|
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 - Gannet77
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 24
126
« on: September 01, 2014, 03:52 »
I've never put "_HD" in the folder name, but they end in "_done" which should be OK (if a bit long, though I know of no reason why that should matter... but this is iStock of course).
You changed the file names within the folders to match the folder name (with "_HD" but without the "_done") too, I presume?
If so I can't see any reason why this should fail. You will need to contact support.
127
« on: August 29, 2014, 05:44 »
Regarding the NTS (National Trust for Scotland) there is a document (dated 2007, admittedly) on their site referring to Photography and Filming at NTS properties which includes in Appendix 3 at the end a quote from the Scottish Outdoor Access Code section 2.9 indicating that "Access rights extend to activities carried out commercially or for profit, provided that these activities could also be carried on other than commercially or for profit (ie by the general public for recreational purposes or for educational activities or for crossing land). For example a mountain guide who is taking a customer out hill-walking is carrying on a commercial activity but this falls within access rights because the activity involved hill-walking could be done by anyone else exercising access rights. The same would apply to a canoe instructor from a commercial outdoor pursuits centre with a party of canoeists. Other examples would be a commercial writer or photographer writing about or taking photographs of the natural or cultural heritage."This would seem to indicate, though it may be open to interpretation, that photography for commercial purposes carried out in a similar fashion to any ordinary recreational visitor, which would presumably cover visiting the land and taking snaps, is acceptable. Within NTS properties of course there are normally signs prohibiting photography, which is of course a different matter. Has anyone (Sue?) ever queried them as to if that includes stock photography?
128
« on: August 28, 2014, 04:14 »
I've been thinking of dabbling in video, however considering how bad pond5 is with my images I have little hope for them in Video.
Best of luck
Pond5 are new to images, their mainstay has always been video. If you're getting into video, you should be submitting to P5 and SS at a minimum.
129
« on: August 26, 2014, 08:14 »
Yes, I'm just trying that new ESP thing out... uploading a clip as we speak.
Looks like it could be pretty good actually, though I never had any problem with the ftp upload myself once I got used to it, other than that it was a bit clunky.
130
« on: August 26, 2014, 04:09 »
First - have you followed the (re)naming conventions as outlined in the FTP Manual? If so, check on your "Upload" link to see if you have any incomplete uploads waiting to be keyworded; if not, then check the FTP account to see if the file has been processed. The "_done" folder you should have created should be gone and there should be a log file reporting the processing done and any errors. If the folder is still there and the file doesn't appear to have been transferred, then either you haven't followed the naming conventions correctly or there is an issue with the server, in which case you will have to contact support.
131
« on: August 12, 2014, 07:06 »
132
« on: August 03, 2014, 19:40 »
133
« on: August 03, 2014, 13:11 »
As for dropping exclusivity, I haven't checked but I would presume it's the same as image exclusivity, that is, 30 days notice and you have to wait 90 days before they will reinstate exclusivity afterwards if you change your mind.
cheers 4 responding to my query. only thing, now that he has this exclusive vid sold... does it affect whether he can remove exclusivity for this vid? if so, it does not mean much to the person who bought it during its state of it being an exclusive vid. because maybe in 2 years it could be available everywhere else.
i have never been exclusive , so i hope this does not sound silly to ask . cheers
It's artist exclusivity, not image/video exclusivity - so yes, the contributor could make it non-exclusive, at 30 days notice, if they dropped exclusivity. But all the "Exclusive" tag means is that it's only available on iStock - not that the buyer has exclusive use of it. There's nothing stopping anyone else downloading from there. All it really means is that the buyer needn't waste time looking for the same image somewhere else, because, in theory at least, it won't be anywhere else. It's up to them to decide if they think it's good enough to be worth paying the extra price. It used to be all files on iStock were the same price, whether Exclusive or not, which I always felt was better for everyone; but presumably the powers that be at Getty did not feel the same way.
134
« on: August 03, 2014, 05:42 »
I have sold a video yesterday!
I get $16.15！
bravo, congrats. at least this earns you more than a photo download !!! if u r good at vids,
maybe u should do more instead of photos.
btw, if u r exclusive with IS for vids, how do you just decide to go unexclusive? i am sure there is some conditions instead of merely saying you do not want to be exclusive anymore.
Yes, congratulations indeed - and a clouds timelapse! Excellent. As for dropping exclusivity, I haven't checked but I would presume it's the same as image exclusivity, that is, 30 days notice and you have to wait 90 days before they will reinstate exclusivity afterwards if you change your mind.
135
« on: July 29, 2014, 05:03 »
I think it depends on the sorts of video you produce - iStock is quite expensive compared to SS and Pond5 (and on Pond5 you can set your own prices), so if your output is of high production value and sells well it could be worth being Exclusive, but for run of the mill stuff (like mine) you may find you sell very little there.
Also, iStock don't accept editorial video while the others do, so you may be limiting your options unless what you do is mostly studio work.
In my (very limited) experience, Pond5 and SS do best, followed by ClipCanvas and iStock, although ClipCanvas is reported as having some payment problems and I've sold nothing for a while there.
But if you already became an Exclusive Videographer yesterday it's a bit late to be asking, isn't it?
136
« on: July 13, 2014, 04:17 »
Cheers for that. Is there then an easy way to see which of my images are selling at IS across all streams? I see the balance creeping up all the time, but DeepMeta - for reasons you explained - doesn't give me the detail, and I've never managed to find a page on the IS website that clearly shows me per-image sales in date order...
Afraid not - this has always been an issue! If you don't already have it, there is a very useful script available from theasis is the forum - see here - which works in Chrome only (I also have an older version for FireFox/GreaseMonkey) which is helpful but not perfect. It works by scraping the website pages.
137
« on: July 13, 2014, 04:09 »
No - DeepMeta does not show earnings from PP or GI, only the royalties from iStock itself.
It uses the API to collect its figures and, I think, PP and other earnings are not available via that interface.
In the bar, at the bottom of the window, Deep Meta show the total balance, everything included
(You can set it in the DP preferences)
Yes, but the OP is referring to the fact that the total balance, which does include everything, does not match the total obtained by adding up the royalties for each individual file. Or at least, that's how I read it.
138
« on: July 13, 2014, 03:08 »
No - DeepMeta does not show earnings from PP or GI, only the royalties from iStock itself.
It uses the API to collect its figures and, I think, PP and other earnings are not available via that interface.
139
« on: July 10, 2014, 19:56 »
Worked OK for me. At least, it did once I'd enabled NoScript to let it run. I'm paranoid.
140
« on: July 05, 2014, 03:49 »
Likewise, my YTD iStock revenue down 15% compared to this time last year - although if I compare the last 12 months with the 12 months prior to that it's almost exactly the same amount, which is not so bad.
So for me it really depends on the performance during the rest of 2014, and whether or not the RC targets are applied this year (they haven't been for two years now) as, if they are, my revenue would go down seriously next year...
141
« on: June 30, 2014, 09:15 »
I have the Olympus OM-D E-M5 with the 12-40mm pro lens. Not a cheap bit of kit, and it does take some getting used to, but it's a useful tool in some circumstances; that said, I'd always prefer my Canon 5D II whenever possible, but there are times when I don't expect to be taking pictures, or I do expect to be walking a long way, when it's a good thing to have along. I'm too old to be lugging that 5D brick and its L lenses everywhere!
Quality is not up to the full frame Canon, obviously, especially in low light (high ISO), but it's more than good enough most of the time, and certainly for microstock. Acceptable to Alamy too.
Not fast enough, in my experience, when using autofocus in servo mode - it just can't always keep up with the target - but provided you're aware of its limitations, it's a good thing to have available. Video is good too, especially with the image stabilization.
I don't use it all that much but I am glad I have it.
142
« on: June 02, 2014, 06:39 »
All sound advice, but then, you can never tell can you?
I took a snap of a butterfly once at a roadside stop in India, years ago; not particularly rare or endangered. Just took it while waiting for a bus.
Put it on iStock because it was pretty, not really expecting sales. It's never had any normal downloads, but sold one EL, for like, $60 or so.
No big deal, but it was worth uploading I'd say. Your bird won't earn anything on your hard drive.
143
« on: June 02, 2014, 04:28 »
It's a difficult call.
I like your portfolio - very nice images there - and I feel it probably does suit iStock well, as you suggest it has so far, but the only way to getting a decent return from them, it seems to me, is to have your best sellers on S+ and GI, and at present they don't have any path to managing that, other than to hope the inspectors will look kindly on your pictures.
I am in the fortunate position of having been there when we could select images for S+, and most of those I chose got ported to GI (it was supposed to be all, but the iStock IT gremlins are ever present) which pays very well - about 30% of my total income comes from GI each month, and on average nearly half of my sales have come from S+. If I didn't have those I doubt it would be worth my keeping my Exclusivity.
I don't know what happens to your portfolio when you go Exclusive nowadays - given the inspectors have apparently been given leave to downgrade images to Main (or upgrade to S+, supposedly) it may be they will allocate a number of them to a higher collection, and it may even be that those will get ported on to GI, but this has been an issue for a while in the Exclusive forum (those gremlins) so, again, difficult.
It would be good if someone who has more recently opted for Exclusive could come in and say what happened to them, in regards both to relative income and movement of images to higher collections; that might help you to decide.
Good luck and best wishes in any case!
144
« on: May 31, 2014, 03:27 »
145
« on: May 30, 2014, 13:45 »
True, but furthermore, surely the reason for the rule is that RM licenses may specify exclusive use of that image for some period of time - and if an image has ever been licensed as RF, anywhere, you can't guarantee that.
No. .... well, that may have been the original idea but Alamy cannot sell standard RM images for exclusive use because it doesn't know where else they may be on sale. The only images it can offer exclusivity guarantees for are RM-Exclusive (and it seems to demand that all those are fully released, so they are not really editorial).
True enough... I was just trying to think of some logical reason why they might have the requirement (that an image be not available as RF anywhere) - but you're right of course, they can't know if it's for sale elsewhere, as RM, in any case, without asking first.
146
« on: May 27, 2014, 14:51 »
Well, my April sales were poor, but May seems to be starting out storming. 5 sales on a Sunday! Haven't had that many sales on a weekend day for years.
My April were poor, but May is even worse - less then half of April.
Sales just disappeared. Where are all the buyers? 
Well, the month for me didn't carry on quite as storming as it started, but stayed pretty good overall - certainly much better than April, which was abysmal. GI sales have been best for the year too. Still a long way short of BME, but not bad.
147
« on: May 20, 2014, 08:03 »
It's still a bit flaky.
Methinks the Victoria Day celebrations were a little too merry...
148
« on: May 19, 2014, 11:18 »
I started uploading images to Alamy. I also have the same/similar question. I have some images that are RF on SS but were rejected by some other agencies citing the reason that they see people in that image. Now if I have to submit these to Alamy, should I mark these as RM?
In case you miss my reply on the other thread, if you have files RF anywhere, you can't submit them RM at Alamy. Therefore for unidentifiable people, which may be accepted on some sites but not others, you have to choose.
Another possibility for some images might be to remove the people and submit to Alamy RF and mark them 'digitally altered', which isn't going to make much difference to (m)any buyers of RF. (It's probably mostly an issue for editorial buyers)
So, can files that are RF in other sites be submitted as RF in Alamy ?
Yes, provided you aren't exclusive at the other sites. A stupid question: what is the reason why we can't have an image as RM on Alamy and RF on SS?
1. It's Alamy's rules.
2. It might annoy an RM buyer.
True, but furthermore, surely the reason for the rule is that RM licenses may specify exclusive use of that image for some period of time - and if an image has ever been licensed as RF, anywhere, you can't guarantee that.
149
« on: May 19, 2014, 08:28 »
I'm relatively new to footage as well, and I only do simple clips, using a Canon 5D Mk2 - I'm not familiar with final cut pro, but I would have thought it would offer a suitable format for rendering. However, one of the most useful bits of software for quick & easy short conversions is MPEG Streamclip - see http://www.squared5.com/ for information. It's free and available for Windows and Mac. Using that, I render output in Quicktime format, Photo - JPEG compression, usually at 90-95% quality, and this is acceptable to SS, Pond5 and iStock. You can also use PhotoShop CS Extended versions to render clips with similar options, and PS can help with extra tweaks as well.
150
« on: May 15, 2014, 06:37 »
How'd the day go for exclusives? As an indie, this was the first time in many months I had a zero download weekday.
Average day for me, nothing special. The bonus should be more than I would normally expect from the PP, but not as much as I would expect from GI...
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
