|
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 - PaulieWalnuts
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 ... 120
1051
« on: April 21, 2012, 20:40 »
I was considering photoshelter as a replacement for iweb and mobile me (apple is shutting off mobile me in june). I would mainly use it for client presentations. The templetes look nice and the e-commerce photo search and licensing is intriguing but seems functionally disappointing. It would be fun to develop "my own" site. The Ktools thing is too complicated... for my limited skills...
In the end I kept iweb but moved my websites to hostgator. FYI: I chose hostgator based on a positive thread at this site. The hostgator customer service has been excellent by the way...
I would opt for photoshelter if sales (about 1500 images in my port) would cover the $30- per month standard plan. I doubt it would... am I wrong? Is anyone having luck with sales there?
Thanks
If you have 1500 sellable images and know the basics of Search Engine Optimization you should easily cover costs.
1052
« on: April 04, 2012, 05:03 »
Now that the month's nearing it's close, I feel in a better position to respond to this thread.
It's been a very varied month at SS. Sometimes a series of days with terrific sales, followed inexplicably by a series of exceptionally quiet days. At this stage, iStock has overtaken SS in sales this month for me, which is not a situation I'm used to seeing (usually SS sales are at least three times the amount I make on iStock).
This is just based on normal incomes, and doesn't include Thinkstock.
Here's what some others are saying: 
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=121438
Congratulations to all of them. And congratulations to the buyers who used to pay $250 for an image but now can get 750 images for $250.
I wonder how long the sales volume can last to make BMEs out of peanuts? How much longer will subscription last before it kills the other sites and then itself?
applying to IS exclusivity this minute, thanks! 
Wait, let me get my referral link for you.
At least IS is trying to raise prices.
yeah, they're great, aren't they? Raise prices, cut commissions - that just makes them greedy *%*$*%
Not saying I agree with it, but I understand it. It's a business. Like most businesses the goal is optimizing revenue and profits. I'm not expecting them to place a priority on handing out hugs and smooches like so many other people.
1053
« on: April 04, 2012, 04:32 »
Now that the month's nearing it's close, I feel in a better position to respond to this thread.
It's been a very varied month at SS. Sometimes a series of days with terrific sales, followed inexplicably by a series of exceptionally quiet days. At this stage, iStock has overtaken SS in sales this month for me, which is not a situation I'm used to seeing (usually SS sales are at least three times the amount I make on iStock).
This is just based on normal incomes, and doesn't include Thinkstock.
Here's what some others are saying:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=121438
Congratulations to all of them. And congratulations to the buyers who used to pay $250 for an image but now can get 750 images for $250.
I wonder how long the sales volume can last to make BMEs out of peanuts? How much longer will subscription last before it kills the other sites and then itself?
applying to IS exclusivity this minute, thanks!
Wait, let me get my referral link for you. At least IS is trying to raise prices.
1054
« on: April 03, 2012, 20:13 »
Now that the month's nearing it's close, I feel in a better position to respond to this thread.
It's been a very varied month at SS. Sometimes a series of days with terrific sales, followed inexplicably by a series of exceptionally quiet days. At this stage, iStock has overtaken SS in sales this month for me, which is not a situation I'm used to seeing (usually SS sales are at least three times the amount I make on iStock).
This is just based on normal incomes, and doesn't include Thinkstock.
Here's what some others are saying:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=121438
Congratulations to all of them. And congratulations to the buyers who used to pay $250 for an image but now can get 750 images for $250. I wonder how long the sales volume can last to make BMEs out of peanuts? How much longer will subscription last before it kills the other sites and then itself?
1056
« on: March 29, 2012, 19:53 »
Thanks for the responses!
1057
« on: March 28, 2012, 20:46 »
and what if Pinterest starts offering printing services ? with each photo they can pretty well make something like RedBubble if they wanted and make billions, all without giving a crap about copyright.
AHEM.....
http://invite.print-erest.com/
Unless I'm making money from this, bring on the lawsuits. Is this the same company or a copycat offshoot?
1058
« on: March 27, 2012, 16:20 »
I've been selling more directly lately and just had a new buyer from a company ask for a W-9 which hasn't happened before. I thought this was kind of odd since isn't this for labor like contractors?
1059
« on: March 16, 2012, 12:09 »
Here's another way to look at it.
I haven't bought antivirus software in probably 10 years. Why should I? There are dozens of free ones that are good enough. I'm guessing there are millions, or maybe even tens of millions of people, who feel the same way. If there were no free options my choice would be pay, or go without antivirus software. If antivirus was no longer free a good percentage of those people would buy it. Some won't, but using 10 million new sales as an example, multiplied by $30 for the software, equals $300 million. That $300 million would be divided up among all the software companies.
