|
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 - heywoody
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 ... 58
1126
« on: April 10, 2012, 17:13 »
The real problem isn't the technology used to create the image it's that the image itself is sh1te. The camera and photographer should not even be considered if the end product is suitable.
1127
« on: April 10, 2012, 10:00 »
Yeah - subs will only change for level 2 images and whatever the next one is (I guess) - that would be nice 
1128
« on: April 10, 2012, 06:22 »
When I point my DSLR at my friends kids, they tend to either run away or pull a silly face. I get my best photos of them with a cheap P&S. We're used to closely examining prints and pixel peeping. I try and think like an average person that doesn't make their living from photography when looking at prints. An A4 print from my first 2mp compact looks dreadful when I have my technical head on but if I think like a non-photographer, it looks OK.
I still like using cheap compacts. I don't think it's a fad because I've been doing it for years. The Lomography site has been around for longer than most microstock sites and people were having fun with cheap plastic cameras many decades ago. It's a bit like HDR, some of the photos look horrible but others are hard to replicate with a DSLR and will probably sell well on microstock sites.
Very true and considering the end product is for Joe Public the pixel peeping seems over the top. But, for a site where technical quality seems to be the be all and end all it is strange to have that image included - the real problem I have is the double standard.
1129
« on: April 10, 2012, 06:15 »
4 days without a sale, never seen this before (having around 70 per month)
Only 1 in April so far (unusual even for me). This was a level 2 sale on a level 1 image which I thought was a bug but possibly something to do with the changes. No benefit though as it was one of those discounted referral subs 
1130
« on: April 09, 2012, 10:56 »
Another DT announcement from Achilles -
We will be testing a new set of prices during the following days. Don't worry if you receive royalties that are different or higher than what you are used to, they are correct and according to the percentages displayed in the Sell your images page (of course, for other credit values). Considering this is still under development, we will not be making any other announcements until we know the new structure works and is viable. Thank you.
I think they provided themselves an out...who says the royalties will necessarily be higher? Different can also mean lower.
"Higher" unlikely to cause worry but "different" might  gotta love the phrasing
1131
« on: April 08, 2012, 16:26 »
Edge, yes, I stand by what I said.
Personally, that image didn't make me feel comfortable.
But if you look at his port, apparently he knows what he is doing. I think he is experimenting.
Don't forget, in the history of art, impressionists used to exhibit as "Salon des Refuss". Marcel Duchamp was not allowed to exhibit his Bicycle Wheel even at the exhibition where he was himself a juror.
Whether or not his image is successful is another story, I applaud iStock for allowing the experiment. Art is meant to explore and expand new boundaries, its standards are evolving, unless you or we only want to settle to be a photo technician forever.
By looking at his port, I think this is one of his styles. It's nothing wrong with being edgy.
Unfortunately, for most nobodies, we can not afford this luxury.
Edgy? That?
I'm with you here Freedom. I'm not saying i think the image is a masterpiece, far from, (although i probably like it more than the typical plastic toothpaste smile retinaburning cheeziness), but when looking at his port (which is a pretty darn great port imho) it blends in and fits the mood. Taken out of the context of the port the image is awkard, which just might cause it to sell once in a while. I also think most of us submitting it would get it rejected in no time. Unless we had a great (experimental) portfolio to back it up.
In general Id agree with what you are both saying. However, a bad photo by a bad photographer is a bad photo; a bad photo by a good or even great photographer is still a bad photo. The fact that to have a great experimental portfolio means being an inspector doesnt exactly help on the credibility front so I have to say but the emperor isnt wearing any clothes.
1132
« on: April 08, 2012, 16:16 »
No since IS rejects all my composites 
But besides IS, yes they are.
Best sellers are the same except IS (either rejected or probably would have been if submitted). Otherwise different sites seem to sell different stuff.
1133
« on: April 07, 2012, 14:10 »
By looking at his port, I think this is one of his styles. It's nothing wrong with being edgy.
Unfortunately, for most nobodies, we can not afford this luxury.
Edgy? That?
1134
« on: April 07, 2012, 07:33 »
One of the problems in applying a demonstrable double standard (however rare) is that it tends to affect the credibility of the whole process...
1135
« on: April 05, 2012, 17:18 »
oops - almost hit ignore instead of reply ... I suggest that ignoring says more about the ignorer than the ignoree 
1136
« on: April 05, 2012, 14:46 »
I'm on 6 - guess some folks thought I was talking sh1te (I do that a lot)
1137
« on: April 05, 2012, 13:20 »
dont know the higher quotas but perhaps there is one like that
>250 and <2500 is 5%
over 2500 is 10%
I don't think so - I'm not within an ass' roar of those numbers in port size or dls & have 15%
1138
« on: April 05, 2012, 10:01 »
Absolutely brilliant!!!!
