|
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 - RT
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... 77
1026
« on: December 08, 2009, 17:44 »
The folding silver sunshades that you put in your car windscreen are some of the best and cheapest reflectors you can buy.
1027
« on: December 08, 2009, 17:35 »
Like them or hate them you have to admit that iStock are constantly trying to raise the bar, time will tell what effect this has on non-exclusives but one part of the statement I did find interesting was this:
"We're also hoping to encourage the strongest talents in stock today to consider bringing their best work to iStock exclusively."
You can read that two ways but I'm hoping they are going to (at long last and not before time) allow us independents to submit a selection of exclusive images (with perks) as appose to total exclusivity, if that were the case I would seriously consider making them the only 'microstock' agency I submit to.
1028
« on: December 04, 2009, 14:49 »
Only problem with this is has everyone else done the same !? in which case I'm no better off ! ;-) Maybe I should compare with yours ?? But then maybe not, if u don't bother any more 
My monitor is calibrated but just not to the extreme that some people would make you believe you need to, I calibrated mine to my settings so that my images appear the way I want them to appear when I view them on an agency site, I shoot a fair amount of people and if I were to check a similar shot I can guarantee you that some would look the same as mine and others slightly different, the important part is that yours don't appear 'odd'. Some people like their skin tones to have a slightly yellow caste, others opt for a cooler tone. I had a look at your portfolio and will send you a PM
1029
« on: December 04, 2009, 13:03 »
Tell the truth, Richard.
I'll bet you have the entire X-Rite color management suite 
Haha, not quite but yes I do have an expensive piece of plastic that I can hang over the screen that I've had a while. When I switched over to a Mac I rang a company who specialises in nothing but colour profiling, because I'm a technical idiot and didn't know whether there was a difference between Mac and Windows monitor calibration. Now bear in mind that this guy could have sold me the top of the range thingy because I'd have believed anything they told me (poetic license I'm not actually that thick technically) but he ended up selling me absolutely nothing despite me willing to hand over wads of cash. The reason is he asked me what I did, when I told him he explained that I'd be wasting my money because unless every other single person that will be viewing my photos via the agencies has the exact same set up as me, the same room layout and lighting as me (which incidentally should be a room with no windows and black or grey walls) then calibrating my monitor to the extreme would be utterly pointless because every one else will see a different profile on their monitors, he then explained to calibrate it to my set up using my old spyder and mentioned the tip I gave above. In short he explained monitor calibration is important for printing from your monitor onto your printer, anything after this is pointless unless the other person has the exact same set up. On a side note - I can't remember the last time I printed a photo, if I want a print I send the file to a lab (who's monitors are in a windowless room!) and they check, adjust if needed and send the print back within 24hrs for a fraction of how much I used to pay for ink and paper let alone the time involved, I know some people enjoy the whole printing process but not me.
1030
« on: December 04, 2009, 05:53 »
Personally I think some people try to get too technical about monitor calibration, if you intend to print your shots then it is essential to calibrate your monitor in association with your printer, but as this thread is titled 'Monitor calibration for Stock photos' the easiest and cheapest (free to be exact) way to do it is this:
Take a shot of a popular subject and upload it to any agency, then go to that agency and do a search so that your image shows up amongst many similar others, if your colours look OK you're done, if not adjust your monitor.
1031
« on: December 03, 2009, 04:21 »
50mb has been the standard in macro agencies for many years, one of the reasons that Alamy and others require a file of that size is because any inherent flaws will be highlighted even more, if a file is good enough at 50mb then it is good enough for any of the proposed uses or size a buyer may have, and as pointed out this dates back to the age of film.
Some microstock agencies do the exact opposite which from a buyers point of view is a down side, how many times have you seen (or done it yourself) an image rejected only to be resubmitted at a smaller size and then accepted, when a buyer buys a maximum size of that image the agencies upsize it, so the buyer is getting an upsized version of a file that wasn't good enough at the native resolution, from an Alamy (and other macro agencies) they know that whatever file size they buy will be of a suitable quality for their intended usage.
@Stockastic - A few years ago you did submit your files to Alamy as tiffs by CD, although they did still need to be 48mb, jpeg submissions only came by with the advent of their upload system.
Most of this is irrelevant now or will be soon because most peoples cameras are capable of a native file size big enough to suit the minimum requirements.
1032
« on: November 30, 2009, 14:44 »
1033
« on: November 30, 2009, 11:02 »
.......causing immensely talented photographers to close up shop.
Please pass on my congratulations to whoever said this for winning the 'dumbest statement of 2009' award.
