MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Show Posts

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 - CJH Photography

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
1
Newbie Discussion / Re: What do u think about FEMALE PHOTOGRAPHER?
« on: December 16, 2018, 14:16 »
I'm a female photographer.  I don't think I face any extra challenges due to being female.  I'm a one-person shop and do this as a moonlighting job.  Maybe full-time people have a different experience.

2
And hes also just wrong.  If it were an article specifically commenting on the photo, it would have fair use claim, possibly.  Just grabbing a photo to use as filler or to illustrate the commentary is infringement.

Plus the whole image is hardly "a brief excerpt."  Low resolution images may be OK.  This is an interesting article on the subject:  https://copyright.columbia.edu/basics/fair-use.html


3
General Stock Discussion / Re: Eyeem & Twenty20 succes?
« on: May 03, 2018, 15:36 »
I'm on both.  I've never sold anything on EyeEm.  I've made $24 on Twenty20 in 680 days with a port of 255.  So, not a huge money maker  ;)  I like having a place to experiment, though.  I also like the contests because they help me see how I compare with the competition and how I can up my game.

4
Regularly
Shutterstock
Dreamstime
Adobe *through Fotolia
Alamy
20Twenty
Eyeem


Sometimes
123RF
Deposit Photos

I have photos on Bigstock, but don't contribute there any more.  I have a self-hosted site that doesn't get the attention it deserves.  I'm thinking of expanding into doing more portrait/wedding work for private clients, which would cause me to redo the whole site *sigh

5
Shutterstock.com / Re: When do my sales increase?
« on: April 19, 2018, 20:46 »
It really depends what you upload.  The trick is to figure out what the buyers want.  I've seen people with multiple downloads per file and small portfolios.  Then there's the wanna bees like me, trying to find the right niche.  I did hit a good market when I photographed the presidential candidates in 2016, but I'm looking for something new.

Try to develop icon sets that are unique, but still satisfy customer desires.  Pay attention to what sells, your work and others work.  Don't copy others, but learn from what they do and apply it to your own ideas. 

I really think a bit of time spent in studying the market pays off in sales in the long run. 

6
You can have a personal contract.  But I would recommend forming an LLC.  It provides some protection for your personal assets if you are careful to separate personal and business funding.  They are pretty easy to set up.  You can do it yourself, or if it is you would prefer to have it handle by an attorney it shouldn't be too expensive.  Disclosure:  This is based on my own research and experience and I am not an attorney.

7
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Lowest Earning
« on: July 10, 2017, 14:40 »
Some money is better than no money. :-(
Not if you're cannabalizing earnings with the same images elsewhere.

The trouble is, if you remove your image to prevent cannibalisation, there is very little chance that your picture elsewhere will pick up the sale you lost on iS. That sale will go to somebody else - probably on iS, but maybe elsewhere.
Even in the unusual case of your image being truly unique, the odds are probably still against it being found amidst a gazillion files on some other site, amid scores of different sites. And how many pictures are so unique as to not easily be substituted by something else?

You make a good point.  But istock was not making money for me and I am happy to forgo the few sales that I did make there. 

8
iStockPhoto.com / Re: $ 0.00077 Lowest Earning on Istock
« on: July 10, 2017, 14:37 »
That it is not the main problem.
Return from photos are extremely low.
You have to factor how much time you waste uploading: as an example SS takes me less than an hour per month to upload about 200 photos. I get about $100 with them, it is only just worth doing, and only it because it does go up every month.
Bloody istock is so complex that it takes me 5-6 hours per month to upload there, so if it doesn't give me at least $400, forget it
No lie.  I do a LOT of editorial and have managed to figure out the required captions everywhere else, but ISTOCK always finds a reasosn to reject them.   That and them taking the power of contributors to remove images from sale were the tipping point for me and why I quit trying there.

9
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Lowest Earning
« on: July 06, 2017, 12:50 »
Some money is better than no money. :-(
Not if you're cannabalizing earnings with the same images elsewhere.

But how do you know that you are cannibalising such images?

You can't really know for sure because we don't have access to that data.  Personally, though, I choose not to offer my images at that compensation point. 

10
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Lowest Earning
« on: July 03, 2017, 10:41 »
Some money is better than no money. :-(

What! You are kidding right?!  :o

You're saying that no money is better than some money? You are kidding right?!  :o

You just love to snipe don't you

So you would be happy to get  $ 0.00077??

Stop being a dick

If you do that 100 times, it comes to almost $.08.  What is minimum payment at iStock?  If you never make payout, this is still no money.  I deleted most of my files and they closed my account-I think I left one just as a placeholder in case things ever improved.

11
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Lowest Earning
« on: July 03, 2017, 10:37 »
Some money is better than no money. :-(
Not if you're cannabalizing earnings with the same images elsewhere.

12
Do EyeEm require exclusivity?

I suppose they have to if they sell through Getty
No, they don't.   They just started a video platform there, too.  I have uploaded a bit there. I've never had a sale, but I don't take it too seriously either.  I've had better luck at 20twenty.  Or twenty20.  I never came remember which way it goes :-)

13
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Uploading images to istock
« on: June 01, 2017, 14:06 »
Your initial post sounds like you're not really interested in doing this, so I'd say just don't worry about uploading anywhere.  It is a business and you do have to work at it a bit to see any result.
As I said I until a few months ago I was doing footage only.
I work a lot on it and I am quite happy with the results.
I have decided to try selling also still images, as I don't have to re shoot them, I can take them from timelapses that I already do anyway.
But I don't have much time for it, so it must be worthwhile. So far I have been uploading photos to 4 agencies and the results are relatively satisfactory.
But I have to spread the effort  on several agencies, so I would like to try istock.
As I said I cannot invest too much time on it, so if the uploading is relatively simple (and sales are decent) I am happy to do it. If it is overly complicated I would give a skip
IMO, it's not worth it.   I do primarily editorial images and just gave up on them.  I was not seeing sales and the editorial guidelines for captions were not consistent.   I upload several places and have no trouble complying with guidelines elsewhere.  The final straw for me was when they made it more difficult to remove work from their site.   

14
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock don't let me upload more files
« on: April 26, 2017, 10:31 »
Are you uploading to iStock? That is you are feeding the beast that takes us 85%!!! Stop feeding the beast!
LOL I pop in once in a while to see if it would be worthwhile to upload to istock again.  Looks like I'll keep waiting.  I need to see some real positive changes for contributors to work with them again.

15
Some good, some bad. The bulk buy option sounds like the kind of garbage fotolia offers with regards to how much we will make.

Email from shutterstock:

"While high resolution footage is increasingly popular with our customers, they often choose entry-level clips because of the lower price. To encourage bulk high resolution downloads, we've narrowed the pricing gap across all our video packs. By raising the price for entry-level clips and lowering the prices for higher resolution packs, we've made this higher-quality content an easier choice for our customers. These pricing changes will vary globally.

We're introducing a new high-volume footage package.

Recently there's been a demand for a large number of downloads from a specific set of customers from large companies. To suit their needs we will soon introduce a high-volume footage package. This package gives your work an opportunity to reach a broader audience that could result in even more downloads.

We will only be offering this package to large business customers who are guaranteeing bulk purchases of footage. It wont be shown on our public website. With this package, clients will be given the opportunity to download a large volume of footage clips at a negotiated price per clip. As with our other footage products, your earnings under this high-volume footage package will be a percentage of the purchase price of each download, with payouts between $3 and $6 per clip."

If you could target for that market; the volume might make it worthwhile.   Sure is a low pay-out, though

16
Dreamstime.com / Re: Dead dead and dead
« on: April 12, 2017, 10:23 »
How much you earn for each sale in DT?
Just to know.
It's going to vary. My average RPD for 2016 was $1.98.

17
Lets face it the site is being run by how can I say without seeming rude

idiots  ;D

That's not how this should be worded in corporate speak. I'll attempt to rephrase.

It is run by people whose interests are not well aligned with the interests of contributors.

