|
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 - sharply_done
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 65 66 67 [68] 69 70 71 72 73
1676
« on: April 26, 2007, 08:14 »
I have to say that I am amused - it turns out that the person complaining about poor keywording is one of the people he is complaining about.
How does that go again? People who live in glass houses ...
1677
« on: April 25, 2007, 21:46 »
One thing about keywords that amuses me is how some people get carried away describing every component in the image. And yes, it is annoying to see some people listing things that aren't there. I use a very methodical approach to keywording: - describe the subject of the shot
- describe the background
- describe the mood (if applicable)
- list the composition and framing
- come up with as many conceptual words as possible
I typically let my images sit overnight so that I can have one last look at the keywords with my morning coffee before I upload them. For FT, I've recently begun to use 2 words from the first set and 5 from the last as my first 7 keywords - my FT sales have been quite poor and I'm hoping this might give them a boost.
1678
« on: April 25, 2007, 21:32 »
...
They may be fussy, but what ever they accept sells and sells like crazy for me.
...
I find that SS is the least fussy of the sites I contribute to - my acceptance rate is 90%+ there, and I haven't had a rejection in my past 60 submissions! ... glad to hear that you're making money!
1679
« on: April 25, 2007, 21:20 »
madelaide: I calculate $/file on a daily basis (i.e. daily income/portfolio size), then average these numbers together on a monthly basis.
$0.20/file/month means that I will earn $0.20 in 1 month for each image I post to that site. If my portfolio is, say 800 images, I will earn $160 from that site.
One of my goals is to maintain an average of $1/file/month. I'd be at that level if my sales at DT and FT weren't so dismal. I'm very near to the point of abandoning FT (currently 9c/file/month - egad!) in favor of StockXpert, whose Alexa numbers show much promise.
1680
« on: April 25, 2007, 10:29 »
There is also a sharp division in this industry between those who make their living at it (like me, grin) and those who use it to supplement their income. Some of these people are professional photographers, but most are hobbyists.
Personally, I prefer shooting microstock because it allows me the freedom to shoot what I want, when I want, and how I want. Exactly the approach most take to amateur photography, but you get paid for it. What more can you ask for?
1681
« on: April 25, 2007, 09:50 »
Personally, I think a more interesting and informative statistic is $/image/month. This better predicts what I can expect from a site. My stats are IS at $2+/-, SS at $1+/-, with DT and FT steady at a measly $0.20, and $0.10 respectively. For me, the only thing stopping IS from overtaking SS is time. Some members here - most notably kosmikkreeper - have already passed this barrier.
1682
« on: April 25, 2007, 09:21 »
Here are the graphs. You can get to them by going here.    The things I immediately notice are: - big slump after Christmas, smaller spring slump
- IS has more traffic than all of its competitors combined
- SS seems paired with DT
- FT seems paired with StockXpert
I'm glad to see that the whole industry slumped in April. I was getting concerned with my sales, which didn't rise as much as they should have. Things have begun to turn the corner, though, and I'm once again seeing record DL days.
1683
« on: April 25, 2007, 01:18 »
Or jazz it up a bit (so that technically it's not the same shot), then post it and keep the original.
1684
« on: April 24, 2007, 18:37 »
... The raise is mainly dependent on how long you've been there. A person that joined in 2003 or 2004 and completely stopped uploading in 2005 or 2006 would probably be benefiting from the raise.
I think he means that people who garnish only a small sum and then give up, and those that are content getting $20/month should not be rewarded with an increased commission. Also, how long you've been there is inconsequential. It is possible for someone earn $500 within his/her first month of joining. What matters is that you have contributed to the success of the business by being a supplier commercially viable images, not how long you've been doing it.
1685
« on: April 24, 2007, 14:27 »
leaf: Why not delete it and then repost? Seems like an easy workaround to me ...
1686
« on: April 24, 2007, 14:20 »
Another technique that works well with water shots is to set your camera to tungsten white balance - this gives the water a very pleasing blue hue while at the same time enhancing green quite well. Give it a try!
