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 - etudiante_rapide
Pages: 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62 63 ... 79
1426
« on: December 24, 2014, 14:40 »
LOL, amex gave me 200 airmiles as a christmas present. i went and cashed it for a bottle of champagne worth $20 in airmiles. now, that is a christmas gift, no?
as for dt, well, who actually shops for microstock photos on christmas week, really???
1427
« on: December 23, 2014, 15:44 »
My hope is to move out of this shady microstock business.
 actually there is a better way to make money viz write a book, produce a movie about money-laundering in the microstock market. could be nominated for 2016 Best Independent Movies Award
1428
« on: December 22, 2014, 15:20 »
awhile back i was heavy-handed with ss, because of their lack of transparency,etc. they have since then been showing signs of going back to be the #1 we made them for many years . so, i am optimistic with ss. as for the others, wellllllll, there is really, as Mantis puts it in the ds thread, no others. but i am all for a facelift with anyone, bigstock, alamy, whoever, so long as i read here that others are getting sales finally with them; then i will join that agency even if it has a stinky sounding name . but for now, no matter how impressive their names are, i am , to quote sweet Shania, not impressed.
the ball is in their court , really. show me they have the stuff to get sales, and i will be there.
1429
« on: December 22, 2014, 12:24 »
i think, like the other "stock" market, it is still possible to make money in microstock. only like the other "stock" market, you have to spend a lot of time keeping track of what is being bought. you can either go long term with "blue chip" images or find some of those subjects that are hard to produce or not available in the millions . if you are with Shutterstock, (and who isn't,lol?) it's easier to do your market research as they give us that sale summary of our images. i could make more if i only spend more time looking at the stats SS has for us. but i'd rather get pissed,lol
1430
« on: December 22, 2014, 12:15 »
This is the kind of questions we get thanks to all the articles, books, blogs making microstock sound like a get rich quick scheme.
yes, way before those "... for dummies", i bought the book which launch me on my maiden voyage as a photographer *how to make a million dollars doing photography* or something like that. i think he sold a lot of books to goofballs like me, lol.. and he did make a million, but not from photography. write "how to" books , like all those how to play blues/metal/speed.. licks, etc make more money than the guitarists themselves.
1431
« on: December 22, 2014, 12:04 »
to be fair to dt, it used to be good during the days where Carmen used to be. but from the similars rejection of anything more than 2 even if they are not variations of the same shots, fb likes, deletions of anything past 3 years old,etc... it all went downhill really fast. also the kiss of death for your top performer, once they attain a better color id. which strangely enough is the opposite of what happens in SS where the top performers (and old images) keep getting downloads. methinks dt cut their own lifeline from the time they cut off supplies even if they were good images , simply with a heavy hand for "similars", and trying to be a social media with fb likes, instead of finding sales they prefer clicks or traffic whatever
1432
« on: December 20, 2014, 23:02 »
IMO there is no big 4 - for me there is a BIG ONE - shutterstock followed by the middle sized 4 - Fotolia, 123, Istock Dreamstime - Dreamstime is trending sharply down for me but has often sprung back in the past. Contary to many reports I stock is trending up. Just sayin!
That sums up my thoughts as well.
actually i would say there is only a BIG ONE and the rest are dribbling around position 70 to 100 based on the percentage of earnings. i joined about 30 of the 2nd to 30th on the right of this page in early 2K and joined every new one for about the next 10 years. but after i joined shutterstock and started to earn monthly payout, i decided to drop the rest of them. i still have ports with all of them except last time i checked, none of them have earn as much since inception as shutterstock has earned for me in a week. does that answer your questions?
1433
« on: December 19, 2014, 18:43 »
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/scott.braut he shared a blog story with one of your images
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/40-images-change-perception-stock-photos
1) was published last august. 2) unavailable why the focus *no pun intended* on Scott, Rinderart? could it be that lately ss is more like the old trusty super-site that we used to love and enjoy contributing and the sales are going really well? even i too wonder if there is a shift back to the old ss that we all helped make #1 . whatever it is ss, keep going, i like what is happening since december with your changes.
