|
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 - sharpshot
Pages: 1 ... 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 59 ... 263
1326
« on: October 09, 2013, 04:13 »
That's good, you had me worried there for a moment 
1327
« on: October 09, 2013, 01:24 »
Somebody gave you a -1 just for letting us know about this. Don't shoot the messenger springs to mind.
1328
« on: October 09, 2013, 01:20 »
15k does seem very cheap for 7,000 images. Shouldn't a portfolio that size bring in much more than 15k a year?
1329
« on: October 09, 2013, 01:14 »
This is going to sound odd, but a friend does this. (I can't because at the races I might shoot a few cards full a day)
Buy numerous cheap SD cards and don't transfer anything, just take the full cards home.
Done and it's cheaper than you think. Don't need a tablet or laptop and it's light and small.
8GB cards, $1 a Gigabyte, how's that for cheap? You run out? You buy another card... This is the ultimate cheap way to carry your photos. No batteries, no computer, nothing, and pretty darn secure.
SanDisk 16 GB Class 4 SDHC $11 !
What he does is even stranger. Copies the files to hard drive and files the original cards. I'm still using CF memory so it's a bit more expensive and I run 500 and up GB a year in photos, no video, just still pictures. But if I had all cameras that used SD, I'd start buying cheap 16GB cards and stop using electronic or hard drive as primary backup. Original cards as backup, electronic as working files.
Why not just carry a lot of SD cards? They are pretty cheap these days.
Yup, that's the way I see it now.
ps I have an ASUS netbook for travel, built in card reader. Portable USB hard drive. I'm considering next trip, no hard drive, just buy a card wallet.
SD cards still need to be backed up so I'd still need a tablet or laptop. Costs for 1TB worth of SD cards would be around $750 compared to $100 for 2 500gb hard drives. For $100 I would only be able to back up 64gb with SD cards. Also carrying 30 SD cards doesn't seem very practical either.
Why ask the question when you already know the answer? Every suggestion, by well-meaning contributors, you have immediately dismissed. Were you expecting a new technology to be invented especially for your particular needs or what?
I often see an angry post from you around midnight UK time. You seem to have missed the point in the OP here. As technology changes all the time, there might now be a way to back up photos on the road but without a laptop and without spending lots of money on a Mac. Some of the suggestions don't seem to provide a way of getting a backup. Having had an SD card failure, I can understand the desire to have photos on more than just one SD card.
1330
« on: October 08, 2013, 18:19 »
I had a poor September and October is off to a very slow start. Very low on demand sales and not one EL or SOD yet. Hope this slump ends soon but I'm starting to think this is going the same way it did for me with FT and istock. Frightening to think that I've made more in one day in the past than I have in the first 8 days of October.
1331
« on: October 08, 2013, 02:15 »
Kind of (he didn't actually say what you are saying he did), just wondering if there was a policy in force to stop people from contributing images that were already on Offset from being licensed on Shutterstock. He said they wouldn't accept images that were already on Shutterstock, not the other way around. What if the file had sold on Shutterstock previously is it ok if it's taken down first? I'm more interested in if you can have files on other microstock sites and Offset, that would seem to create confusion about the collections too wouldn't it? Especially with all nonexclusive content at iStock being priced at a max of $10 or at Canstock for even less.
I highly doubt anyone would want to put their stuff on Shutterstock or any other microstock site after it is on Offset selling for far more.
In the rare event that this does happen, I'm sure Scott and team will be working to prevent this kind of overlap. Whether it's policy or not, I'm not sure. But it's also a sort of self-policing thing, where it really seems unlikely that most folks would want that kind of overlap between microstock and Offset.
People do it on Alamy already. I just found one image from an active member on this forum offered on iStock for about $7.50 and the exact same image on Alamy offered for $365.
One would think that people wouldn't submit to sites that are so much lower in price but I'm sure I could find thousands of examples of this happening already. If Offset is going to be nonexclusive I would expect contributors to submit their work elsewhere.
That $365 on alamy could be heavily discounted. I regularly sell for less than $50 now and their RF licence is more like an EL on the microstock sites. So there isn't as big a difference in price as it appears. They also go out of their way to inform their contributors that they don't mind what other sites we sell our images on, as long as we don't mix RF and RM. I was against selling my microstock images there at first but any non-exclusive that doesn't use them is losing out. Some buyers have no problem paying large fees for an image and they don't bother looking for cheaper prices.
1332
« on: October 08, 2013, 02:07 »
I've asked them to look at this thread and respond to it. Hope they can explain what's going on.
1333
« on: October 08, 2013, 02:01 »
I did downsize for a short time but they sell more extended licenses than the other sites and now I occasionally get up to $100 for an image sale. I'm not going to put those people off.
Subscriptions look like much better value than pay per download on most of the sites. I think they should all offer them in different sizes at different prices, just like they do with pay per download. They would probably make more money charging more for full size, we would make more money and bloggers would be able to get much closer to the size they want.
1334
« on: October 07, 2013, 11:22 »
Thay are now showing the actual sales price for sold images, and the large majority are sold for 1 or less.
So actually 0.20 for a 0.71 sale maybe isn't so bad(except that 0.71 sales price isn't much).
So far I have only had one sale higher than 1, but I don't have a large port.
Jens G
So why are you bothering with them? There's enough sites that sell at higher prices and make more for independents. Do we really want buyers to start using sites like this? Do we really want the other sites to see how little they can get away with paying us? Supporting a site like this is just going to make it harder for us to make money.
1335
« on: October 06, 2013, 13:01 »
If Google images wasn't around, there would be something else. I'd rather buyers were given an easy online resizing option and were made very aware that posting larger than necessary images online is against the license terms.
The other option would be to offer two sizes with subscriptions. Charge more for larger sizes and people only wanting blog sized images wouldn't buy the big sizes. Never really understood why the sites haven't done that.
1336
« on: October 06, 2013, 08:33 »
A lot of the problem is caused by legitimate buyers that are breaking the license restrictions by giving other people easy access to images at larger sizes. Is this because they don't know how to downsize, or they're just too lazy, or they don't care? There is something that can be done about it. Something is done about misuses of downloaded programs, music and movies. It doesn't stop thieves but it makes people that have some legitimate reason for buying and selling online files think carefully about what they do with them and it must make a huge difference to the sales of programs, music and movies.
1337
« on: October 06, 2013, 05:38 »
It must be costing us and them a small fortune when people can easily obtain huge size images for nothing.
on the other side these crooks would probably never pay for stock images anyway.
if they feel free stealing RF pics do you think they're scared stealing hires pics with google images ?
just search "shutterstock <keyword>" on google images and set the search to "large" size, there are TONS of full size stock images.
The problem is when people that might pay for images find a large size image that's exactly what they need, not knowing that they are supposed to license the image. Most of them might not pay but why do all the sites have a free section? Some people must end up as buyers, microstock prices are already very low for people that need images for commercial use.
1338
« on: October 06, 2013, 04:17 »
It has to be a concern that with so many people using a full size or much larger than required image to link to on their websites and blogs, someone will make a bit of software to easily find those images. It is easy enough to find huge versions of a lot of microstock content using Google images and the sites don't seem to be able to police that. I don't know why the sites don't do more to stop buyers breaking the license restrictions. It must be costing us and them a small fortune when people can easily obtain huge size images for nothing.
Is it that hard to find a bunch of big images that are breaking the license restrictions and make an example of some of the buyers? This is one of the reasons why I'm no longer doing much microstock work.
1339
« on: October 06, 2013, 04:01 »
I stopped uploading after they sent out that email about having to cut commissions. Didn't have any confidence in them after that. I hope they aren't shutting down, if they are in trouble, hopefully another site will buy them.
1340
« on: October 05, 2013, 10:39 »
This is a cheap device but I'm not sure if it would be good for transferring raw files from a card to a USB stick?
http://www.ravpower.com/ravpower-rp-wd01-filehub-3000mah-power-bank.html
Edit: Found a review of the Verbatim 98243 MediaShare Wireless. Looks like the same product and looks like it can be used to transfer raw files from an SD card to a USB stick.
I've seen the wireless hard drives but there isn't much information on how they will work for my purposes. Most people use them to stream movies or music and not for downloading data, I've seen people say you really need to hook it up to a computer to move data onto it. Since they are powered I wonder if they will work connected to a tablet that normally wouldn't be able to power a hd?
I saw in the reviews that some people were using it to transfer files. One said in the field but that should be quite similar to on the road Here's the quote "I need to be able to back up critical data 'in the field' where there may be no power or mobile signal. It could be many files of typically 25 - 30 Mb at a pop. This does it !" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Verbatim-98243-MediaShare-Wireless/dp/B00CZ0P0PSThose file sizes seem similar to raw file sizes. I ordered one but it will take about a week to get it. I'll report here if it works.
1341
« on: October 05, 2013, 02:11 »
This is a cheap device but I'm not sure if it would be good for transferring raw files from a card to a USB stick? http://www.ravpower.com/ravpower-rp-wd01-filehub-3000mah-power-bank.htmlEdit: Found a review of the Verbatim 98243 MediaShare Wireless. Looks like the same product and looks like it can be used to transfer raw files from an SD card to a USB stick.
1342
« on: October 05, 2013, 01:41 »
The Raspberry Pi would be a great cheap, small and lightweight solution, if it could use a tablet screen. I've seen people have done that but the tutorials are in geek language. If only someone could make an app that made it easy to do, they would sell loads to photographers. http://www.raspberrypi.org/
1343
« on: October 04, 2013, 17:43 »
1344
« on: October 02, 2013, 13:26 »
I wouldn't say 20% is normal for a small site. Several of them pay 50% and that's the only reason to use them. Low percentage and low sales volume is a waste of time.
1345
« on: October 02, 2013, 05:04 »
Ron, I think you could probably do better than some of those people that just upload thousands of walkabout travel photos. There are some people who do quite well with alamy with a more commercial portfolio. I think part of the problem with us microstockers is that buyers can do an image search and find our images cheaper on other sites.
I'll carry on uploading to alamy because every now and then they sell something over $100 and that keeps me interested.
1346
« on: October 02, 2013, 02:06 »
Can you cut the time a bit? I don't do clips longer than 20 seconds. JPEG 90% seems OK for sites like FT. I don't bother with FT though, Pond5, SS, Revo, Canstockphoto and Clip Canvas are enough for me.
1347
« on: October 01, 2013, 05:18 »
I find it interesting that the best paid musicians create their art for the masses. They rely on lots of people paying a relatively small fee for a reproduction of their art. Totally different to the best paid artists and art photographers who are often producing work that means nothing to the masses and only appeals to a small group of extremely rich people.
1349
« on: October 01, 2013, 03:25 »
I believe Mr. Oringer know what is doing... he still control 45% of the shares, but the other 55% are so diluted among many investors that is nearly impossible to group all the other share holders to make 51%. Orenger need only 5% +1 to maintain the control, witch is very easy.
The nearly impossible seems to happen quite often, especially if the share price falls and someone makes the investors a good offer.
1350
« on: September 30, 2013, 17:24 »
I watched a programme about Damien Hirst. He was doing yet another of his spot prints, just colour spots on white. I really don't get why people pay for those? I'm sure he said that he gets an assistant to paint some of them. Funny looking at them all on a Google search http://tinyurl.com/p8467t9
Pages: 1 ... 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 59 ... 263
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
