|
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 - jonbull
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... 49
1001
« on: February 16, 2017, 17:51 »
i disagree...well electronic cost sure...it' s the same...but try living in paris or rome and then go to budapest belgrade kiev outside moscow for russia,. in addiction the pay is in dollar....fo euro country is a minus due to exchange rate, for other country is big plus, especially in the last years.
in my opinion you can live well in some countries in other no. production cost are very cheap in those countries also.
Price of electronics is not the same in Russia and the US. Sony A6300 camera costs about $1700 versus $900 in the United States. And good luck to you buying beautiful food, lab props or shooting some business or medical footage somewhere in Lubertsy, it's right "outside Moscow".
well u can easily buy from eBay...beautiful food can be bought..and i doubt in micro stock is so important...medical again it can be difficult in very small cities....but if you want move to paris or rome and try to lieve of your footage...i will be happy to take back my mouth...how much you pay of taxes? i pay near 52% all included....u?= how much you py to rent a studio one day? i pay 300 500 euro for good studio...u? how much you pay model? u are russian...u easily know what i'm talking about..russian girl have photogenic skill that are natural...practically even girl is nice and know how to behave in front of camera..and u not need professional model who can cost you 400 500 euro a day like in europe....i go often russian ukraine. so i know what i'm talking about. it's not offensive..it's the reality. or do you think russian and ukraine or belarussian produce one third or near 1/3 of content in shutter stock because they like work more than western people? ruble has fallen down against dollar...also and u earn in dollar...so this is another WHY of the flooding of content. most of producer don't need fancy medical center, even if you can easily shoot in medical company in russia.
1002
« on: February 16, 2017, 15:06 »
In that case they need to do something about their search engine as if I search for lettuce most images contain little or no lettuce....rather like my favourite burgers which there are far more pictures of. I particularly like the picture of a CABBAGE on the first page very professional key wording
well is your view. for me micro stock has not great quality,mostly boring stuff....and most of the good stuff i like is oriented towards stocksy style.
but taste vary.
i'm pretty sure if money were no problem a buyer would like to browse 2000 image of lettuce than 600000....
or 2000 cabbages....I'm not commenting on image quality as you say its a matter of taste and enough people seem to like Stocksy to pay their premium. But if they are marketing themselves as higher quality you shouldn't get a picture of a cabbage if you are looking for a lettuce.
by the way of food photography...how many people from eastern europe nowadays are flooding micro stock with food photography shot wooden table top view and something behind, mostly raw stuff cause they cannot even cook dishes....seems that everybody that needs some dollar or have a canon rebel in ex soviet union buy a wooden table and some vegetable and begins shooting like crazy. i already come across 10 15 user from ukraine and russia with nearly 1 million images , i'd say 10000 could have been enough the rest are copy of copy of copy of copy. so good welcome to agency like stocksy...even crestock but it not sell anything....but it's still what micro stockwas at beginning. https://www.shutterstock.com/it/g/africa+studio?sort=newest&search_source=base_gallery&page=2from ukraine 1 million images. we must be ready to much more company like this.
1003
« on: February 16, 2017, 12:50 »
In that case they need to do something about their search engine as if I search for lettuce most images contain little or no lettuce....rather like my favourite burgers which there are far more pictures of. I particularly like the picture of a CABBAGE on the first page very professional key wording
well is your view. for me micro stock has not great quality,mostly boring stuff....and most of the good stuff i like is oriented towards stocksy style.
but taste vary.
i'm pretty sure if money were no problem a buyer would like to browse 2000 image of lettuce than 600000....
or 2000 cabbages....I'm not commenting on image quality as you say its a matter of taste and enough people seem to like Stocksy to pay their premium. But if they are marketing themselves as higher quality you shouldn't get a picture of a cabbage if you are looking for a lettuce.
sure they have problem like any agency with keyword....microstock in this is champion. so they can have one error or any. but i'm talking artistically. they are good enough to ask premium. i hope they open the apply to agency soon.
1004
« on: February 16, 2017, 12:44 »
In that case they need to do something about their search engine as if I search for lettuce most images contain little or no lettuce....rather like my favourite burgers which there are far more pictures of. I particularly like the picture of a CABBAGE on the first page very professional key wording
sure they don't have 40ooo useless images from amateur. lettuce isolated on white : 40000 and more images. i'm pretty sure serious food magazine rarely will look into micro for food.
1005
« on: February 16, 2017, 12:39 »
In that case they need to do something about their search engine as if I search for lettuce most images contain little or no lettuce....rather like my favourite burgers which there are far more pictures of. I particularly like the picture of a CABBAGE on the first page very professional key wording
well is your view. for me micro stock has not great quality,mostly boring stuff....and most of the good stuff i like is oriented towards stocksy style. but taste vary. i'm pretty sure if money were no problem a buyer would like to browse 2000 image of lettuce than 600000....
1006
« on: February 16, 2017, 11:33 »
yes and the quality of micro stock today reflects this...and will be worsecause nobody could live in long time and the quality will reflect this.
if i were a buyer i would never bother with micro stock, i will go directly to stocksy for example.
which may be so.. but first, stocksy is too artsy fatsy and not all buyers need that...
secondly, today it may reflect how bad stock shots are,
but ss still have a lot of very well-shot and well-produced shots before the 7/10 criterion was
removed to make way for bolstering the inventory with bad stuff.
then again, that is only a fraction of the whole inventory...
also, no one wants to pay stocksy prices either for a simple ad shot which are
a dime a dozen , mostly well done, at ss.
the bar was lifted so high at one time, i say ss micro stuffs were far superior to
getty or even stocksy today.
eg. you see a lots of clipped hlights and blocked shadows at stocksy or even offset
which would never get passed ss during the time ss was 90%
and when istock too was something else.
completely disagree. microstock is not up to offset or stocks or most of getty stuff. i like food photography. micro is totally unprofessional stuff mostly. stocksy is very good stock food the best. and i can say this also for still life. there are some author in stocksy who could produce campaign for major brand with their portfolio...i struggle to see this in micro.
1007
« on: February 16, 2017, 11:31 »
Personally I like the Stoksy look.
What I really cannot stand is the lifestyle high key look of microstock images with young people always smiling and looking extremely happy playing with electronic gadgets
bingo. terrible. sotksyis mostly done by artist or creative people with a strong background..microsock is more made by amateur who take good photos. personally i'm happy to not have given strong importance to micron in the first year...i would have developed a super boring approach to photography, who probably would have limited my career just to micro. i remem,ber the time were flare or blown highlight were always a no no...where u had to light everything with soft 1:1 ratio so any shadow was there...where a slightly blown sky ws a rejection..shadow in face again rejection... micostock is the discount supermarket of photography.
1008
« on: February 16, 2017, 11:29 »
yes and the quality of micro stock today reflects this...and will be worsecause nobody could live in long time and the quality will reflect this.
if i were a buyer i would never bother with micro stock, i will go directly to stocksy for example.
That would depend on your budget I would think. Stocksy is great for some but a tiny market share compared with SS I would imagine.
Furthermore, am I the only one who can't stand Stocksy? Their pictures look all the same and very fake - although in its own special way, different from the typical microstock fake. They are trying too hard to look "authentic" but the result is just the opposite.
personally no. they look good, film like and most have a real feeling.microstock people photography is terrible in my opinion. all those super white teeth...it's not a case the best shooter nowadays in microstok use a stocksy approach. yuri arcurs photography was so boring even in 2009.
1009
« on: February 15, 2017, 12:43 »
I think the ideal situation is for people who have another source of income that leaves them a lot of spare times (teachers for example).
Especially if shooting photo/video is your hobby and you enjoy it in your spare time, even better if you have already a few thousands of images sitting in your computer.
Microstock can give you a complementary income while having fun
yes and the quality of micro stock today reflects this...and will be worsecause nobody could live in long time and the quality will reflect this. if i were a buyer i would never bother with micro stock, i will go directly to stocksy for example.
