|
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 - increasingdifficulty
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... 74
1076
« on: July 10, 2017, 12:48 »
How about DaVinci Resolve...
It's not free for 4k. And if you're doing time lapses, you're doing 4k. Anyway, get ND filters for your biggest lens and you can use step down rings for the smaller lenses. Same filters.
1077
« on: July 10, 2017, 08:34 »
Since they are both editorial I would say zero commercial value.  But if someone needs something from that exact street, then sure. They're not really time lapses though, just sped up video (8 times?). Of course, one can argue where "time lapse" begins, but I would say at 25-50 times real-time at least. Anyway, to get good looking motion blur we're talking 1 second exposure time. Better light, one picture every 2 seconds with a 1 second exposure time could increase the commercial value. If you sell it as editorial I think it's better to just upload the real-time video. Better chance of selling.
1078
« on: July 10, 2017, 05:46 »
No. A glass cube always wins.
1079
« on: July 10, 2017, 05:37 »
If you don't like them "pocket" $30 out of $79 sale, you should delete your files there and only upload to sites that pocket $56 out of $79 sale so that you can keep $24 instead of $49.
You're missing the point. Congrats! It's about transparency. Transparency always wins.
1080
« on: July 08, 2017, 15:46 »
This is just another example of voodoo from another agency who purposely misled contributors. They need to come out and make the factual claim that $49=100% regardless of how much they actually charge a customer.
I think you meant to post in the other thread. But, yes, that's true.
1081
« on: July 08, 2017, 15:45 »
So you mean that it is available to only select authors or only after your first submissions?
If that is so, than it is still ridiculous. I'm a fairly successful contributor to a range of different venues, looking to do business with Envato. One look at their upload page made me go "why bother".
If it is in their interest to have as few contributors and files available, if that's their model (and with absolutely lowest prices aimed at the widest possible market available i sincerely doubt so) then good luck to them. I know that's one company stock I'd never invest in.
No really, is there a submission page that resembles something more akin to current standards, or is that thing all there is?
For footage, yes, it is available only to some authors, correct. I don't know about motion graphics. Anyway, I kind of like when it's not easy for authors to upload 5,000 files in a week. That means I'm at a greater advantage if I put in the time. Nothing is worse (for me) than 100,000 new files flooding in with a few clicks. And regarding company stock, Envato makes more money than Shutterstock, Pond5, etc.
1082
« on: July 08, 2017, 06:46 »
Scripting and automation is what allows 1 million new files per week on certain sites... It's not a good thing. It's also the worst thing you can possibly do for SEO.
Anyway, I've been using the "new" upload system for a year now, so it's definitely out, just not for everyone I suppose.
1083
« on: July 07, 2017, 05:28 »
and catching up with the crazy dudes and dudettes at the water cooler.
I may have over-estimated, but I'd say that you've definitely under-estimated... so if we average the two to be fair, it's still 106 hours, which would require three full time staff.
Pretty sure they're working from home in Hungary. And I doubt they ever read the descriptions or tags, at least from what I've seen get accepted.  Actually, I doubt they even watch the clips sometimes.  Talking footage here. Things are likely very different for AE templates. Anyway, I've had 3 different reviewers (at least 3 different accounts) and I think that's how many there are.
1084
« on: July 07, 2017, 05:16 »
Yes, there it is. A "test". A long test. I guess anyone can claim 100% royalties if they just slap a "temporary fee" on top of the price. Haha.  "No no, you're getting 100%, the price is $49. $30 is not the price, it's just a fee..." In fact, it's great marketing. Why don't Shutterstock say that we get 100% royalties, set the price to $20 and just add a $59 "purchase fee"? It's not 100% transparent, that's for sure. I'm fine with it. I've just been curious about it since I've never seen a $79 sale before, and surely there must be some one-time customers who just need one clip without paying for the full membership. Their business model makes more sense this way, which is a good thing for sustainability.
1085
« on: July 06, 2017, 09:24 »
Has anyone ever experienced a $79 purchase? I didn't think so. And you're just assuming 100% of all buyers buy a membership?
Nope.
If a customer buys a clip without becoming a member, they pay $79, but you still only get $49 (-PayPal).
Nothing wrong with that, but now I know that they pocket the extra $30 if they don't get a new member. Their business model makes a little more sense.
1086
« on: July 05, 2017, 06:34 »
No, because I see the total earnings right away.
1087
« on: July 04, 2017, 15:35 »
Still looks like a site from the 90s...
1890?
Probably.
1088
« on: July 04, 2017, 14:03 »
Still looks like a site from the 90s...
1089
« on: July 04, 2017, 07:15 »
Because they are a business, and they want to make money.
The big producers are likely to keep producing quality content if they are happy with sales.
It's just business.
1090
« on: July 01, 2017, 05:49 »
June was OK, not great. 40% of March, double April, same as May.
1091
« on: July 01, 2017, 05:46 »
Well take this one:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/doha-qatar-february-17-2016-highrise-615071813
I got the palms and the buildings at a focal length of 34mm on f7.1 on a Canon 6D (17-40L f4 lens), with no problems, handheld at 1/200s.
