|
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 - Not Today
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14
76
« on: May 16, 2019, 12:27 »
Haha fair enough although I'm definitely not an expert either. It was just a bit disappointing to see the same information I've already seen either in other posts in here, other forums and / or newsletters from other agencies (Shutterstock/Getty especially). I was expecting some juicy new Adobe secrets and tips instead 
77
« on: May 16, 2019, 04:56 »
I don't think any of the tips are useful to people that have been on this forum for a while, wrong target audience  I liked the video thou, well done.
79
« on: May 14, 2019, 00:43 »
Removed my port there a few months ago, and feel better knowing that they don't have my files anymore. You should send them an email: ''Exciting news! After running a few tests with our new AI-generated sales report, your agency has been selected to have all my files removed. This new opportunity will allow your team to have less files to reject and more time for a decent lunch break. You will also retain 100% commission of all the unsold removed files on your platform. I sincerely believe this new venture will benefit you, me and your customers. ...'' 
80
« on: May 13, 2019, 04:19 »
how are you providing FOR MY FAMILY?
Don't worry, your family members are also welcome as contributors, no experience required. And with the referral scheme you'll make more money than ever!
81
« on: May 13, 2019, 04:08 »
Seems like they've found a loophole, they haven't done any of these: Flipping the image Providing various cropped versions Providing the same image with different exposures Providing images with spot color effects or in black and white Changing the background color Applying image filters https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/similar-vs-spamming.htmlMaybe Adobe should add a line about different text on similar images... unless this is allowed.
83
« on: May 08, 2019, 10:03 »
Flat price $21.98
Haha
No
Thank you
So that's 11$ something for 4K videos after the split... lovely. And also Estimated Visits of the website: 8.4K (Pond5 is 4.5M, Shutterstock 88.7M for instance). Don't think it's even worth the effort to upload there.
84
« on: May 07, 2019, 11:51 »
wow haha ''So to encourage you I suggest you take the advantages of our service for free:'' Sounds like exciting news. You don't even need to pay anymore to upload there 
85
« on: May 07, 2019, 03:53 »
I've had 2 this year so far, around 20$ each. Never had them before.
86
« on: May 07, 2019, 02:43 »
Just a personal comment. If someone makes collages, they might get a sub download, so we can sell 9-12 or more images for one crummy sub? Kind of inspires me to dream of the race to the bottom, and how to make less by giving away groups of images, instead of selling singles?
Yes if all one has is a bunch of under sized shots, why not, but I'm not ready to work editing, sell out with a collage, just to get a crappy sub.
The image is just to say, even the sliced tomato crowd is grasping for downloads now. Collage of tomato slices? How low can someone go? 
Of course the buyers will love this, they can stock up cheap.
Completely agree with this, vectors icons are already sold by the hundreds for a 25 cent sub, let's not go this way with photos. A way to deal with small file size is to open PS, go to image>image size, change the resolution to a bigger one and tick sample> bicubic smoother (enlargement). Sometime it works well, sometimes it doesn't, so as long as it doesn't look disgusting when viewed at 100% of the new size, it should be fine.
87
« on: May 03, 2019, 03:48 »
it is a dumb idea because no one reads the description when making a decision to purchase an image.
it might not be a big deal for people with small portfolios, but when you have 60,000 photos it is a big deal when you have to go back and retitle 10,000 photos just to comply with a requirement that has no effect on sales.
I have had to do this for bigstock and all it does it lead to stupid titles. "smiling young girl" becomes "smiling young girl with long hair" which has no impact on someone's desire to buy the image. it is just a waste of time.
these companies should be making it easier for people to contribute, not harder.
to say you like this idea is just stupid. why shouldn't someone have the right to make a title with 4 words? seriously you think it is a great idea to force everyone else to increase their title length, when they can do it voluntarily anyway? you are opposed to 4 word titles for other contributors?
It's not about influencing buyers to purchase because they're reading the description. It's about avoiding similar descriptions in bulk (from the same or from different contributors) which can impact your ranking negatively in the search ranking, as it will consider these files to be duplicate if most of the keywords match. Unique content sells, but with unique descriptions it sells way better. Also, 'Smiling young girl' is a title, not a description, and might not be recognized as a sentence, rather a list of keywords.
88
« on: May 03, 2019, 01:27 »
I stumbled upon an interesting graph when writing an article about what are the best stock agencies, in my humble opinion.
(Read it here if you are interested)
It's interesting to see how Getty and iStock were the kings long ago and how things went south right when Shutterstock appeared.
On the other hand, the same appears to be happening now that Adobe Stock is here and Shutterstock stopped growing at the very same moment.
Do you guys think AdobeStock has what it takes to beat Shutterstock?
