|
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 - PigsInSpace
126
« on: February 24, 2017, 15:33 »
Somehow it got changed to Payoneer. I changed it back yesterday.
127
« on: February 23, 2017, 23:45 »
I hit payout and they're mailing me a check. Uhh, I have a Paypal account. You guys have used it before. Oh Getty...
128
« on: February 23, 2017, 14:36 »
I told myself I'd see what the January sales looked like before leaving, but more than 10% of mine are now below $0.25, which is not okay. To others who left iStock, did you see any sales increase from the other microstocks afterward, or should I not expect to see a bump?
129
« on: February 22, 2017, 19:38 »
This new site really is terrible. Even beyond the only monthly reporting, there's no way for me to even see that my files are available for download.
130
« on: February 22, 2017, 17:32 »
Question for those who are not on ESP yet (if ever) :
I need to delete 1 file, or deactivate it, or just make it unsearchable by taking away the keywords.
Is this in any way possible at the moment?
Another agency wants to sell the rights, and I can delete it from EVERY agency, except Istock.
Any one knows the trick to do this?
You have to send them an email asking for them to remove it and telling them why. They removed the ability to do it yourself.
131
« on: February 21, 2017, 00:25 »
I've read that in past years Pond5 didn't send a 1099 unless you hit $600. I did not, so I'm assuming that's why I haven't gotten one from them. Is iStock the same? I've sent their tech people an email, but it could be a couple weeks before I hear back, unfortunately.
132
« on: February 18, 2017, 23:55 »
Anyone receive iStock or Pond5 yet? I'm never sure if a form might be buried under a pile of paperwork or if it simply hasn't arrived. Or are they downloadable somewhere?
133
« on: February 12, 2017, 02:39 »
Old Thread Alert!
134
« on: February 03, 2017, 21:54 »
If you're on mobile, you should use their app. It's so much cleaner and easier to use.
I never actually checked it out before. I downloaded it. I really like it visually. I wish it had the world map that the website does, although I recognize that a map of where people are downloading stuff from doesn't really tell me much. However, it's completely missing an Image Insights page. I can individually click on each picture to find out how often it's been downloaded, but it doesn't have an overall Insights page.
135
« on: February 03, 2017, 18:41 »
I like the visual appeal of the new interface. However, it doesn't quite work right on mobile devices. I agree with all who are saying purchases should all be shown on one page instead of switching between multiple. However, I can live with that. The thing I really would like to see go back is sorting on the Insights pages. I sort by Total Number Sold. The new method of Dollars Earned isn't as helpful to me as I have files that jumped way up because because of single high-dollar sales.
My number two image listed on the page I know has only sold twice, but I only know that because I remember. Just looking at the stats it appears like it must be very popular, when really it's not, and if I uploaded more like it I wouldn't have much sales luck.
136
« on: January 20, 2017, 12:57 »
...I just dont like to put so many keywords because if I have for example a fireplace video,
I just add "fireplace, chimney, fire,warm, burning, wood, flames"
I mean whats the point in putting 30or more keywords for this simple scene? The buyer will look after those words if he wants a fireplace.... not "romantic" or sth. Like that...
Buyers may not search the way you think all the time, so sticking to what's in your scene/footage is important, but - as an example - including living room, cozy, house, home, interior along with fireplace, mantel, mantelpiece, gas fire (or wood or whatever) may well help your files sell if the buyer looks for "cozy living room" not "warm fireplace".
Looking at Shutterstock's list of keywords used to find my sold files, I see some files have house selling more than home and others the opposite - so I now always include both; for interior shots, sometimes room is more important than bedroom or living room, and so on.
Ditto Jo Ann. I've had photos sell before based on the oddest keywords. I also include common misspellings of words if possible and Latin names for plants and animals, which while arcane, has landed me one sale. I use xPiks, which will do keyword searches for you, and if there's a way for me to get close to 50, I go for it.
137
« on: January 02, 2017, 22:12 »
Deleted
138
« on: December 15, 2016, 19:01 »
I have a handful of editorials, and it really depends on the photo. I second the message about time sensitive photos not having a lot of long term value, although that's just a gut feeling, as I haven't done a lot in the way of that. The editorial photos I have up are of buildings/locations where it would be impossible to remove all the logos or where doing so would end up removing the subject of the image (copyrighted building design, sigh). I'd rather have them as commercial, since they would have more value, but that's obviously not going to happen, and they do sell.
