|
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 - LDV81
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12
126
« on: June 01, 2017, 22:09 »
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about FENDER guitars that are trademarked. the Getty WIKI is 100% wrong.
The only source for valid trademark registrations is the US Patent and Trademark Office.
[...]
stock agencies are wrong to rejected these images for alleged copyright or trademark violations.
It seems that you specialize in this kind of subject matter. Perhaps you should start your own agency with images that other agencies don't want to accept for legal reasons and you know they are safe. You could offer legal protection / insurance to the buyers. You might have a very unique collection of images.
127
« on: June 01, 2017, 18:39 »
Perhaps it is some incredibly sensitive use, and they have charged the client accordingly.
Are there people in the photo?
128
« on: May 31, 2017, 17:22 »
About search algorythm, which kind of test do you did in past years?
For example, I have a couple of images always on the first search page for a very generic search ("movie") and they stay there from more than two years, moving up and down depending on download numbers, but always in the first page.
And this position is not changed after a lower earning month.
I don't know if you know it, but you should perform such tests from different locations. You can use a decent VPN, e.g. TunnelBear or the one in Opera. And clear the cookies between searches. Of course, you shouldn't be logged in while testing. FWIW, I don't perform such tests anymore, I am only interested in the amount that is transferred to me every month.
129
« on: May 31, 2017, 11:08 »
What you write is quite interesting, mb. We noticed strange cap of number of sales too on shutterstock. We had hundred of images for half a year and they were just crushing down our video sales. We will see what the next few months will bring after we deleted them.
Hmm, around 2011 I deleted and tried to re-upload 1 photo, because it hadn't taken off and I thought it was a good one and deserved more downloads. What happened then: the photo was rejected because the system recognized that it was re-uploaded and I got a warning. I don't know how they treat this these days... Back then, I think a second or third warning meant you were a goner. As you write, you don't intend to re-upload them, but I don't think having more images in the portfolio can hurt your video sales... It would make no sense. Why should the algorithm reward contributors who delete their stuff? How does it benefit SS? Correlation does not mean causation. If that was helpful, people would just delete their stuff to game the system and grow their earnings. It would make more sense to penalize people who regularly delete their stuff.
130
« on: May 30, 2017, 15:17 »
or maybe they just gave a boost to newer images at that time and since all your images were older...
The problem with that theory is that new images hardly seem to sell these days. My bestsellers from 2010-2013 still sell kind of all right.
131
« on: May 30, 2017, 15:15 »
The way to do that would be by weighting in the search, to push up poor quality, newbie work to the top of the pile. It doesn't involve a "cap" for individuals. The problem is that if buyers can't find good images on one site they will go to another where they can, so the site that's fiddling the search will eventually lose out.
The same applies to a "cap". The very idea requires a belief that the sites are trying to keep most decent images down in order to favour a handful of select portfolios. If they are doing that, what's the point of hosting all the stuff that won't be sold?
And, anyway, how can they stop people buying your work when you hit your daily "cap" without an infinite number of search engine changes every day in order to hide it? Or are you saying that the are selling your work but hiding the sales once they think you've got enough to keep you quiet? If you think that why do you carry on working with them?
This cap idea simply doesn't make any sense because there is no way of applying it other than fraudulent sales reporting.
It is not that some single contributor is the only one with "decent" (as you say) images in a specific search. There are LOTS AND LOTS of "equally decent" images for most searches. The number of transactions is gigantic, the number of good files is gigantic, the number of parameters in the search algorithm is very high. They can selectively tweak the algorithm for example in certain regions if they wish, or based on any other parameter. I don't know if there is a cap. But it would be definitely possible to implement, if they chose to do so. The amount of data that they have collected is huge and they can process it in any way they want. This is big data. If they have decided that it is the company's policy to "keep as many contributors happy as possible" (because happy contributors are good for business), then they would have a reason to try to distribute the earnings more evenly, and they could do so without sacrificing the quality of search results. They have a huge amount of data, and you can't compare them with some small-scale business.
