|
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 - JPSDK
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68 69 70 71 ... 74
1626
« on: August 05, 2012, 18:51 »
Ja, I was thinking about that as well.
It is legal enough here to photograph an eartwig, a caterpillar or a butterfly.
It is good etichs, however, to release them after you have flashed them.
1627
« on: August 05, 2012, 18:39 »
Race. I agree on that, you should not spread yourself too thinly and undermine yourself.
1628
« on: August 05, 2012, 18:31 »
OK Slocke. I agree. Sue, It is not at all illegal to rear caterpillars to butterflies and photograph them in surroundings of your choice. That of course, if they are not on the Washington or Geneva convension list or otherwise protected. 
1629
« on: August 05, 2012, 18:20 »
I have sent you a site email.
1630
« on: August 05, 2012, 18:12 »
see, now we are talking, and you put it well Sue.
It is important to photograph the butterfly on a flower that is typical, and to name the flower.
( You might sell the flower as a secundary effect, and your butterfly photo becomes much more trustworthy than pink monarchs)
BTW I have sold quite a few butterflies out of searches for the LATIN NAME! so they are out there, the qualified buyers.
1631
« on: August 05, 2012, 17:49 »
You HAVE changed the name. Within 15 minutes.
Thats a good attitude.
very.
1632
« on: August 05, 2012, 17:15 »
It is really really important to get your images keyworded in the IPTC data.
When first the pics are ready you can always upload a bunch here and there overnight and then is not really much time you spend.
I use to test the agencies with 30-40 average well selling pictures from different genres. But not the best pictures i have. Im very carefull where they go.
If the test uploads sell to a reasonable degree, I take the time and give them a few hundred more.
Then I forget.
After a couple of weeks I probably remember and check the site, and if im bored enough, I sit and fix captions and press buttons or eventually delete the whole batch.
Else I let my pics sit and gather pennies, and try to remember to get the money down, if there is any.
If an agency annoys me I might actively delete my port and profile there.
1633
« on: August 05, 2012, 16:55 »
Welcome.
Welcome to the world. You are now entering an area of global competition. You can either stick and learn or you can freeze and stay in your comfort zone.
Global competition means that all the talent and cunning of the world is playing in these feelds. Some are good, some are not so good, but a lot are dedicated and want to learn,and there is excellency in the world of microstock, that is stage of the art and very innovative compared to more traditional channels of distribution.
Some photographers are many years ahead of you, and some are more talented than you. So dependant on your personality, its a good oppertunity to learn from them, and also to get hurt, if you dare not move.
Your post shows real interest, and an open mind. That is what you need, an open mind + a lot of work.
First thing.
Here, you will meet a guy from Scandinavia, Europe, who says that your butterfly photo is not correctly labelled: It is not an admiral butterfly, but a Painted Lady (Vanessa cardui). You should be precise with such things, because you compete with people who know these critters.
Same with hammers...There are many different kinds of hammers and a house is not a house and a straw is a certain species of grass.
And thats only the label. The exposure, composition and choice of technicalities must support that.
See. its endless. This is where you can learn, where you can find your nische and your style.
"You are not in Kansas anymore, you are on Microstock".
1634
« on: August 05, 2012, 16:31 »
Second one, the first is too much Alladin. Too unfocused.
1635
« on: August 05, 2012, 16:23 »
as for Slocke ridiculing butterfly and reptile photography.
Thats not fair. It is very difficult to photograph living creatures in the wild.
And ever so hard to get them into the studio. But we can discuss that in another thread.
1636
« on: August 05, 2012, 16:19 »
Its is very unusual to have all 100 rejected. There could be a couple of reasons:
1..The photographer has fallen into some kind of flawed pit: Monitor setup, camera setting, low bloodsugar, trembling hands, depression, wb, diabetis.
2..The Photog has reached her limit, and the pictures are not up to par anymore.
3..The reviewer looked at her batch right after having seen an excellent batch from a super camera.
4..The reviewer was blind and dumb.
I cannot judge anything without having seen the pictures, but I have looked in Lissandras port and see a few general things: all images are leaning to the right. Light is not optimal, composition is not optimal.
That is general.
If the batch of 100 had these 3 weaknesses combined, and that could happen if many were shot in a short time with bad light, and a tilting horizon. It might cause the reviewer to consider them more or less LCV, and its always LCV that spooks behind the scenes.
1637
« on: August 04, 2012, 22:17 »
The amount is so big that the artist should sue the agency for 2 things.
For the refund, which should be borne by the agency.
For not protecting his files from being pirated.
Its a double hurt, and the agency is the ONLY one who can take precautions against fraud.
Sue them!
1638
« on: August 02, 2012, 23:30 »
First.. Im not going to start any COOP.
I dont have a project.
Im more interested in the debate and scouting the possibilities, and to identify problems.
Planting seeds so to speak.
Mainly because Im tired of being exploited.
Secondly. Maybe we are not as alone as we think, the net might be used against us and fragment us, so every single photographer on the globe sits there and works alone on his keyboard. But the net might also be a unifying factor. Like now. We can communicate. And we could also agree on things and sign papers.
Third. How many of the available stock photos could we actually reach. it might be more than we think.
We might not be as alone as we think.
1639
« on: August 01, 2012, 04:55 »
Dont mix legal things up with practicalities.
When a person dies all assets are put on value and passed over.
Copyright is such an asset.
Accessing a dead persons accounts might be impractical, but not impossible, and definately legal. You would need to prove you are the heir. That would probably require a document issued by the state and an aposille for people outside the agencys country.
When I think about it I would recommend us to make a piece of paper that describes the arrangements we have, the earnings and the approx value of the portefolio, + urls and the passwords.
And to print out important papers such as model releases and taxforms.
1640
« on: August 01, 2012, 04:44 »
I started a stock agency also, and building links are not nearly as important as having a real costumers base.
I would say that my original question have been quantified.
Exclusivety is necessary for the same reasons as with farm products: Else you compete with the agency that fights for prices for you.
Im not sure if it matters if we are spread all over the globe, the agancies have used that against us, but it might as well be an advantage, communications work fine nowadays.
I have 200 photographers on my list on facebook, how many do you have?
I have 2000 pictures in play.
Now how many pictures do we represent here, and how many photographers can we reach in just one click? Maybe more than we think.
1641
« on: July 31, 2012, 06:51 »
that depends on the defined legal entity.
1642
« on: July 31, 2012, 05:09 »
You are both right, it is not easy.
but it has been done before when people were under equal pressure.
Or worse.
Capitalism has a vulnerable spot, and that is profit.
If you make a distribution agency that does not need profit, but only to distribute things at a fair price, then you have an advantage.
And yes, there are endless problems with financing.
but again, it has been dealt with in the past. And they actually were successful.
I dont have a finished business model, it is going to be very difficult in a global market.
However, the globe is shrinking, and people are people like they used to be, and if there were reason and a good business model behind, it might be possible.
1643
« on: July 31, 2012, 03:16 »
Copyright is an asset you can enherit.
The portefolio can be set to a value and sold, or the copyright can pass directly to the enheritants.
Your enheritants own the copyright of your material 70 or 75 years after you are dead.
So they can continue to make revenue from your material.
it would be smart to make a list of bank accounts, paypal login and logins to the agencies, and describe how you have everything arranged.
1644
« on: July 31, 2012, 03:13 »
What if we had an agency owned by the contributers?
What if the split was 50 /50 and the profit was shared as a yearly bonus?
Would you support it?
Such companies were common here some years ago, when farmers were tiered of always having prices lowered by the merchants. They then formed cooperative distribution companies. The cooperatives were commercially viable and the shareholders/ contributors were often happy, since they were guaranteed a certain minimum price and did not have to compete on profit.
The companies were usually founded in steps:
1...Having a list of contributers promise they would deliver exclusively.
2...Business plan.
3.. Financing by loans or contributers pay for shares, or both.
4.. Getting the business up and running.
5.. Competiveness set by both prices and the no need for profit.
I think a cooperative would be a serious thread to pure commercial agencies, simply because a cooperative does not need to produce profit, only sales and such it would be more competitive.
Now what IF?
I know Im only fantazising? But such companies would really be appreaciated in this world of internet tycoons.
I mean we are people here, behind every keybord is a human being being exploited.
We should not let the grinding machines mince us in their hunt for profit, based on content, we have produced.
It is US who produce the content. the agencies were nothing without us.
Would you join?
1645
« on: July 31, 2012, 00:59 »
I was rude, sorry, I apollogize.
Its just that.... HDR doesnt solve any problems. Well, it does solve exposure problems and introduces blur problems.
HDR is a tool you have in your photographic toolbox. with advantages and disadvantages. HDR can help you make a photo under certain conditions, usually when the light is out of reach of the sensors dynamic range.
HDR can also be too time consuming.
With HDR you have the oppertunity, to develop a style via your tonemapping .
Moving things blur, when the frames are put together, various techniques can repair that, but best is to do HDR in calm weather and with models who can stand still.
OR you can use the blur as in your advantage, blur might sometimes add to a picture.
HDR makes water look realistic, and is excellent for waves and clouds in landscapes.
1646
« on: July 30, 2012, 19:29 »
that is right
1647
« on: July 30, 2012, 19:24 »
I like the name Luca, but thats because I once had a brasilian girlfriend.
1648
« on: July 30, 2012, 19:21 »
Funny to see how all the agencies invent all sorts of licences and prices.
Yet we live in a digital world where copies are cheap.
Pictures are produced in high resolution and it the easiest were to sell them as they are.
Now the middlemen come up with all kinds of sizes, and licences and confuse and compete.
Just like the old RM agencies, who licenced number of prints.
I would say that:
size doesnt matter.
licence doesnt matter.
Because everybody just copies things without knowing the size, and noone knows how many copies they issue.
I fear that microstock are beginning to become oldfashioned.
Just take the full size image and let us get paid by clicks, and cut all the confusion.
1649
« on: July 30, 2012, 19:12 »
You are naive.
Sorry to say.
First. the most important thing in photography and earning money in photography is style.
You need to have a style.
And out of all techniques and fancy equipment, HDR is only one.
Blurred trees? yes there is.
Use them to your advantage.
1650
« on: July 30, 2012, 10:14 »
i thought we were having a serious discussion.
??
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68 69 70 71 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
