|
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 - SuperPhoto
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 33
601
« on: November 12, 2018, 23:08 »
I know it might not seem like much (since I've mainly focused on videos). But, recently decided to upload some of my images as well. Currently I have a HUGE image portfolio of a grand whopping total of about 50 images  Which, probably only took me about 20 hours to curate, edit, keyword, etc... so (at the moment) my 'effective' salary for images is about $0.02/hour... BUT... it's still pretty cool the idea of having made a sale from an image I took! (I suppose I am thinking the 'super' amazing thing is that... with the "2 million images uploaded" this week thing from shutterstock, mine happened to be one of the ones that was purchased (via subscription). And I didn't have to upload 50,000 variations of the same thing to get that...! Now I just need to figure out how to multiply that number by about 1,000,000 per month... and I'll be set!
602
« on: November 08, 2018, 11:01 »
Actually - this is one of the few "great news" that - might not be all that bad.
If you read carefully - they are talking about offering "low res" videos at reduced prices, i.e., basically saying from their tests - they acquired brand new buyers that wanted 'low res' videos that would have not otherwise purchased.
Offering a 720p or lower quality video at a reduced price seems reasonable to me, because if you were a 'casual' youtuber (not necessarily making mega bucks, but wanted a 'nice' video) - you might be reluctant to pay $100 for a single video.
But as long as it is "new" buyers - doesn't canabalize existing sales - then I think this is good...
603
« on: November 04, 2018, 17:11 »
Thanks for writing/sharing the post!
604
« on: November 03, 2018, 10:42 »
Look at how much you currently make per year on that image. If it is close to $0/year - then yes, go for it.
Curious - what image is it? (If you want to PM me, thats okay too - just very curious what they would pay $1500 for).
Cheers!
605
« on: November 01, 2018, 13:31 »
$0 is my lowest.
If I am *only* talking about videography (because I haven't really done photography nor yet have any photo sales), then combined I think "maybe" $700. (But that is with a portfolio of about 4,000+).
Been doing this about a year, so I consider that pretty low giving all the time/effort/etc I've put into it. (I figure I've worked about the equivalent of about $0.50/hour for my sales to date for video). Of course I'd like to make a lot more, but to some degree I have been doing this just for fun as well.
"Good" video is a lot harder than good photography, simply because in addition to keywording/titling/good lighting/good subject/subject matter/etc - you have to do things like edit the video, if moving (which is almost always), stabilized, good resolution (no artifacts), convert for various platforms, cropped/editing/re-exporting the video (time consuming), etc, etc.
Plus, seems everyone & their dog is doing video (shutterstock boasts 150,000 *new* videos added *every* week)... so, competition is fairly stiff.
606
« on: November 01, 2018, 01:22 »
I've read a few people say the poll on the right isn't really represenative of what is 'good' nowadays.
What do you recommend for video? I'm assuming obviously Pond5, Shutterstock, Adobe, & Videoblocks... Envato if you can get on the "good" side of a reviewer who doesn't view you as competition and just reject all your submissions... Any others?
607
« on: November 01, 2018, 01:20 »
hi -
From reading that article - it actually just looks like an automated form letter. Chances are it was written once, and sent to 100's (or 1000's) of artists. I get those 'types' of letters for other stuff I do - just simply because they scraped an e-mail address they found.
As for breaking "in" - you actually "don't" need millions of dollars to start a successful company or 'break into' microstock. You need a unique angle that gets you attention and sales.
608
« on: October 28, 2018, 20:44 »
I agree that the rejection rate seems 'relatively' high.
While yes - I do agree with some of the comments (on why certain videos were rejected) - others do just seem to be 'randomly' rejected.
609
« on: October 28, 2018, 03:50 »
Don't worry about it.
Each agency accepts/rejects different things, and not much you can do about it.
You'll probably have stuff that gets rejected on Pond5, but accepted on SS.
If you get worried about it, you'll drive yourself nuts.
610
« on: October 27, 2018, 09:31 »
words of wisdom for SS: 'If you paint a piece of dog crap with gold paint it still is dog crap'
BUT! it's in GOLD PAINT!!! don't forget that! 
611
« on: October 27, 2018, 09:10 »
From the sounds of it...
Sounds like you probably tried submitting someone else's content and passing it off as your own, hoping you wouldn't get "caught". Since you did - you are pretending that if you feign innocence, "they" won't know. "They" actually do have brains.
So if you stole someone elses content, fudged/"edited" the passport photo, spammed their database, then yes, they would ban your account.
You could try continue making multiple accounts - but most likely you would do something foolish, and get those banned too.
Don't steal other people's stuff and try to pass it off as your own. Don't submit identical stuff to multiple accounts to 'spam' the database with photos with the hopes of making more $$$.
612
« on: October 27, 2018, 09:06 »
The better the equipment, the better chance of being accepted.
Everything is constantly updating.