1010
« on: February 15, 2017, 12:39 »
I can live on what I'm making, but I make video. It helps that I'm in a cheap part of the world at the moment, but I could probably still live quite comfortably in most places... but not London, New York, LA, Paris etc.
Depends on how much work you put in, how good you are, and how much you need to live on. Even so, it's not exactly easy, but it is possible.
It helps until you have to buy some camera or a new computer, then the cheap part of the world becomes usual expensive part 
Yep very true a lot depends if you already have the equipment/software. I think these days its less necessary to "upgrade" regularly but say your camera suddenly blows up that could be a huge blow
i disagree...well electronic cost sure...it' s the same...but try living in paris or rome and then go to budapest belgrade kiev outside moscow for russia,. in addiction the pay is in dollar....fo euro country is a minus due to exchange rate, for other country is big plus, especially in the last years. in my opinion you can live well in some countries in other no. production cost are very cheap in those countries also.
1011
« on: February 13, 2017, 10:17 »
I appreciate the fun in estimates but at the end of the day, it's just completely useless. No one sells the exact same images with the same keywords and results will always be very, very different for each individual.
However, if you're making less than $3 per image per year, you're doing something seriously wrong and need to come up with some changes. That could be OK for ONE site, but in total $5 should absolutely be minimum if you're thinking about this stuff seriously.
why seriously wrong ?? RPI, like the earlier fantasy projections is also a useless stat -- the only meaningful stat is total income from a port -- would you rather have an RPI of $3 on 1000 images or $1 RPI on 4000 images? as always, there's no simple comparison across portfolios (or even the same portfolio from year to year)
Indeed I could increase my RPI dramatically overnight by deleting all my non or low sellers I wouldn't be any richer though.
i completely agree....in such a word where there are really zillions images, and people can buy cheap and cheaper...rpi doesn't make any sense at all..it was something valuable 15 years ago or 10 in rm or first stock rf...we are growing one million images a week...maybe 10 in some years... the only things that count is money. being a 100% stock right now earning good money is difficult and difficult. the only numbers the counts are earning. at the end of month is important cost are covered and earning let you live a good life..but i suspect for 90% of people photo is just a side work to buy some gear. the only wy to be profitable is producing good content,at low cost.
1012
« on: February 13, 2017, 10:13 »
what about editorial stuff?
there no box for editorial. are they banned from istock?
1013
« on: February 10, 2017, 10:16 »
it looks very good...but
where are gone the on demand and extended sales:)?
ahah february has begun super in terms of number of download but only subs...only 3 2,85 sales on demand and zero extended.
i don't know what happen.
1014
« on: February 09, 2017, 09:38 »
war pf poor against poor.
no more no less.
1015
« on: February 09, 2017, 09:11 »
this guy has landmark only of at least 50 60 country..it can be but i bet my pants he stole all those images and resell change with change.
1016
« on: February 08, 2017, 08:10 »
I reviewed his portfolio in detail this weekend, he does actually have 39,000 clips but not very organized so if he is in fact a student I hope he isn't working in the campus library.
What I did noticed and I've already referred his profile to a couple of fellow producers is he does two things, his style seems to be to shoot long lens and take you there into the intensity and the reality of the event, everything I have seen so far is very real , he doesn't set up many shots, it is FAR from polished work or fine art which makes him basically blazing his own trail and doing his own thing and something completely different than what most stock producers do.
He's basically turned the industry on it's head and with a little luck will break out ahead of the pack and leave everyone else behind and catching up, this of course if he gets things organized. So we must think before we knock his work, this guy might have just started a trend. Thanks to the OP for positing this profile here, now I've got to get out and shoot in similar fashion.
We don't know if this was his plan or this is just how it came out, I compared his college student clips to others and you can't compare. If he was or is a student while building that collection then he sure was one of those that wasn't sitting around playing league of legends at every possible opportunity. Not that there is anything wrong with playing league.
He used to be an ENG cameraman but lost a lot of work due to TV stations cutting budgets etc - I know this because he posts constantly on the P5 forums. He certainly hasn't turned the industry on it's head, he's just spent a lot of time shooting everything on his doorstep which in reality is very easily replicated by anyone with a camera. Given the size of his portfolio he should be making A LOT more than he currently is - loads and loads of duplicate clips probably don't help his cause.