Perhaps the OP shutter speed was too short for handheld or he was shooting at f22 or above and getting diffraction.
Yes, but "good snapshot for microstock" and "tack sharp windows on all windows on every skyscraper acceptable for print" is not quite the same thing... I think we're deviating from the main concern of the thread here. I'm talking about achieving ultimate overall sharpness here. Something you would hang on your wall 6 feet wide. Not saying it's impossible to get handheld snapshots that are sharp enough and get accepted.
1092
« on: July 01, 2017, 04:56 »
No, quite the opposite...
A larger sensor reduces DOF (all other things being equal), so if your ultimate goal is everything in focus in the frame, a smaller sensor like in a compact camera might even be better.
Then you need to do some reading. A large sensor does not reduce DOF. It allows you to be closer to what you're photographing and THAT reduces the DOF. Focal length, aperture and DISTANCE is what gives a certain depth of field. The sensor size lets you keep more or less in the frame at a certain distance. So "all other things being equal" is very wrong. The most important thing, DISTANCE, is not the same if you want to match what's in the frame between a full-frame and a smaller sensor... At the same distance, with the same lens and aperture, the depth of field is the same on a full-frame camera and a camera with a smaller sensor. You just see more of the world in the full-frame image.
1093
« on: July 01, 2017, 04:46 »
I wouldn't normally want to have distant objects in focus if I've got a subject of interest very close to the lens.
Of course, another alternative is to use tilt on a t/s lens. That was a common approach with large format on film in the old days. Wide-angle T-S lenses tend to be a bit expensive, though.
Yes, that's an alternative. What you normally would want might not be what someone else wants. Anyway, the biggest use for it is with cityscapes where you are RELATIVELY close (not 10 feet) but you want the image to be tack sharp from the first skyscraper to the last. There is always just ONE spot with perfect sharpness, so it's just all about how much deviation you are willing to accept, or what's visible. To me, skyscraper details such as windows should all be tack sharp for a stellar image.
1094
« on: July 01, 2017, 04:38 »
Also, using a medium format camera or a DSLR with 40+ megapixels can help if your lens is up for the task.
No, quite the opposite...
A larger sensor reduces DOF (all other things being equal), so if your ultimate goal is everything in focus in the frame, a smaller sensor like in a compact camera might even be better.
Obviously that introduces other problems with overall image quality, and - as this is in the alamy forum - they don't really want images from compact cameras.
But going to medium format itself does nothing to increase overall sharpness.
I'd side with BaldricksTrousers, learning about hyperfocal distance is the way to go.
It's not about depth of field. It's about resolution. I suppose landscape photographers like 40 mp full-frame cameras because they have too much hard drive space to spare... With a good lens (of course stopped down for a deep depth of field) and a 40 mp camera, yes, a delivered image of 16 mp or so will look much sharper than one taken on a 16 mp m43. And that's not even getting into print... Just like a good 4k video looks (and is) MUCH sharper than even a perfect HD video.
1095
« on: June 30, 2017, 13:21 »
You forgot the most important: use a tripod, and switch the image stabilization off!(and use a remote control maybe)
I would've thought that was obvious. Hard to do focus stacking without a tripod. A remote control is good but often not necessary since you can just use the shutter delay function on most cameras.
1096
« on: June 30, 2017, 12:21 »
This is how you get photos that are sharp throughout the frame: Use a lens that's sharp throughout the frame. Stop that lens down to where it performs best. This is usually around 2 stops down from wide open. You can look this up for most lenses. If you are relatively close to what you're photographing or if there is great distance between important subjects you will need to resort to combining several photos, each with a different focus point - a.k.a. focus stacking. That is how really, really sharp photos of cityscapes are made. To get even bigger resolution and sharpness you can also combine several photos vertically and horizontally. Also, using a medium format camera or a DSLR with 40+ megapixels can help if your lens is up for the task. --- A cheaper DSLR with the kit lens is not going to give you perfect landscape/cityscape shots.
1097
« on: June 30, 2017, 05:54 »
Apparently view on FT do not reflect the activity of customers logging in Abobe website.
Since more and more customers go through Adobe, views in FT are constantly going down and are not reliable.
I hope they are working in restoring combined views on Adobe
I see, that makes sense.
1098
« on: June 30, 2017, 04:01 »
And each has at least a few views on Fotalia.
Do they eventually get viewed or is there really no hope for new content?
8)suz
I have about as many SALES on the other sites as views on Pond5 and Fotolia. But I also have sales on Fotolia on items with 0 views... So I wouldn't really trust those numbers...
1099
« on: June 28, 2017, 11:54 »
Pond5 already have all the content customers need and more, so yes, it's very hard for new material to even get views.
Hard, but not impossible.
1100
« on: June 26, 2017, 15:56 »
There is one reason for this:
They don't want extra competition for the ad search terms, since they use them themselves. That drives up the price per click.
But this time I think they did you a favor anyway, since free options would be a lot more likely to actually result in a profit for you.
Remember that a new customer is much more valuable to Shutterstock than for any single contributor so they can spend more money on advertising. They get their money for life, you only get a one time referral percentage.
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