1434
« on: December 14, 2014, 15:50 »
ctrl c or prt scr or screen capture are not the only way to "steal" our images. all one needs to do is save the webpage and all the images will go into your folder for that web page including source code. i am surprised no one here even mentioned this.
this method doesn't work in all cases if they use javascript to protect the browser from saving remote images and they can also avoid hotlinking server-side.
instead in Firefox just right-click on "View Page Info", click on the Media tab, sort the images by size, and voila', the last ones are usually the image you see on screen, no matter if they used javascript or CSS embedding or other cheap tricks.
so, click the image and save and you're done, this works also on iSTock with images up to 1280px if you zoom the image.
you will need to disable javascript in some cases if they block the right-clicking as in 1x.com i can download any 1x.com image and some of the pics are 4000px !
there u go ! as we both pointed out, even if the right-click is disabled, there is always a way to steal images from the web. therefore, any sites that is foolish enough to think the unimportance of a good watermark is really not worth risking uploading to, no matter how much money they promise us.
1435
« on: December 13, 2014, 23:24 »
I'm also hesitating to put my photos there without any watermark, or that small funny one - but on the other hand, I've taken a look at some famous photographers web sites - and realized - you can catch their photos even with right button click and 'copy image'... So, no need even to capture screen.
If the resolution on 500px on portfolio is really 500px (or 800px as I heard somewhere), then no big harm - that small photos are free anyway, or am I wrong?
ctrl c or prt scr or screen capture are not the only way to "steal" our images. all one needs to do is save the webpage and all the images will go into your folder for that web page including source code. i am surprised no one here even mentioned this.
1436
« on: December 11, 2014, 22:29 »
I like to go there for inspiration but talk about low commercial value. Way to many dragons, super heroes, and manga. There are a few stud illustrators there. I mean really good. I think those guys use it to generate custom work or sell their books. I bet it works for them too. Mostly though it looks like students who will spend months on a single project. I will admit there are some really nice illustrations though. It's a fun site to visit but I would never upload there. Copyright infringement and theft have to be rampant there. Just look at the amount of Disney and Marvel knockoff images.
totally agree.. would never upload my work there..
totally agree 3  was there a while back and thought of uploading until i chatted with some photographers and models there. i asked them if they were aware of the need for IP releases, or even MR for their nudes... to which they answer, "huh, what Intellectual Property releases???" and yes, those marvel and manga knockoff artists were also clueless to IP as well. what surprises me is that the site themselves are not vigilant in this regard.
1437
« on: December 05, 2014, 17:38 »
huh say what??? ...medical reference, nuero-science, psychology,... never thought i stumble into a microstock forum to find so many medical practitioners actually contributing photographs to microstock  you would think they would be spending more time in the reference library of their university studying . sorry i have to laugh at this.
1438
« on: December 02, 2014, 22:56 »
I think also for Offset my kind of editing is too much, as I see they prefer not only storytelling pictures but a cleaner style, so is why I'm re editing others pictures to present to them.
My only fear is that I will give them a new link to a portfolio created just for Offset but what if they visit my others web pages? then, they will see again my style so worked..
instead of worrying over something beyond your control (unless you deactivate your other site temporarily), perharps if your edited work meant for Offset is much cleaner , it could work to your advantage to show you know how to custom edit for each market. personally, i would advise on just do it; if it works for you, great, if not, move on. there is still no guarantee that after being accepted you are going to make money worth the trouble. so, don't worry too far ahead; cross one bridge at a time.
1439
« on: December 01, 2014, 22:30 »
the earning potential is attractive. what? 250 bucks for a framed pix or smthg like that. but i am not sure if it wants to be a stock agency or a social media . and i hate the social media as all it does is attract ppl to coming to you saying stuff like "great work, check out my work". (sounds familiar? fb, flickr,etc) also, i was just following some of the ports there and i am amazed how a newly uploaded image can suddenly get so many likes and views in the first moment it is available. sort of reminds me of the other single digit earners to the right of this page, where you see 500 views 0 dl. not quite what i call earning potential, ... oops , i did at the beginning of my comment
1440
« on: December 01, 2014, 16:41 »
Getty is holding on to mucho dinero each month for as long as possible, undoubtedly investing it and making a nice return on what is actually other people's money.
Do you mean like every microstock agency has done since I can remember with the minimum payout of $100? Or do you just need to be anti IS and anti GI with every breath? Think about it for a moment SS requires you to sell 401 images (at the entry level) to get your minimum payout and you support that without complaining? Just sayin.
Just for information it's 300 -minimum payout is $75. And that assumes you only ever get basic sub sales -never mind the higher paying On Demand/ELs/ Single downloads. So, in reality, way less than 300. Regards, David.
yes, as pointed out by shelma, it only takes one good sale to reach payout with ss. in fact, in spite of many who think i am anti-ss due to the change in transparency,etc it is not difficult to reach monthly payout with ss. although if they do not play around with the flipping swith, the payout would be a lot more as before they started flipping switches. still, no one with a good port will ever see more than two month for a payout with ss. at best, u get a payout each month.