And yeah he mentioned he can't afford to upgrade to 4K so that says something...
i completely agree...if the makes 5000 dollar with this stuff really all the world will sign to become ea micro stock contributor don't spread the news...if he makes 1000 dollar is enough
1017
« on: February 07, 2017, 14:56 »
https://it.fotolia.com/p/203924388?offset=63400&order=creationwhen i thin about the level of micro stock nowadays portfolio like this one makes me understand a lot..and this seems also to sell very good...thousand of thousand of repetition...unbelievable. i began doing this now. no more interest in posting quality. it's clear that numbers counts more. most customer don't care of browsing through many pages grab mostly the first in the first page.
1018
« on: February 07, 2017, 11:07 »
I reviewed his portfolio in detail this weekend, he does actually have 39,000 clips but not very organized so if he is in fact a student I hope he isn't working in the campus library.
What I did noticed and I've already referred his profile to a couple of fellow producers is he does two things, his style seems to be to shoot long lens and take you there into the intensity and the reality of the event, everything I have seen so far is very real , he doesn't set up many shots, it is FAR from polished work or fine art which makes him basically blazing his own trail and doing his own thing and something completely different than what most stock producers do.
He's basically turned the industry on it's head and with a little luck will break out ahead of the pack and leave everyone else behind and catching up, this of course if he gets things organized. So we must think before we knock his work, this guy might have just started a trend. Thanks to the OP for positing this profile here, now I've got to get out and shoot in similar fashion.
We don't know if this was his plan or this is just how it came out, I compared his college student clips to others and you can't compare. If he was or is a student while building that collection then he sure was one of those that wasn't sitting around playing league of legends at every possible opportunity. Not that there is anything wrong with playing league.
sorry but i don' see any trend really. most of these are shot anybody would garbage....the only point i see is : even if you make poor quality stuff, even if you don't have the most professional equipment. upload everything with a minimum sense and you will manage to earn good money... the point is that if all those people working freelance broadcasting or news, see this guy folio and know he can earn good money , they will upload all their stuff and we see 1 billion video in no less than a pair of years:) that's why in the last year many are enjoying micro..producing thousand offshoot , even if poor made, makes anybody earns money, from low to high. i was always picky uploading, keeping a lot of files and video in my hard disk but now I'm uploading 2000 files every month, and actually i see earning grows steadily months after months.
1019
« on: February 06, 2017, 11:32 »
i don't understand how keywords work...they look to suggest keyword in specific language and often nonsenses one...
1020
« on: February 04, 2017, 10:39 »
I think FT is the best agency right now. They've become my best earner and I'm very happy with them. There's less competition on there than SS and they've been quietly purging spammers in large numbers. I remember seeing so many spammers (repeating images and vectors like it's on SS) about 2 years ago and now they're all gone.
Absolutely! but not just for steady sales more so for their trend their future thinking if you want. They actually try and do something!.......SS have gone to sleep in comparison.
well fotolia is 1/80 of my ss....ok i not had editorial in fotolia...but the rest is similar....in ss i upload a batch of 50 i sell at least 10 20 images the day after...some upload in fotolia one upload.in my opinion fotolia is more oriented towards conceptual, top view food and objects, loto of illustrations...if i see the best sale in day and week...i see only this kind of photography. ss sales more photography,landscape travel aerial.
1021
« on: February 03, 2017, 12:05 »
but i'm a hard worker...if i want i can produce 22000 video in less than a year:) one day in a capital like hong kong or bangkok i really can produce a lot of editorial.
I would call you Superman if you even did 5,000 clips in one year.
Just think about the upload time alone to 4 agencies.
Average clip: 300 MB (conservative, I have many 1 GB+ clips) times 4 agencies = 1.2 GB per clip.
5,000 clips means 6,000 GB upload. That's 16 GB per day, every day. It's doable on a fast connection of course and if you work every day for 12-14 hours it might be possible to get 5,000 clips up (only HD, if 4k we're talking 4x the size).
22,000 quality clips in one year for one person. I don't think so. With good tagging? Absolutely not.
If you have a team of people (like hotelfoxtrot for example, that's not just 1 person, that's a whole team of uploaders/taggers/planners) it might be doable.
you right.
1022
« on: February 03, 2017, 11:15 »
It takes many years to upload 22,000 clips...
but i'm a hard worker...if i want i can produce 22000 video in less than a year:) one day in a capital like hong kong or bangkok i really can produce a lot of editorial.
1023
« on: February 03, 2017, 11:13 »
It takes many years to upload 22,000 clips...
yes sure...and i never did video only photos...i work on a backlog of 200000 photos:)...and sicovered already 100 video time-lapse and other stuff that i will upload to see what happen. anyway i'm really amazed to see people spending money in such quality...400 dollar per video..unbielevable. i'm eating my hands to not have considered video...by the way wanted to buy a stabilizer bought for iPhone and camera...but watching these video makes me really think if it's necessary.
1024
« on: February 03, 2017, 11:06 »
This person has a similar approach:
https://www.pond5.com/artist/patuwe97
Over 22,000 clips, HD at $299 or $300.
A few hundred photos at $429.
I discovered their portfolio a few years ago and it was much smaller back then and the pricing was similar as now. If they have motivation to grow their port like this, I assume that this approach must be working, at least to some extent.
Definitely food for thought for all the people who think that a Peanut Vending Machine like Videohive/Envato is the pinnacle of stock video industry.
Well, the beauty of high-priced portfolios like this is that you can see how much they sell at P5. And we're talking 1-5 sales per week.
To me, that is just incredibly BAD for a portfolio of 22,000. The prices are too high.
Is $8-25 too low? Yes. But $199-429 for HD or photos is also too high to maximize revenue today.
They're shooting themselves in the foot with those prices. I think around $49 to maybe $99 is what you should be aiming for with high quality clips if you want to maximize revenue.
man...5000 dollar for 22000 amateurish video? for me is unbelievable really.....i will began doing video like crazy.... i am very picky with my work, both photo and video....even a bit of shake make me garbage my work....but wow i saw some video and i'm amazed how poorly they are done...not even buying a camera with in body stabilization...probably they shoot with some canon real an consumer glass.....that's why every body is doing micro in eastern europe ....if somebody can earn 5000 dollar months with these video.... https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/152776/china-hong-kong-social-apartment-housing-estate.htmli mean this video i would be ashamed to show to my mother....i must begin being less picky...
1025
« on: February 03, 2017, 11:02 »
This person has a similar approach:
https://www.pond5.com/artist/patuwe97
Over 22,000 clips, HD at $299 or $300.
A few hundred photos at $429.
I discovered their portfolio a few years ago and it was much smaller back then and the pricing was similar as now. If they have motivation to grow their port like this, I assume that this approach must be working, at least to some extent.
Definitely food for thought for all the people who think that a Peanut Vending Machine like Videohive/Envato is the pinnacle of stock video industry.
Well, the beauty of high-priced portfolios like this is that you can see how much they sell at P5. And we're talking 1-5 sales per week.
To me, that is just incredibly BAD for a portfolio of 22,000. The prices are too high.
Is $8-25 too low? Yes. But $199-429 for HD or photos is also too high to maximize revenue today.
They're shooting themselves in the foot with those prices. I think around $49 to maybe $99 is what you should be aiming for with high quality clips if you want to maximize revenue.
in my opinion those portfolio simply show one things...microstock is for uploading anything, any quality , an even so you can have a living...i really had some video from editorial, that are much better quality compared to those i seem, and really i have never thought i could have uploaded and earn money,....i never considered video, and really i'm feeling so bad to have lose so much money. in the last link i watched some video...most of them shake like crazy. they look so amateur...look like done by a phone, but an old one...i'm extremely surprised to see such a quality. really. both in photos and video there is so many poor content that makes me upload lal my hard disk:))
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... 49
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