1034
« on: November 30, 2009, 10:44 »
Yes you will, I normally get mine around 6pm GMT
1035
« on: November 30, 2009, 08:06 »
I think one thing we can all agree on is that there is no definitive rule as to what makes a shot micro or macro, we've all seen shots on micro agencies that we individually feel should have been placed with a macro agency by the photographer, and likewise I'm sure we've all seen instances of a shot that has sold for a fair amount on macro that we would have probably binned if it were taken by ourselves.
One thing I do notice more and more is that some photographers are submitting work to micro sites that I feel no matter how popular it is won't recover the production value, and I wonder if they do this in desperation to try and get noticed, as a full time photographer I will always suffer as a result of those that do this for a hobby because to them recouping costs is not the issue and they'll happily spend more time on a shot than I or others could justify, I accept that it's part of the industry and I don't begrudge them anything (maybe the macros shouldn't make it so hard to get in with the odd one or two top quality shots) but I do think it is going to have an adverse effect on the microstock agencies if they don't appreciate the full timers because soon (if not already) they'll notice the full time photographers will not feel it cost worthy to have their high production cost stuff buried in the search rankings, speaking personally I'm spending more time on the macro market both RF and RM.
Circle of life?
1036
« on: November 26, 2009, 05:46 »
The problem isn't submitting the form, they have asked for an ITIN number.
I have an EIN number so it doesn't really effect me however I did find this paragraph during the process that might answer your question: "Please note - a W-8BEN form can be submitted without an ITIN number. An ITIN enables the contributor to claim treaty benefits to reduce or eliminate withholding on U.S. source income. An ITIN is not required for income outside of the U.S.."
1037
« on: November 24, 2009, 19:13 »
If anyone is finding macrostock a success, I'd be surprised if they wanted to broadcast it here.
Oh I wouldn't be surprised if someone does come along here and tell you how wonderful his RM is doing on macrostock 
1038
« on: November 23, 2009, 18:21 »
You talk alot of sense. (i take it is was Alamy's UK Newspaper Scheme? - a similar purchase from PL would have netted much more).
Thanks. Just so frustrating though isnt it.
Thanks but don't tell anyone, and yes it was part of the newspaper scheme, but I'm glad to say one of the images has made me a lot of money so it's a case of taking the rough with the smooth. I'd be wrong to say it isn't frustrating but it's something that I've regrettably accepted, I sell thousands of images each month, one or two might get misused, do I care - yes of course, do I do anything about it - yes I spend my time trying to make as much money as I can, if that means losing $20 on one sale to make a $100 on another so be it (in reference to my first reply).
1039
« on: November 23, 2009, 17:44 »
Problem is when you have a roll over attitude, it sets the precedent. Times like this make you release that a stock trade union would be a good idea.
It's nothing to do with having a roll over attitude, it's having a realistic knowledge of how the industry and running a business works, if a buyer is determined to get out of paying for something they will, you will not set a precedent despite your good intentions you will only end up alienating yourself with the agencies and the buyers. Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating the practice and fortunately the vast majority of buyers do stick within the license terms, as the old saying goes time is money if you feel you can spend the time chasing something like this for no return then good for you. From the agencies point of view what advantage is it to them to chase something like this, as I said you're non-exclusive so there's no loyalty involved on either side, it would cost them more money in manpower than they'd get back in return. By the way about your comment re RM on your other thread, I sell a fair bit on Alamy and two of my RM this month (well reported this month) were for UK national papers (The Sun) which both netted me less than $8 in commission and one was front page, I'd get more with a RF EL sale on microstock! And there is a (kind of) stock trade union, but they are powerless and always will be because we are self employed and nobody who is self employed is going to be dictated to by a union because I and you will make our own decisions on how we sell our product.
1040
« on: November 23, 2009, 15:08 »
Any thoughts?
You could have made more money creating more images in the time you've spent pursuing this and the examples that you've mentioned in other threads than you'll ever get from the extra commission for an EL. I'm not saying it's fair but then business and life in general isn't fair, you're a non-exclusive contributor - the sites don't care about you, face the fact and move on otherwise you'll be the only one who loses out in the end.
1041
« on: November 23, 2009, 06:02 »
The only PITA of iStock's release is that they require the bday of the model and a photo ID.
You don't have to supply a photo ID, just attach a photo of the model that's all.
1042
« on: November 21, 2009, 03:08 »
BigStock introduced a fantastic new upload system, every photo is now automatically given the category People>women and Background>Misc, scientists are confident they'll be able to get it to work soon.
FT hit new highs in contributor relations.