There are more graphs and data in the article and I would love to hear your opinion about the conclusions I take.
Link: "Best Websites to Sell Stock Photos & Footage"
Search terms for Adobe seems wrong to me. You can't use Adobe cause most people go to their website for the software and information/forum, not stock. Also take into account that Adobe is bypassing Google to find buyers, by using search functions in creative clouds and software... so these wouldn't appear here. Would be fun to see Adobe Stock+Fotolia thou.
89
« on: May 01, 2019, 13:06 »
You can get artifacts and judder if you drop a 25 fps footage onto a 30 fps timeline. If it happens, then you need to convert the footage with another software first.
Minor issue but can be irritating and time consuming.
90
« on: April 26, 2019, 05:13 »
"PRS"?
Well, I've read on SS that I can't use them. No matches found searching by "Gibson Les Paul".
In AS searched by "Gibson Les Paul" and there are pictures.
So... I think I'm not going to include them, gonna use "mahogany" o thinks like that instead the brand.
Would be better the same criteria.
You can submit them as "illustrative editorial" and only if the guitar is a Gibson Les Paul and Shutterstock should accept them (barring any technical issues of quality).
Include the phrase illustrative editorial in your keywords and use the standard editorial description place - date: etc.
I've got a similar issue with footage. Do you know if footage can be accepted as illustrative editorial? And I've got a few more questions if any of you know, that'll be greatly appreciated!  - Does the description need to have the brand name? Or can I just mention 'camera' instead of 'canon 5D' for instance? - I've got visible actors in the footage, and I have model releases for them. Should I upload the model releases or not? (editorial with release is usually rejected). Thx in advance!
91
« on: April 23, 2019, 14:39 »
For me they run very close, and Adobe gave me free PS for a year, I wouldn't say they have done nothing
Free PS for a year and then you have to pay for it for as long as you use it.
Thats called a hook in marketing speak
You've been hooked 
Not a hook if you're already paying for it for gigs, especially with Premiere and AE, more like savings of 600 GBP for the year
92
« on: April 21, 2019, 07:13 »
I fully understand they have subs, I am not a part of their sub plan and am doing just fine the subs market for video is just not there! people use their smartphones for social media video not stock, advertisers use stock and can pay for it!
Sadly, the market is well there, hidden for now, but growing. They're covering instagram post, facebook and twitter ads. With these low prices, people won't bother shooting with their phone anymore. And as people get lazier, these companies get richer and will eventually crash the video market. https://promo.com/for/instagram-posts?utm_content=header
93
« on: April 21, 2019, 04:51 »
you should contact support for that.
95
« on: April 20, 2019, 10:43 »
The question is, would leaving increase sales on other websites? Or is iStock selling to these low prices to a client base that wouldn't buy video otherwise? Has anyone experienced this?
97
« on: April 20, 2019, 05:19 »
I don't think it's worth the time uploading them to Microstock, there won't be enough buyers - the niche is too specific and people who want to illustrate articles will go for editorial as they want something real, but they might do well on POD websites like FAA for instance.
Because people want pictures of Jerusalem/other city burning on their walls?
Do you (meaning 'does one', not 'you' personally) really want to sell to/encourage that kind of person?
OTOH, it could count as evidence: the accused had a large image of X burning hanging in their living room.
I was thinking more about grungy t-shirts - or also props that could be used in fantasy movies/series but yeah you might have a point.
98
« on: April 20, 2019, 05:05 »
I don't think it's worth the time uploading them to Microstock, there won't be enough buyers - the niche is too specific and people who want to illustrate articles will go for editorial as they want something real, but they might do well on POD websites like FAA for instance.
99
« on: April 20, 2019, 04:23 »
100
« on: April 20, 2019, 04:17 »
Isn't it better to go through a macrostock agency for these higher value files?
The traditional Macrostock agencies are now often selling for much less than the micros, like 2 or 3 cents for photos and 60 cents for 4k video and the Micros also have premium offerings where they suddenly dump large royalty fees into your lap.
These days you really can't go by the list prices in their web shop window anymore. Which makes it so difficult for artists to figure out what to put where.
In the end every agency is simply their own marketplace, like a small village and customers that have a contract with them, usually try to source as much as they can from one place only. Very few people or companies will have contracts with several marketplaces.
Usually people will pick one place and stay with it, if it serves most of their needs.
If you really want to maximize income, I don't see how you can avoid having non exclusive content. It is also good for artists to have several marketplaces, in case one place acts up. Competition is healthy.
But also having a fair trade place with exclusive content, in addition to spreading far and wide is very good, especially if you can set your own prices.
So the pond5 exclusive initiative is a great opportunity.
Oh ok thanks, I didn't know it was that bad with the macro
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
