|
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 ... 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72
1701
« on: June 22, 2008, 10:14 »
"I'd best stay off high buildings and bridges."
If in the event you did slip or fall off a building or a bridge, and fall to your your unwelcome demise;
I assure you we in the community would dedicate a memorial page to you and your work.
I for one find you a pillar of inspiration, and and an example to us all.
You would be sorely missed.
Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason
Cranky, That's awfully nice of you; a trait, I was sure you were trying to eschew on this forum. Or perhaps one where the opportunity so rarely elicits itself as to be nearly invisible. Whatever the reason I appreciate the gesture.
1702
« on: June 21, 2008, 21:27 »
3 sales so far this month. About $650 gross. Not good and not bad.
1703
« on: June 21, 2008, 17:16 »
If I lost my micro income not a single thing would happen as I've yet to cash out the money in PayPal for the small amount I've made. If however my regular stock income disappeared, well, I'd best stay off high buildings and bridges.
1704
« on: June 16, 2008, 09:02 »
[/quote]
For those that can access it look at the April Statements thread in the Getty Contributors forum on istock, which i fear I cannot quote here in case of consequences!
Selling the sizzle and not the sausage.
[/quote]
No access to that area but have my own reports to view and find this interesting that what is implied here is no one is making any decent returns through the regular channels of Getty. The biggest problem with selling macro RF should be getting the images up on a site like Getty. True that not everything sells but I would have thought people would see a good return. If I was a gold exclusive or whatever it takes to submit to Getty I would forward my very best to Getty without a seconds hesitation.
1705
« on: June 15, 2008, 19:36 »
Judging by the figures quoted by many who have been contributing to getty photodisc via istock I think for most it's little more than vanity publishing. Certainly the not worthy of the initial "Give up your day job" hype.
I find this very interesting. I would think that being able to submit to Getty would be one of the prime reasons to go exclusive. Do they not market the Photodisc collection with the same vigor as the rest of their collection? Does the average Micro shooter not know what would sell on the Getty site?
1706
« on: June 15, 2008, 12:22 »
One more point, that is really difficult for people new to stock to accept and that is the amount of money an image will make has nothing to do with the amount of time you spend working on it. For every image I risked my life shooting and made nearly nothing on I'll show you a dozen I banged off while eating lunch that keep on selling.
1707
« on: June 15, 2008, 12:17 »
This does it. The 100% rejection streak continues and I have just got an "Overabundant photo category" for a 25 shot stitched panorama of the northern Malta as seen from Mdina battlements. A search revealed only one panorama from Velletta, and that was uploaded by me... The other 33 files show one-frame views from various loactions on Malta.
Here is the image in questuon, awaiting validation at iStock:
That's a pretty specialized type of image, a great image, but specialized because of it's proportions. Why not try Panoramic Images for, yes, your panoramas. You can deduce that that is what they specialize in.
1708
« on: June 13, 2008, 14:18 »
Censorship is censorship. As long as the post contains a modicum of respect, even though the content is clearly raising a high level of objection to company policy, the post should be allowed to stand. To think that nothing objectionable should be said or discussed just because its on a company supported forum is nuts. We know they censor so why believe anything that is written there? If all we are allowed to do is write, "You rock, I love you..., ... rules" and other inane comments it makes the forum a useless source of information. Then it might as well not exist. I'm curious if there is correlation between how well a company is doing and the amount of outright censorship they are involved in.
1709
« on: June 12, 2008, 15:56 »
[/quote]
well i agree with you that alamy is a good place for those images and that it can be a very viable business model. My point was, that those images are not going to cross over into the microstock databases. The microstock's aren't going to want them.
[/quote]
Leaf,
Seems we were trying to make the same point. Thanks for the clarification.
1710
« on: June 12, 2008, 14:37 »
Yeah, i agree with Lee a lot here.
The microstocks are getting pickier by the day and rightly so. Given another year or two and i think the most profitable well established sites are going to be quite elitist in their image selections making it harder and harder for people just starting out to get a decent portfolio with them. Which would make the greater part of the alamy database unacceptable.
This is largely untrue. I'm not sure if you sell on Alamy or not but their biggest strength is their huge eclectic collection. It's true they have many main stream images but what often sells on Alamy is the low interest, editorial image which would be viewed as a Not-A-Stock-Image piece of crap by the majors and the micros. A good market exists for those images and Alamy takes advantage of that. Alamy took a different approach to editing than the majors and as such have profited nicely from it. It's their understanding of the editorial market and the ability to sell unreleased images through the L license that allows many to profit from a segment of the market the micros wouldn't touch. I don't think anyone can expect to profit with the majors, micros or Alamy unless they show a high level of commitment, energy, business sense and artistic acuity. What needs to be learned early on in the game is where you can make the most money from the style of images that mean the most to you. It ain't easy, that's for sure.
1711
« on: June 11, 2008, 08:16 »
Actually, I would love to be able to upload my micro portfolio to Alamy RF.
I haven't had time to produce a separate portfolio for the higher end market, and as a result have never managed to submit anything to Alamy.
Now the only drawback is the requirement to upsize over 3500 pictures in order to submit to them. If they would start taking images in native resolution then I could get busy uploading to them.
I would imagine this would be possible if Alamy had a Novel Use Only category however I don't think they do. I'm not a micro hater but you really are poisoning the well by cross placing the same or near similar image on micro and macro sites. Those who want to contribute to both micro and macro should evaluate where each shoot should be placed after the shoot is complete. With some experimenting it doesn't take too long to get a feel for where a shoot is best placed. Those wanting to place in macro need to learn patience. It is a much slower side of the market, however, as you all know, even small sales in macro easily beats the much coveted EL. Probably the most important thing Alamy is trying to keep is its customer base. Perhaps it will expand it as well but I doubt it. I signed on and opted out of the program. As for upsizing large batches of images, I would think a simple Droplet in PS would do it.
1712
« on: June 11, 2008, 07:57 »
It is not nice reading derogatory comments from anyone "them and us" ,"Macro vs Micro", "this site vs that site",
David
There has always been a them-and-us debate. In general, I feel that as long as the information being brought forward is not slanted, skewed, hyped or otherwise and as long as its presented in a somewhat cordial manner then there is lots to be gained from hearing all comments: positive and negative. However, far too often the discourse dwindles into a your-mother-wears-army-boots yelling match, where nothing useful is discussed or if it is, is drowned out in the screaming and noise.
1713
« on: June 10, 2008, 13:48 »
However for iStock you couldn't have a Red Delicious Apple Against a Red Background, even if that is what you had.
Enter 'cut out' and it then gives you the option to select 'plain background' of course you could just add 'plain background' then also add the word 'red' as a descriptive colour and the two combined will then give you the search results that should bring you your image.
It's a PITA but when you get used to their ways you can cover a lot more things.
Are you adding them on site or uploading them in your IPTC data?
I use iView and iStock seems to pick everything up correctly it's just a funny quirk iS has where a description is not allowed to contain any word twice. "Woman Wearing a Red Dress Sitting in a Red Car" would not be allowed, Although "Woman Wearing a Red Dress Sitting in a Car" is okay and probably wouldn't matter a diddly its just not as descriptive. This is weird. I add descriptions to the IPTC in photoshop and have never had an issue with any of my descriptions at IS.
1714
« on: June 09, 2008, 19:27 »
Yeh, but I gotta ask, did you sell anything?
1715
« on: June 09, 2008, 16:40 »
LisaFX,
I'm sure there is some logic to these decisions; whether or not it works, I'm not sure. Your apple description is very accurate and that's exactly the form my descriptions take. However for iStock you couldn't have a Red Delicious Apple Against a Red Background, even if that is what you had.
1716
« on: June 09, 2008, 12:47 »
The only thing I hate is they require 5 words for description. Everything else is OK.
and bigstock requires 7?! 
Yeh, that can be a little frustrating. I often get bogged on simple images where one or two words are plenty accurate, oh well. iS has the no-two-words-the-same policy that makes it sound like I'm just learning English. Articles do count. I often wonder where these policies originate from and why they persist.
1717
« on: June 08, 2008, 13:23 »
Current image upload system is from the stone ages; Fred from the Flintstones wouldn't use anything so archaic.
1718
« on: June 07, 2008, 00:14 »
I've never had issues with releases until joining on with micros. There are some paranoid dudes out there. iStock won't accept a Getty release even though they are owned by Getty. Dreamstime won't accept a iStock release because:
The attached MR/PR is signed specifically for another agency, or it is not generic in terms of the laws that govern the agreement. The model release represents a written agreement between the model and the photographer, therefore it must be governed by the laws of the country/state where the parties reside, or by international laws. Please use our own model release document or a generic one in English.
It's a bunch of whooey. There is no way I'm getting models to sign a bunch of different release.
Does anyone know which one is generally accepted by all the micros.
1719
« on: June 06, 2008, 16:49 »
Yes, that does help and thank you for the very kind reply.
1720
« on: June 06, 2008, 13:15 »
Mediamagnet, Zymmetrical, places like that.
1721
« on: June 06, 2008, 13:10 »
Isn't RM is supposed to prevent things like this from happening...
Uh, no. That's not what rights managed means at all. It would only mean that if Time had paid more to prevent any other magazines using the same image in the same territories.
If that is, that the image was originally offered as a RM image in the first place through an agency that could actually administer such a condition. An important distinction with RM images is that each license is usually negotiated with consideration to its usage, placement, public profile etc. i.e. use it more, get more exposure, pay more unlike RF which is supposed to be buy a bigger one pay more and use it (almost) all you want.
1722
« on: June 06, 2008, 12:04 »
There's an obvious difference in price point between micro and midstock. However are the images used the same? I see a lot of the big players on both mid and micro sites and I have not done a image by image comparison but it looks like the same stuff to me. Does anyone know?
1723
« on: June 06, 2008, 11:59 »
SS has the honourable distinction of providing me my first micro payout. I won't be paying off my bizjet anytime soon but a good thing never the less.
1724
« on: June 06, 2008, 11:52 »
RM can prevent this IF the buyer buys the rights. It depends on who is selling it and with what restrictions are purchased, if any. I imagine an image like this could be on some non exclusive editorial site and Esquire and Time in their zeal to save a buck ended up with the same image. On a side note if I were the editor in chief for either publication I would fire my photography editor.
1725
« on: June 06, 2008, 09:22 »
Thanks but no thanks is what you should tell them. I mean, get real, why not have you deliver it by bicycle in person?
Pages: 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
