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 - null
Pages: 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59 60 ... 63
1351
« on: February 05, 2008, 02:01 »
I have had over 100 DLs at LO and have had 2 payouts. 1 + .... Disclaimer: yes, i am the LO forum moderator.
... 1 = 2  I don't know why people would bail on LO once putting images up there... and it is absolutely painless to upload to with FTP. That's a great argument. Driving at 3am to Timbuktu is easy coz no traffic jams, so let's all drive to Timbuktu then... err... what should I do in Timbuktu? Uploading to Flickr is easy too. If most people find out that they don't sell at LO with a portfolio that sells like cake everywhere else, then it must be the search engine. So my guess is that everybody _not_ a reviewer _not_ a forum moderator comes after page 20 of the search results. Whatever, I'm gone. No regrets. May the force always be with LO.
1352
« on: February 04, 2008, 07:23 »
- The eternal beta takes much too long. Many news sites like Geckostock and MostPhotos had their software running in two to four months. Buyers will lose interest. If Bill's own SV can't get things programmed well fast, that tells a lot about Bill. It took SV months to come up with a decent watermark. I could do that as a kid on my Commodore 64. Maybe Bill can't spare extra money at the moment since he wants to buy Yahoo. - I wish they would stay away from my keywords. I can't find my images back because some clever editor always removes some essential ones and adds irrelevant ones. - Every time I go back, I see the view count unchanged at a very low level. Of course, views aren't everything, but in order to be bought, a shot has to be viewed first. - I'll keep my account there for a while, but only with 3 shots. I deleted the rest after begging for 6 weeks for a watermark, any watermark. Maybe the site takes off, but probably not. Sometimes, miracles happen. - Hatman makes it sound that CrapHamlet wants to degrade Microstock on purpose. He might be very right. Anything MicroSoft touched meant the kiss of death. MS wants to buy Yahoo and thereby ruin it, like it did with hotmail and everything that it acquired. I hope it won't ruin my beloved Flickr (see however, this blogpost of Dan Heller).
1353
« on: February 02, 2008, 21:57 »
Update- I had a second payout in the mean time, but of course, FP is a minor player (5% for me) compared to giants (income-wise) like SS, DT, BigStock, IS. - Don't play with low pricing. As can be read in some threads here on the MSG, designers really don't care whether a shot is 1$ or 10$, as long as they find the right one. My minimum now for 10MP at FP is 6$, but I allow resizing. So web-size is around 1.3$. It's a bit hilarious hearing people complain about low prices at traditional microstock, - and, when given the chance, they ask the same low price at FP. In market economy terms, demand seems to be very price-elastic. - Me thinks FP attracts first-time or occasional buyers. The seasoned designers are already buying at the big microstock agencies. In this respect, FP is no real competition for our portfolio at DT,SS,BigStock etc... FP seems to be the duster that collects the long tail of the market. - I always said that you have to do your own marketing for your FP portfolio but that doesn't mean your own website. Flickr is the worlds largest photo sharing site with 2 billion photos and with an Alexa rank of 38. Unlike Google Images, images on Flickr-Yahoo are fed into the search engines with full tags. That means your portfolio on Flickr works as a huge marketing funnel into whatever agency you want. Why not chose FP (without neglecting your other agents) by preference since they give you the highest yield per sale? - Like MostPhotos, FP almost accepts anything so you have an unique chance to upload here what you think that sells, not Atilla the Reviewer ;-). Last but not least, the upload process at FP is blazing fast and doesn't take any time. ------------------ My January sales: Image Size Date sold Price Net yield I1069689 3888 x 2592 1/26/2008 $5.00 $3.50 I1454848 3250 x 2027 1/17/2008 $4.00 $2.80 I1555055 2008 x 3000 1/9/2008 $4.50 $3.15 I1146683 3888 x 2592 1/4/2008 $5.00 $3.50
1354
« on: February 02, 2008, 16:48 »
As for bandwidth, use imageshack or flickr to showcase: they are free. Apart from the hand (bad angle, shallow DOF, grossly deformed) the other shots look fine to me. White balance might be a bit off, but that's easy to remedy by CTRL-M > auto. What I mostly do now is make shadows a bit more transparent by a soft-light white-filled layer at 20%, then compensate for lost vibrance. Stock apparently doesn't like heavy shadows like used in artsy shots, but I might be wrong.
Apart from the first flower (but there are so many already on Stock) I would say your shots are a bit uninspired. Take the strawberries for instance. Well... they are strawberries like you can find at any market. They are not STRAWBERRIES! WOW. Stock needs to be a bit bigger than life and overdone. Stock needs to draw attention immediately among the noise of competing visual stimuli.
But... this is very subjective and I don't know if it's even worth 2 cents.
1355
« on: February 02, 2008, 16:33 »
I would like to have a tool which can cut my keywords at a specific amount....As i sort my keywords already by relevancy it would be no problem to automaticaly cut the keyword after the specific maximum.
FlemishTagger?
1356
« on: February 02, 2008, 11:52 »
It would be helpful if you posted a link to those shots. How else can anybody judge here?
1357
« on: February 02, 2008, 11:47 »
Imho it's dumb to submit editorial images to Microstock-agencies and news related editorial even more. Just another bad move from Dreamstime after the subscription-prison. Why? DT is just widening their customers base. SS has it already and I have some editorial there that sells like cake. It can only benefit the photogs, and that can't be said necessarily of the subscription move. For real news, the approval process takes too long. But in the message of Achilles on the DT forum, he also mentioned educational and cultural shots in a general sense. We'll just have to see how their criteria evolve.
1358
« on: February 02, 2008, 11:31 »
I read it too. If you don't register with the US tax office as a non-US resident/citizen, they withhold 30%. That's a bit crazy and it's even against their own constitution: no taxation without representation.
I submitted 10 images a while ago out of my last months' batches, that were accepted everywhere (DT,SS,etc...): 5 models and 5 nature/urban shots. I took the occasion to check what happened and all model shots were rejected because the poses and the expressions were unnatural. Have to add those were isolated, so the PSC doesn't want isolated shots.
My waterfall shots were soft rejected because they belong to the news and not the creative category. Well, those waterfalls have been around for some thousands of years I figure, so I can't see what news value they have. Also, PSC doesn't like vibrant colors, so slide that saturation slider in PS way down to B&W.
One shot was accepted, a bunch of guitars on a street sale. But it wasn't live yet since I needed to fill in first a bunch of things I don't understand. If you need to fill out that stuff for every photo, it's even more time than Istock.
Then I did a search on "Asia Waterfall" to see how my competition was doing, since I regularly get EL's on my Asian waterfall shots. Just 23 matches, and in one third, the waterfall was not really visible. Came across a plain women with her back in the sun and blown-out highlights in a jungle scene that was totally shadowy but popped up clearly with a shadow-recovery procedure. She was feeding the ducks in a pond. The waterfall obviously was 1km down the road. A mediocre snapshot.
I asked for the license price of that shot in one European country for one year and it was above 2,000$. But what a bargain! Incorporate it in a corporate presentation and showing it once was only 200$. Boink.
Finally I checked their watermark. One small line on top and on the bottom, and a giant clean "thumb".
Can't see who's going to buy there, and who's going to upload. Me thinks its an undercover operation of the American IRS to get money in ;-)
In short, I deleted my one approved shot, and will just keep my account in case the site takes off. Sometimes, miracles happen.
1359
« on: February 02, 2008, 09:54 »
Out of their Agreement for submitters:
"You will receive a 50% share of the sales of your images via PantherMedia or 30% if you are also offering the images at cheaper stock image agencies."
So if you upload to ShutterStock, PantherMedia gets an extra bonus of 20% on your image. Where is the logic? I can imagine they give a bonus on exclusive images, or they price images also on "cheaper" agencies lower. But as it seems now, they just want to chastise photogs that are evil enough to upload to "cheap" agencies.
1360
« on: January 31, 2008, 16:25 »
I think you are overreacting FlemishDreams as i said i don't know the legal status but its certainly not spam it is an announcement. The legal status seems questionable. Let's wait what DT has to say later. They are investigating it.
