Author Topic: 100% rejections plus new images not selling (Read 21951 times)

RacePhoto · « **Reply #75 on:** June 06, 2013, 13:00 »

Sorry if I was frustrated with the unsubstantiated claims, day after day. The "everyone" was a little too much. Picky picky, my problem for using English literally and trying to be accurate. Blaming everyone and everything else (hmm, now I'm guilty of the same) OK blaming the agency and some outside forces, unknown algorithms, tests, plus rumors and old superstitions, just seems heartily unproductive and a waste of time and energy.

It's not about the source it's about the trend of making negative and critical claims, day after day, for a year. Hopefully Poncke V3 will come back refreshed and a little more positive.

Here's what it should have said: If you are going to make claims, please provide some evidence to back it up. I mean 100% rejection and new images not selling the OP Subject, is a bit overstated?

Not that I'm getting rich but sales on SS are three times what they were for the same months last year... for myself! I don't claim that it goes for everyone equally. I have no issues with reviews, searches, or the fact that I'm making peanuts for subs. I knew that going in, otherwise I wouldn't have joined SS in the first place.

As a note, sales are down 60% on IS since last year. And for the picky at heart, they are called sales on the sites and in the income reports, it's sales of licenses, so the usage of the word "sales" is fine. We don't sell images, we sell licenses for use of the images.

Odd how it looks like a v7 of Lagereek some days, but I'm sure each of them would find that amusing as the two are quite different animals.

Quote from: ShadySue on June 06, 2013, 12:00

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 06, 2013, 10:16
Quote from: Red Dove on June 06, 2013, 10:02
Quote from: ShadySue on June 06, 2013, 09:51
Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 06, 2013, 09:20
Simply dont listen to or pay any attention to any one who is complaining sales are down.
Without out proof all it is is hearsay because there is no proof given to back it up.
One could say the same about people claiming sales are up.

One could. Since they often turn out to be the very same people who complained about poor sales the week before.

jackpoooooooooooooooooooooooot
That's mainly Lagereek and his alter egos.

ShadySue · « **Reply #76 on:** June 06, 2013, 13:11 »

You have lost me completely.
I don't think you're ruxperiencdiam, so are you telling me you are RedDove?
You do incredibly well at totally confusing me.

Quote from: RacePhoto on June 06, 2013, 13:00

Sorry if I was frustrated with the unsubstantiated claims, day after day. The "everyone" was a little too much. Picky picky, my problem for using English literally and trying to be accurate. Blaming everyone and everything else (hmm, now I'm guilty of the same) OK blaming the agency and some outside forces, unknown algorithms, tests, plus rumors and old superstitions, just seems heartily unproductive and a waste of time and energy.

It's not about the source it's about the trend of making negative and critical claims, day after day, for a year. Hopefully Poncke V3 will come back refreshed and a little more positive.

Here's what it should have said: If you are going to make claims, please provide some evidence to back it up. I mean 100% rejection and new images not selling the OP Subject, is a bit overstated?

Not that I'm getting rich but sales on SS are three times what they were for the same months last year... for myself! I don't claim that it goes for everyone equally. I have no issues with reviews, searches, or the fact that I'm making peanuts for subs. I knew that going in, otherwise I wouldn't have joined SS in the first place.

As a note, sales are down 60% on IS since last year. And for the picky at heart, they are called sales on the sites and in the income reports, it's sales of licenses, so the usage of the word "sales" is fine. We don't sell images, we sell licenses for use of the images.

Odd how it looks like a v7 of Lagereek some days, but I'm sure each of them would find that amusing as the two are quite different animals.

Quote from: ShadySue on June 06, 2013, 12:00
Quote from: luissantos84 on June 06, 2013, 10:16
Quote from: Red Dove on June 06, 2013, 10:02
Quote from: ShadySue on June 06, 2013, 09:51
Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 06, 2013, 09:20
Simply dont listen to or pay any attention to any one who is complaining sales are down.
Without out proof all it is is hearsay because there is no proof given to back it up.
One could say the same about people claiming sales are up.

One could. Since they often turn out to be the very same people who complained about poor sales the week before.

jackpoooooooooooooooooooooooot
That's mainly Lagereek and his alter egos.

Red Dove · « **Reply #77 on:** June 06, 2013, 13:40 »

He's not me and Lagereek is over at SS bleating about sales, making threats to stop uploading and in the next breath boasting about four figure individual sales through RM. I'm sure if some of us had access to oil refineries and whatnot we could give him something material to whine about. He's not all that.

Imagenomad · « **Reply #78 on:** June 06, 2013, 15:27 »

I wish I was a scriptwriter. I'd have enough material in this place to script an Oscar winning film and a few sequels.

And I'd probably squeeze a prequel or two out too. Different angles with a vintage look and all that.

ShadySue · « **Reply #79 on:** June 06, 2013, 15:33 »

Quote from: Red Dove on June 06, 2013, 13:40

He's not me and Lagereek is over at SS bleating about sales, making threats to stop uploading and in the next breath boasting about four figure individual sales through RM.

No change there, then.

gostwyck · « **Reply #80 on:** June 06, 2013, 15:39 »

Quote from: Red Dove on June 06, 2013, 13:40

He's not me and Lagereek is over at SS bleating about sales, making threats to stop uploading and in the next breath boasting about four figure individual sales through RM. I'm sure if some of us had access to oil refineries and whatnot we could give him something material to whine about. He's not all that.

You have to take his 'numbers' with a fairly hefty sack of salt of course. He was claiming to have earned five figure numbers on FAA in the previous year ... when in fact he'd only opened his acccout the day before and had no portfolio there. He does it all the time.

gdvcom · « **Reply #81 on:** June 08, 2013, 11:36 »

Quote from: Poncke v2 on June 03, 2013, 09:20

So my latest batch of 7 images was 100% rejected. This batch also contained a few resubmits from a previous batch of 24 images which had about 40% rejected. The images rejected for lighting (fixed it) were now rejected for composition. One of the latest rejections was composition on an isolation of the new 5 euro note.

My approval rate on SS was 90% for a long time. So not perfect, but I knew basically what would get in and what not. At the moment I am lost as all of a sudden my acceptance rate is far below my average.

And from the latest 100 accepted images, I am not seeing any sales, well, I think I sold 2 or 3 images of which 1 is picking up sales. These 100 images were people images (seniors, kids, moms) and images of landmarks in Dublin, Ireland.

So with accepted images not selling, and my latest batch 100% rejected, whats the use?

I will post a few images later.

This is not my reality. SS as always sell and the acceptance is very fair for me. i often try things that i wouldn't on istock or fotolia and they get accepted. Im not a big contributor yet (950 files) but SS is without a doubt the site that make me love this business.

I think it's fabulous to wake up in the morning and see that you sold 30 images while you where sleeping.

The map is awsome too. For myself SS have always sell more and more it is far away my favourite!

A.Belec

Portfolio: newbielink:http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=751852 [nonactive]

farbled · « **Reply #82 on:** June 08, 2013, 11:46 »

Quote from: Imagenomad on June 06, 2013, 15:27

I wish I was a scriptwriter. I'd have enough material in this place to script an Oscar winning film and a few sequels.

And I'd probably squeeze a prequel or two out too. Different angles with a vintage look and all that.

I'd watch that! Who would you cast in what role if you could pick?

robhainer · « **Reply #83 on:** June 11, 2013, 14:58 »

Have to agree on the rejection for the newspaper reader -- lighting, comp, commercial value. Shade lighting, with the guy wearing clothing, having some coffee, maybe reacting to something he read. Would have been better. Not enough story in that shot aside from the technical problems. Need to set up your scene and cheat it a little more.

I have no problem with the use of shadow or direct sun lighting, if it fits the subject. Easter egg hunt, sports photo, beach, anything similar, direct lighting works.

Me, I would avoid bright sunlight to read a paper; assuming I would even bother with a paper rather than a pad.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 100% rejections plus new images not selling (Read 21951 times)

RacePhoto

ShadySue

Red Dove

Imagenomad

ShadySue

gostwyck

gdvcom

farbled

robhainer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors