|
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 - PeterChigmaroff
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 65 66 67 [68] 69 70 71 72
1676
« on: August 10, 2008, 10:00 »
I probably wouldn't be as emphatic but I have to agree with you. Perhaps the act of uploading is where the true satisfaction is derived, not in making sales.
1677
« on: August 07, 2008, 10:27 »
Had one yesterday, my share 81 cents my share.
1678
« on: August 05, 2008, 11:10 »
Someone or something must be on the case to agencies to acquire W9 or W-8BEN forms. I had an agency that I have worked with for 10+ years ask me this week to send a W-8BEN form or they would have to withhold taxes.
1679
« on: August 01, 2008, 09:53 »
Can LR be used to shoot tethered? I've been using it for quite awhile. If it can really do this, I've been missing out! I agree too that it's powerful for working with large batches quickly. However, I was under the impression that Bridge has the same capabilities? I thought cataloguing was the primary difference.
Don't get me wrong. I love LR! I just hate to see someone spend that kind of money and not get something they can use above and beyond Adobe Bridge.
I still haven't heard anyone specifically comment on LR 2 and whether or not it's worth spending another $100 for the upgrade. Anyone?
I used to use Bridge a lot but where LR really shines is the ability to pre render all images to 1:1. Then you can fly through a thousand or more images looking at critical focus, doing side by side compares, etc. I have to say it would depend on your workflow and style of shooting if you think LR is worth the money or not.
1680
« on: July 31, 2008, 18:48 »
If you shoot a lot then something like LR is essential. You can go through tons of images really fast and toss the dudes aside while tweaking the good ones on the fly. I can't of a single program that has boosted my output like LR has. PS is of course a must but for the initial edit LR is a very useful tool. I haven't downloaded LR2 yet but will very soon.
1681
« on: July 29, 2008, 18:07 »
I'd just tick all the countries for distribution. The percentages are a bit less but I don't think you'd make the sale without it. A little over half my sales at Alamy this month were through distributors with an average price of about $120.
1682
« on: July 29, 2008, 18:02 »
But you must be getting very close to that if you are just a month off getting to
$500. IS my math off?
1683
« on: July 29, 2008, 13:31 »
Every agency I ever dealt with that has US roots requires the W-8BEN form. You will need either a EIN (corporation) or ITIN (personal) number which you can get from the IRS. It's a pain but it allows the payment under double taxation agreements between countries which means no withholding taxes. Anyone who says you don't need it probably lives in a park or car.
1684
« on: July 23, 2008, 10:56 »
I find that resubmitting anything to IS is a wastee of time.
About 20 of my 101 files online were accepted after I made the corrections IS suggested and resubmitted them.
Unfortunately this displaces new work that could also be submitted. My philosophy is to shoot and process the way I believe a shot should look, if it gets rejected, oh well...
1685
« on: July 23, 2008, 10:12 »
The reviewers has no idea what the original looked like so that small tidbit should not be mentioned in the review. I have had rejections where the image
was not filtered or saturated and have had acceptances where it was. To reject because an images pops is plain nuts.
1686
« on: July 20, 2008, 12:49 »
If you can't even pay a buck or two an image for an ad or newsletter then there is something drastically wrong with you. I would suggest that there will always be bottom feeders but like jsnover suggests, if you are getting rejects at this point its for a reason. Good images, no matter how easy they are to produce cost money to make. You need equipment, lots of it to make those images. I suppose if you drive a cab and were going to buy a mediocre SLR anyway and decide you need something to do, you're not too interested in recovering your investment of time and equipment but I doubt those guys will make any impact on the supply of images to the markets. Last month I made several sales of RF images where the buyer paid as much as $800 for an RF image that I am fairly sure they could have gotten a slightly lesser one off the micros for a few dollars. Perhaps the end is near and if it is I guess I'll be the one driving cab.
1687
« on: July 18, 2008, 10:46 »
Why not a group of horses reared up with big smiles on there faces, each raising a hoof in triumph.
1688
« on: July 16, 2008, 11:08 »
It's like going to the beach or the movies, once the good spots are taken it's tough to get one of them. The same thing applies with all sellers of images. What can a new upstart offer the customer that doesn't already exist? A smaller sample of images at a lower price? Do you, the photographer want to be in on the ground floor of a lower prices and if not lower prices do you want the hassle of submitting to a place where sales are nearly non existent? It's too late for most upstarts.
1689
« on: July 14, 2008, 12:55 »
Getty charging $1000 for ordinary picture is another extreme.
I praise any agency that still charges $1000 for images. There are many applications for image usage that warrant this or ten times $1000. The campaign is of such a high profile and it's overall budget is so high that $10000 for photography is insignificant. I'm sure Getty still makes many sales in this range and I am equally sure that the photographer does not complain. It's not just the picture but the rights attached to the image that gives it its value; this is an important concept to many. I am fairly sure that anyone paying $1000 or more for an image know what they are doing and can't be though of as being taken advantage of .
1690
« on: July 08, 2008, 14:47 »
This weeks batch 49/70 (70%) accepted.
1691
« on: July 08, 2008, 09:39 »
I think these people have come up before on istock - they buy the correct extended licence for prints (if they are the one's I'm thinking of) and are legit.
Here's the thread on it:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=63570&page=1
Is it really legit to resell images though? If it is then there is a hole in the agreement with iS.
1692
« on: July 07, 2008, 18:04 »
I'm not about to retire or anything but I had two non sub sales last month, a buck or two each to me, plus a few sub sales. On percentage level, it's a massive increase on sales over past months. However it is still meaningless, since it barely covers espressos for even one day.
1693
« on: July 05, 2008, 13:53 »
When photoshop was still in version 4 and you had to scan a tranny to "go digital" I became inflicted with this most unfortunate of ailments. My wife installed a hydraulic pry to try and get me away from the computer. I was one of the lucky ones; my disease turned out to be a benign version of this most dreaded and insidious killer. My brain, which was atrophying at an astonishing rate is mostly recovered now. I can again see in RGB and CMYK simultaneously, I don't rely on limiting color spaces such as Adobe RGB 1998 and best of all I don't sit and aimlessly stare into space while a beach ball spins without end.
1694
« on: July 01, 2008, 10:31 »
I'm too much of a neophyte to honestly dislike any micro outright. If I had to criticize Fotolia it would be for their pathetic excuse of an upload system. My experience has been that agencies that screw photographers always pay. Always. If they have shafted enough people they will end up spiraling down.
1695
« on: June 27, 2008, 09:50 »
Yes I agree with everything you say. The fact that somebody has been in this business a long time makes them no more an authority on an unknown future than anybody else. I think that knowing the ins and outs of each site is much more important than self promotion and talent will always come out on top whatever their name is.
An image of a hammer hitting a nail on the head would fit nicely here but I don't have one. Self promotion is strictly ego driven and the only place I see a need for it is if you get talent streaming your way that is both good and reasonably priced. I'm not quite a dinosaur but lets just say I do have to scrape barnacles off the hull fairy frequently these days. I've never been contacted by a prospective buyer except to make sure the appropriate releases and clearances are in place. No one gives a * who I am in this business and it doesn't matter how much I contribute or how good those images are; I am replaceable over night.
1696
« on: June 26, 2008, 15:10 »
I received in Dec 06 the grand sum of $0.01 on an RM image. Why accounting would put through such a sale I have no idea. This from an image that at one time earned me royalties into the 5 figure mark.
I guess the only place beyond here is the free image; unless of course some desperate soul decides he'd like to pay someone to use their shot.
1697
« on: June 26, 2008, 11:30 »
I've been getting a few questions off list about where to put images and should they be RF or RM etc. The answer to most of these questions is, you need to try for yourself. If your images aren't selling on macro I don't need to look at them to know that they may not be suited for macro, same goes for micro. Which image will sell best? Who knows, the market is large and diverse, soon as some one needs it and you have it it will sell. As far as RM and RF is concerned, that's another who knows. You need to place non released editorial in RM, that's a given, after that it depends on where you want it placed. The only real way to become an expert in this game is experiment, asking questions is fine, I do it all the time but get out try different things, then you can tell me.
1698
« on: June 26, 2008, 00:04 »
A couple more sales in the last two days.
1699
« on: June 23, 2008, 11:41 »
btw, one thing, are the images you submit to Alamy different in context
or composition to the ones you had in micro. In other words, are your Alamy sales more creative and less sterile?
Just curious and wanting to learn the market differences. Congrats again.
The short answer is yes and no. My portfolio at Alamy is fairly diverse, and I see sales from both straight stock and the more quirky images, although I'd have to say that many of my better sellers are from shots that probably would hit the trash bin of the micro previewers. Not suitable for stock or poor composition and such. It's really a good thing because it helps divide where images go. My low sale at Alamy is $39 and high is $1635. I get 65% so that would be around 3200 DL at .33/DL in the micro world. However it's a lot easier getting a DL than a $1600 sale. No decision is straight forward.
1700
« on: June 22, 2008, 21:04 »
Depending on the number and quality of exclusive artists iS signs on, it is entirely possible for iStock, i.e. daddy Getty to decide to close submissions to nothing but the exclusive photographers. I mean, it was not along ago that most traditional agencies dealt with photographers on an artist exclusive basis. The key is to attract the top talent. iStock is hardly interested in representing everything that is shot considering the teeny submission allocations they allow for non exclusives and trigger happy reviewers. If you want in, maybe now is the time. Before it's too late!!
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 65 66 67 [68] 69 70 71 72
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
