MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - cdwheatley

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 20
176
iStockPhoto.com / Re: $0.15 Sale - a new low?
« on: April 18, 2009, 15:48 »
I'm at $1.69 average since january, which is 46 cents higher than anywhere else. No problem with the occasional 19 cent sale.

last year $1.26

all time $1.24

177
iStockPhoto.com / Re: best match 2.0 LIVE!!
« on: April 15, 2009, 22:10 »
It seems fair for everyone,  You upload a picture of a pig, buyer searches keyword "pig" buys your image, you move up for keyword "pig"...simple. No magic  potion involved.
And no more penalizing non-exclusive images? I think not! Still some exclusive magic potion left, methinks.  ;D

You might be right. Exclusives usually get a little extra push which is understandable, loyalty should be rewarded. They put so much time and effort into this best match, I'm just happy to finally see it get off the ground and tired of wondering what sales are going to be like. Maybe they will keep it this way and we will have a little stability. The huge swings have been known to promote cancer, shortness of breath and heart disease.  :P

178
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Pay as you go?
« on: April 15, 2009, 21:10 »
It means the file is not available for subsciption. If you want to change it: open the file> go to administation> go to edit file> put a check mark in the subsciption box.

179
iStockPhoto.com / Re: best match 2.0 LIVE!!
« on: April 15, 2009, 20:38 »
Under the new best match, if files are properly keyworded and not selling there is only one thing to do: Produce better selling files.  :)

It seems fair for everyone,  You upload a picture of a pig, buyer searches keyword "pig" buys your image, you move up for keyword "pig"...simple. No magic  potion involved.

180
iStockPhoto.com / Re: best match 2.0 LIVE!!
« on: April 15, 2009, 16:25 »
All I can say is:  ;D  ;D ;D

181
In order to receive the free report and the audio file you have to go here and enter your name and email:

http://PhotographyBusinessSecrets.com

To read about events and photography related contests and exhibits go here:
http://Photosecrets.wordpress.com

Let me know if you have any other questions.
Beate


The Shutterstock Forum would be a better place to start a thread "shameless self promotion" Serious.

182
Dreamstime.com / Re: I love the new DT search engine !
« on: April 09, 2009, 21:22 »
Same boat here under "beach woman" search, I think I get first hit on page 3, kinda depressing.

matter of fact, most of the best beach shooters are missing from that search.

183
Dreamstime.com / Re: Why is DT being stupid?
« on: April 06, 2009, 14:11 »
Its hard to knock dreamstime as most would probably agree its one of the top 4 micros. I try to look 6 month hold kind of like the gun law in the USA, you can buy the gun but there is a waiting period to actually get your hands on it. Keeps people from doing drastic things on a whim they might regret later. besides, its actually more like 4.5 months because of the option to delete a certain percentage of your port at any time.

184
Photo Critique / Re: What do you think..good or bad?
« on: April 05, 2009, 11:39 »
"To each his own".... sheesh!!

185
General Stock Discussion / Re: Sharpening an image..
« on: March 26, 2009, 18:14 »
I shoot everything hand held, prefer to work that way. I might be a little pissed off when the next wave comes in and takes out my tripod, camera, and leaves me holding the remote.  :P I hear what your saying though. I do use a monopod on occasion.

It happens  :)


Could you please stop attaching images like this to your posts!  :D


ya cd, where do you get all these gorgeous women ???  ;D


The one taking the brunt of the wave would be my wife (good sport..huh!! hehe!!) and others I have found shopping at your local Model Mayhem store  ;D. There everywhere in Florida, just have to find the ones that are interested in being in front of the camera.

186
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Got Flames?
« on: March 17, 2009, 15:23 »
Sometimes it takes a while, other times if your lucky enough to climb the best match ranks it happens fast. Where the file is sitting in best match is the biggest factor as long as its a decent image. I think if it doesn't happen in the first 6 months the odds start dropping.

187
General Macrostock / Re: Accepted at Getty
« on: March 13, 2009, 01:24 »
Why not give it shot? The potential at those price levels is much greater than in micro. Wouldn't it be nice to play on both sides of the fence? Hopefully you get a few sales at some point in the near future to cover any costs and then a few more to put a smile on your face.  :)

I put in an application a couple of weeks ago, waiting. Hopefully I get a chance to try this. Why not? worse case scenario I lose a few images and few dollars, I can live with that. If you don't try you will never know.

188
Veer / Re: Live in Seattle? We'd love to talk to you!
« on: March 11, 2009, 21:23 »
Is anyone in touch with Avava? I think he's from Seattle and would be a great interview.

I'm not sure if he is still actively submitting to micro, I think he was just testing the numbers. I know he was a little sour on this place and isn't posting anymore, but maybe you can catch him by PM.

189
CanStockPhoto.com / Re: First sale on CanStockPhoto
« on: March 11, 2009, 15:09 »
Hey cdwheatley,

Regarding Fotosearch sales - it can take some time for your new uploads to migrate to Fotosearch from CanStockPhoto. So while your photos may be approved on X date, they may not appear on Fotosearch for up to a few weeks.

Also, Fotosearch is still in the testing phase and is not showing CanStockPhoto images to all customers. So depending on what group you are randomly put into when you visit their site, you may or may not see any CanStockPhoto photos at all. I think that should explain the confusion on your follow-up visit.

Hope that helps. You have some great images, I'm sure they will do quite well. I'm looking forward to seeing more of them.

Cheers,

Duncan

Thanks for the vote of confidence  :)

I hope it works out well for everyone. I'll try to be patient.

190
CanStockPhoto.com / Re: First sale on CanStockPhoto
« on: March 11, 2009, 13:14 »
Well, using a typical search I didn't find any canstock/fotosearch images in the first 3000 results. My mouse was tired after that. However, If you sort by price low to high they show up. Did they just change something there (fotosearch)because I could have sworn they were offering subs last week??? Maybe it was a just a bad dream. haha

191
CanStockPhoto.com / Re: First sale on CanStockPhoto
« on: March 11, 2009, 11:58 »
uploaded around 577 files a month ago. 62 views and 2 sales for a grand total of 80 cents... got suckered in with the "fotosearch" hype. Shame on me   :-[

feels like the photos.com deal without the sales.

192
StockXpert.com / Re: StockXpert - subs only?
« on: March 09, 2009, 20:13 »

Sales way down and mostly subs...Sad story. Almost 0 views on new uploads there lately.
Maybe because the buyers are starting to go on photos.com and on JIU instead of StockXpert. This was the primary goal from the first announecement of photos.com merge I think. It takes 1 or 2 weeks for the newest StockXpert files to appear on photos and JIU...


You might be right. All I know is views are noticably less as of late.

193
StockXpert.com / Re: StockXpert - subs only?
« on: March 09, 2009, 19:55 »


You are right about the music business. The money is going out of selling recordings - they're becoming just promotion for live concerts.



thats a scary thought. I hope your wrong about that. We could possibly end up with a bunch of music produced on a laptop and midi controller.
The music that is coming out today maybe subpar to that of the past because of corporate control but as far as I know a good production still costs major money and involves a lot of people. Producers, engineers, Tracking studios, mixing studios, mastering studios...Can you imagine million dollar studios trying to survive on the local bands....everyone needs to get paid or we will have a serious drop in quality. Plus,  I would be concerned about bands not becoming popular without corporate backing. I mean how many bands have become huge hits without corporate marketting, by just self promotion on the internet? I have no idea but probably not to many. I could see the CD disappear but downloads will still be for sale. If the Big 4-5 disappear I think other corporations will just form to take there place. I just don't think pirate "free" is the way to go, It could kill the entertainment industry eventually. Maybe just a restructuring of the business model is in order.

194
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock audio
« on: March 09, 2009, 17:30 »
Thanks again whitechild and cdwheatley,

I do not intend to jump into sound file production, so the purchase of a special microphone seems out of question.  The camera does pick up a lot of ambient noise, and it was a concern from the start. 

Let's go back to the unedited images.  :)

Regards,
Adelaide

madelaide,
If your interested don't give up so easily. You can pick up a cheap book on "Basic Home Recording techniches" it will explain all the common problems you might run into. Different mic types, sound levels, noise, software, tips on how to set your room, monitoring, FX, etc..there is a lot to learn but equally rewarding.

195
StockXpert.com / Re: StockXpert - subs only?
« on: March 09, 2009, 15:45 »
Sales way down and mostly subs...Sad story. Almost 0 views on new uploads there lately.

196
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock audio
« on: March 09, 2009, 12:19 »
I made 2 files, sold them 4 times and earned $21,27. I think it's worth it.

It just seems to me that an awful lot more effort must go into creating a sound clip - like  yours - than an image and yet I'm not sure their prices would make that much more money.

Also, would hate to put something up there, get $20 for a dl and then here it as a big hit or movie or TV show theme. 

At this point I've got a lot more equipment and software than talent but it does sound like fun.

I have a track that is about ready but it includes another musician (a real one) any idea if iStockaudio will allow a joint piece/copyright?

Thanks
fred

Agree its a lot more work than taking and creating images. The prices are dirt cheap for whats involved but maybe the volume will make up for it in time??. The way I see it is I have a bunch of stuff sitting collecting dust on hardrives from the last ten years, some decent and some garbage. Why not chop it up and throw it out there. Doesn't do me much good in storage. Not sure if I would record anything new and expect to get paid properly for time involved unless you're doing sound FX. I think the guy/girl with best equipment wins that battle. If by off chance it turns out to be profitable pro's will come and dump entire libraries of loops and FX. It looks like fun anyway and possibly another small revenue stream.  :)

197
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock audio
« on: March 08, 2009, 20:32 »
whitechild and cdwheatley,

Thanks for your replies.  I was wondering if the camera sound would be good.  To minimize influence of the ambient sound, I recorded clips late in the night and with the windows and curtains closed, except for one of the sound files (our lovebirds singing).

Here is one that should be the "cleanest". 
http://us.share.geocities.com/adelaide.geo/alarme10sec.wav
I did some editing in fact, first to crop it from the original 1min recording, then using one or two filters in Wavosaur that apparently did very little to the file (given the histogram or whatever that thing is called).

Regards,
Adelaide


Yea...unfortunately the noise floor is to high. I was afraid the mic quality and built in amp might be an issue. There is also a dull ringing sound in the background.  You need to have a decent pre-amp to get the recording loud enough without creating too much noise in the background or record it in an isolation booth... haha...kind of like a lightbox for doing isolations with audio. Mic's will pick up everything and amplify it, computers fans, street noise, refrigerator, AC unit etc.. You can try to make a make shift isolation booth using some stuff lying around the house or dedicate a closet. There are also a bunch of portable little recorders on the market that do a pretty good job with sound quality, so I've heard. If I was in your situation I would try the closet thing and make sure there is plenty of stuff in there to deaden the sound, you don't want a reflective room. You can always add a little reverb/room in Software later. Hope that helps.

198
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock audio
« on: March 08, 2009, 19:33 »
My application was rejected because my audio files "suffer from file compression artifacts".

These are sounds recorded in my camera, extracted with AoA and edited with Wavosaur.  The requirements for 16bit, 48 or 44kHz are respected in all these steps.  Where can be this compression?

Regards,
Adelaide

I'm not sure if the audio quality coming from a camera would be suitable to be sold as stock unless its attached to video(then again, someone here might prove me wrong on that  :)). The Analog to digital converters in a camera are probably not the best. Also the signal to noise ratio might be pretty high. I haven't heard your track but if you had to do a lot of tweaking in your audio editor to clean up the noise that might produce "artifacts". (Whitechild) has it right with over compressed sound being really noticeable in the high freq. kind of squashed jittery sound. Its been a while for me but I believe de-noisers and some of the other cleaning plugins work by compressing certain frequencies which might cause compression artifacts as well. I would be glad to give it a listen and give a more detailed explanation if there are in fact problems but you would have to email me a clip.

199
I remember on trip to Costa Rica I was warned by the locals of a 3 tiered pricing structure. You had the locals price, the spanish speaking tourists price, and then the "gringo" price.  :) Lucky for us the gringo price was still really cheap.

200
Off Topic / Re: Why is Hitler so mad at Nikon?
« on: February 27, 2009, 01:48 »
As you see the 2 lenses don't really go over 0.8 pixel width aberration. I never saw chromatic aberration on my 24-70. Though I almost only does studio with

Thanks for your extended info. I don't get CA in studio, but when I do tropical landscapes (with very hard sun and shadows) I have apparently often CA of more than 3 pixels wide. I try to post some full size crops later, in a new topic since it doesn't involve Hitler. Maybe it's not CA, maybe I'm doing something wrong.

I'm not sure there is anything you can do about the "chromatic aggravation" outdoors in bright light with heavy contrast. It is what it is, part of life. I get it on all cameras and lenses I've tried, not on every shot but it always shows up. Luckily its pretty easy to fix. If you ever find the magic solution please share  :) ,maybe the solution is shoot in the studio.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 20

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors