|
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 - steheap
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 ... 63
1101
« on: March 14, 2013, 18:56 »
I am at 67 cents this month (1 EL, 2 x 5.7$ SOD) so I don't believe Lisa or other top contributor is doing below that And I'm at $0.79 per download! Steve
1104
« on: March 11, 2013, 18:34 »
I think the answer is to export the "original" from Lightroom. My process for this sort of shot is to do the path in Photoshop, change to sRGB, reduce size (if necessary) and then save as a JPEG back into Lightroom. Then I do the keywording, finally, I "Save metadata to file" which, I think, puts the keywords into the JPEG, then I export as original file into a different folder for uploading. Export as original just makes an ordinary file copy.
Steve
1106
« on: March 11, 2013, 18:27 »
I have spotted two trends (not unique here, I'm sure)
The first is that the Single and Other Downloads on SS have dropped to almost nothing: January: $120, February: $17, March: $4. I suspect it is tied to the Google Images change, but that is having a big impact on my SS earnings.
iStock just seems to have similarly disappeared for me. I know we have all seen the drops there, but this year seems to have compounded the problem. Ignoring the PP earnings, Jan was $219, Feb was $146, March so far is $45 and we are almost half way through the month. Putting on my tinfoil cap, I wonder if we are being penalized for deleting images!
Steve
1107
« on: March 09, 2013, 10:17 »
Chris
Great to meet a satisfied reader!! (please put a comment on Amazon if you don't mind!)
Lightburner is a bit temperamental until you get the various channels (links to the stock agencies) set up. I have 20 channels active at the moment and all of them are working fine - although there did seem to be a glitch with CanStockPhoto this last week that I need to investigate. Sometimes the agencies change their FTP details, which screws things up. Generally however, I assume that if it goes to Lightburner, then it has gone to the stock agency. Recently they started sending out an email that shows which images went to each site - worth checking that for any errors.
So, my basic flow is to assume that all my images that were keyworded in Lightroom went to the agency. I then visit each agency in turn to complete the process. A few agencies don't require this, but most have some sort of final step on the site. This is also my double check point, as if I see that my images are not there for submitting, I can reupload them if necessary.
I have around 10% editorial images in my portfolio, and normally those get uploaded along with the rest. I use the Shutterstock caption, which seems to work for all sites. Those sites that don't accept editorial usually just reject them. Other sites where I need to submit images one by one on the site (eg Fotolia), I delete the editorial ones as I come across them. Finally, some sites get really annoyed if you submit editorial images to them (GL comes to mind!) - I have a separate monthly process where I quickly go through a month's worth of submitted images in Lightroom and I separate them into those that don't need any releases and those that are editorial (I mark those with 1 star when I am keywording) and I just do a monthly FTP to GL, for instance for the non-editorial shots. For some historic reason I also do this for Pond5, although I think this was more to do with the complications of adding a model release I think. Probably not necessary, but I haven't got round to changing.
I ought to update the Lightburner chapter in my book to add the things I have learned in the past year about keeping it going, and perhaps going through each site in turn to explain what settings work for me. Maybe my next task!
Steve
1108
« on: March 08, 2013, 09:44 »
Why don't you submit them all photos to all agencies? Unless you have a very high level of editorial shots, that seems to work OK for me.
I keyword and describe in my main catalog and "flag" the images that I intend to upload. I then export those images to a new folder on a different drive that is organized by month. So all the images in the March2013 folder are for upload in that month, even though they may have been taken over the previous months. The second drive means that I have a backup (in JPEG form) of all the images that are destined for stock agencies. I then FTP the images to Lightburner and they distribute to the 20 or so agencies that get my photos.
Not sure if it was my book on stock that you read on Kindle, but I did have a chapter about the detailed workflow using Lightroom. I've been using it for 3 years or so, and it has always worked fine for me.
Steve
1109
« on: March 04, 2013, 16:38 »
This set of graphs reminded me to complete my report on earnings! I've put it up now on my blog: http://www.backyardsilver.com/2013/03/earnings-from-stock-photography-in-february-2013/, but here are the main graphs. As I reported earlier in this thread, I didn't like my results in February very much. A big drop from $2200 to $1580 - far more than the days of the month could cause. Here is the main graph showing earnings over time:  To give you some scale, here is a picture of current images online on the main sites. Not much change during February as I had a bit of a break from keywording and uploading:  Finally, a percentage of earnings from each site graph - I'm sure there is a message in there somewhere, but I'm still looking!  Steve
1110
« on: February 28, 2013, 22:23 »
I'll have to work up the enthusiasm to create my graphs this month after a really depressing 28 days. I know this is a short month, and it had a US federal holiday, but I dropped from $2200 in January to $1580 in February. Pretty much all sites were down for me - Shutterstock from $828 to $697 due to an almost complete lack in the Single sales during the month. iStock was as low as I've seen it in a while - makes you wonder if they have reduced the search priority for those contributors who deleted images at the beginning of the month! IS down from $323 to $225. Big $165 refund on Alamy made my month... More to come after I finish this bottle of wine..  Steve
1111
« on: February 28, 2013, 19:44 »
As far as I know, the sub and OD category are for people that have some existing relationship with Shutterstock. SODs were introduced for the floating buyer that sees an image they like and they can buy it at a one off price - no commitments to buy more - hence they pay more for the image. Now, how do they find Shutterstock and the image of their dreams - they search for it on the internet. If my image from FAA appears alongside my image from Shutterstock, they may be happy to download the free one - even though it is only 900 px wide - that may be all they are looking for.
May all be rubbish, of course, but it has been a lousy month for me and I'm searching for answers, even though I know this game goes up and down!
Steve
1112
« on: February 28, 2013, 17:19 »
My logic (such as it is), is that SS introduced the SOD as a way for someone without a subscription account with SS to come in and buy an image as and when they wanted it. So that sale must be driven more by "drive by" buyers who have searched for the image on Google. So if they happen to see an image of mine that they like, they will probably see the large unwatermarked image as well from FAA and choose that, rather than going through to SS to buy it!
Got to admit, there is a little bit of logic there to explain why I have such a drop in SODs but others do not seem to have seen the same drop.
Steve
1113
« on: February 28, 2013, 15:46 »
I think the drop I'm seeing in SODs started when I put a lot of images - 700+ on Fine Art America, without any watermarks. I wonder if some people are finding those clean images and downloading from there?
If this continues (and assuming I am out of line with the majority of SS contributors), then I may be leaving FAA!
Steve
1114
« on: February 27, 2013, 20:01 »
What I've noticed this month about Shutterstock is that the ODs and SODs have really dropped off. I know this is a short month, but in January I had $200 in ODs and $120 in SODs, this month it is $173 and $17. As I understand it, the SODs are the ones that people can just come in from a search and buy the image - suggests that people with accounts at SS still buy, but the ones who are buying as they see the image they need have dropped through the floor - $120 to $17 is quite a change.
Anyone else notice a lack of SODs on Shutterstock?
Steve
1115
« on: February 26, 2013, 14:53 »
1116
« on: February 21, 2013, 07:40 »
Don't get worried about Fotolia and their rejections. I recently uploaded about 70 images (Florida, California, Hawaii and Rome travel images. Probably 55 were accepted on Shutterstock (usual rejections on trademark/property release issues), but on Fotolia I had 6 accepted and 64 rejected for technical and composition reasons. Fotolia likes isolation and studio shots and really come down hard on any travel type image (and no editorial either). Funny thing is - those travel shots are the ones that sell if they ever get on the site!
Steve
BTW - I do review the earnings on each site each month on my blog. It may help you decide which one to try next
1117
« on: February 15, 2013, 11:17 »
I didn't put watermarks on mine, but I think that was a mistake. Anyone know if you can retrospectively add watermarks to existing images?
Steve
1118
« on: February 15, 2013, 09:48 »
The photos are all 900 pixels large, and without any watermark. Maxal Did you watermark the images on FAA and the ones in Google Images are unwatermarked (which would be a much more serious issue in my mind), or are they just displaying images you are displaying on your FAA site without watermarks? Steve
1119
« on: February 14, 2013, 18:03 »
agencies where i had problems previously were DT, pond5, photodune, fotolia and 123 I submit to all of those using my simple Lightroom approach of Title Caption and Keywords - no issues at all with recognition of my metadata. Steve
1120
« on: February 14, 2013, 12:16 »
You would think that Google would be able to read the copyright status in the file itself (I'm sure all our stock images have the copyrighted field completed in our JPEGs, and, as far as I know, that is generally carried forward with the licensed copy). If they did that, they could mark the file as such on the screen and also try to avoid direct file downloads from their search page. Not beyond their capabilities!
Steve
1121
« on: February 13, 2013, 17:29 »
My mistake, I humbly apologize for not seeing the irony in the previous posts. Sorry!
Steve
1122
« on: February 13, 2013, 17:01 »
Quote from: mattdixon on Today at 13:36
Quote from: sharpshot on Today at 12:38
Quote from: fotoVoyager on Today at 11:33
Nobody makes any money with panoramas, don't bother, far too much work. You'd never catch me wasting my time with them.
I disagree, some sell well. They don't have to take long to do. I don't sell any on alamy though. They really should improve the thumbnails for panoramas. It's been discussed a few times in their forum.
I would ignore fotovoyager he's a newbie, bless him, doesn't know what he's talking about.
Ha! You made snort my beer through my nose. I would like to humbly disagree with the initial comment that nobody makes money from panoramas. I have 4 of them in my top 30 images on Shutterstock (sorted by popularity) and if you are a photographer as well as a stock photographer, then making a panorama of an interesting/beautiful scene is not "work", it is enjoyment. If it then sells, then great. If not, you have a nice photo for your portfolio or to sell on FineArtAmerica. Steve
1123
« on: February 13, 2013, 11:19 »
It is right that the agencies suck the data from different fields. Its annoying. I've never had an issue with this, and I submit to 20+ agencies. Which ones give trouble? Steve
1124
« on: February 13, 2013, 10:09 »
Great panorama!
I've created and uploaded quite a few stitched panoramas and they sell reasonably well. I tend to reduce them to around 8000 x 2500 or so - much bigger than that and you start to exceed upload limits or file sizes on some agencies. At that size, people can crop within the panorama if they don't want to use the whole thing. I usually make them with my camera vertical and so I have a reasonable amount of height available, but you always get missing pieces in the sky or foreground because of the way the panoramas are made and so I have to crop them a bit more narrowly.
Steve
1125
« on: February 13, 2013, 10:02 »
Matt
This seems to be a pretty complex way of keywording your images - to use these presets. Why don't you just keyword and describe one image in the Library Module and then sync across to the other ones that are very similar. I generally do that for the common keywords and then go to each image and add a few specific keywords about that one photo - it is not often that 100s of images deserve the exact same keywords.
Back to your main question - I find that if I fill in the Title, Caption and Keywords in Lightroom, it populates all the appropriate fields in the 20 or so stock agencies that I use via Lightburner. Alamy is always going to put your keywords in the bottom group, but that is just the way it is.
Steve
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 ... 63
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
