|
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 - fieldsphotos
51
« on: February 03, 2013, 01:01 »
As previously pledged: 126 files deactivated. My entire port except (2) files for account maintenance purposes. Sad day - first time I have pulled my port from somewhere.
52
« on: January 16, 2013, 13:46 »
Getty does the same thing on Zazzle. I assume they might be on some of the other POD sites as well. http://www.zazzle.com/prophoto
53
« on: January 14, 2013, 13:08 »
I am small peanuts in this game, but I am in. This whole debacle has been very upsetting to read. And to think I was considering going exclusive with IS at the beginning of last year when I got back into microstock.
I will deactivate 126 photos (leaving 1 just so I can keep the account active for the numerous months I am sure it will take to get my stuff off Thinkstock)
New total: 7570 images
54
« on: March 21, 2012, 09:23 »
I still get images approved on weekends. My last one was approved on a Sunday. So, who knows.
I do know that iStock is now beating SS handily on approval times for me, which is kinda scary. My last two batches were approved at IS in 3 days, while my SS batches lingered for 7 days. Ah well. For me 1 week seems to be the new SS norm.
55
« on: March 21, 2012, 07:11 »
I'll offer my assessment of the situation and ask whether or not anyone agrees. It seems to me that the POD sites offer a service and some products to be comined with our "products" (photos or illustrations). It is then our responsibility to generate sales by our own marketing and promotions because simply putting our products on the POD sites is likely to do nothing at all. It's not a situation wherein we can upload our material to the sites and then watch the sales roll in, as most of us have discovered. So I suppose the question then becomes one of how best to market these products and generate sales, which means more time away from photography (or creating vectors if you're an illustrator) to devote to sales & marketing. I'm not sure I wanna go there. Any thoughts?
I just started on Zazzle in Mid-January. What I found was there are folks who will promote your stuff for you because they get the referral fee. Some people make money there JUST on referrals and don't sell any products. So they are always looking for new stores, etc. There is a forum section where you can add your store info and referrers can pick it up and start marketing you. You can also add your products to peoples squidoo lenses and stuff, also consolidated in that one forum section. I have made (3) sales so far (all through referrals) that have netted me $23.32 so far, which ain't too bad. (iPhone covers, stamps and stickers are what I have sold so far) It IS a lot of work though. It took forever to get my quick templates built up, to figure out the create method, and even to find all the various products that are hidden about the website. Getting your workflow set up is painful, and I will admit I haven't been adding stuff there recently because of that. I get the impression that it takes time for your products to build their position in the Zazzle Marketplace (rather like Best Match), but that once you have established yourself with some critical mass of products that the momentum picks up. My store is http://www.zazzle.com/the_edge_of_light if you are curious.
56
« on: February 28, 2012, 02:20 »
All I am saying is that "in my experience" the best L zoom are not even close to the best L primes. May be it was my copy (because I sold it a few weeks ago) but the 24-70 2.8 from 2.8 to f4 was garbage. My 24L 35L 24 TS II trumps on it every day at the wide angle end. And if I want longer the 50 1.4 or the 100 macro also were much better than "my copy".
An interesting article specifically on the 24-70L (Sorry for the OT): http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation I own one and I love mine, but it does appear to have a wider variation than some of Canon's other Ls. Which probably explains all the mixed reviews you see online.
57
« on: February 10, 2012, 22:05 »
Even better limit authors to Photodune and your own legit free sources then you can keep track, levels the playing field too.
ETA if you do this I'm sure a lot of photogs will give permission for free use in previews as it will mean more sales to customers wanting to recreate the same flyer etc.
I have been following this thread with interest, as I had just signed up to be a contributer with PhotoDune. I did notice on a thread in their forums that the Member TOS already allows use of watermarked Photodune images on previews as long as a link back is provided. I hadn't seen it mentioned here before, but maybe this is already common knowledge. Personally, I am OK with that for my images, but I thought I would post for others who missed it in the TOS. From the Member TOS ( http://photodune.net/legal/membership): You agree and acknowledge that an Envato affiliate can use your watermarked previews in their promotion of the Sites. No compensation is due or payable for such uses of your preview.
You agree that a Seller may use a watermarked preview of your Product in a preview of another Product without requiring permission from you, without violating your copyright and without providing monetary compensation to you. The Seller must credit such usage by providing a link to your Product.
58
« on: January 25, 2012, 22:53 »
Not really sure yet - I believe SEO (Search Engine Optimizing), blog posts, facebook, referral links and stuff like that. Driving web traffic directly to your "store" of products.
There is a whole section on the topic in the Zazzle forums, so I have to assume it plays a big part in some folks' success over there.
59
« on: January 25, 2012, 21:04 »
I am also just starting into this realm (Zazzle). I am hoping that all my sunsets, flower macros, HDRs, cute cats, and butterfly photos that the stock agencies don't want are an untapped gold mine when selling directly to the public.  I also have some great landscapes that do OK in stock, but that I am hoping will do well as art posters, calendars, greeting cards, etc. It is worth a shot, at least for me. It does seem like you have to promote your own products more so than you do with a stock agency.
60
« on: January 13, 2012, 01:12 »
I am small fry here, and mostly doing this to pay for gear, but here are my goals:
Start uploading again after a 4 year hiatus with microstock. I logged into all my ports at the various sites and found a nice little sum of $$ which was surprising as I only have about 30-40 files online. That got me all geared up for getting this started up again.