Several years ago (i.e., 10 years ago) - it was the "norm" to accept 720p (1280x720). And that was considered really 'good', also because that's what a lot of high end digital cameras did.
Now - if you tried submitting that - most likely automatically rejected because its too 'small'.
The spark (although I haven't used it) - is most likely just an "okay" camera. You will get some of the stuff accepted - but like others have said - if it isn't a beautiful bright sunny day - most likely you'll have artifacts (blocky pixellation) - which will get rejected.
So if you want the best chance of getting accepted - right now the mavic 2 pro seems to the best.
613
« on: October 27, 2018, 08:57 »
I think everyone makes this mistake sometime in their career. I have (several times, unfortunately, and a couple times hurt quite a bit). You have to remember you are dealing with people - not computers - and you can't start getting angry/annoyed/etc at some random person. Because then stuff like this can happen. People do make mistakes (in other companies, i.e., alamy), so being polite/considerate - even though you might be steaming - is usually the best way to deal with it. Look, I may have just caught the wrong rep at the wrong time. Has it been James or whoever you guys get, I would have agreed with all the positive rebukes and never made this post in the first place. But, I stand by "petty" and "easily offended" when that is how my direct private experience with them has been. I'm glad to hear many others experience much better than I have. I concede that "vindictive" may not accurate, an astounding coincidence with the timing and scale, but sure, coincidences happen. I retract that, for what it's worth.
"whining", "ego-tripping", "drama". Throwing childish, unprovoked insults at one another probably discourages more agencies as well as contributors from posting on here than agency reps choosing whether or not to defend honest criticism.
614
« on: October 19, 2018, 09:34 »
Alamy is not the only one. Envato is really bad for that, and so are a few others. Unfortunately just sounds like you accidentally stepped in doggy doo doo. You could try apologizing for questioning them. May or may not make a difference. I have been contributing to Alamy for 5 years. Sales increasing year after year. A couple rejections early on while getting used to what they want, but ever since I've had dozens of batches of accepted images, without any further rejections. I was "stuck" at 2 out of 3 threes stars with their "QC" rating, but never thought much of it, other than it seems to take absolute lifetime of perfection to get to maximum 3 stars.
I had put Alamy on the backburner and hadn't uploaded for a bit, but I had some extra time and decided to submit a batch. To the 75 or so images in the batch, I added an image I took of a photo of opportunity taken on an iPhone. This image is available on SS, AB, P5, etc. and sells surprisingly well. Unfortunately, I seem to have forgotten that Alamy does not accept images from iPhones (even though they've accepted images from far worse cameras, but I digress). So that batch, all 75+ images, all of them from DSLR's (besides the one), was blanket rejected. This I can understand, they have a policy, I violated it (even an understandable mistake) and while rejecting the whole batch over one image seems harsh, it's their company, their policy. But that's not where it ends.
They put a 10 day upload freeze on my account. They dropped my QC ranking dropped from 2 to 1 stars. Dozens of perfect batches of uploads, no rank increase. One failed image, dropped to the bottom of their QC rating and an upload freeze. 3 punishments for one little overlooked image. I don't even understand exactly what that means or how it affects my account specifically, but I realized it can't be good and it seemed like some harsh treatment to a good contributor over a simple honest mistake. So I reached out to their support for clarification.
Big mistake.
A robotic and defensive sounding response informing me of their blanket policy of acceptable cameras and that my rank will stay at 1. That it's "not possible" to check every image (tell that to SS, AB, P5, etc.). They offered a "goodwill gesture" of unfreezing my uploads, but I again asked why such a harsh punishment for one image. No further response. I self-imposed an upload "freeze" of my own.
So here we are, months later. Zero sales since the inquiry. I was getting regular, predictably reliable and increasing sales month after month. But since I dared to (politely, mind you) question their over-reaction to my rejected upload, I have somehow offended them and triggered someone there into handicapping my portfolio. Years of being a solid contributor, growing sales, hours and hours of time to conform to their uniquely convoluted key-wording / tagging process. All I get is a big ol' F-U.
Alamy staff is proving to be petty, easily offended and vindictive. I recommend that if you have something potentially negative or critical to say to the about their policies or behavior, that you keep it to yourself. They only represented 5-10% of my income, but it still sucks to "lose" that income over something so juvenile. I'm sure others rely on them more, so watch what you say, fellow contributors.
615
« on: October 15, 2018, 23:42 »
I use a 3rd party conversion tool. You can do an online search to find your favorite (although one company has spammed the crap out of the search engines so it usually only shows their tool - I think its wondershare or something? not the greatest).
But there are several other tools that are pretty good...
Just export it from PP/AE, and then use one of those tools to convert to .mov/etc.
(Incidentally, I do find it a bit silly that videoblocks/storyblocks doesn't do backend conversion, and "requires" a ".mov" file for 1920x1080, but a 4K can "either" be mov or mp4...
Makes for a lot of extra work for me...