The same thing applies to us. If it wasn't free people would need to pay, or do without. And that new money would get divided up among us. Free takes away from all of us.
Or they would pirate the software and people would download it illegally. Same goes for images. Free isn't something some people will do without. If it isn't given, they'll take it.
What?  So because people steal stuff we should offer it for free? Maybe we should start stealing cameras from the local electronic stores and maybe they'll start offering them for free. Photoshop gets pirated and they're still charging for it the last time I looked. Why is photography the constant target of free entitlement?
1060
« on: March 16, 2012, 12:06 »
IIRC, sxc.hu was originally the site that drove so much traffic towards StockXpert. I seem to remember the boss of StockXpert saying they were pretty stunned at the amount of traffic they received via that route. So... Getty swallowed that up too eh?
It helped drive traffic. Traffic itself means very little. How many of you have personal sites that get a ton of traffic and no sales? So did it help drive increasing sales? If so, by how much? How many sales did it take away? The idea is to drive the right kind of traffic and I don't see freebie hunters as the right traffic. I would love to see stats that prove me otherwise.
1061
« on: March 16, 2012, 07:46 »
Here's another way to look at it.
I haven't bought antivirus software in probably 10 years. Why should I? There are dozens of free ones that are good enough. I'm guessing there are millions, or maybe even tens of millions of people, who feel the same way. If there were no free options my choice would be pay, or go without antivirus software. If antivirus was no longer free a good percentage of those people would buy it. Some won't, but using 10 million new sales as an example, multiplied by $30 for the software, equals $300 million. That $300 million would be divided up among all the software companies.
The same thing applies to us. If it wasn't free people would need to pay, or do without. And that new money would get divided up among us. Free takes away from all of us.
1062
« on: March 15, 2012, 20:22 »
I don't get this as a marketing tool. 400,000 images? That gives people 400,000+ reasons to not buy an image. If it's worth using it's worth charging for. Even $1. I just checked the site and there are plenty of usable images. WTH?
Free stuff should only be offered as an incentive to buy something. Buy 100 images get 10 free ones. I'm not seeing how attracting freebie hunters, who typically don't pay for anything and will go out of their way to find free stuff, is a good approach to grow revenue. Someone who is searching for free stuff does not intend to buy anything.
If I can get free gas at one gas station why would I go somewhere else to pay for it?
I hope this fails miserably and should be a lesson to anyone who gets warm fuzzys from offering some of their images for free.
1063
« on: March 15, 2012, 18:42 »
Thanks for the review. Wow that's pretty nice. Seems like small might even be the way to go for travelers.
1064
« on: March 15, 2012, 18:28 »
Wow, a sales drop thread that's not about IS.
1065
« on: March 15, 2012, 16:48 »
I don't really need more MP, what I need is a lower price on the 5D Mk III
How about more MP at a lower price than the 5DMIII? Oh wait, that's a D800. 
1066
« on: March 15, 2012, 16:45 »
They only difference for me on more MP is that suck already at 16 MP thus would suck twice at bad at 32 MP
Yes, point-and-shoots suck at 16MP. That's why you need to step up to a big MP full frame camera. 
1067
« on: March 15, 2012, 08:52 »
Canon Rumors posted a very short blurb. They must be hearing some at least vaguely credible info to post this. Not sure how to read that first sentence though. Is the suggestion coming from Canon? More pixels are comingA suggestion that a high megapixel camera is coming from Canon, and could be introduced near the end of 2012. Alongside the camera would come new ultra wide angle lens(es). It was suggested both a zoom and a prime in the area of 16mm. I warn that this sort of conjecture will be a regular occurrence going forward I think. There is a large number of people in the community that desire a 35+ megapixel camera from Canon. NAB 2012?Some have suggested the upcoming 4K DSLR will be the high megapixel camera. I dont believe that to be true, as the high megapixel count is definitely a request of the photographic community, and paying for high end video features is probably not something that would make the segment too happy.
1068
« on: March 14, 2012, 04:52 »
old thread alert
Wait a minute. Did you just resurrect an old thread and bust yourself with an alert?
1069
« on: March 13, 2012, 21:39 »
Get over it guys. My goodness... don't want your image "pinned"? Take it offline. It's like listening to people complain about their car being stolen even though they left it running with the keys in the ignition in a bad part of town, with all the doors unlocked and left wide open.
Great idea. I'll start pulling all of my images down from all the stock sites. Oh, and I'll never let my car out of the garage. Thank you, Captain Candid.
