|
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 - Perrush
26
« on: January 01, 2009, 11:02 »
Both file are almost similar. If we run a search on IS with the keywords red + pink + rose + isolated and sort it by most downloads, those 2 files are n1 and 2.
But if we sort it by best match, liliboas file is still first, mine drops to place 50 of 466 files. some other observations :
- only 2 non-exclusives in the top 50
- many files with even 0 downloads, all exclusives it seems they DID change the best match results. My file is at place 17 now instead of 50. First non-exclusive is at place 5. 0 downloads are still there, but the are behind me.
27
« on: December 26, 2008, 10:30 »
Been in contact with some AD-agency creatives here over the hollidays, you know ADs, art-buyers etc, working in some of the biggest Agencies.
Not very good news Im afraid, most of their budgets for 2009 has been cut in half and many of the bigger agencies are notifying people about redundancies. Pugh!!
that means that the big budgeds are also cut, meaning they need to find an other source for their images than the $100+ market. Maybe they turn to micro (thought about this when I rad an article about wine where something similar has already happend)
28
« on: December 26, 2008, 10:26 »
I'm at 450 both ... for months now 
29
« on: December 25, 2008, 07:05 »
for both purposes a 70-200 F4 will do very fine. no need to buy the IS version imho.
If you want portraits with blur 135 f1.8 is very good, 85 1.8 is good and cheaper and the poor mans solution is the 50 f1.8
But a single 70-200 F4 will bring you a long way
30
« on: December 24, 2008, 09:23 »
I sell for 0,36 on SS. Thats about the same, isnt it?
SS = $0.36 FT = 0.32 credits * 0.6 = 0.19 = $ 0.28 still a difference op $ 0.08 or more than 20% !! Only IS does worse with their $0.19 subscription fee. Europeans get 0.32 credits * 1 = 0.32 = $0.44 that's $0.16 more than those from the UK. Do you realize that 0.16 of 0.28 is 57% !!!!! Those registered in the euro zone get 50% more than the UK or US zone, do you find this normal ?? It seems many do 
31
« on: December 20, 2008, 09:36 »
FT 2007 : 11 (still uploading)
FT 2008 : 25 (no uploads)
although I'm not sure if this says anything. Maybe it tells how well your keywording is.
32
« on: December 20, 2008, 09:32 »
Hi sharply, well yes, it's lousy weather these months. I've been cycling my a** off for a year ... time to take some rest  and photography was never far away. So I decided to buy back all my gear (including studioflashes) and start again ... but maybe not so heavy as I used to be. I'll still do micro, but not the 'standard' micro shots. I'm aiming for the beteer shots this time, don't matter if they earn a lot or not. But all this makes that I'm starting to upload in the worst month 
33
« on: December 20, 2008, 07:40 »
not voted yet. But I thought about it myself.
Yes there is less demand, so fewer DL's
BUT there will be also less images uploaded (I guess) so the chance of staying on page1 seems greater to me than in normal weeks. Especially if everybody starts uploading the first week of jan.
so maybe the worst time to upload is the first of maybe also the second week of Jan. But actually I don't know for sure, if it matters eventually. Any thought ? Any experiences ?
34
« on: December 19, 2008, 08:34 »
The increase of credit price is one reason which increase ... I haven't seen anything 
35
« on: December 17, 2008, 16:49 »
I don't want to be the spoiler to this party, but we are all influenced in a certain way by someone. You may think this concept is your idea ... I think it's around for a very long time http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-610544.htmlhttp://www.shutterstock.com/pic-7448182.htmlIf we need to reject all images which look like an other ... we can delete all our portfolios because none of us has an unique one. All this shows that micro images are short lived. And if you want to enjoy them for a little longer then normal, make images that can hardly be reproduced. And at last, to be honest, I like the fotolia image the most. Why should FT reject an images which is better then one which is already online ?
36
« on: December 16, 2008, 06:51 »
This kind of work really attracts me...
how do you know ? You've never done it. I think the first 100 images are fun. The next 1000 are less fun and after a week ... I think you can't look at any images anymore. just my $2
37
« on: December 15, 2008, 11:28 »
Fees are smaller than monybookers and what about the exchange rate ?? paypal is also supposed to be cheaper than MB. But when you compare paypal with MB, paypal is actually more expensive because they use a different conversion rate. Something to keep in mind.
38
« on: December 14, 2008, 06:54 »
I would pick up a second hand 75-300. Best buy for the bucks.
If it has to be better, the 70-200 F4 non IS is the second choice. But I think a 14 year old would rather have 300 mm then 200mm. Just mho
39
« on: December 13, 2008, 05:06 »
Keep all contributors on FTuk or FTcom and sell as much as you can in Euroland, is the way to maximise profits. Contributors who signed up on Fr or De and get paid in Euro's are lucky! that's want they are doing and they don't plan to change that according to a reply from one of the moderators. As for an update, I don't have any information to offer and I'm really not sure if there will be any forthcoming or not. If there is, I will definitely post it. As Greg mentioned, he has brought this up many times in the past and there never has been a definitive answer. I don't know if there is one or not and I don't want to speculate.
Sorry,
Mat
40
« on: December 12, 2008, 08:29 »
yeah, I had once the same rejection. around 80% of a really large batch was 'scrambled'. I had to find out which one were and which once were not. Was a bit of a mess. Second issue, they counted as 'rejected'. I had to send an email to ask if they could erase them (acceptance ratio ). Eventually they did. --- oops sorry. I thought it was at SS. Never had it with DT 
41
« on: December 11, 2008, 09:17 »
Don't forget DT pays 50% in royalties. Much more then most other agencies
42
« on: December 11, 2008, 06:44 »
When you try to look on his portfolio on DT it now says
"This member's rights are suspended."
yep, I respect DT for such actions. They do the things they must do. Anyone notified FT yet ? He's also exclusive there They can't do anything at SS.
43
« on: December 10, 2008, 05:38 »
An istock admin has confirmed that the Premier Collection is for istock exclusive contributors only.
Good. Let them charge 10x as much for exclusive content, that would improve our sales. I doubt buyers care if an image is exclusive or not especially when there is no difference in quality between the two.
exactly !! Like I already said, micro content is easily to reproduce in most cases. If many exclusive images cost X times more than non-exclusives, ... I think they are putting the rope around their neck themselves ... ... The only thing they hang on is to their 'exclusives content' which in fact there isn't one. If SS is smart, they expand their 'on demand' .. then I would like to see what happens
44
« on: December 09, 2008, 21:18 »
I'm not pro IS, but this move could work for all of us. In the past we had micro and macrostock, meaning low priced and higher priced images. The gap between the two was/is to large. So agencies start to close this gap with multiple price schedules.
In the future we will have base prices starting from $1, just like now. Up till XX $, just like in macrostock and everything in between. There will be images for every buyer.
Of course images of Yuri will be more expensive, but some buyers will not / can not pay the price and will pick an image of someone else at a lower price.
So I'm not sad about the move. We'll see how it works out.
45
« on: December 07, 2008, 17:40 »
Lisa,
maybe you are right, maybe not. The only way to find out is the change the price every 1000 dl's and see what happens.
I must say I didn't really liked the $20 EL's I was getting. At FT I only get 37% of it which is 7.4 credits. Not that much.
46
« on: December 07, 2008, 09:00 »
I find DT the site which is best run. Don't forget they pay 50% in royalties.
if I had to choose to to exclusive at one site, it would be DT at the moment.
I'm at a RPD of $1.43 at the moment, this must be the best of the whole lot !
47
« on: December 07, 2008, 08:32 »
Just send them a message asking them to bump them to 100$. I did this when I reached bronze and it was done in 2 days.
tnx, I'll give it a try -- I checked my stats, and I had 14 EL's the last 1000 Dl's, totalling 415 credits as sale price. Just asked FT to increase all my files to 100 credits for a EL. If they do so I'll track my next 1000 DL and see how much they yielded me.
48
« on: December 07, 2008, 05:58 »
sold my first $150 EX licence! Best part is, that was some old, ugly, exclusive image! Sweet!
congrats. I've still many images set at $20 or $30 for an EL. But because FT pays one of the worst royalties (37% in my case) I would like to bump them all to $100. Is there a way to do this for all images ? Don't want to go through every of my 1000 images seperately
49
« on: December 05, 2008, 17:20 »
wait a minute. I'm at the UK site and I get 0.60 / credit which is $0.88 or 0.69
Do you mean others get $1 or 1 per credit ?
50
« on: December 04, 2008, 08:21 »
I agree there is no conspirital wave of exclusives here trying to convert anyone.
euh, no. I think it's more the other way around. non-exclusives try to convince other non-exclusives not to become exclusive
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