1687
« on: April 24, 2007, 14:13 »
I think that once a portfolio passes a 'critical mass', it may become more advantageous to go exclusive rather than continue posting on multiple sites. Given that SS doesn't offer this, I can see myself considering the jump to IS once I hit the 25k DL mark, when my commisssion will double. I've got acres of time to think about - my business plan puts me there in early fall of 2008.
1688
« on: April 24, 2007, 08:36 »
kosmikkreeper: I joined Crestock last summer - it was the first agency I joined. They rejected > 50% of my submissions, but I persevered and stuck with it, despite having only a handful of 25c sales. On a lark, I posted a few shots to IS in mid-November. It only took a few IS days to surpass months of Crestock, and I began looking at microstock seriously. I was surprised to see it as an "up and comer" here.
Needless to say, I no longer upload to Crestock. As leaf hinted, I don't think many do anymore, which goes a long way in explaining why they are offering such prizes.
1689
« on: April 24, 2007, 01:56 »
I uploaded a test batch there when I started shooting stock at the beginning of the year. 98 images/98 days/$16 sales - a measly 5c/image/month.
Apart from my test batch, I don't plan on uploading anything else there.
1690
« on: April 24, 2007, 00:02 »
$/DL is one of the statistics I keep track of. Mine floats around $0.66.
I assumed $/DL would be a constant - I guess I was wrong.
1691
« on: April 23, 2007, 23:33 »
I think $500 is a fairly easy bar to clear. If you've been at SS a while and haven't made $500, this might be a good time to pause and figure out why.
1692
« on: April 23, 2007, 23:24 »
Fantastic news!
1693
« on: April 23, 2007, 02:34 »
My FT earnings are up by about 20%.
1694
« on: April 22, 2007, 10:48 »
An easy workaround I have is to take advantage of a little-known Internet Explorer/Excel integration. I right-click on the By Subscription Download page and select the Export to Microsoft Excel option, which feeds data into an Excel spreadsheet. I then copy and paste this data into another spreadsheet which calculates Age and $/Month data. I've found that only my top 100 images are relevent, and have the spreadsheet sorted by $/Month. I suggested to SS that they do a slight revamp of things to make this easier: here is their response. One of the things I found interesting was how closely the spreadsheet echoed how SS displays Images in Gallery when sorted by Most Popular. In order to work better, I revamped the spreadsheet so that it ignores new and dead images (i.e. age < 5 days, DLs < 1/wk). I'm currently working on it so that it automatically shows image thumbnails - a handy feature.
1695
« on: April 22, 2007, 10:34 »
I have no where near as many photos on SS as you do but I'm able to view individual image download amounts under "Download Stats / by Subscription Download".
Yeah, he knows this - he has 2700 images and doesn't like the fact that he can only view things 20 images at a time.
1696
« on: April 22, 2007, 10:32 »
There is a killer Excel spreadsheet that further enhances IS statistics. Go here to get it. I've hacked it a bit to work with SS, but it still needs a little work.
1697
« on: April 22, 2007, 10:13 »
... their ETR timer is both hilarious and annoying; it's simply depressing when it decreases ~4 hours within a complete day 24 hourd day. ...a quite nonsense feature IMO.
I think their "wait-o-meter" gets out of whack because it doesn't take into account images cutting in to the Pending queue from the Unfinished queue. I typically upload images to DT (and FT) as soon as I've completed them, then pick out a few to keyword and categorize. Once these clear the Pending queue I'll finish off a few more, which go to the top of the queue. These Pending latecomers tend to wait longer than they used to; I don't think I'm the only one doing this. They should perhaps change the unit of time from hours to days.
1698
« on: April 21, 2007, 15:34 »
More anecodotal stuff:
I once considered purchasing this camera on the cheap, but changed my mind after reading nothing but bad reviews. I do not know anyone who has owned one.
1699
« on: April 21, 2007, 12:08 »
I'm constantly working on new images; waiting time doesn't affect me at all, nor does it affect how I percieve a site.
Sales volume and acceptance rate are the two key things that influence my opinion of a site. I'm willing to tolerate a lower acceptance rate if the site provides adequate sales (for me). I'll abandon the site if they're "too picky" and my images don't sell there. iStock and Crestock are good examples of this.
1700
« on: April 21, 2007, 11:59 »
Hey, that's me!
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 65 66 67 [68] 69 70 71 72 73
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