I was GOING to go exclusive with iStock as I don't really have the time for uploading to multiple sites due to my day job and back in 2007 they were where the biggest $$ came from. I deleted all my ports at SS, DT, FT and the now-defunct StockXpert. THEN I took a look at what was going on at IS, and decided to keep uploading to SS at least until IS gets their proverbial cr*p together. I actually can't even apply to be exclusive right now due to their website issues. Ah well, my new (VERY SMALL) port at SS is starting to get a few DL's, so we will see how it goes over the next couple months.
Sarah
61
« on: November 15, 2007, 14:48 »
I do agree that SS is completely flooded with fractals, so it is very easy for the good stuff to get lost in the crowd.
I have just started doing them, so I am nothing compared to some of the real fractal artists out there, but I have found that getting nice ones takes a lot of work and effort. Not counting render times, I spend as much or more time producing a fractal as I do for a photo. Add in the render time, when they have my computer tied up, and they take up lots more of my time to do.
But I do enjoy making them, and it is too bad that they get a bad name.
62
« on: November 15, 2007, 13:23 »
Hmmm - I just submitted my first fractals to them this month, so I don't have any past trend info, but they did accept 4 of mine on the 14th of Nov, and 2 on the 8th of November, so they do appear to be accepting them sometimes.
They did reject a lot more of mine than SS, which seems to be very accepting of any fractal I submit. I haven't gotten one into istock yet, but I am learning that that is normal operating procedure for them.
64
« on: November 10, 2007, 11:56 »
Well, I have only been on SS for one month, so I am probably still experiencing the "newbie high" there, but for October I earned $2.11 per image (port size was 19 images at the end of October). No EL sales, yet.
Overall I was very pleased, and it was very nice to get so many downloads there, since my ports at the other agencies were much slower to start. (I think I waited 3 or 4 weeks for my first d/l at istock)
65
« on: November 06, 2007, 19:30 »
They do run a monthly themed contest where you can submit up to 3 images for a chance to go in one of the next month's featured lightboxes. I think the images have to be uploaded in the month of the contest though. Check out the Shutterstock forum http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28009 to find this month's contest.
66
« on: November 06, 2007, 14:26 »
Go to the front page of the buyer side of shutterstock ( www.shutterstock.com). At the bottom they have 4 or 5 lightboxes that they feature images in each month. I am new at SS too, but I have read on their forums that getting an image in one of those lightboxes can really help your sales for that month.
67
« on: November 05, 2007, 19:51 »
Thank you all. I will build up slowely my portfolio on SS, and we shall see... I think you are going to do REALLY well this month since I believe you made the "New Artists" lightbox! Congrats!
68
« on: October 26, 2007, 09:50 »
I was concerned about this exact situation (images missing the spotlight) when some of my images took several days to get picked up. I am a bit dismayed by pr2is's research that shows it may be happening.
It is almost like the search engine takes a couple of days to do a full crawl through all the keywords, so if your image was accepted right after it finished doing a particular keyword, you have to wait the full cycle for it to roll around again. By then lots of other folks have also uploaded stuff with that same keyword, so when the search engine rolls around to pick up your image on that keyword, you suddenly show up on a lower page because it picks up all the images at once.
This is just speculation by me - I hope it doesn't actually work this way.
69
« on: October 25, 2007, 09:44 »
I agree, SS has been very tough. I am just starting with microstock, so I don't know about past trends, but I have an 87% approval with IS, 97% with DT, and like 50% or less with Shutterstock.
I was worried about IS when I started because everyone said they were the toughest, but for me SS is the hardest. And I have only gotten one noise/artifacting rejection so far, the rest has been similars, lighting, etc.
They are currently making me the most $$, though, so I am not really complaining. Just wishing I could get more stuff online. :-)
70
« on: October 25, 2007, 09:29 »
I think you have to go into your account Management section first and turn FTP on for your account. Look under the FTP Uploads button. I think the switch is instant, it seemed that way when I turned mine on.
71
« on: October 23, 2007, 05:58 »
I agree - the pics MOVE there. I just started with SS as well, and after 2 weeks I already have 111 downloads on a portfolio of 16 images. In contrast I have only 1 sale at IS and 3 sales at DT in the same time frame.
72
« on: October 22, 2007, 05:55 »
I had a similar issue a couple of days ago with some of my new images - I could find them under some of the keywords, but not all. Apparently it takes the search engine a couple of days to fully catalog everything. They did eventually show up under all their keywords.
If it has been a couple of days and you still have this issue, then I would send a note over to their support group.
73
« on: October 13, 2007, 11:56 »
I agree with Chode - start out with the 400D if you don't need the features on the 40D.
My first DSLR was a used 300D that I got off ebay in 2005 and it was wonderful while I learned the basics. It wasn't until just recently that I started to outgrow it and upgraded to the 40D.
74
« on: October 10, 2007, 07:32 »
I noticed the same thing and thought it was curious since I had heard that nature stuff only does "OK". It is good to know, since I do like to shoot nature.
Maybe it is a function of the trend to be more "green". I saw a diswasher commercial on TV the other night that took place in a desert-type canyon with a hawk or falcon that flew in and landed on the diswasher. I wouldn't have guessed that dishwashers would ever be marketed that way.
75
« on: October 04, 2007, 16:07 »
Yes - it does feel pretty cool. It has definitely got me out shooting more - which is what it is all about, right?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
