolio on the other hand. Sadly...
131
« on: February 22, 2016, 06:04 »
I will wait and see. From early reports it isn't even working yet, anyone managed to upload a batch?
Nope. Get stuck at the moment when I need to link my iStock account with Qhero. Have been trying since day one, without success. PM'ed Kasper for additional support, waiting for their response...
132
« on: February 18, 2016, 17:19 »
Have been trying to use Qhero since day one of the launch and last time tried was today. Doesn't work on neither Chrome nor Microsoft Edge nor on Internet Explorer, all latest versions, cookies enabled, adblocker disabled, etc.
On Chrome the problem starts from the very beginning - I'm just not able to upload the pictures. Once I select them and click "Open", the Qhero upload window just disappears with no photos uploaded.
Edge and Explorer does upload the pictures, but I'm then stuck with connecting to iStock account, once all keywords, terms etc. have been added and completed. Once I fill in login and pass in a pop-up window, it just either disappears with no changes in the main window (Edge) , or stays open but blank (Explorer).
I have tried this already 5 or 6 times and unless I'm advised how to solve the issue, I will stop trying and use the old reliable DeepMeta app.
Thanks.
133
« on: February 08, 2016, 10:31 »
So far I haven't been able to upload files to the qhero site. It starts uploading, but then the window abruptly closes and the file never shows up. I know it just launched so they probably have some bugs to work out.
Has anyone else tried it yet?
Try using qhero in Internet Explorer/Edge, it doesn't appear to be working correctly in Google Chrome.
134
« on: January 26, 2016, 12:22 »
Hello,
Certainly, I'm not the only one having issues with their FTP. I have uploaded a large batch of ~200 photos via their FTP last night and they are still not available under "Manage Media" section, for further finalization. I have sent them an email (as always anytime I upload something), but haven't heard from them so far. Shall I wait or re-upload using the web-based feature?
Thanks.
135
« on: January 24, 2016, 17:28 »
Released: N means no model release, right? Y means yes? Nothing to do with review?
None of my photos (at least in the batch concerned) contained people to have releases. Yet, as said above, some were "released". Just thinking aloud..
136
« on: January 24, 2016, 16:29 »
Ok, this has been discussed hundreds of times (i.e. SS review system), but I just want to be sure that I'm not missing something.
It's been suggested by some here, including on the basis of SS's official statements and reports that they use some sophisticated reviewing system. Others have suggested that most of the approvals/rejections are made by AI (scripts, algorithms, filters etc.) and not by humans. Recently I noticed how crazy fast is the reviewing process on SS. The batches are reviewed very often within hours or less. Today, having submitted another batch of around 20-30 photos, I noticed for the first time that when you go to the Contributor's Approval Status page, some photos in the batch are immediately marked as "Released: Y, Status: Pending" while others as "Released: N, Status: Pending". This is immediately after the submission, literally less than a minute or so after submission.
Could it be a proof that some of the photos are indeed screened and filtered by the AI and immediately trashed (those marked as "Released: N, Status: Pending"), and only the ones marked as "Released: Y, Status: Pending" are waiting for human's final approval?
Perhaps this has been noticed and discussed before, so sorry for possible spam.
P.S. Just amazing. While I was typing this post, most of those 20-30 photos have been reviewed by SS. Guess what? Rejected.
137
« on: January 23, 2016, 15:25 »
i did not see a decline in ELs after the license adjustment to 500k. us 38centers might see the same earnings for EL after 25 jan but this change will make them more money for ELs purchased from lower level contribs. which kind of relates to lowering acceptance rules. increasing images at a lower payout level etc. benefits them
My FT portfolio is only slightly bigger than at SS (since FT accepts way much more than SS does), but small overall as I started around one year ago (~500 photos on FT). However, FT sales have been accelerating since the beginning of January, have equaled SS's sales in mid-January and exceeded the SS sales by now. Not only sales on FT are more frequent than the ones at SS, they bring considerably higher RPD. Could be a one-time event, or could be a turnaround for FT and demise of SS (in the mid- to long-term), who knows.