When in doubt, err on the side of submitting.
139
« on: December 13, 2016, 15:02 »
how possible that I only get 62 Cents per image
I've gotten all sorts of random amounts, typically much, much lower. I had one for just a quarter last month. I assumed the kind of major uses suggested by the price would need an extended license? No?
140
« on: December 12, 2016, 20:53 »
I recently got a $50 'Single and Other' sale. I've never had one for anything close to that before. Why would someone end up paying such a big amount that I would get that much? I'm not complaining! I'm just curious.
141
« on: December 09, 2016, 21:53 »
I asked them once before about getting back tax money that was incurred before I submitted my paperwork. They said no.
142
« on: November 30, 2016, 15:14 »
I do reverse image searches on my photos from time to time, but on two occasions I've seen my images truly "in the wild." The first was on a news story that a friend of mine shared on Facebook. He shared it because of the news content, and had no idea that it was my photo at the top of the article. The second was an online humor-based website I read that used one of my images in a visual joke montage.
I also have a sneaking suspicion a few of my images have ended up in 12 month wall calendars, because I can't think of any other reason to buy them. Unfortunately, I don't spend a lot of time in calendar shops.
143
« on: November 28, 2016, 23:41 »
It should sell if people want to buy it.
They look nice, has artistic value, but may not have that much commercial value. The majority of your sales probably came from about 10 images. The washed out look makes the images look dull, whereas bright, high-contrast images gives them a more commercial look.
If I'm a tourist website and I want to highlight Jasper, Alberta, should they pick your photo over this one?
https://www.shutterstock.com/pic-39501103/
Ask yourself that question, cause that photo is your competition.
I agree with this. I ratchet up the vibrancy/saturation on all my photos. It's what people want. I'll also echo the naming/key wording comments. I'd enjoy thinking up neat artistic names for my images, but I have to think like a buyer and figure out what the heck they would search for. There are probably some other photos of campers with legs out the back of a car, what would I need to search for to find them? Thankfully with Shutterstock you can change keywords after the fact. Not so much on Fotolia.
144
« on: November 16, 2016, 17:01 »
I don't think so. You can always get a rough idea by just multiplying the left-most digit in the width and height. If your image is a wonky size, that will only get you close, but if it's 6,000 x 4,000, you'll know it's 24 megapixels.
145
« on: November 15, 2016, 16:37 »
Done
146
« on: November 10, 2016, 11:59 »
I've generally gone the editorial route. I have one photo that's RF everywhere, but SS, which wouldn't let a public building photo through. I objected, and they got back to me a month later saying the architectural design was copyrighted. It's not; the building predates that possibility, but I didn't want to wait another month for a second reply! I put it up as editorial, although the 'original' photo has some extraneous stuff I removed from the RF version. Both sell, so I'm not complaining... ok, maybe a little.
147
« on: October 18, 2016, 21:46 »
I think you have some good,photos, but give it some time. Key wording is also important, especially on Fotolia.
148
« on: October 14, 2016, 20:45 »
Unfortunately, switching folders is the one thing it can't do. I love the program, and don't really know how they could even resolve the folder issue, so it doesn't bother me, but I can see where it could be rougher if you're more active on Alamy than me.
149
« on: September 24, 2016, 14:46 »
I have a crop sensor camera, and downsize most of my images to 6 megapixels to upload. I've found it eliminates rejections for blur. I've had tripod photos rejected for blur in the past, so don't feel bad. If I'm looking at an image still full size and I think it's spot on or pretty close, I try it at full or only reduce it to 12-15 megapixels. After a while, I got the hang of what Shutterstock would accept; they seem to be the most particular.
I used to make everything 6, but then I uploaded two similar images, one of which I forgot to resize, and both sold simultaneously, and the buyer paid more for the big one, so if I can get things up bigger, I'm glad to have the extra cash.
150
« on: September 21, 2016, 00:12 »
My number of files sold is right about where it should be, but they've almost all been Subscription sales, so my dollar amount is down.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