1070
« on: March 13, 2012, 17:01 »
I've been checking out the Intuos5. I haven't seen a clear answer on the question about size. There's small, medium, and large. What's the best size and why?
1071
« on: March 07, 2012, 08:21 »
Not really sure what the point of this post is. You mention oil prices, bombs, USA, and desparation. The only thing I'm getting out of this is what seems to add up to another "the USA is evil" rant. What are you trying to get across here?
1072
« on: March 04, 2012, 13:42 »
I picked up a 2X Canon converter and after reading reviews wasn't expecting much. Put it on my Canon 70-200mm and was really surprised at how sharp the images were even at f/2.8 (f/5.6). A good combo IMO.
Maybe you have the new one. I have the old 2X and I keep asking myself why I bought it. (OK I know, the 400 prime is an 800... 100-400 is a decent 600mm... and it does work, just not for anything where I'd want auto-focus) I think people miss the "only with L lenses" part and only with the faster lenses. Also it's marginal on the 40D and 20D, or older cameras, works best with the 1D series. All kinds of limitations. It does the job and for pixel peepers, like Micro shooters, it's probably going to be a fail.
For people shooting sports and wildlife, a few hundred for the 2x is much better than $10,000 for a 500mm lens. I'm willing to give up a little quality.
So what lens have you used it on and what camera? That makes a difference. I met up with a guy shooting a 1D Mark III and a 300mm f/2.8 and he says the auto focus doesn't work. It should on that combination, unless he has the older 300mm?
I also think that when you add more glass, it's bought to degrade the image some. Again for the $9500 savings, I'll suffer! 
I might have included this one before, it's with the extender on a 100-400MM (I think? I doubt if I would have used the 35-350?) set for 285mm (I have the pins taped on the extender to fool the camera, it also fools the EXIF data) 320th @ f/5.6 ISO 100 - shot through a hole in the chain link fence.
I'd say it worked just fine. (larger version if anyone cares about seeing more pixels: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/gt2-race-start-pete-klinger.html)
Back to the beginning. If I could get the 200-400mm with the built in 1.4 extender, it would eliminate my need for carrying the 70-200 - or owning, the 2x Extender, the 100-400, the 400mm. I could have the 35-350 and the 200-400/560 and I'm ready to Rock and Roll. 35-560 should be a suitable range for just about anything outdoors?
When the great "L" lens and accessory sale comes up on FM Forums I'll post it here. LOL
Good point. I guess the version and camera it's on makes a big difference. I have the 2x vII on a 5DMII. I had the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS I which was great but f/2.8 and 200mm were weak spots. I was really surprised when I got good results with the 2x converter. I picked up the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II lens and it is exceptional at every f-stop and focal length. Works great with the 2X converter. I looked at reviews for the newer 2x vIII and seems the improvements are barely noticeable so I skipped it. Improvements between vI and vII are supposed to be pretty noticeable. I believe that autofocus works on f/2.8 lenses but not f/4 or above.
1073
« on: March 03, 2012, 13:40 »
I picked up a 2X Canon converter and after reading reviews wasn't expecting much. Put it on my Canon 70-200mm and was really surprised at how sharp the images were even at f/2.8 (f/5.6). A good combo IMO.
1074
« on: March 02, 2012, 18:29 »
I like the upgrades the Mark III offers, the AF, fps, 100% viewfinder, image quality but I'm having trouble justifying the $3500 price tag. The AF on the Mark II is poor I think we can all agree on that, but do I want to spend $3500 to replace that, not at the moment.
I think that about sums it up for me. And while I get what some people are saying about the currency changes, the bottom line is it's still $1,000 more. It doesn't matter what the reason is. I'm more willing to bet Canon felt they underpriced the MII and are trying to gouge us a bit to make a better profit. And I'm not seeing anything about it, for now, that can make me more money over my MII. But that's me. I'm sure a lot of people will buy it but I don't quite see it having anywhere near the same "gotta have it" sales demand as the MI and MII. I'm guessing the early adopters and people waiting for reviews will buy it but sales will taper off quickly after a couple months.
1075
« on: March 02, 2012, 13:16 »
Now that I think about it, Canon may be playing it smart here. Maybe.
I'd bet the 5DMIII is more of a replacement for both the 7D and 5DMII. Is there a need for a next generation 7D at this point?
If Canon sits on the sidelines for a year they can watch how well the D800 does. If it's a huge success (which I bet it will be) they can start working on a competitor while sprinkling some rumors around about a high MP model (4D? or whatever) to keep Canon people hanging on while they build it. Then in another year+ they can release a different higher MP model.
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 ... 120
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