Is it brilliant? Has iStock ever chimed in on this in their forums? My guess is they would frown on it, and might do something about it if they thought it was "beating the system." Either way...I wouldn't advertise that you are doing this. 
Not me guv, I still think it's worth getting the odd file in there. I suspect that the gentleman in question doesn't give a rat's ass if they take action if he's removed most of his port already so, in that context, I say again ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!!
1139
« on: April 05, 2012, 05:03 »
1140
« on: April 04, 2012, 16:47 »
Yes! there is no doubt, ODs and ELs, are more then plenty and in my books they represent a hell of a lot more revenue then subs.
So EVERYONE makes their money from EL's and OD's ......or just a select few? Anyway, I can't stand the thought of selling anything for peanuts so I don't. That's the path I have chosen.
Not in any way suggesting that exclusivity is the wrong move but, on the peanuts front, my RPD on DT is 40% higher than IS and I have never had a single digit (in US cents) download anywhere besides IS...
1141
« on: April 04, 2012, 13:52 »
heywoody, yes photos only. there are plans for videos, but this is too early to talk about
Sorry Frank - I put the question badly. More specifically, would 3D images be acceptable? I have quite a few images that would probably be a better fit (medium aside) for photocase than mainstream stock....
1142
« on: April 04, 2012, 13:34 »
Had a quick look and only see photos - is it just for photos??
1143
« on: April 04, 2012, 12:02 »
1144
« on: April 04, 2012, 11:29 »
I have my entire portfolio as P+.
How is that possible?
He deleted all the files except P+
Absolutely brilliant!!!!
1145
« on: April 04, 2012, 11:21 »
....... and I still maintaine, at IS, its enough if youre images are technically sound, never mind composition, creativity or whatever. As long as your image does not contain, noise of haze, at IS, youre accepted.
Cant really be easier then that, can it?
This sounds about right although, how easy depends on complexity of subject matter, tools available and skill. My perception is that the criteria there is pretty Boolean with no imagination or vision (quality = technical quality) so if something is 100% technically ok it will be accepted no matter how derivative, banal or well covered already. On the other hand 97% (slight flaw apparent when viewing 10% of the image from 2 feet) technically ok will probably be rejected no matter what the subject matter. The outcome is that other sites can pretty much provide anything a buyer looks for where IS cannot and folks dropping the crown find that SS, DT and even (God help us) FT are rejecting their technically perfect images because they have tons like that already. Newbie sour cos his stuff not good enough for IS?? No I was actually astonished that former IS exclusives were not just accepted 100% at the other sites. I also noticed recently a port on FT with some really creative, complex and interesting to look at images. This was sapphire level so they obviously sell very nicely also. On DT the same person has 10s of thousands of sales and a port of around 10K images on SS which presumably generates many thousands of sales. On IS there are approx 500 images. Of course, this could mean that the photographer just doesnt like IS or maybe it means IS are shooting themselves in the foot commercially with their acceptance policy.
1146
« on: April 04, 2012, 08:37 »
Wow! 19 keyworded about 5 mins ago and approved already!!!
1147
« on: April 04, 2012, 04:41 »
Yesterday I keyworded a bunch of images uploaded at the weekend (123 doesn't seem to like keywords delimited with and all approved this morning - that's pretty quick
1148
« on: April 03, 2012, 13:27 »
Most veteran folks here as well as newbies overlook one of the great perks of microstock. I discovered it by accident simply by uploading less than six images in the entire 2011 period and less than 24 images in all of 2010.
The perk: THE INCOME KEEPS COMING IN just by sitting on one's fat behind. The only work I do is check the sites occasionally and request payouts when they reach the payout threshold. Common knowledge here is that your income would dry up rather quickly because of the new images streaming in by the tens of thousands. What I've found is that my best, say, 25 or 30 images (out of 600+ per site), keep pulling in about the same sales month after month. The mediocre ones (5-10 per year) keep plodding along also at about that rate. The lousy ones still suck.
I scratch my head at this continuing income stream. Must be my superior shooting or flawless key-wording.
As good an example of "hitting the nail on the head" as I've seen in quite a while
1149
« on: April 03, 2012, 09:05 »
1150
« on: April 03, 2012, 06:25 »
As a hobbiest, I don't like the fact that lazy ass testing a model isolations / components for the real picture often do better than the versions that entail effort but I like the very best sellers well enough.
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