1441
« on: November 30, 2014, 13:49 »
Or maybe just stay away from microstock, where they will make you shoot in a style you don't want in order to fit their agenda (or you'll waste a ton of time uploading stuff just to have it rejected). I think if you have your own style it's best not to compromise. Later on, you might not want people to judge you as a microstock shooter (we're not the most highly regarded photographers, you know) you might want to be classed as an art photographer.
This is very good advice. If you spend too much time on doing typical microstock style photography, you may eventually find you forgot how to do artistic type images like you are good at now.
+10 that is the most insightful advice ever for everyone or from everyone who has settled for microstock to make a pathetic lifelihood. yes, it is tricky wearing two hats , microstock and the photography you aspire to. what pixelbytes sum up is absolutely true. after years of clean sterile images for ss etc we all become lady gaga and miley cyrus, blatant just sell stuff. or to put it as one of my own ex-peers call it "become totally boring" with no mind for anything other than what is suitable to be on the box of cat litter." u have to decide for yourself if that is really worth "bending over" . an absolutely good warning that one day, you just get tired of all this and wonder why you even started to shoot for microstock, as all your work becomes quite pathetic.
1442
« on: November 29, 2014, 20:56 »
Thank you! I'm processing many images to be "standard" for the next evaluation, I hope this time I will be accepted. I'm preparing some others images for Offset to see also if they accepted me as well.
remember ss and offset are on extreme ends of the spectrum. i would dare say that offset and stocksy are where u can try those artsy -fartsy stuff, but definitely none of that for ss. i recall offset initial announcement that no ss need apply, in a way to say microstockers of ss do not know how to shoot for offset. thought i point that out for you. good luck
1443
« on: November 29, 2014, 16:12 »
Hello, I'm here trying to select "the best" pictures I have to send to SS, some of you mention that I should upload, some portrait, some landscape, some still life and concept.
Well.. the fact is, that I don't have any landscape nice to present, many of "my best" work are concepts.
So, do you believe could be ok a presentation without landscapes or I should wait until I have some to present?
it's not about landscape first of all. it's about giving ss a portfolio to show that you are not a one-trick horse. that you have a good diversification that will be viable for earning . of course, each image has to be sharp , clean, not over-processed, ie. do all the fine-tuning in the shooting stage , correct exposure, white balance, clarity,etc.. and leaving post-processing to just cleaning up dirt or slight color correction if you need to fine-tune your white balance just don't give them ten portraits of the same shoot with only a slight difference from perspective point of view... as as dreamtime calls them "similars". think of stock in the same way as the other "stock", your investment portfolio will survive the test of market correction if you have a diversified portfolio. same with stock photography. quality is more important than quantity... ie give your "blue chip" to ss for your next application 10.
1444
« on: November 29, 2014, 14:20 »
i call dt comatosetime . that explains it all. i get more sales with ss in one week than i get with comatose time in one year. that' s no joke.
but i have to say it was not always that way. during the time when carmen was CR, it was quite productive , if only that u r active in their blog saying nice things about them and pimping your images. not exactly level-playing field with that agency, for sure. they do have certain favorites which comes up as artist of the month,etc.
but all in all, still a miracle that they have not dropped to mid tier .
1445
« on: November 29, 2014, 14:13 »
stealing other ppl's work is definitely the fastest way. using them as a whole or composite into your own work. i remember also having read that consistenly getting rejections could be another one. re-submitting a previously rejected image is yet another .
as already mentioned, why would any agency want to lose you? not unless u are not making $ for them.
the point re uncle yuri, IKEA,etc.. may be true, may not. but it's yes, then the previous point i made (if u make $ for them) holds even more water than ever.
1446
« on: November 28, 2014, 15:20 »
Buffalo Bill, please don't give me that...I look for sharing issues and symphaty here on this forum. You don't know how much time And effort I put in uploading neither you know my story. Moreover, analyzing your progresses is absolutely normal...
