|
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 - Caz
76
« on: March 19, 2010, 04:37 »
Most of the answers look correct to me, there are 3 that I disagree with but I don't want to give all the answers away, as I am sure istock wont like that but they don't allow upsizing. That might help with one answer.
Which three are not correct?
You have to answer the questions yourself. If you don't know the answers then you need to learn a little more before you apply to iStock. Having someone else answer the questions for you is just going to result in more frustration for you because you have to understand the basics of what iStock wants and accepts yourself otherwise you'll be faced with lots of rejections.
77
« on: March 16, 2010, 04:27 »
Just wondering where Yuri is though?
It doesn't include people who don't have a link to their portfolio here. I had my link hidden, but when I checked this chart the link was live. I removed the link just now and I don't appear at all on the chart now (not even as hidden)
78
« on: February 23, 2010, 11:11 »
So this is a remark for non-exclusives who use generic release - make sure you have field "shoot date" on your release, not just "date".
And of course "shoot description" field that was the initial subject of this thread 
Yes, generic releases should cover all the requirements of each site, but iStock did give lots of notice for this new requirement and also published an article that detailed all the fields now required. If people use their own releases then it's a good idea to check that you have all the fields that iStock require as stated in the article to save frustration when your upload is returned for a new release. Article : http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=648&Page=2
79
« on: February 23, 2010, 04:59 »
speaking about the date, the new rule now that it should say explicitly "shoot date" rather than just "date". I've got several rejections last/this week for the reason my release was missing "shoot date", despite the date entered 3 times
The (current) iStock release does explicitly say shoot date. It says, "date signed" and the field underneath that one says "shoot date" It's pretty clear. http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/languages/english/modelrelease.pdf
80
« on: February 21, 2010, 10:44 »
I'm interested to know how this announcement has been received by those who deleted their portfolios elsewhere (or gave notice to do so) on the strength of needing to be grandfathered in to the next level ?
81
« on: February 08, 2010, 03:43 »
I had opted a few old images that weren't selling and weren't up to standard now. I opted them in because I believed Kelly's assertion in the initial announcment that the target market wasn't iStocks own (from an exclusives point of view, I'd be more than happy to take Shutterstock's subscription customers). However, the marketing email sent out to iStock's own customers encourgaing them to switch to Thinkstock shows me this isn't the case, and that more clearly than ever, it is Klein who is driving the ship.
Although my measly few images won't be missed, it's important to me that I'm not part of the problem. So I've opted out of the partner program.
82
« on: January 24, 2010, 09:01 »
Just one short, clear note from a reviewer would clear up so much confusion. This endless guessing game wastes their time and ours.
The inspection queue would grow beyond belief if every inspection came with a hand holding personal note about what exactly is wrong with your image. They assume you've self inspected your image to a professional degree, and so the general pre-done rejection reasons should therefore point you in the right direction and you ought to be able to pick it up from there yourself. Inspections are there to filter submissions, not to teach photography (although those who are open minded do learn from their rejections)
83
« on: January 19, 2010, 04:59 »
I am intrigued by Istocks latest initiative so I ran some numbers to see what the effect might be. Firstly I checked out the sizes that my images sold in. I monitored 120 sales on my own popular images and those worked out as follows;
XS - 44
Sm - 31
Me - 28
Lg - 15
XL - 2
Applied to the new price structure those sales would consume 495 credits for non-exc images or 796 credits for exc images __ that's an increase of 61%.
I then applied that 61% increase to my IS earnings for the last year, as if I'd been a Diamond exclusive, and I found that the new price structure would theoretically have produced an overall increase of 22% in my total earnings.
The figure that you're missing is Vetta. I just did a quick calculation, Vetta sales accounted for 25% of my income in the last 7 days (and it was an average week). Not being able to access this much higher revenue stream is an important factor.
84
« on: January 18, 2010, 04:58 »
I was independant for about 3 years before going exclusive. Back then, the only requirement was 500 downloads and I had more than 10,000 downloads when I went exclusive. The increased royalties (because I'd waited until I was gold the increase was significant) and the ability to concentrate on producing what sells best at one agency are what mostly appealed to me (as they all seem to have a slightly different style of what sells best and what gets accepted - or they did back then). Faster inspection times and possible better placement in the Best Match also helped my decision. I have time to shoot much more and spend less time uploading and trying to keep up with the administration involved in uploading to multiple sites. I haven't regretted it once.
85
« on: December 23, 2009, 11:26 »
Thanks guys. Since I posted I wasn't able to open the site with my home ISP either. I was just inspired to try with IE instead of Firefox, and hey presto here I am. I'm not intending to start using IE or changing my settings though  so I guess I'll just read less and work more until it all eventually sorts itself out 
86
« on: December 22, 2009, 10:18 »
When I'm at work I still can't find the "new" site since it was moved. I used to get the holding version of the old site, now just an error message to say the site can't be found. I know that there was an issue with having to wait for all the ISPs to update, but it's been a really long time now. I can only access here on my home ISP. Is there something I can do to by-pass waiting for the ISP to update (assuming they ever do) ? Am I the only one with this issue (although I suppose others having the same problem might not have access to an alternative ISP & so can't post )
87
« on: November 06, 2009, 06:59 »
If you're "drawing" direct in Illustrator without any reference sketches on paper then you need to take a few screen shots during the process, put them into a jpeg and provide that for the inspector. If you're working from your own sketches on paper as references, then provide them.
88
« on: August 05, 2009, 06:42 »
The "Betta than Vetta" name makes the site sound unproffessional, cheap and childish. I'm embarrased for you.
89
« on: July 02, 2009, 06:25 »
I'm wondering if it's wise to trust such an unreliable site. Sign of things to come?
More likely to be a sign of having such a small portfolio. Build a large, well shot and diverse portfolio and days of zero sales will be a distant memory.
90
« on: June 16, 2009, 12:59 »
M@M said "what's going to happen to the money we have already accumulated on StockXpert?"
My thoughts exactly.
Incidentally, then SV moved to Veer, they paid me what I had accumulated even if it was just a few dollars and did not reach payout point.
Let's see if Getty is as honourable as Corbis in this sense.
If they're not generating enough sales for you to generate a payment every week/month let alone the 90 day notice they gave you, why are you worrying?
91
« on: June 10, 2009, 06:26 »
The best advise that you could receive to avoid those rejections is...
go exclusive!
But you saw the image examples posted above by cofkocof?? You can clearly see the quality issues. The render quality isn't good enough, no matter whether you're exclusive or not. Suggesting a render with edges like that would pass if exclusive is just facetious.
92
« on: May 28, 2009, 02:56 »
Double indemnity taxation - I live in the UK, so if I do nothing, it will be 0% withheld as that is the current tax agreement. It is up to me to declare income in the UK earned overseas. You don't pay tax on income twice. (US/UK).
Oldhand
Actually that's not how it works. If you are a UK resident and do nothing, 30% will be withheld. It's the same with Getty. It's deducted at source. Do nothing and watch your income drop by 30% The paperwork isn't all that complicated, but getting your documents notorised can be (depending on where you live). If you live in a city it shouldn't be too much of a hassle. If you don't, like me, you might have to travel quite some distance to your nearest notary public. And they charge, per document.
93
« on: May 19, 2009, 07:36 »
iStock does accept raster illustrations. But the thing is, they need to be good. A quick search brought me to these http://tinyurl.com/oc2gqoI think that if your work is up to the artisitc and techncial standard on that link, then you'll have no trouble getting them accepted at iStock. Other sites might well accept simple photoshopping, plug in filtering, fractals and overly simple renders. They might even have a customer base for them. But those are other sites.
94
« on: May 13, 2009, 12:30 »
So, to sum up then. Someone thought they were right. Other people tried to be helpful and show them why they were wrong. A few people gave examples of where other people had thought they were right too (when they were wrong). Someone was upset that other people still thought he was wrong, despite his reasoned debate. And then it was time for homework and bed.
95
« on: May 12, 2009, 04:50 »
No. The rejection notice would say "Asia," if I had accidentally ticked the wrong box. It says "Asian Ethnicity." And I just looked at the file in DeepMeta, and everything is properly ticked.
The rejection reason really is "Asian Ethnicity." 
I'm rather sceptical that the "rejection reason really is Astian Ethnicity". It takes more than one bad keyword for a rejection (if you're not exclusive). Are you sure there isn't another reason further down the email? The keywords you're requested to remove for re-submission are always listed first on the email, you have to keep reading.
96
« on: May 11, 2009, 05:43 »
the picture was of hand cuffs, just a run of the mill still life of handcuffs :
Human Hand (The Human Body), Police Officer, Prison, Prisoner, Trapped, Trapped, Unlocking, Arrest, Criminal, detention, Bondage, Fetishes, Law, Authority, Law, Security, Security System (Security Equipment), Security, Crime
Lots of those keywords you've added are a great idea for an image for you to shoot next time, but they're not relevant to an image of "just a run of the mill still life of handcuffs" Put a person in there and you could have human hand, police officer, prisoner, criminal. When I'm searching for images to buy that contain either a police officer, a prison or a criminal you can be certain that's what I want to see in the images returned for my search for those words. I don't understand how you could posssibly think these are acceptable keywords for a still life of some empty handcuffs.
97
« on: May 02, 2009, 14:21 »
with the new model, exclusive no longer means exclusive to iStock.
It's been that way for a while. Any exclusive invited to submit to Getty has had their images hawked around several "outlets" that Getty distributes through. A Google search of my name brings my Getty submissions up on sites I've never heard of. I wonder if we should stop thinking of us being iStock exclusives and more Getty exclusive?
98
« on: April 22, 2009, 05:41 »
What happens if you upload the wrong release with an image from a session with multiple models & releases? Or keyword incorrectly? The image gets rejected because of that, an upload slot is lost and acceptance rate falls. How do you propose to recompense the contributor in that situation?
99
« on: April 20, 2009, 06:08 »
I think when we talk abut colors there is no need for full size images (heavily purple sea and sky, light blue sea against yellow and green sky, and dark orange and pinkish sky and sea)
There is, because we're not talking about the fact that the contributor edited the images to have those colours. It's about how well they did it. If your editing is up to standard, and the editing enhances an image, then you'll get edited images accepted. If you don't do it well enough, then you'll get a rejection.
100
« on: April 08, 2009, 10:11 »
A site would be foolish not to be able to disable an account very quickly. Legal issues - especially copyright abuse and liability - could easily arise that would require it. fred
Indeed, but as we've seen on several occasions, the success of some microstock sites appears to have outpaced their infrastructure. I wouldn't fall off my chair in amazement if procedures we assume to be automated and/or easy to do on all the sites just aren't.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