138
« on: January 22, 2016, 18:21 »
And since then did they introduce an On Demand Image (small/medium) price? I always thought it's one price on all sizes at SS (like the one currently also on payment schedule, at 1.88 USD for lower tier).
Otherwise, the news on EL are definitely bad for most of us and perfectly clear to explain (i.e. their recent open of the floodgate due to new acceptance policy of 1/10). I guess they realized they are loosing the market share quickly and have to stabilize and/or catch up with other agencies. In fact, although this month (January) is usually a slow one due to holidays, in my case it's just terrible for most agencies; however, what is even more amazing is that FT has earned me so far this month more than SS, what has never happened to me before.
139
« on: January 03, 2016, 17:46 »
over exposure, editorial only
did editorial. as for overexposure, personally don't think so and so did four other microstock agencies which accepted the batch. but thanks for your feedback though. Six times??? I admire your persistence. But I have to ask, why on earth are you wasting time re-submitting this? Life is too short and by re-submitting even once you are most likely wasting more time than you will ever earn back.
first, because as my experience with SS showed me, resubmitting at SS can be quite successful. And secondly, from purely mercantile reasons: SS (unfortunately) generates the most for me as of today, and I want my good (subjectively) pictures to be available in their search.
140
« on: January 02, 2016, 16:28 »
Hi all, This photo and few others from the batch has been rejected 6 (!) times at SS, due to various reasons every time (all except for legal ones, since the pictures were submitted as editorial with all the rules adhered to). I've given up with SS for this batch, but will appreciate your feedback, to improve in future, as perhaps I'm missing something... https://www.dropbox.com/s/2g9dxtgw3e47hs4/IMG_7027.jpg?dl=0Thanks a lot. P.S. Needless to say, this photo has been accepted at all other major agencies from the top and middle tier. SS is such an SS...
141
« on: December 17, 2015, 16:17 »
"The New York-based but originally Ukrainian stock photo agency Depositphotos has gained a combined $5 million in funding from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and U.S. venture fund TMT Investments, the company announced on Dec. 17. EBRD, via its venture capital investment program, gave the company $4 million. This marks the London-based financial institutions first investment in Ukraines dynamic IT industry. TMT Investment, which invested $3 million in the company in 2011, had contributed $1 million in the round." More here. Not that I'd earn a lot with DP, this latest marginal investment means that the company is not really dying (for now) and might even further improve (thinking from a perspective of an investor). Good luck to the company (and our sales there)!
142
« on: October 22, 2015, 15:17 »
Not too good to be true - just one of their corporate customers buying a custom license.
Thanks for your feedback. Is there a place/thread where I can read more about SS's (and other microstocks in general) custom licences and how thy work, or is it completely X-files? Since in SS's plans and subscriptions there's nothing about it, as far as I remember. Seems like corporate clients can approach SS on an ad hoc basis and ask for a specific licence and negotiate for it a certain price?
143
« on: October 22, 2015, 10:58 »
Hello everybody,
Earlier today I've got a sale of a single photo for $18.80 - wow, first royalty like this in four months since I started all this. However, what I'm curious about is what type of sale is this, namely, how is the final price established in this category?
From SS's dedicated page I know the royalties paid out under this category ("Single & Other Downloads: For single images, test products, and new products involving per-image sales, images will pay out starting at 20% of the sale price and increase to 25%, 28%, and 30% based on the same lifetime earnings milestones as the other Standard License downloads."). Which means that if $18.80 is 20% royalty paid to me (I'm pretty sure I'm in the lower tier now, and not in the 25%, 28% and 30% range), then the SS price for end-customer was around $100? Sounds too good to be true.
Many thanks for your input.
144
« on: October 13, 2015, 09:12 »
Also noticed a considerable drop in sales as of October, with few days already with 0 sales, and few more days with only 1-3 sales only. Even holiday-quiet August was way better. Seeing others here reporting similar trends, my understanding is that it's not about my images but rather a general shift in their system/policy, be it images reshuffling, upgrading or anything else.
145
« on: October 01, 2015, 06:54 »
Does that include calling people rude and morons, for answering with the truth?
Minor edits, such as cropping the image or adjusting the lighting would be acceptable.
Wording of rejection reason that might apply.
"Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable."
Finding examples of a photo does not mean proof that they are allowed.
First, my personal comment wasn't addressed to you by any means, as your responses were in fact more straight to the point rather than abusing. But that's not the topic. From all your comments I now do understand that presence of examples in SS database is not a proof that certain images are allowed. However, since the official rules and guidelines don't explicitly talk about partial desaturation, my confusion still exists as to "color adjustments" mentioned among the allowed alterations to any image, irrespective of its genre. In my view, "color adjustment" is precisely what is partial desaturation of an image is. And although, as mentioned above, I do now see that editorials are not allowed to alter the color in any specific way except for total desaturation (b&w) or full color, I still find the reasoning confusing, which perhaps needs to be addressed at least somewhere. My confusion and experience with rejection is a good example of what other new contributors might experience in the future, don't you think so?
146
« on: September 30, 2015, 17:28 »
Review mistake they should have been rejected.
As a newbie, I learn and double-check by searching examples of what is accepted and what is not. When I see multiple instances of a type/genre that I shot myself and would like to post being accepted, I take it as a rule. Especially at a stock like SS where acceptance rates are generally very low, compared to others. Now it's more clear. Thanks to all reasonable responses. (And I still can't get why so many people around are morrons and have to be rude).
147
« on: September 29, 2015, 05:25 »
No thats not editoria at all! looks like an AD for a cab company or similar.
Good, but why would it (and many others) be then allowed into 'editorial' category of SS? That's the only question I'm asking, and not going into debate what is editorial and what is not, what is yellow and what is not... From the responses received so far I understand there's no clear answer, and that this is probably quite random and inconsistent. Which prompts me to try re-submitted the images few more times and see if another reviewer gets it accepted.
148
« on: September 29, 2015, 04:50 »
Can you provide some examples? Some links to so called similar photos....
You don't read carefully, as I included the links in my earlier post in this thread above. But I don't mind providing them again for your convenience: Here or here or here ... All are editorial, and all in exactly the same technique as my photos, being nevertheless rejected recently.
149
« on: September 29, 2015, 04:35 »
Seems like you really don't understand the meaning of editorial.
[/quote]
I do understand, and I have plenty of editorials submitted and accepted, even by SS with their extremely strict acceptance rules. And I did explain above one of the main reasons I posted it under editorial, instead of a general category. But can you please perhaps explain the reason why other similar photos (again, see above links) are available for sale at SS under editorial then? I expect to hear that they were submitted earlier when rules were different, no?..
150
« on: September 29, 2015, 04:17 »
editorial must be editorial, desaturate everything or keep colors, and resubmit
As I mentioned in my original post, I already have the same two photos in full color accepted at SS. However, for artistic purposes I decided to post it in semi-desaturated variant, as well (if you search it on SS, you will find similar photos already from other contributors, in editorial, so how did they succeed? see e.g. here and here). Perhaps the problem is that I submitted it under editorial, and there this is not acceptable (still, see examples above - semi-desaturated and in editorial). And I'm still not convinced about their reasoning, since in my view selective desaturation is exactly what the 'color alteration' means and what that they should accept (see the quote with their reasoning). Finally, I can't see these photos (semi-desaturated) being accepted in a non-editorial format. So, no precise rules and it's just random at SS, based on the existing photos in the database and their reasoning? Quite frustrating... Thanks for your feedback, though!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