I don't have much against SS, let's just say lately it's performance was less than stellar.  But I have no problem, other stocks are picking up, so it all evens out for me.  Maybe it's just me, or maybe the interests of those who run SS no longer align with the interests of buyers either. Needless to say, I have only sympathy for front line workers.

Alignment with buyers is what I would like to see all the sites I contribute concentrate on.  Other than that, just give me transparent sales tracking and non-buggy uploads and I'm good.   Pretty demanding, huh?

18
Dreamstime.com / Re: Dead dead and dead
« on: April 11, 2017, 08:52 »
My earnings per upload seem to be about the same as BAZ and CHJ.  My portfolio is not "High Commercial Value", it's basically food and travel with hardly any people shots.
The return is currently about 1c per month per upload. As I've got thousands of files online it is still enough to pay the occasional bill, whether it is worth the effort to upload more is something people need to work out for themselves. I'll still send stuff sometimes if I have nothing else to do but I don't expect an exciting return from extra effort any longer.
I keep experimenting with ways to increase revenue, but really with the investment I have in equipment now, I need to step out and do more direct marketing.  Just upgraded to some solid video heads and tripods, so I am looking around locally to see how to make them pay off.

19
Dreamstime.com / Re: Dead dead and dead
« on: April 10, 2017, 15:23 »
Over 6000 images Q1 2017: 12 $    :o

2017 its totally a very bad year for me ? for DR ? i don't know !

FT on the other hand looks better and better for me at least
I have 765 online with earnings of $27.12 fwiw.  Unfortunately, most of my sales are niche photos in an area that I can't readily scale up at this point.

20
maybe mirrorless full format or aps-c cameras such as sony, fuji etc...
Sounds right, they have accepted shots taken with my 7D

21
"I still like my crop sensor for "getting closer" to pictures at events, etc, though"

thats funny, because you can do the same with a full frame camera and just crop the photo, unless you use a 18mp crop sensor and need the full resolution image, then i can see the point
I like to have a full resolution picture when I can.  Some of the events I shoot I have to be pretty far away from the stage and even crop for composition on my 7d.  With the full-frame and my 70-200, the subject might be microscopic. I have an extender, but hate to use it if I can avoid it.

I see your point, though. 

22
Hey all,

These were taken with 100% natural light, at a cafe.

Critique would be appreciated, including post.

Thanks

Brasilnut
They don't make me want to drink the coffee,which is important.  It just seems a bit flat and the colors a bit off.  It would be nice to see some steam wafting up and maybe a little brighter.  Since most of them got accepted, though-see if they sell.  It's what the customers like that matters.

23
Hey all,

These were taken with 100% natural light, at a cafe.

Critique would be appreciated, including post.

Thanks

Brasilnut
They don't make me want to drink the coffee,which is important.  It just seems a bit flat and the colors a bit off.  It would be nice to see some steam wafting up and maybe a little brighter and less saturated.  Since most of them got accepted, though-see if they sell.  It's what the customers like that matters. 

24
Quote
I'd be interested to know if it gets through at that asa. I have a Nikon D7000 and struggle to get much through above 400. Though to be fair I haven't tried much lately.

The one with the barista didn't get through for noise/grain rejection but I've since resubmitted with more noise reduction. The rest got through OK.

I'm using a Nikon D800 and it's quite impressive, even at higher ISO.
Yep quite a step up from mine I'm guessing being full frame is a bit benefit noise wise
Yup, I noticed a huge difference in noise when I went to full frame.  It was great!  I still like my crop sensor for "getting closer" to pictures at events, etc, though

25
Photography Equipment / Re: Insurance for camera & gear
« on: March 14, 2017, 13:15 »
You wouldn't necessarily need (at least in US) a specialized photography policy to cover gear.   What you are looking for is what we call an Inland Marine or "floater" policy.  I recommend getting some recommendations for agents from your friends and getting at least three quotes.  You will want to check to see if there is a deductible and if the equipment is covered at actual cash value or replacement cost.   You also want to be sure the coverage will cover the equipment wherever it is (assuming you are mobile) and covers "special causes of loss" instead of "named perils."

Anyway, I have worked in insurance for about 30 years and insured my own gear, so if you have questions I will try and clarify.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements