|
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 - Difydave
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 24
176
« on: May 24, 2015, 10:22 »
They are back!
177
« on: May 24, 2015, 10:13 »
I see the forums have gone poof.
Indeed. I just went on to look at something. Gone. Some great discussions on there in the past.
178
« on: May 16, 2015, 05:09 »
I hardly ever go on FB Never use Twitter. Can't stand it. Get my news off the BBC text service. Short, succinct and relevant. If there's something I want to know more about, then the BBC website. Mind you I did live for a third of my life in a house with no telephone. Mobile phones are a fiendish invention. I was lying on my back under the car the other day. The phone went in my pocket. Business, so I had to answer it. With a mobile phone you are always on the end of that invisible string. Yeah I know, I'm a Luddite! 
179
« on: May 07, 2015, 09:46 »
I'd agree with Uncle Pete above. "Fair" is what you agreed to when you signed up. Using the terms of the agreement to allow changes to be made that benefit just the distributor is "unfair"
Mind you I'm pretty sure that fairness in this life is a pretty unattainable ideal. Life is not fair.
180
« on: May 06, 2015, 09:51 »
Well, I just got the camera back from Nikon after a clean and the dirty black mark (top right) is still showing in the exact place, although the smear has gone. Tried both lenses and still the same. So what can it be ?
Get a decent light and a magnifying glass. Open the camera for cleaning, and have a look at the sensor. Try not to breathe over it or drop hair in it. Angling it a bit helps I find. Should be obvious if there's anything on there, remembering that the image is inverted on the sensor. As I said before, just get the pec pads and fluid, and follow the instructions. It really is dead easy. You'll never pay for "professional" cleaning again.
181
« on: May 05, 2015, 09:06 »
Try using DeepMeta?
182
« on: April 29, 2015, 07:00 »
Most of my sales are from pre 2011. Again no rhyme or reason I can see in what sold or when it was from. In the last 60 DLs I have the same number of DLs on 9-10 y/o images, as I do on images from the last three years.
183
« on: April 29, 2015, 06:30 »
Yes My regular photo sales are the highest ever this month ...
How are your recent-ish photo uploads doing?
Most people are finding that uploading isn't helping, and I see pages of recent uploads with very few dls among them on most peoples' ports, even those with the most highly commercial images.
In my case: Last 40 ULs which have been there for a couple of months, one credit sale, one subs sale, no PP. Not terribly commercial stock to be fair, but even so!
184
« on: April 28, 2015, 13:15 »
I don't know about Canstock rules. Someone may come along who does. Generally though for non editorial stock, things like business names, logos and identifying numbers need to be removed. Certain buildings may be seen as as problem if they feature too much as the subject of a shot. As may obviously identifiable people/
186
« on: April 26, 2015, 12:48 »
Harbour in the Cotswolds? Seriously some (most?) harbours are private property. Doesn't matter if you can just walk in there or not. There are enough shots of harbours on various stock sites though for me to think that it's not generally a problem. I'd agree with Liz that it's probably numbers or names on boats or businesses etc. Villages in the Cotswolds, or anywhere else for that matter, should be fine as long as the main subject isn't one private house.
187
« on: April 26, 2015, 07:29 »
Thanks for the link.
I read the terms when they came through and assumed they were going to do something that would require them to have a license for content uploaded.
To be honest it seems everywhere you go on the web these days has some sort of IP grab built into the terms.
188
« on: April 24, 2015, 10:13 »
Getting rid of logos you need the clone tool, healing tool, and sometimes you need to recreate an area by painting. And practice!
189
« on: April 23, 2015, 14:37 »
Well it looks as if you've made a start on learning. Good! You won't learn it all in a day though. try to take some time to let it sink in.
Chromatic aberration and purple fringing seem to come more from the lens used than anything else. I don't think the camera you have will output RAW files, but output files at the very best quality you can. You can post process for that, but you're a way off needing to do that.
In fact I wouldn't worry too much about processing at this stage. Semmick Photos edits show what can be done, but at this stage, if I were you I'd concentrate on getting it right in the camera.
Try shooting fully Manual mode, set the metering area to the smallest possible (spot if the camera supports it) set ISO to the lowest value. If you can select the focusing points then just select one.
Take control of the camera in other words. Meter and focus on the subject of your shot.
And look. Actually see what's in the viewfinder.
And again. Good luck.
190
« on: April 23, 2015, 06:09 »
I think that a bigger problem than your lack of technical skill (which definitely is a problem) is that you appear not to know that what you're looking at is not good - not good composition or lighting and generally without any clear subject. Without that basic eye for design and story telling you will have a hard time with illustration, 3D modeling, photography or anything visual.
You certainly have some determination to your credit. Sometimes people know their images aren't any good - not even nice snapshots - but they don't know how to make them better. That can be fixed by learning technical skills.
If you honestly thought these were pleasing images (forget even being good stock) then you need to wait to learn techniques until you have some notion of light, shadow, composition and telling a story visually.
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don't think it helps to sugar coat things.
And if you knew these images were awful, what made you think they might work as stock? Do some searches on Shutterstock or Stocksy and look at the images there. That's your competition.
Good luck
Perhaps we should actually start these threads by asking the OP what they think of their own work. Possibly the hardest thing to learn is the artistic skill of how to turn what is seen with the eye into an interesting, (and hopefully "sellable as stock") photograph. To actually look at what is in the viewfinder. Technical skills are relatively easy. Someone said here (I think) ages ago that they knew a skilled photographer who could take shots of the most mundane subjects and make money out of them.
191
« on: April 22, 2015, 14:44 »
I agree...it's totally doable to work up to $400/month even now. Just takes time, talent, strategy and perseverance.
I agree, but a wise strategy IMO would be to diversify with something else out of stock entirely. Too volatile to be relied on alone. The OP seems ready to learn, and that may give him some income out of this in the longer term, but if I were him I'd want another income stream as well. He mentions woodwork for instance.
192
« on: April 22, 2015, 12:48 »
My 100% honest truth critique, no bull.
You have some nice shots you might share on instagram or facebook here, but the majority of what I'm seeing isn't stock. The quality is sub-par, and you will need to work on these images a ton in post processing to pass inspection just on a technical standpoint. Churches, insects, sunsets... all a photo reviewer's worst nightmare. Even if it gets through, it's not going to make you "fast money". Work on better subject matter, and push the limits of your equipment so you can make a few dollars before investing more into better quality glass/camera body.
I commend you on your endeavors, but stock isn't as easy to make a living at, as it seems. Even if you're an advanced amateur, or professional right out of the gate. I recently referred my friend's wife as a shutterstock contributor (I sold my old DSLR camera body to her, and gave her some instruction) and she is shooting amazing food images. She earns 5-10 subscription downloads per day, on a good day. What is that, about $25-30 per month (before taxes)  This isn't "fast money". She has about 300 images approved already, in the past 3 months. And I have to say, her food images are outstanding, for a noob. Borderline cooking-magazine-worthy. Stock imagery is much more competitive today. Now, monthly earnings per image is 1/4th to 1/5th of what it used to be. It is a struggle, and if you live week-to-week with your finances, you will fail miserably in this business even before you've started.
Keep shooting, and best wishes. Practice makes perfect. You won't learn what really sells and what will get approved, until you start uploading. Work on recognizing commercial value, even before you put the camera to your face.
Which is almost exactly the same as my opinion. With the greatest respect, you are not at present "a photographer". You are technically way off. You need to study lighting, and/or use of natural light, understand aperture and depth of field. Composition. Post processing. The list is endless. Then you start on stock. What might sell (there is no definite there) seeing trends, finding niche subjects. And shoot, shoot, shoot. . . You are very quickly going to find the limitations of your equipment. The shots you have put up here are full of noise, purple fringing and Chromatic aberration. Again, good luck with this. I honestly think that you need to go away and learn about the basics of good photography before joining the race that this business is. Plenty of books and online tutorials are available.
193
« on: April 22, 2015, 11:33 »
OK I know I'm out of step with everybody else but I don't use Adobe products. I used to think they were too expensive (and yes I do have short arms and deep pockets  , and then they turned to subs only, which is a further turn off for me. The subs are almost inevitably going to creep up once everyone is used to paying them.
194
« on: April 22, 2015, 11:21 »
None of them are good enough I am afraid.
Afraid I agree. You are well off the mark with these. You have a long way to go both technically and content wise to make any money at this. You can do it, and indeed others have, but you're looking at a steep learning curve to start with.Think of what is unique about where you live, and put together how ever many shots needed which are technically good, and which either have a good concept, or are useful in some way to illustrate a magazine article etc. You'll need shots with people as well as landscapes and still life shots.
195
« on: April 22, 2015, 10:17 »
To the OP. Fair enough if you realise there is no easy money at this. Sounds as if you're determined to get out of manufacturing. I can understand that. Sounds as if you're trying to diversify as well, which is wise IMO.
Try Inkscape rather than Gimp for vectors.
Good luck.
196
« on: April 22, 2015, 08:28 »
I'm not seeing any improvement, other than rising subs which will have to multiply by 10 times to make up for falling credit sales.
I'm going to make less from credit sales this month than I used to make in a week.
Yes, more or less the same here. I'm afraid that as far as I'm concerned it's a business arrangement, and the Dollars in my pocket speak far louder than any words can.
197
« on: April 22, 2015, 07:35 »
No matter what you might have read or heard:
There is no easy money to be had at microstock these days.
I don't know if there ever was "easy money" but if there was, that ended in about 2005.
Unless you really are an exceptional photographer with access to the right subjects, then I would forget about replacing your day job this way. As already said you would make more to start with by flipping burgers.
Nobody is going to download a zip file from an unknown source. If you really want critique put links to individual full sized images watermarked across the image as your copyright. (Someone here will tell you if you have any hope of making any money at all.
198
« on: April 21, 2015, 04:53 »
Double post.
199
« on: April 21, 2015, 04:52 »
I doubt if there are many, if any these days, regular posters here who make half a million dollars a year out of microstock.
I'd have thought that the number of people here with a total income of over say $150K would be pretty small.
200
« on: April 20, 2015, 07:12 »
Hello All,
I have heard about "Getty contributor tool " which will help us to achieve our targets and will help us to do the fast keywording .
It would be really great if you could help me in this matter .
Thanks so much
I'd have thought it would only help you if you were a Getty contributor, in which case you'd have ready access to what you want. In other words the only people who actually need Getty keywording are people who sell images there. Getty, very sensibly IMO, keep things like their keywording system to themselves as far as possible. As already said:Getty has a controlled vocabulary system which you won't have access to.
You have said nothing in reality about who you are and why you want this. Repeatedly asking the same question is unlikely to get the answer you want.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
