|
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 - PixelBitch
101
« on: November 21, 2009, 00:39 »
I signed up today and set up Shutterstock as an FTP account...there is a way to do that...but alas, no earnings from them in the analytics display...yet. It sure is worth 4.95 per month just to not go through looking on 12 sites or more every day or so to see the sales...and it is definitely worth 1 cent per image per site to have them distribute...it has saved me so much time today...I even got to watch a movie with my kids! Give this some serious thought...it takes much of the pain out of uploading. Looked on iSyndca this morning and was able to set up for iStock...a great leap forward...now if they can get Shutterstock on there it's a no brainer to use them.
Today they tweet about adding Veer and AlwaysHD. How about IStock and Shutterstock we have been asking for a while?
The other issue is price, I think it's to high for majority of microstockers. How about percentage of what they track? They report that I am making $20 a month and they wont $12 out of that?
102
« on: November 21, 2009, 00:32 »
Lets see now...
Mediocrity has hit new heights, prices have achieved new lows.
Photographers still make a beeline for start up sites like lemmings heading for a cliff.
Some macro agencies have started micro sites that are a pleasure to work with and treat photographers like intelligent, professional beings.
The forums are full of whingers who really should be out shooting...no change there.
But it still beats working for a living...
103
« on: November 20, 2009, 18:16 »
I must step in and correct you here Lisa...you absolutely do need releases for RM, any images with identifiable people or property require these. To shoot for RM the images must be a lot more distinctive than RF or Micro...a smart and original idea, great location, talent and lighting. When we go out and shoot RM we have our best available talent and resources and I'm happy with just a handful of great images each day, which I then spend a lot of time in post production with...now we are starting in micro I go out there and shoot the crap out of it and get as many images as possible as the returns are so meager. Thanks for the info PixelBitch and Jonathan. The prospect of spending $50/image to upload is daunting. It's good to know that the sales can defray or eliminated most of that cost.
It would probably be worthwhile for me to put some time into learning what is needed in the RM market. I have been so focused on microstock that I worry I am becoming a one trick pony.
I know one huge advantage to RM is that you don't have to worry about model and property releases, right? Or is it still better to have those?
104
« on: November 19, 2009, 20:11 »
After reading many posts on this forum about Crestock I simply deleted all files in the review queue...they seem like a total non starter At least there is someone alive there. I requested that my account be canceled and it was within 24 hours.
105
« on: November 18, 2009, 19:16 »
I've been with Getty since the Image Bank days in the early 90s...it's not easy to be accepted by Getty these days...they expect you to be a full time assignment or macro stock photographer, even then they don't seem that interested...however if you are an iStock exclusive or post your iPhone snaps on Flickr they are all over you. I also place images I really like with Photographers Choice to circumvent their editors...it may be 50 per image, but then again once you make a sale with one of those images they give you another slot for free...so it is effectively 25 dollars. Pretty much the same can be said for Macro RF these days too...the rpi has dropped at a frightening rate recently...almost to the point where micro is a viable option...the only way to make good money in stock these days is to shoot great RM material, be patient and be with Getty and/or Corbis.
Very discouraging considering that it is not easy to become a submitter to Getty or Corbis RM. I don't know many microstockers who have managed to get in, other than those who have done it through istock's program.
A couple months back Elenathewise, one of the top sellers in micro, tried to get into Getty on her own and was only accepted into the Photographers Choice collection, where you have to pay Getty $50 per image submitted. It didn't sound like a very worthwhile experience:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-macrostock/accepted-at-getty/
106
« on: November 18, 2009, 14:20 »
It's so easy to upload onto this site why not do so and just leave your images there...
107
« on: November 18, 2009, 13:42 »
I would be very wary of any stock site that is not physically based in a Western country...a virtual office does not cut it...or a lawyer in London.
108
« on: November 18, 2009, 13:39 »
Pretty much the same can be said for Macro RF these days too...the rpi has dropped at a frightening rate recently...almost to the point where micro is a viable option...the only way to make good money in stock these days is to shoot great RM material, be patient and be with Getty and/or Corbis. I think many will agree that apart from the cash expenses, when you factor in the the time you spend on making the pictures and getting them ready for sale, the result is pretty deceiving. There are not very many people who can actually make a good living solely from microstock. But you always have to take into account the fun factor as well.
Reagrds,
Oliver
109
« on: November 17, 2009, 22:02 »
Proceed with caution!
110
« on: November 17, 2009, 21:25 »
Has anyone checked out if they are the same outfit, or owned by the same people as depositfiles.com?
111
« on: November 17, 2009, 20:54 »
They don't seem like the real thing to me...tried doing a simple keyword search for 'business' and also 'teen girl beach' which should bring up many images...but all I got was a 0 images screen.
Has anyone really checked them out...or are you all blinded by the quick 20 cents per upload...
112
« on: November 17, 2009, 14:15 »
This reminds me of that joke...ask a mathematician, and accountant and an economist what 2 plus 2 equals and the mathematician answers definitely 4, the accountant answers 4 give or take 2, and the economist answers "what would you like it to make" As a scientist I don't believe in exact numbers. 
May I borrow that quote the next time my boss asks me for an exact cost estimate ?? 
113
« on: November 16, 2009, 10:59 »
I think this approach would leave it too open, I wouldn't sign that if I were a model...it's only considerate, and legally better, to have a model sign a release each shoot day...it only takes a couple of minutes and is better protection for all concerned. I have a crazy idea... why not add an expiration statement to your model releases such as:
"This authorization EXPIRES twelve months from the date it is signed and specifically authorizes the release of any content created before and after the date signed up until the expiration date."
I used to work for a copy service contracted by many different hospitals. In order to release medical records, you have to sign an authorization to do so. It remains valid for the time indicated on the release. That way, the patient doesn't have to come in and sign a release form every time they are admitted to the hospital. Their doctors can use the authorization they have on file to request copies of the records. Maybe something like this could apply to model releases.
I think I'm going to try it. What do you think?
114
« on: November 12, 2009, 01:44 »
Anyone experiencing images vanishing after upload and submitting? Do you get a correct count in your gallery but there are less images? How . do you contact these people to get these issues sorted?
115
« on: November 11, 2009, 01:47 »
316 images...561 downloads in first 6 weeks...not a bad start...now if only the sales were at macro RF prices!
Have already noticed how quickly sales drop off between uploads. Also noticed that OD sales on SS are earning better than DT or FT.
116
« on: November 11, 2009, 01:42 »
My pleasure Albert...it's important to keep a realistic perspective of the stock business! When I have a great original idea I shoot it for RM where it might earn decent money...
Allsa, you gotta be kidding. Of course they want all their contributors to copy the big sellers, so SS can have more big sellers. They could care less about originality.
Last time I looked at that 'top 50' I concluded most of them got there by keyword spamming. Now there's something to complain about.
Great answer!
117
« on: November 10, 2009, 10:46 »
That and my Anglo Australian outlook make for some interesting times:) Male...my fiance is a no nonsense new yorker
Got ya. 
118
« on: November 10, 2009, 01:50 »
http://contributors.gettyimages.com/article.asp?article_id=1835This should lead you to the right page...and they are available in several languages. The latest Getty Images release looks to be adapted from the iStock one...basically the same wording but without the logo...I use it for everything and it's accepted by all whether for RM, RF or micro.
Thanks. I just will have to find the link now to that release. I guess this means the end of all our "generic" model releases since iStock asks for birth day too and on mine it won't fit any more. If it's accepted everywhere, we can just use that one with specific Getty text omitted.
119
« on: November 09, 2009, 17:57 »
OK...I read and replied too fast...cheers! Yes, a better title for the photo.
120
« on: November 09, 2009, 17:56 »
Male...my fiance is a no nonsense new yorker My fiance calls me pixelbitch as she tells me I spend way to much time at the computer and neglect her...and the name stuck.
I think he meant that one might come up with a better title for their photo, based on suggestions on a forum, not you should come up with a better title! But I wondered why you have that name. Makes you sound like not a nice person, as in "you bitch!" or be-otch as they say nowadays. I thought a bitch was a female...so are you female or male?
121
« on: November 09, 2009, 17:31 »
Point taken...current relevance of keywords is important...perhaps Brian will put his on his list of photographer suggestions. My fiance calls me pixelbitch as she tells me I spend way to much time at the computer and neglect her...and the name stuck. @PB,
I like the ability to edit keywords and titles, to images that are 2 or 3 years old. Things change over time. Other sites encourage you to update your keywords to more current relevance. It shouldn't be written in stone at the time of submission. Also, you might come up with a better title, from suggestions on a forum.
122
« on: November 09, 2009, 16:23 »
The latest Getty Images release looks to be adapted from the iStock one...basically the same wording but without the logo...I use it for everything and it's accepted by all whether for RM, RF or micro. However, no one has really addresed what the point of having someone hold up a release for a picture proves.
That it was actually them. I came across models that were all too happy to pose for their facebook etc... for their personal promo and to show off, but refused to sign a MR for stock. It would be tempting for some to let a friend sign the release then, claiming the real "model" filled in fake info. I'm talking about the Philippines where photo IDs are rather exceptional and do cost a day wage. The model holding up the signed release would be a great safeguard in those cases.
Not wanting to hijack the thread, but has anybody cooked a generic istock release with the logo cloned out? I tried it last night but I got stuck in Word. I don't like to let sign two releases: one for iStock, and one for all the rest.
123
« on: November 09, 2009, 16:18 »
Veer is part of Corbis and the only bigger boy out there than them is Getty. Their average sale for me is already several times higher than from the 'Big 6', as are their standards of site appearance, usability and acceptance. Any images uploaded to any site should be properly edited and keyworded from the start. Okay, please let us edit our accepted images. The Big Four let us do this. If you're going to compete with the big boys....
And oh yeah, the site's looking great!
124
« on: November 09, 2009, 13:02 »
The site is looking great Brian...I think you have the best one out there...and sales are starting to come through...so all is well!
125
« on: November 04, 2009, 10:33 »
Looked on iSyndca this morning and was able to set up for iStock...a great leap forward...now if they can get Shutterstock on there it's a no brainer to use them. Today they tweet about adding Veer and AlwaysHD. How about IStock and Shutterstock we have been asking for a while?
The other issue is price, I think it's to high for majority of microstockers. How about percentage of what they track? They report that I am making $20 a month and they wont $12 out of that?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