DT have given each inspector a new training aid to help with model release decisions, it's has a picture of a head on one side.
iStock plans to hold a 'lypse' in everybodies home town by the end of 2010.
Shutterstocks forum is now available on the comedy channel.
362 new stock agencies open each week, 363 stock agencies go bust each week.
Photos of goldfish shaking hands and wearing headsets will be the big seller of 2010. (By the way goldfish shots now need model releases)
1043
« on: November 20, 2009, 19:35 »
Yuri Arcurs has a keywording tool, check out his site I think it's free.
edit: Sorry I've just realised you want to batch attach keywords, you can do that in Bridge in case you didn't know.
1044
« on: November 20, 2009, 18:37 »
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?
You're confusing RM with an editorial license in which case you don't need releases but to shoot RM commercial stock for somewhere like Getty you need the same releases as you would for RF.
1045
« on: November 19, 2009, 06:46 »
I will not explain the situation concerning the addresses of our offices and official representations any longer. This is silly. I am forbidden to do that, since it is not a serious topic for our discussion.
...................
From this moment all paranoid requests will be ignored by us.
I think knowing the details of a company is very serious if I'm to do business with them and being told by you that you have an office in London then only to find out that actually you don't is something that concerns me. I don't think anybody has made any paranoid statements in this thread they're justing asking sensible questions concerning who they might be doing business with, if you choose to ignore those questions then that to me appears suspicious. YOU need to gain our trust not the other way round, so far you haven't gained mine and I won't be working with you.
1046
« on: November 18, 2009, 14:25 »
In England our office is represented by a law company which conducts the affairs of DepositPhotos. I am able to provide the phone number only by coordination with them in private. If necessary, you may contact us by any convenient way.
So why did you say earlier that you had an office in London when in actual fact you haven't, not everybody is as stupid as you think, "our office is represented by a law company which conducts the affairs of DepositPhotos" - you've paid 150 for a virtual office, one of many that are often run by law firms who forward mail. Why not be open and honest from the outset, it would give people a bit more faith.
1047
« on: November 18, 2009, 08:49 »
We also have offices in Russia, Ukraine, London, Cyprus.
Hi, What's the address and telephone number of your London office?
1048
« on: November 12, 2009, 08:39 »
I was one of those whom they invited in the early days. For me there was no problem since I am German. They offered me as I understood them at the time to sent them my images on DVD and they would do all the uploading and everything. Turned out it was just the uploading and I still had to do some things on their website to be able to have them online. I finished some images for them, over a hundered of my better images.
No sale in months. For me it was so far a waste of my time. I was initially flattered by the agency that they even called me on the phone and was told about their big plans. Actually that person was a former employee of Getty and backed up with the mighty Telecom it made me think this would kind of gurantee sucess. But I was wrong. In fact I even get more views in a couple of hours at Fotolia than I have gotten in several month of beeing at polylooks.
Pretty much the same experience as me, I had the phone call and the offer of an interview in their magazine and being a featured photographer, I uploaded 100 shots via FTP then heard nothing from them, I noticed the site had gone live and I still hadn't heard from them, then a couple of weeks later I got an email saying they had sorted out the tax problems and that I could then register on the site with preferential treatment to complete the upload process - I haven't bothered yet and don't think I will !
1049
« on: November 10, 2009, 06:42 »
I stopped listening to advice from other photographers in this industry who kept saying how successful they were, and then I went and found the one's who actually were successful and listened to them.
1050
« on: November 04, 2009, 18:38 »
Worse yet you supply a comp and it's got iStock written across it if you haven't bothered cloning it outand the client goes and does a search and picks an image that just doesn't work because they don't understand design and they end up art directing you.
Reading between the lines - The client gets to see how much the image actually costs and there goes the huge mark up! But by far the worst type of these clients are the ones that want a 'brand' based on a stock photo. They won't pay for a photographer for an exclusive image and then they get pissed off when they spot the realestate agent down the street is using the same iStock image as them for their 'brand' too. These clients don't know what branding is even aboutclueless. A good designer would have explained that possible scenario to the client. I've formed my own opinion who is the clueless party here. I belong to a forum for "designers" and one thing I've learnt is that just because someone calls themselves a designer it doesn't mean they know what they're doing or what they are talking about. Some key points from this guys replies: "produce the same generic designs day in and day out" "most clients are far from decent" "everyone's designs start to look the same-soulless" "you see the same three models on loads of campaigns" - "I'll admit that I'm lazy when it comes to searching for stock" Now is this really the type of "designer" that you want to take advice from?
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