fact 1: the beast no longer needs to be fed fact 2: new uploads are not getting sales as they used to be fact 3: the older top sellers are the ones that is sustaining your earnings... simply because to get the placement, it has to be sales as soon as it is approved. that almost never happens these days. this could be due to ss flipping the switch, changing the algorithm , whatver you call it. the machine was never broken, ss was the top earner for most, if not all of us. but since they became public, a lot of trying to placate to the shareholders instead of to the contributors have caused the agency to be unstable. why i believe this? well, you take some of the old farts ... one day they are coming on the forum here and on ss to complain and then, before you know it, there are the new cheerleaders. there is no longer consistency and transparency with ss. in times like this when new sites like stocksy , canva, are attracting micro earners to look elsewhere, you think ss will want to maintain the old stability to keep their contributors. but they don't, simply because it is no longer in the interest of the contributors that ss is focused. it is only interested in looking good each time the AGM comes around. when shareholders are more important than contributors, that is a bad sign. shareholders will go away as soon as they make money , and kill the company they own. the industry and stock market prove this. whatever it is, it is bad news for contributors. there is not too many hopefuls these days. i am not anti-ss, i am wishing we all get back to the days when agencies value us, like it used to be before the istock getty farce , and now ss shareholders . would i like to go back to the days when ss is out there with clear interest for contributors on a level field? of course. as i said, ss used to be our main earner. it is still for many, but it is also slowly shifting their focus away from us. what do you think? give us back the old ss. the one that was the #1 to all of us on all counts
1447
« on: November 25, 2014, 14:39 »
http://mariajosesanchez.carbonmade.com/
This are some pics I took a looong time ago..I am costarican but this are from South Africa.. never used them for anything ..just for this particular website if you guys want to check it out.gracias....
pura vida. tento hablar espanol aqui. de suyo sitio, no puedo ver tanto pq no tienes mucho fotos alla. pero, suyo estilo alla estan mas artistica creativa, no estan las obras para agencies micostock como Shutterstock,etc. si tu quieres mandar los fotos para microstock, esta mejor tu visita los sitios ver los fotos que tienen exitos. back to english , which is safer since my spanish is terrible lol. the examples you give are much to see the range of your work, but if you plan to work in microstock you will have to shoot less artsy stuff . the artsy stuff may be for offset or stocksy, but i really am not qualified to talk about stocksy and offest here. maybe SJLocke who is with Stocksy can comment directly on that. pura vida.
1448
« on: November 24, 2014, 13:55 »
Mr. Locke is right. consider first your budget. many ppl make the mistake of buying the top of the line only to have no money left for top of the line lenses. that is like buying an expensive car or house and leaving it unfurnished. secondly, the photographer is more important than the camera. many excellent works are done with more humble equipment, much like anything in art, music, photography,etc.. the technique and knowledge must be there first. i remember laughing when at a seminar i overheard new musicians bragging of how they have the most expensive equipment or the most expensive audiophile setup. similar case when i overheard a customer asking the camera salesman to recommend the best camera for her son because he want to shoot like a pro.
1449
« on: November 22, 2014, 14:49 »
Laurin is right. If you treat it like a normal job, follow trends and upload new content every day, you will see sales growth. If you try to coast by on old best sellers, you will be disappointed. It's been like that for a couple of years now.
I simply got Lazy Rob, Then the fall Came and Of course Blamed everyone but me. On track Now.
Does that mean you dont consider issues at SS to be problem any more? It was your fault that your sales dropped March 2013 and for 18 months you had it wrong?
is the question i bolded meant for Laurin? if so, i too am wondering why the sudden change of heart. only a few months ago, Laurin had a thread here telling us something is fishy with ss, now he is a cheer-leader. i want to know too, why the sudden change?  what did scott say to you?
1450
« on: November 21, 2014, 17:39 »
but why even bother with SS when you are already with Flickr and according to this forum, we read that flickr is getting in stock photography market ? the artsy stylistic work you do is definitely not meant for SS. or you could do as already suggested, be selective with your next application 10 shots but following the criteria that SS want: - white balance - no noise - proper tonal range in black and white - detail in highlight - detail in shadow skip the filtering, vignetting, soft-focus, color cast , etc and leave that for flickr, stocksy, offset,etc... to me, the one image that stood out to be what SS would consider as good work would be the one of the butterfly, except for the banding and noise ( hard to tell from the little size in your link).. but the exposure , clean colour, clarity, detail, white balance,etc.. would come pretty close to what they want. ie. just the bare "boring" stuff... and let the clients do the artsy styling if they want to. using an analogy in music, ... you don't give them alanis morrissette, kate bush, when what they want is doris day, neil diamond,... or using dylan, chuck berry, john lee hooker,etc.. ss don't want they want the seekers, peter paul and mary, mick jagger, beach boys doing chuck, john lee and dylan..if u get what i mean  just my thoughts. hope it helps.
Pages: 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62 63 ... 79
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|