|
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 - Brasilnut
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65
1476
« on: April 03, 2017, 13:56 »
It's interesting how none need no entry test of some sort, except from SS funny one. Yea, standards have certainly dropped. Another thing I found interesting was that for the agencies that offer exclusivity, the difference in royalties can be significant (sometimes double), but most of these agencies just don't have the traffic to justify the commitment.
1477
« on: April 03, 2017, 05:53 »
Hey hardworking photographers!
I've compiled a list of 33 Microstock agencies and some useful information on each that I hope you'll find informative (see attachment).
Good luck!
Brasilnut
1478
« on: March 31, 2017, 04:44 »
Shutter: BME
Istock: who cares?
Alamy: Very poor, only 1 small RF despite 100s of views and a few zooms a day
Robert Harding: Nothing yet
Arcangel: Nothing yet...
1479
« on: March 31, 2017, 04:42 »
300 dls  wow That's at least $114/day only on subs!
1480
« on: March 30, 2017, 09:33 »
It is figuring out what will sell. Images that are in short supply in databases, those that you find only a few with a combination of keywords, tend not to be images that customers are looking for consistently. There are exception, of course, but my experience in trying to supply material where I don't find too many results after keyword searches have ended up in few or no sales. Subjects that are saturated, however, tend to sell much better if you are lucky to have a few customers choosing your photo early on. That's true, although it may take a while for people to start searching for those key words. In other words, you may be ahead of the curve and when an upcoming trend does arise, your pics will be right up there (at least in theory). I can already think of images that will be popular soon: - Virtual Reality gaming - Automated technology such as cars and appliances - Remote medicine The first page results in SS for "virtual reality" look kinda mediocre in my opinion. https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=virtual+reality&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=popular&safe=true
1481
« on: March 29, 2017, 14:44 »
No, it's not working. I'm giving away my best stuff for a quarter!
1482
« on: March 28, 2017, 15:17 »
How about some multiple Enhanced Licenses?
1483
« on: March 28, 2017, 13:45 »
Interesting. As many have said, its a marathon not a sprint so I'm trying to improve 1% in whatever I'm shooting next.
Your website is great. I liked your portfolio and blog.
Cheers Thanks! It's a tough business and I often feel like it's 2 steps forward and 1 step back, but at least I enjoy it.
1484
« on: March 28, 2017, 09:15 »
You're welcome  I look at my first 60 pics and they look cringe-worthy to me now. At the time I thought they were great Good luck and keep shooting + submitting! I used to also struggle with composition. Here's one from my early days, surprised to got through QC! Brasilnut
1485
« on: March 27, 2017, 17:59 »
Fairly new into Stock photography. I got accepted in Shutterstock and iStock. In last 2 months, I have around 15 downloads but not sure if I'm headed in the right direction. If you could look at my portfolio and provide any feedback: Hi Rpishere, welcome! First of all 65 pics over 2 months and 15 downloads is way too soon to judge if you're in the right direction. Need more like 1,000 images. Anyway, from your sample, I have the following comments: 1. Most of your images lack copy space. One notable exception is "NYC Skyline by Twilight with full moon". I'd suggest you try ensure that all your images have enough "breathing room" like this one. These lack serious copy space: - Lombard Street or Crooked Street, San Francisco - Freedom Tower & Downtown NYC by night - George Washington Bridge by Twilight - High Rise Buildings with beautiful tree in middle 2. Next, your composition is poor or awkward at best. Worst of all is that you're chopping off bits of the images (Fixing 1. above would help), such as in: - Freedom Tower & Downtown NYC by night - Toronto - Night Shot - George Washington Bridge by Twilight - Tropical Palm Trees - NYC Midtown by Twilight with Empire State Building - Natural Juice served in Pineapple - Fresh Bread Basket - French Baguette (also flag lighting) - Cafe with Outside Seating Area with a Teapot (awkward composition) Try your best to keep images clean and free from clutter. The worst offender being: - Natural Juice served in Pineapple 3. These generally look like snapshots which appear to lack commercial value - how popular would be a lamp or some leaves and random plants? One exception would be some of the long exposures which are slightly better and have slightly more commercial value as well as "Amazing Midtown NYC Skyline by Twilight" which is probably your best image especially if you fix the composition. 4. There's some flat lighting and probably focus issues but I think that's enough critique for now Good luck Brasilnut p.s Istockphoto would have rejected most of the photos only a few years ago, now they seem to accept everything! This industry is going down the drain...
1486
« on: March 27, 2017, 12:21 »
I can just about pay my rent
1487
« on: March 26, 2017, 15:48 »
Other than the obvious oversupply, I find the biggest challenge is knowing what will and won't be popular.
I know agencies go to great lengths to inform contributors about current and upcoming trends but I find it all a bit hit and miss. In other words, spending a considerable amount of time and expense on producing images that don't generate many downloads. Sometimes it works the other way, images I don't expect to do well suddenly become popular.
The image requests are helpful but they can also be too specific.
1488
« on: March 24, 2017, 07:56 »
I got stopped and had my details taken when shooting Schiphol in Amsterdam like 5 years ago.
It's strange because I was on a public road. They were "nice" enough just tell me to leave.
I love shooting airports/airplanes but it's all got a bit silly especially in the past 3 years. I'm dying to get some editorial shots of people going through immigration in the UK...
1489
« on: March 24, 2017, 05:10 »
no wonder they can "boast" to have 100 million images
1490
« on: March 23, 2017, 11:35 »
Thanks everybody for your comments. As it's a public cafe, not sure they would be happy to see me with a tripod there but doesn't hurt to ask... Let's see how these do, no harm in re-shooting another time. What's the name of that wood you use? Not sure, but the texture is interesting. Perhaps oak.
1491
« on: March 23, 2017, 10:53 »
Hallo,
How much is it important to upload images in high resolution? And why?
How many megapixels make sense? 20? 30? 50? More? Why?
If you want to answer, please add your years of experience, just for our information and if you please! SS has a 30 megs limit. Imo it's a bit overkill to submit huge files when they will be used for web-usage 95% of the time + you'll be paid in subs.
1492
« on: March 23, 2017, 08:26 »
This is tough. Might try some negative clarity and further NR. Wouldn't be surprised if I get hit with a focus rejection but worth a try...
1493
« on: March 23, 2017, 06:36 »
I'd be interested to know if it gets through at that asa. I have a Nikon D7000 and struggle to get much through above 400. Though to be fair I haven't tried much lately. The one with the barista didn't get through for noise/grain rejection but I've since resubmitted with more noise reduction. The rest got through OK. I'm using a Nikon D800 and it's quite impressive, even at higher ISO.
1494
« on: March 23, 2017, 06:04 »
To me, the cups look very blue/grey, and the coffee looks very yellow.
Did you apply a "Hollywood Blockbuster Movie Teal and Orange" filter? 
Can't tell how sharp they are, but other than that, submit and see. I've sold a few tea/coffee shots, and if you were there anyway, and drank the coffee, then as Paul says it didn't cost you anything! Yea, it was a 5 minute $2 job  Perhaps it's too orange / saturated. I'm new when it comes to still life. As for sharpness it's fine, just quite a bit of grain as it was shot at ISO 4000.
1495
« on: March 22, 2017, 09:00 »
-
1496
« on: March 22, 2017, 08:59 »
-
1497
« on: March 22, 2017, 08:59 »
-
1498
« on: March 22, 2017, 08:58 »
Hey all,
These were taken with 100% natural light, at a cafe.
Critique would be appreciated, including post.
Thanks
Brasilnut
1499
« on: March 21, 2017, 06:36 »
If anybody is curious which was the image
1500
« on: March 21, 2017, 06:31 »
Very nice for RF is that what you got or did they knock their 50% off Yup, that's gross, so half of that goes into my pocket.
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
