|
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 - Tabimura
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11
101
« on: June 05, 2012, 02:01 »
Scott, while you're at it, I think you might have one inspector who use to sleep over stacks of pending images and keeps them in that state for too many days. Give him / her a nudge, will you?
102
« on: June 04, 2012, 17:11 »
I never give the raw file and I always recommend the same for everyone who asks.
103
« on: June 04, 2012, 16:30 »
@Wim - cheers mate, good luck to you too. I just saw the article on Elena's blog is from Feb 2011, didn't bother reading it. I might be lucky to be blind and produce snapshots, 'cuz I can't remember getting a LCV rejection  not in the last 2 years at least. @rimglow - make a search after "remote control isolated" on SS, you'll get nearly 5000 images. HOW MANY of these do you think they want? You need to expand a bit.
104
« on: June 04, 2012, 11:08 »
Yes, let's have 10 million more amateur shapshots, please.
I think that at least 90% of these LCV rejections are entirely justified.
105
« on: June 02, 2012, 15:09 »
I'm down from about 600 to about 1200.
106
« on: June 02, 2012, 00:59 »
And how does your precious seo "benefits" translate into sales? Does it put food on your table?
Actually...yes.
But before I go on I have a question: So is it that you DON'T think people search for photos using search engines? Or you don't understand in even it's simpliest form what SEO is and does?
I've only been an image buyer a few times, but more than once I've had a hard time finding the image I wanted at the first couple stock sties I looked at, so where did I turn? Google....with google images I managed to find quicker and easier a good image on a stock site (I think one ended up being dreamstime, maybe both, not quite sure on this point).
If I've done it as a newbie image buyer I'm sure others have and I'm a microstock photographer, if I need an image of course the first place I think is a microstock agency. But most potential image buyers out there and those who buy images now and then but don't have "microstock in the consciousness" the way I do would be even more likely to use google.
Aside from that I have my personal website ranking for some reasonable "photo" related terms that bring in advertising clicks, one is a rather main term that I've gotten on the first page of google. Which is all done by seo (mostly social sites - facebook, 500px, devient art, twitter, pinterest etc) and yes, strangely enough advertising clicks DO put food on the table.....as did whatever SEO that existed for the photos that I bought from searching google - the artist of that work can thank whatever SEO his agency did because it got him my sales....
To think SEO on a site/page with a PURCHASABLE PRODUCT that is well keyworded to be useless in this day and age is.....rather strange...
But for all of you that are exploding your heads with worry over this terrible unfair treatment of having others do some work promoting for you....how many of you have your folios at Istock? How many of you are doing business with a company that is ACTIVELY shafting photographers up the poo tube? You sit back and support an agency who thinks it's ok to pay 16% commissions and then get on your high horse about social sharing of photos by people who never would have been customers?
When someone pins your image there is no malicious intent, nor even a greedy/thoughtless one. It's more a "oh, this is beautiful, I want to share this with my friends and/or keep it somewhere where I can come back and see it again", it's a personal recommendation, it's product exposure, it's non-commercial use, it's free, and....it's a bargain!
You all can get scared about people pinning your work....me, I want as many pins (and likes and shares and +1s and diggs etc) as I can get...
I think you're wrong. Your income from microstock agencies come from their relationship with their clients, obtained through other means than social networks. Probably you can get to a point where someone says "look, I can buy neotakezo's photo from...x agency. But wait, I've seen it so many times pinned and facebooked and whatever - I can get it from there". Not everybody is thinking of stealing, but you're offering your stuff free of charge by repins and so on, instead of educating them that a professional image costs MONEY. And regarding SEO, I'm quite confident that at least 90% of the people who search for images are aware of the likes of flickr, deviantart and others, if they want free images.
107
« on: June 02, 2012, 00:45 »
Also "equus".
And "Perissodactyla", because it is!
And "Laurasiatheria", being a placental mammal.
108
« on: June 01, 2012, 23:46 »
I'm sure 99% of the time in the pinner's mind they are doing something nice for you.
Seriously, are you that naive? They don't even care whether its a snapshot or a professional well produced photo, as long as they like it. They're just interested in using it. And how does your precious seo "benefits" translate into sales? Does it put food on your table?
109
« on: June 01, 2012, 05:03 »
SS - pretty average, a bit up (and very much up compared to last May)
IS - way up!
FT - average (way up compared to last May)
DP - up
123RF - average
DT - poor, as usual
Alamy - not great. Many downloads, but little money. Are they going microstock?
Photodune - down
110
« on: June 01, 2012, 04:43 »
Sorry, not by a mile. Everything on LR is better than either DPP or NX. I don't want to get too technical in details, but I know very well my way around all these softwares. Take for example the sharpening method (unsharp mask) of DPP against the sophisticated deconvolution method from LR. Not in the same league. Not even getting to local adjustments, lens support for everything and other stuff.
111
« on: June 01, 2012, 04:32 »
Canon's DPP is a piece of cr@p, honestly.
Yes, it definitely has its shortcomings, it can be a pain to use and does not have all the bells and whistles. But I have not yet seen a better image quality come out of any other RAW-converter. I have lightroom but rarely use it (mostly for my Fuji X100), I just don't seem to get good results with it (Comparing Canon images) And on a pixel-peeping level DPP delivers IMHO the best details.
BTW when (which year?) did you last time seriously try to do something with DPP?
About a month ago, actually. Not that there's much to do with it, compared to LR. The only thing that DPP does and the others don't is ALO, but that's not nearly enough. Try LR 4.1, you'll be very pleased with it.
112
« on: June 01, 2012, 04:28 »
Actually today there are several hundreds more of my images on Alamy from Veer 
113
« on: June 01, 2012, 04:13 »
Canon's DPP is a piece of cr@p, honestly. I'm using LR and Capture One (depending on the shoot). I always shoot RAW. AF is not critical for my work, it's not my first manual focus lens. Quality uber alles, yes?
114
« on: June 01, 2012, 03:21 »
Of course circular... 
115
« on: June 01, 2012, 02:22 »
Thanks Christian, I'm into Zeiss glass too. I love their rendition and microcontrast. I tried the Canon 35mm L too and it's great, just that the image seems a bit flat compared to what I get from Zeiss.
Edit: what polarizers are you using on your Zeiss?
116
« on: June 01, 2012, 00:50 »
I'm in the market for a 35mm prime, have my eyes on zeiss glass (obviously for some) and I'm considering the Distagon T* 35mm f/2 and the Distagon T* 35mm/1.4
Any of you prime lovers got your hands on them? Is the f/1.4 version worth almost twice the price?
Also, does anyone knows anything about Zeiss polarizers? I think they're rather new, a bit expensive but I'm somehow inclined to put a zeiss filter in front of a zeiss glass.
117
« on: May 31, 2012, 05:10 »
Ofcourse one never gets tired of cameras and taking pics, thats not what I meant, never gets tired of commissioned work either or new ideas. I think the draining thingy here, almost exhausting, is the fact that nowdays in the micro world, nothing seems to work smoothly anymore, everything turns into a hassle.
photography isnt supposed to be that way.
That's very true. We shouldn't be doing detective work to discover hidden deals that agencies do behind our backs, the discounts that cut into our commissions, and everything that makes this forum so... hm... alive.
118
« on: May 31, 2012, 04:08 »
But it's different with Lageerek, he started when camera obscura was invented 
I always thought he's older than Yoda 
119
« on: May 31, 2012, 03:17 »
123RF partners with ZCool in China. The Source.Is this going to bring the huge improvement Alex promised?
120
« on: May 31, 2012, 03:14 »
Frankly no, I don't a break. I'm very much doing what I like. And although I have my fair share of people grinning over white holding a laptop, I mostly shoot what I like, without thinking too much how great it will sell. Coincidentally, what I like to shoot also sells well so there you go. I just love this life
121
« on: May 29, 2012, 15:04 »
I've had several sales of these enlarged tiffs. I asked 123RF if I can opt out of this and they said no. I suspect the "company" doing the resizing would be a person from the agency, like Alex or someone else.
122
« on: May 29, 2012, 12:51 »
I'll send you my profile on PM.
Great portfolio! I can see why you are doing so well
Thanks Lisa, you're very kind. DT doesn't love me, to be honest. Or better said Achilles doesn't
123
« on: May 29, 2012, 12:21 »
Yea thanks, but it's below $200, these 500 sales.
I see you're Gold contributor, even though you sold less than me (I'm Bronze).
You make an interesting point. The higher price of my images may be the reason for lower DL numbers there. My total monthly income there is over $200, though, so I'm happy
ETA: There's no way to verify what you're saying since there's no photographer at DP "tabimura". Your DT gauge doesn't indicate you are a very high seller.
I'll send you my profile on PM.
124
« on: May 29, 2012, 02:08 »
I don't like the low price on Depositphotos (and low royalty of course), but the sales volume is much bigger than Photodune's. It's not unusual to get 500 sales in a month there, and they're constantly going up since I started with them.
Really?? I've yet to get 500 dls there in a month. Congratulations!
Yea thanks, but it's below $200, these 500 sales. I see you're Gold contributor, even though you sold less than me (I'm Bronze). They have their part of shady things, yes?
125
« on: May 28, 2012, 17:49 »
Actually, there are very few who really make payout each month. I know that because I am in the 20-30-ish in top 50 authors, they have a list for that on site. Very very little income and not at all encouraging indeed. I agree it's dillution taking it's toll, but I expected more from Envato's market, with all its millions of users, buyers - as they advertised in the beginning, yes?
That dilution is usually a ratio of collection size to buyer. As has been mentioned here (other forum topics) you can/will have an influx of images but getting buyers is much harder. The more that peeps sign up and upload to to PD (or any site for that matter) changes the odds; purchasing ratio probably does not stay in sync. PD is a test for me and so is Deposit Photos. I want to see what happens in 12 months. It's been four. I have about 2,300 images on each.
I don't like the low price on Depositphotos (and low royalty of course), but the sales volume is much bigger than Photodune's. It's not unusual to get 500 sales in a month there, and they're constantly going up since I started with them.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
