|
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 - CJPhoto
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 41
851
« on: June 08, 2006, 10:35 »
thanks for the numbers.. yes, it will be sure exciting to see who reaches the 1,000,000 mark first. I wonder if istock won't get a little eager at the end and put in a spurt for the finish line, which would secure them a win. 
Well it looks like they are more concerned with quality as they are planning on doing a purge and not just of photos that havn't been downloaded. I imagine they will want to do it before they get to 1m as they wouldn't want to go under that again. Fotolia could catch up.
852
« on: June 08, 2006, 07:19 »
Had a quick look but didn't get all the answers. If you can help out with the following:
50% of $10-25 is that right?
FTP Upload?
upload limits?
does it read exif data?
How strict is quality control - as hard as istock or more like ?? ?
And most importantly, what are sales volumes like?
edit: and do they have a referal program? link please.
853
« on: June 07, 2006, 09:42 »
If you have lots of similar images why not upload what you think are your best. If they sell, then upload some more.
How many are we talking abut here in the "series"? 5, 10, 20, 50??
854
« on: June 07, 2006, 01:44 »
855
« on: June 06, 2006, 16:40 »
I understand exclusive photographers response. However, if we're talking about "files that may no longer fit our current standards" (quote from iStock thread), then this should apply to all. They mean these images would not be accepted if submitted today, and I understand that standards are the same for exclusive and non exclusive photographers, so they would not be able to sell them there or anywhere just like any other rejected image. Not true. Istock is one of the strictest. What is not accepted at iStock may sell many times at shutterstock - however, exclusives have made there bed so they need to lie in it. If it isn't upto iStock quality, it should be removed, even if it has sold in the past (maybe expecially so as it may give a false impression to quality). I still dont know how a computer can determine quality other than "size" so I think this is where the issue lies - small images will be deleted even if of high quality.
856
« on: June 06, 2006, 11:39 »
They currently have about 4900 photos online and have had 49 sales. I have put 11 up but had no takers. I will keep an eye on it and if ti starts to improve, i will do my bit for the children.
857
« on: June 06, 2006, 03:47 »
They give you 50% of what the credit is bought for. Have a search around their site fro pricing but it goes like:
10 credits = $10 - 1$ per credit
100 credits = $80 - 80c per credit.
They may not be the figures and there is an extra step in between but it shows that each credit isn't a certain amount.
It goes back to them giving you exactly 50% of what they received for that photo - much like there subscription sales amount getting chagned once they calculate their monthly reveneue.
858
« on: June 06, 2006, 03:44 »
I can see exclusive people getting annoyed if their photos are taken off (even though still selling) as they cant sell them anywhere else.
I think the issue is of quality. I dont know how a computer will be able to sort that out though. just because it is only 1mb doesn't mean it isn't high quality.
If it is an issue of size that is different again.
859
« on: June 06, 2006, 01:46 »
Got a few accepted but then stopped as I haven't seen a sale. I am not sure what their target market is but I think you need to be more "pro" for it to work. I think Rinder has said he does well there so they must have sales.
HOwever, you only need 3-4 sales for a payout so I might have another go if I get one.
860
« on: June 06, 2006, 01:42 »
I had an issue last night. COuldn 't get in.
861
« on: June 05, 2006, 10:33 »
Works a treat for me. No issues in the last 5 minutes for me (not sure whn you posed)
862
« on: June 05, 2006, 09:30 »
March 22c
April 26c
May 27c Will have to recalcuate. i didn't think it would increase as I saw they were selling cheap subscriptison to try to get sales up. Weird, especially since they just extended the 50% payout rather than being on the propssed bottom rung of 30%. Re them surviving, i think they have a good chance. They are not so strict with quality now but once they get the numbers up, they can start cutting some out and start being stricter. Supposedly SS are a lot stricter than they were a year ago - you can see just be the amount of people getting rejected first time around.
863
« on: June 02, 2006, 01:48 »
My %s are in terms of earnings not number of downloads. It's only the money I really care about!!
To quote Jerry McGuire - "show me the money". IN the end number of downloads are irrelevant. All that matters is earnings. Places like shutterstock only pay a small amount but attract customers by giving them more DL.
864
« on: June 01, 2006, 14:11 »
26% shutterstock5% fotolia 4% istockphoto 23% dreamtime 20% bigstockphoto4% 123RF0% Canstock13% StockXpertTHose are mine. shutterstock and bigstockphoto are higher than they should be due to each having $20 extended licenses which with my small portfolio has quite a distortionary effect. Hopefully I will get a lot more next month. dreamtime is my pick for best site at the moment. StockXpert is my up and coming recommendation. istockphoto is the one I need to do some work on. I only submit there when I know I have a successful shot due to high rejections, as such I only have a very small portfolio there but it has a very good per picture payout rate (ie good sales - unfortunately they have a low payout ratio though).
865
« on: May 31, 2006, 12:12 »
a bit of a shock today got $5 because a referred photographer reached 75 photos accepted.
I got $5 too. Good to see it works since there is no way of knowing.
866
« on: May 31, 2006, 12:03 »
Cant answer your questions but try out the fred marinda site: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/or the lens forum on www.dpreview.com - there is one specificaly for canon lens and thre is no doubt someone who will have used your lens. Note that they are L lens snobs so dont be surprised if they recommend the 70-200f2.8 IS.
867
« on: May 30, 2006, 12:25 »
Though I suppose CJ Photo is right, sites do change their rules, FT and DT both changed their price structures
I suggested in there forum that SS change there rules so it was different amount of credits depending on size and was informed by SS they have no plans to do so. Simplicity is there key. 123rf has per picture DL so larger sizes are worthwhile depending on how you look at it.
868
« on: May 30, 2006, 11:08 »
I dont beleive it is worth resizing. UPload at the max you can. Reason:
1: Buyer might be put of by small size and not buy (even if not needed at full size, they might only want to use a small part of image).
2:sites may change their rules which make having large sizes worthwhile. I think when I started, FT didn't do different sizes but now you get more for big sizes.
869
« on: May 30, 2006, 11:06 »
I have heard that Shutterstock aren't as fussy as Istock in terns acceptance rate but don't want to piss them off by FTPing lots of photos that consider not worthy. So if they were accepted by FT or DT they should be worth uploading?? They wont necessarily be accepted but if they were at FT or DT, it is worthwhile trying as atleast they have passed one set of eyes. Sites like StockXpert and 123RF seem to accept most stuff for me which is no indication.
870
« on: May 30, 2006, 08:15 »
Alamy keeps track as they know exactly what has been sold to whom and for what purpose (due to being exclusive shots and maanaging the rights).
With microstock, it could have been sold by one of a number of sites all with differing rights. For example, SS couldn't pursue an potential copyright as they potentially have the correct licence purchased from DT or even the photographer personally. And more likely than not, the user will be some small company that isn't worth suing.
871
« on: May 30, 2006, 04:56 »
Just found another thing from Alexa. I dont know how to use the site but found a link to this elsewhere. IS is twice as busy as the other sites: link
872
« on: May 25, 2006, 08:22 »
The parrot ones dont look focused on the eye. i woudl prefer the ey and beck to be in focus where as it seems the neck is. - this might just be bacause of the reduced file size.
873
« on: May 25, 2006, 06:29 »
Interesting - so if I submit with a 2.5mp camera, large is 2.5mp but if I sumbit with a 8mp, it is 8mp. SOunds confusing.
Have read the shutterstock thread. It is a case of give the buying public what they ask for. i think they just need to be careful that buyers dont think the TIFF is an original TIFF and not a conversion from JPEG - still we get 100% (25c to $20) more for no work so hopefully it is what designers want.
874
« on: May 25, 2006, 04:59 »
or one more thought however, shutterstock upsizes all their images. By upsizing and saving at a new size, the jpg image gets one more save added to it's degredation.. so perhaps they are just sort of trying to encourage us to upload as tiffs so that it can be tiff all the way through, including the upsizing.. hmm.. i dunno.
Why do SS they upsize? And when, obvioulsy not for all - is it just if the buyer buys te largest size.
875
« on: May 25, 2006, 02:59 »
Doesn't make sence as the designer could convert the jpg to tiff. I understand if it was uploaded as a TIFF (which from the sounds of it they are starting).
The only advantage of a TIff is that there is no loss but if it has already been a jpeg this has already happened - is this the only adantage??
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 41
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
