|
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 - steheap
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 62
1
« on: April 01, 2024, 08:36 »
Steve, I'm not sure if you're aware, but you're the Cord Cutters poster boy!
I often see your photo on my Facebook stream!
Yes, that one does seem to be popular. Only earned about $300 though so not a great best seller!
4
« on: March 31, 2024, 12:26 »
Yes, FAA do advertising for you on Google, and if you search for a piece of wall art of a particular location, you will often see some FAA images that match that search. I occasionally have seen sales that way. I also have a website aimed at potential buyers but I do not use it as a place to host lots of images. I can't imagine anyone going to my website to browse through hundreds or thousands of potential images. So self-hosting a portfolio is a waste of time in my view. Instead, I have created one website for potential buyers, which is not linked in any way to my blog about stock photography and making money from photos. I use this website to write articles about places I have photographed and I tell the story of the place and illustrate it with my best images. I add a link to the Print on Demand site under each of these photos so that if someone likes the photo and is interested in buying it, they can click through and see the options for framing and sizing etc. So all my social media efforts are often linked to promoting this website and articles and I have found that if you search for something like "Coopers Rock Snow" on Google, my article about a recent visit (last month) to a local beauty spot comes up in the top position and I hope someone will visit that and enjoy the photographs. It would be very hard to do that with a portfolio of photos I believe. I've written articles about some cruises and I publicize them on Facebook groups about that cruise line and I get lots of views and great comments about the photographs that way. It seems a good way to build an audience and get visibility to my work. Its at https://www.backyardimage.com/ if you are interested. So, to answer the question - FAA is worth it if you are willing to put the effort into marketing. Steve
5
« on: March 31, 2024, 10:54 »
I missed this discussion, but could add a bit now. I decided, about 3 or 4 years ago, to try to build a separate income stream besides stock photos and so built up my FAA portfolio and also joined Pictorem as well. I've written various articles on my blog about my experiences, but I have managed to build something of a new stream. This is the graph of fine art stuff compared to stock photo income:  But it does need effort. Stock is an upload and leave business model. Print on demand is an upload and promote/market model. More satisfying to think that people like your work enough to hang it on their wall! I've also just created an Etsy store to sell physical prints and will use FAA and Pictorem to fulfil them. I wrote about that here: https://backyardsilver.com/selling-physical-prints-in-an-etsy-shop/I've also written a book about how to get started with selling your fine art photos online if anyone is interested! Steve
7
« on: April 20, 2023, 07:08 »
They do have teething troubles as a bit of a startup. Just open a trouble ticket with them and Im sure it will be sorted. Their renewal approach for annual membership is a bit shaky as well.
Steve
8
« on: March 19, 2023, 10:45 »
A friend gave me the answer (I think!). I use Stock Submitter and in the "Other Parameters/Other Metadata" section is a setting for location. I never really use that, and it is set as a default to United States.
In future I need to either set that to the country in question or set it to Unspecified. Looks like SS has started comparing this setting in the metadata with the keywords or description.
Steve
9
« on: March 19, 2023, 10:18 »
This is one I haven't seen before and I'm at a loss to see what is wrong. I've submitted about 300 images from South America already and most have been accepted. This latest batch of 12 images from Buenos Aires were all rejected with
Inaccurate Location: The selected location does not accurately describe this content, is not consistent with the metadata, or contains non-Latin characters (e.g., Cyrillic, Thai script, etc).
The camera has no GPS or location information (Sony A7R5) and I didn't add a location in Lightroom - that section of the metadata is blank and this is what I entered (an image similar to the ones rejected that I submitted just now)
Anyone come across this rejection before and what is the solution?
Steve
10
« on: March 06, 2023, 14:15 »
Yes, I'm here! I don't come here anything like as often as I used to. I've got photos to work on and social media stuff to do!
Steve
11
« on: June 28, 2022, 18:49 »
Steve, I think that selling with freepik, as other low sellers, is not devaluating single images; but is devaluating your ideas!
You have a lot of ideas and you should not give away your ideas for 0,1 cent. Another very good point. However, ideas are also quickly copied by others.. I think the way I look at this now is that I am aiming to achieve the maximum annual income from these photos as I sort of transition more towards print sales which I find more satisfying. The actual amount per download doesn't actually bother me very much - I've no idea what that is on Canva these days, but I do know what Canva pays me each month. Freepik seem to be heading in the same direction. So unless we think that someone will search multiple agencies for a particular image of mine (assuming they know about it), then putting images on most sites would seem to give the best chance of achieving the maximum annual income. I don't think any of us know the extent of multiple agency searching by most stock buyers. I assume not a lot, but I am guessing, I think! Steve
12
« on: June 28, 2022, 11:18 »
Last year was my BYE in terms of total income (been here since 2006). I don't give my work to these sorts of sites at all and the lower paying micros get none of my new work. That's great and a very valid point. What none of us know is what would have happened if we had made a different decision. I may have earned more from fewer agencies or you may have lost income that otherwise you would have received. It is one of those unknowable questions I'm afraid.
13
« on: June 28, 2022, 09:11 »
This is the article mentioned above. https://backyardsilver.com/freepik-stock-agency-a-deal-with-the-devil/ I do need to update the article to mention the tax withholding of 35%. I plan to obtain the residency certificate from the IRS in the USA, which is definitely a pain and an expense ($85 for a personal one) and it has to be obtained each year. If I continue to earn what I have in these first months, it will be a worthwhile venture. However, there is a massive unknown issue in all this - will buyers go to Freepik to download my image at 7c rather than go to Adobe and pay a lot more, or will the buyers already be at Freepik and so they are choosing between a free one and one of mine that they pay a little for. It is the same question that has plagued us for the past 10 years - if we support agencies that license images for less, will we lose sales at more expensive agencies. I see this as just a continuation of the evolution of stock photography - steadily downhill, yes, but you either go with the flow or stand on your principles and lose money as new sites take a larger share of the pie. Steve
16
« on: May 05, 2022, 14:44 »
If I search for something with fewer results - such as Cheat Lake print - my images appear in the top row of organic results and Pictorem in there alongside FineArtAmerica and Pixels. The latter ones have been online for much longer. So they do get there, but there will be many fewer in a popular place like New York?
17
« on: May 05, 2022, 14:32 »
That is very strange. I've searched for mine in the recent past and have seen the Pictorem results, but now I don't. I have sold three metal prints in the past month and they were not ones I actively marketed myself, although the locations were (two in Kauai), so I am not sure where the buyers found my images.
I'll continue to investigate those Google results...
Steve
18
« on: May 05, 2022, 10:48 »
I've been impressed so far. This is the article where I mentioned my sales: https://backyardsilver.com/say-again-earnings-from-stock-photography-have-increased/You can choose your pricing (although in simpler ways than FAA) and I have chosen a margin of $20 per square inch of print. I have a feeling that people buy larger prints because it is not as expensive as I had on FAA and the shipping is free. You also get to know the email and name of the buyers so you could add them to your mailing list (perhaps!) So far, so good. Steve
20
« on: March 24, 2022, 14:21 »
Why is every comment here negative? I think this team do a great job and it is the mainstay of my work. The Professional package he mentions is for 1000 uploads a month - far more than I do.
It is not unreasonable to increase the fees in my view, especially as the increase is only aimed at heavy users.
Steve
21
« on: February 23, 2022, 13:41 »
Sorry - I'm stupid - it is in a box at the top of the Contributor dashboard, not in the Tax Center!
22
« on: February 23, 2022, 13:30 »
Anyone managed to download their 1099 tax form for 2021 from Shutterstock. I was sure there was a download link in the Tax Center (which didn't work earlier this month) but now I can't find it at all.
Steve
24
« on: September 01, 2021, 14:56 »
25
« on: August 03, 2021, 09:33 »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 62
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