132
« on: May 30, 2017, 14:40 »
For several years I have been uploading very little, and surprisingly my monthly earnings continued to move within a very narrow band. There was an amount which I identified as "my minimum" and my monthly earnings usually were within the range: minimum + around 15%. Sometimes a fluke at the end of the month could have made it: minimum + 20%. I could not complain about it because I wasn't uploading very actively. If a had an excellent start of the month, later weeks sucked really bad.
Call it a cap, or "more even distribution of revenue", I didn't mind it.
The problem for me is that in November somehow they "seem to have suddenly lowered my minimum amount" by about 25-30%. My monthly earnings still move within a surprisingly narrow range, but this range is much lower than in the past and that sucks.
133
« on: May 30, 2017, 09:33 »
i told you,...you want understand?
in ukraine russia producing content is costless....minimum salary is 150 dollar now in ukraine....imagine earning even 400 dollar producing 1000 costless content....or some vector, or space footage.....for many people who live in this country is better earn 400 doing this than go office for less money. this has attracted thousand of contributor from russia thailand ukraine, belarus, including now there are literally hundred of big house producing content financed by man whit money who don't even have a camera but have sense of business.
russia is full of forum of micro stock.
unluck all those commercial block against russia didn't stop the overflowing of content from that country
The trend must be similar for all contributors, regardless of where they live. In 1-2 years most will earn less than they are earning now. Hamster wheel. I wonder why people invest all their efforts into a business that can't be sustainable.
134
« on: May 30, 2017, 09:22 »
I wonder what is going on, who is uploading all those millions of files... The trend is clear, earnings are shrinking, and yet people continue to produce stuff...
Flipping burgers must be more lucrative already for most, and as time goes by, all SS contributors will be better off spending their time flipping burgers than producing content.
The market growth is insignificant, and the image pool grows almost exponentially. What will happen later, when the value of an average file gets very close to zero?
Will most people stop to produce, will the collection growth slow down? Will freestock become the new microstock, or will macro make a comeback? Will the micros lack good fresh content, in let's say 3 years from now? Will SS eventually become a junkyard with a gazillion of gradients and low-value files that nobody buys or even no human eyes ever see?
For what it's worth, I stopped spending money to produce new content months ago. It just doesn't make sense anymore.
135
« on: May 28, 2017, 10:36 »
For what it's worth, I have a subscription at Bigstock. I buy images for my start-up there.
Good value for money (for a start-up), even though the collection has holes, some files available at SS or FT are not there.
Still, I have to save every penny, so for now it is fine.
136
« on: May 25, 2017, 17:07 »
hi everyone i want to know what is the criteria to be an exclusive member?
There must be hundreds of other things you can commit, which are at least equally stupid, but far more pleasurable than going exclusive with IS.
137
« on: May 21, 2017, 16:12 »
Ss website is now responsive
I wish their buyers were also responsive to my uploads. I upload - they download: this is what I call a responsive website  It used to be like that a few years ago...
138
« on: May 17, 2017, 21:44 »
We aren't all english experts. It was a subject I hated in school, I'm sure that's the same for a lot of photographers.
No, it was my favorite subject at school! As a matter of fact, in one year, I was the best at my school. English was probably the only good thing that I learned at that stupid school. But I didn't grow up in an English-speaking country nor am I a native speaker. I don't mind people making mistakes, but one thing does irritate me: when native speakers don't understand the difference and confuse "you're" with "your" and "there" with "they're" or "their". People who have learned English as a foreign language usually don't make such mistakes.
139
« on: May 16, 2017, 23:12 »
Nice one, dragonblade!
140
« on: May 16, 2017, 16:01 »
Yeah, for some vectors that I bought Photoshop works fine. But I bought quite a few vector backgrounds from one contributor and they all have problems in PS.
I suspect getting Inkscape process EPS files won't solve these issues, when even Adobe apps struggle with them.
My AI trial period will end after one week I think, so now I am only downloading vectors with my subscription and convert them all. But I would like to have "a more sustainable solution"....
141
« on: May 16, 2017, 13:43 »
Why not buy the jpg version?
Sometimes the maximum resolution offered is quite low (e.g. 1000 px wide). Sometimes I would like to switch off certain layers or make heavy crops and still have high resolution. AFAIK Inkscape requires Ghostscript and some tweaks to import EPS files directly. I thought going with commercial software such as Affinity Designer would be better for compatibility reasons.. but apparently not, at least not for the vectors that I bought. The jpgs that I exported with AI look much better. Are there EPS compatibility issues with Inkscape? Why do some EPS files seem to have issues when exported with software other than AI? I suspect gradients are problematic, they look very bad after rasterizing with Photoshop and good when exported from AI.
142
« on: May 15, 2017, 17:33 »
Dear Illustrators,
I am a photographer/videographer but I recently started to buy images for other projects.
I bought a few vector backgrounds. I know I can open them directly in Photoshop and rasterize them quickly. But when I did so, they did not look right. Some jagged lines, they simply didn't look right. One file even didn't not upsize properly, it was pixelated. The preview in Bridge showed width of 87 pixels, and the "upsized" version in PS looked exactly like 87 pixels blown up to 1500 pixels.
Then I downloaded a demo version of Affinity Designer, but the result was the same. I thought something was not right, it is unlikely that these illustrators with great portfolios produce faulty vector files.
So, I have just downloaded a trial version of Adobe Illustrator, and bang, suddenly these files look great. I suppose not all EPS files are fully compatible with all vector programs.
I don't need to edit vector files too much, just occasionally exporting/rasterizing bought stock vectors to large sizes. An Adobe Illustrator subscription is too expensive for that.
Are there any good alternatives for Windows which can properly handle stock vectors that I will buy?
The alternatives that I can find in Google seem to focus on the needs of illustrators and their purpose does not seem to be proper rasterizing of bought stock vectors.
143
« on: May 12, 2017, 07:24 »
Fascinating. It seems that bots already create and upload files which are later inspected by other bots.
I hope they will soon introduce also bots buying my files, because human buyers have not been very reliable recently.
144
« on: May 09, 2017, 17:36 »
"My lumix made noise pictures and on the edges even worse."
What ISO did you use and what aperture? Do you shoot in RAW or JPG? If you downsize your photos, you can improve the visible image quality to some extent (reduce noise). Your camera can shoot in RAW. If you shoot in RAW in decent light, use some noise reduction in post-processing, then noise should not be a problem at all. Without seeing some samples, we won't be able to help you much more probably. Your camera is from 2013, it should not be that bad for daylight photos.
145
« on: May 09, 2017, 17:13 »
Last year i used the "lumix dmc fz72" for my travel.
98% with very bad quality results. All photos of my travel was rejected by fotolia.
All right, fine, but how do you know it was the camera's fault? If you don't own a serious camera by now, it seems likely that you don't have much experience in photography. If you had some experience, you would probably have a decent camera by now... It reminds me of this: "Your camera takes nice photos!"
"Your mouth makes nice compliments!"
There are plenty of entry-level DSLRs or mirrorless cameras with kit lenses below 600, even below 500. I suppose they should be OK for microstock in your subject matter - If the owner knows how to use such cameras and knows how to compose sellable photos. If it is a "contemporary" camera, the model and brand are not so important. More important are the skills of the person behind it.
146
« on: May 09, 2017, 02:22 »
Thanks.
147
« on: May 06, 2017, 18:03 »
also remember that SS accepts editorial, but Fot does not.
What surprises me is the difference between iS exclusive and non-exclusive in the table.
Yes, the exclusive number has shot up since last month. It's a bit odd.
Perhaps they employ an army of sockpuppets Meanwhile, Mr. Tickstock seems to be hiding in the bushes Long time no see or he went for a long vacation with the fortune that he's made at IS... for what it's worth, I don't really pay attention to the numbers on the right... I only care about what I earn with my portfolio
148
« on: May 05, 2017, 08:43 »
I would go to the Device Manager through the Control Panel and see what is going on there. Does the drive appear in the Device Manager at all, are there errors? I would also try other USB cables and other USB ports.
149
« on: May 04, 2017, 19:04 »
150
« on: May 04, 2017, 18:24 »
Have you ever sold anything on photo4me?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
