|
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 - anathaya
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12
201
« on: November 02, 2015, 23:39 »
I just got one for .20  My lowest return on anything I've ever sold
Don't you sell on 123RF?
202
« on: November 02, 2015, 22:30 »
IMO, lighting seems OK in second and third photos, other two has some undesirable shadows.
Cannot say anything about focus since these are not full size images.
(I may be wrong.)
203
« on: November 02, 2015, 22:26 »
Probably because there is a large preview (1500x1100 pixels) of all pictures with a non-existent watermark? 
Probably it's too early to see any effect of that. We will see it in this month and coming months, if there is any.
205
« on: November 01, 2015, 23:52 »
There was a new post today by Paul Brennan on the SS forums, saying they're making progress on getting the V2 (black bottom) watermarks online. He gave examples of some of the new ones, which do certainly work a lot better than the V1 (white bottom) ones.
I posted with some examples of watermarks that are still not useful, asking if the information sent to support has made its way to those in charge and urging them to make a commitment to make improvements on those problem areas.
http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511932
I'd urge those of you with examples of poor V2 (black bottom) watermarks to put a reply into that thread to give him examples. It doesn't appear support is doing squat - if you don't count spewing out boilerplate text, which I don't. Possibly it might get their attention
In this thread, SS forum users are talking about V3 watermark. What is this V3 watermark? Isn't it same as V2 with that black bottom?
206
« on: November 01, 2015, 23:44 »
On a Sunday I seem to have all submissions rejected for the same two reasons-
POOR LIGHTING
OUT OF FOCUS
Yet during the week the similar images are ACCEPTED.
This is NOT GOOD ENOUGH, Something must be done by SS to standardise the review process. It is so unfair and time wasting and frustrating. I ask just how can so many pics be rejected for the same reasons? On a Sunday? WHY??
Why cannot many pictures be rejected for same reason on a Sunday? How can we say anything without seeing your pictures? BTW, there are existing threads about rejections in SS. Probably it's a better idea to post your complain there.
207
« on: October 30, 2015, 02:21 »
Looking at this search result, I just found out that square images are even bigger, 1500px x 1600px. I didn't know that before.
Yes, there are many such jumbo previews.
208
« on: October 30, 2015, 02:18 »
Yikes! That's quite a collection you've got in that link. I'm curious to know what keywords you Googled to turn all those up.
Just type site:shutterstock.com "Yous SS credit line" in Google image search and then select image size "Larger than 1024x768"
209
« on: October 30, 2015, 00:24 »
Consider yourself corrected - you do not have to be signed in to see the large preview.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in order to see the big watermark preview, you have to be signed into shutterstock where the company knows who you are.
Just Google, you will find them 
210
« on: October 29, 2015, 20:35 »
Next SS message to us will be:
"Considering your expressed discontent about watermark, SS team has decided to listen you and take an action about this. Therefore we have decided to remove the watermark from high quality previews.
Yours, SS Team."
I guessed they have already sent something similar to their beloved customers. Next msg to customers would be: We have large previews with no watermarks, but you need to buy monthly subscription to see those previews and save them.Then SS doesn't have to pay their contributors at all. All in one bag...
211
« on: October 29, 2015, 20:27 »
I'm thinking that if this problem doesn't get fixed very soon, like within a week, I'll start pulling my images out of SS and going exclusive with FT.
I don't believe any single agency. Who knows what FT will do in future? May be they are to follow SS. We (at least I) had more faith with SS before, but they ruined it.
212
« on: October 29, 2015, 20:22 »
That's a good step forward from iStock/Getty. Hope other agencies are to follow.
213
« on: October 29, 2015, 01:59 »
Yes. And America already has it. And it's the only country that used it. So whats your point?
+1000 Seems like a bunch of racist little brats are here.
215
« on: October 28, 2015, 00:09 »
As a PS I just looked again at those large previews and also spotted a magnifying glass that let me enlarge them even more. Gigantic images, actually. This wasn't something I'd seen before.
Google index all those gigantic images.
216
« on: October 28, 2015, 00:06 »
Guess I haven't seen the "V2" watermark yet. Can you point me toward one?
Here are some of those: The new watermark (v2):
217
« on: October 27, 2015, 23:30 »
This is not V2 watermark, it comes with a black footer, but the watermarks are not much different.
Previews are not smaller either, you can get a larger preview by just right-clicking and select 'view image'.
218
« on: October 27, 2015, 22:27 »
If Shutterstock says they won't improve the V2 watermark, I think it'd be time for me to sign the petition.
It seems they don't want to improve V2 watermark. I got an email reply from them saying that they have started to publish V2 new watermark across all images. I think that's it from them. So disappointing. 
219
« on: October 27, 2015, 00:51 »
They're still getting subscription payments, but they're losing out on on-demand sales as well...and that can add up to $50,000 - $100,000 for the day.
How do you get that number?
Shutterstock 2nd Quarter Revenue is $104 Million. There are roughly 90 days in a quarter, so it comes out to about $1.15 million revenue per day. I know that most sales happen on weekdays, so it's higher than the estimated average...maybe as high as $1.3 million in revenue per weekday.
And since on demand sales makes up about 5-10% of sales for contributors, and Extended license sales to be much lower and they were down for 4.5 hours of sales prime-time, you get about $50,000 to $100,000 when you add up all those factors.
Thanks for the explanation.
220
« on: October 26, 2015, 19:39 »
123RF had that function for some time now. SS is following 123RF. Nevertheless, watermarks in 123RF are intenser and preview images are slightly smaller (1300px<1500px) compared to SS.
221
« on: October 26, 2015, 19:32 »
They're still getting subscription payments, but they're losing out on on-demand sales as well...and that can add up to $50,000 - $100,000 for the day.
How do you get that number?
222
« on: October 25, 2015, 21:47 »
Here's another example of why many of us use what are essentially anonymous names.
Totally agree.
223
« on: October 23, 2015, 02:06 »
No one ever asked to see yours.
How do you know? World is larger than you think! salaaaah=ignored
224
« on: October 23, 2015, 01:52 »
RPI is usually stated monthly, not yearly
Good point But did you even ask for mine???
Since I don't want to show mine, I don't want to see yours... 
225
« on: October 23, 2015, 01:47 »
Can i see your portfolio on ss?
Isn't it embarrassing to ask for others ports without showing yours? so my RPI is at appr. 3$ actually
I think this is a good RPI. Probably it's a good idea NOT to show your port, IYKWIM....
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