1361
« on: January 31, 2008, 16:19 »
Update: after an email from Serban of DT, out of which I cannot quote of course, there seems to be no problem with the thumbs as such. As Bryan of LO implied by the links he provided, thumbs seem to be often a case of fair use. But there might be other problems, which DT will investigate. I'm confident DT will report back here or somewhere on the DT forum what the outcome of the issue is.
1362
« on: January 31, 2008, 09:45 »
I have one spare room painted white all over, included the ceiling for bouncing. If it gets dirty at some point, just paint it over there.
1363
« on: January 31, 2008, 09:33 »
Since the rejections seemed inconsistent from batch to batch my guess is they have a new reviewer. That must be Atilla the Grim Reviewer. He wanders from site to site, gloomily and spooky quaerens quem devoret. He lives on the blood of submitters and he can only be satisfied by a number of weird and queer rejects like this is not commercial. Some days he's around DT, some days he's around SS, some days around FT. Once in a while you will run into him. That's part of the miserable mortal stocker's life. On Topic: I would never upload batches containing variations of the same subject. Mix those over successive batches. Reviewers are human too, and they like some variety.
1364
« on: January 31, 2008, 08:13 »
Of course it's well programmed, but the idea is not new at all. The reason it never took off is that it's a breach of copyright. The sites can not decide on this since it's a violation of the right of the submitters. When FeaturePics introduced its free blogging license of thumbs, they presented an opt-in option to each and every contributor first.
Yuri Arcurs is working on a similar program but he did it the legal way, getting hold of the database of a major stock agency and he will not present thumbs, just anonymous keywords. This guy is leeching DT and SS for thumbs he has no rights for. A quick look on Alexa learns he's spamming the Net all over on all possible forms (for instance post #1 at Talkmicro), and he hides his identity well, according to whois.
1365
« on: January 31, 2008, 07:28 »
Clever, but over the edge legally, IMHO. ShutterStock explicitly forbids in its TOS the automatic harvesting of data. Moreover, you infringe on the copyright of the contributors by presenting the thumbs on your own site. Finally, I saw some of my shots turn up on your commercial site, and I forbid you explicitely to do this unless you buy a license of my shots from DT and SS. Clear?
1366
« on: January 30, 2008, 20:49 »
By the way photographers borrowed that technique from army snipers , that were using their gun straps in same way. I belong to the generation that still was drafted for the army in Belgium. Our first month training in the infantry was with a long range automatic rifle. Of course, as a sniper you had to master it at one shot. I always used this technique instinctively when "shooting" with a cam. That is, take the first resistance of the trigger, aim again, then hold your breath and steadily but calmly pull the trigger. Fix your arms, elbows, head wherever you can: a wall, the floor, a doorway, anything stable. The only difference with shooting a rifle and shooting a cam is that a cam doesn't produce a vigorous rebound, so you don't have to brace. I chose the Nikon D200 over the newer D80 a year ago because of it being heavier. More weight adds inertia hence less vibration. I hold the cam firmly on 3 points on my face: right lower eyelid bone, upper cheek bone, right side of nose bone. Right hand on the trigger... err... release button. Left hand supports the lens far in front, left elbow against my lower ribs. If possible fix my head against a wall or doorway. Legs wide spread, no slippers or socks (studio) but boots with rubber soles. Sorry if I offend anyone with the obvious, but some people might not know. I have a monopod but a cheap one without swivel. So I can't do portrait orientation easily. Moreover, the point at the bottom slips away on a hard floor when I bend over. With action shots, the telescopic monopod takes some time to deploy too and you can miss the moment. So this rope trick is superfast (no deployment and you can leave the screw in place) and usable in any orientation and tilt on a hard slippery floor. Imagine your model moves 5cm forward a split second before the shot. With this rope you can easily go back 5cm without refocusing since the cam can move 360 degrees. With a monopod, your cam will tilt upwards and you get a lot of free copyspace on top ;-) Credits for this link go to Duncan on the CanStockPhoto forum. I just dumped it here ;-)
1367
« on: January 30, 2008, 20:16 »
A lens with an image stabilizer works for me. The VR in the lens at 1$ extra? ;-)
1368
« on: January 30, 2008, 09:37 »
Lose your tripod.