616
« on: October 15, 2018, 12:55 »
What are "ODD"s, "SOD"s, & subs? Also - I didn't know you could upload clip packs to ss? So... thinking of uploading to shutterstock...
Then took a look at a few numbers, did some math, and then noticed a few posts talking about 'spammy' portfolios (i.e., 1000 pictures of a pair of shoes, from 0-360 degrees in 0.3 degree increments, etc)...
If my math is correct, it seems on 'average' right now you'd need to have a portfolio size of about 10,000 images to 'make' about $600/year? Does that sound right? (Of course, I realize there would be outliers on both sides), but that seems to the case?
Any agreements/disagreements?
No.
I have less than 10,000 and even if I took a below average daily stats I would be well over that....in a month. Today, for example, I currently have $211.68. A mix of large clip packs, Enhanced, ODDs and SODs plus Subs.
I'd put good money on my earnings being no where near the top and certainly not an outlier.
617
« on: October 13, 2018, 21:55 »
True... but, don't people simply type something in the shutterstock search engine like "boat", and if 80,000 images of one profile boat pop's up - they are just going to go with it because they don't have the time to figure out that on page 123 (or whatever) that there are new pictures of boats? Okay, interesting.
Have you found the portfolios that 'spam' certain types of content (i.e., say 40,000+ images of a boat, or 15,000+ images of a piece of furniture) have affected discoverability of some of your items? Or somehow you still seem to perform well in spite of that?
tbh, those portfolios are hurting themselves even. Nobody in the middle of a project with a deadline wants to scan through thousands of incredibly similar images. I'm sure, like me, they search ... grab the one that will work, and proceed with their work.
618
« on: October 13, 2018, 13:03 »
I think it's a combination of things.
a) Trends.
b) Novelty.
c) Competition.
d) Other (newer) types of demands.
So. Maybe you had some new 'fresh' content, but now nobody cares. Or maybe it was trendy (i.e., say weddings in july) - but no one cares about that going into december. Or. Maybe you have a new competitor spamming 20,000 of what you have. Or. Maybe people want the 'newer' stuff (maybe yours is HD, and now 4K or VR is in demand).
619
« on: October 13, 2018, 08:30 »
Okay, interesting.
Have you found the portfolios that 'spam' certain types of content (i.e., say 40,000+ images of a boat, or 15,000+ images of a piece of furniture) have affected discoverability of some of your items? Or somehow you still seem to perform well in spite of that?
620
« on: October 12, 2018, 23:58 »
So... thinking of uploading to shutterstock...
Then took a look at a few numbers, did some math, and then noticed a few posts talking about 'spammy' portfolios (i.e., 1000 pictures of a pair of shoes, from 0-360 degrees in 0.3 degree increments, etc)...
If my math is correct, it seems on 'average' right now you'd need to have a portfolio size of about 10,000 images to 'make' about $600/year? Does that sound right? (Of course, I realize there would be outliers on both sides), but that seems to the case?
Any agreements/disagreements?
622
« on: September 21, 2018, 14:05 »
Just recently started on shutterstock, a couple questions:
a) Is there a way to easily view your 'video' portfolio? It seems they have something for images, but nothing for video.
b) Uploaded some videos last month, didn't get around to tagging/keywording them now - but noticed I can't find them. Does shutterstock have a timeframe that you need to keyword/tag/submit your videos/images/etc or they just automatically delete them?
Thanks!
623
« on: September 21, 2018, 08:25 »
they expect to earn with mediocre content and talent....i read that thread and browse some portfolio...that marbury has one of the useless portfolio in micro stock...2000 snapshot taken when taking out the dog to make pipi...and he complaints complaints...what . he expect is out of my mind...i would be surprised if he earns more than 30 dollar nowadays....then when somebody asked him why h not do commercial he said he want do only street and editorial...those are not street or editorial those are snapshot a teen of 5 years can take. those people want free lunch but free lunch in micro is finished long time ago.
lol! that is incredibly funny! do you have a portfolio link? I'm sure probably somewhere, someone in the world would "love" that content, so his problem is finding those 1-2 people that would pay for it
624
« on: September 20, 2018, 21:34 »
Probably for maximum cellphone/mobile compatibility. You 'may' have a better phone, but chances are they want it to work on as many cellphones as possible, so going with the lower fps is good for them.
625
« on: September 20, 2018, 10:45 »
Aside from VB/SB taking 50% of commissions now (from as far as I can tell no additional marketing effort) - I have noticed they have gotten *extremely* picky on new content they are accepting. (And sometimes the reasons aren't really legitimate - i.e., you might have a shot where it makes sense to have it slightly defocused - i.e., artistic merit - but instead, it's like they are just going down a checklist, and if there is any blur, an automatic rejection).
While of course I make sure I have good video footage, just surprised at % of rejections now.
Has anyone else noticed the same thing? (Also, I haven't yet noticed any increase in sales, if anything, a slightly decrease. Not that I was getting that much from them to start with, just...)
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