Hat tip: Duncan, CanStockPhoto forum
1369
« on: January 30, 2008, 02:28 »
Unproven gossip is easy to make. For all my dealings with DT, they seemed to be very professional. I had to disable 3 images at one point (the model had second thoughts) and DT promptly did so.
I can't see why a disabled image can be any asset to DT, since they don't hold the rights to it any more. The image sits just there on DT's disk taking space in the database too, and you can always reinstall it, if you ever change your mind.
If an accusation like this isn't accompanied by factual info, I'm sorry but that borders to slander.
1370
« on: January 28, 2008, 13:14 »
Great shot but please isolate on white if you have dark clothes! How can a designer isolate your shots with black on black??? Think! ;-) Isolation works on contrast. As a side note: I would never use black since all texture and folds drown in there, and if you want to pop it up... there comes the  noise devil  Use gray! (it goes with any color scheme on a web page or folder, and the skin as only colored area gets the focus - think designer!).
1371
« on: January 28, 2008, 13:06 »
I can't see why people process their full images through Ninja. I only do the PS CS2 or CS3 noise reduction on a layer, then erase selectively in areas of the original shot where noise is visible: the underside of clouds, of chins, shadowy areas popped up with a soft light light layer. The image should stay crisp where it is crisp right from the cam.
And of course, all tweaking and cloning should be done on the TIFF (preferably 16-bit) and that TIFF stays the master copy. Saving and reopening JPGs adds artifacts every time, even at quality 12.
Popping up your images to look good on thumbs works well for buyers. Istock doesn't like that, so they reject about 3/4 of my shots. No worries... they make me as 1/3 of ShutterStock, so I process for Dreamstime and ShutterStock.
1372
« on: January 28, 2008, 12:46 »
There is a spot (under my account at the bottom) where it says "delete my account". Problem is that you have to take all your pictures off, one by one, before you can do it. That is just ridiculous. Or, reading Duncan's post on the CanStockPhoto forum that he is on high troll alert and that whoever posts things there he doesn't like, will see his account vanish "suddenly", maybe you should troll around a bit there ;-)
1373
« on: January 24, 2008, 13:33 »
The person at GeckoStock doesn't seem to have been distracted by selling images. What is the point in a great website with no sales? That was not my point. My point was that if GeckoStock can do it, why not Snapvillage with much deeper pockets? And if Snapvillage can't even make FTP work on a site that's owned by the world's largest software company, what else can they make work? Sales for instance. But if you got sales there, good for you. I don't. My view count since August is 4-9, except one image that has 90 because it shows some skin. The same image got 4000 views (0 sales) on DT before I disabled it. I like buyers, not voyeurs. So I just store SV in the deep freezer till they deliver some sales.
1374
« on: January 24, 2008, 11:53 »
Ideally you should be making adjustments in a RAW editor like Nikon Capture, Canon's equivalent, Lightroom (and then finally export your finished file in JPG) I partly agree but not totally. I do some minor tweaking in the RAW Nikon convertor, like exposure, light and vibrance. Sometimes I develop the RAW twice, once optimized for highlights, then optmized for shadows. The result goes in a 16-bit TIFF (with layers for 2-3 developments) to Photoshop. Whatever you do there on the TIFF is lossless. I do some final tweaking, especially the pop-up and the brand-cloning (you can't clone in the RAW editor). I save that 16-bit TIFF, because that's my master copy. After that, I convert to 8-bit and save as JPG-12. If ever I need to redo something on the shot, I always start from the TIFF. I don't trust Lightroom really. I felt it's a quick fix for things you have better control on in the real Photoshop, something for a snapshooter that wants predigested tweaks with no worries for noise and cloning.
1375
« on: January 24, 2008, 11:42 »
I did get a lot of sales on BS and StockXpert yesterday. I had about 8 downloads at BigStock yesterday. All at 0.5$, but OK. This never happened before.
Pages: 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59 60 ... 63
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|