|
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 ... 66 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73
1751
« on: April 05, 2007, 15:53 »
I guessed 3c - a 10% raise.
It'd be nice to get 20%, but this seems too high to me.
Not sure if you are aware as you have only started recently but this time last year they gave a rise of 5c from 20c to 25c. I think before that it had always been 20c.
Does that change your mind?
Didn't the subscription fee go up from $189 to $199 (for a single month)? I guessed a 5% increase because this reflects the subscription fee increase.
1752
« on: April 05, 2007, 11:36 »
Congratulations, and well done!
1753
« on: April 05, 2007, 07:41 »
I guessed 3c - a 10% raise.
It'd be nice to get 20%, but this seems too high to me.
1754
« on: April 05, 2007, 06:44 »
Yep, I order my keywords properly - I didn't when I started out there, and I'm not too sure it makes that much of a difference. Same images/keywords/categories used on all 4 of my sites, but FT just doesn't want to produce for some reason. Things are holding steady at under $0.10/image/month, which is a terrible ROI.
It's getting to the point where I dread going to post there ...
1755
« on: April 05, 2007, 05:05 »
FT is by far my poorest performer - with 600+ images there I average a mere $1.50 per day. Needless to say, I'm not very happy with Fotolia.
1756
« on: April 05, 2007, 04:32 »
He has 1387 images on BigStock. Go here to see 'em.
1757
« on: April 04, 2007, 13:24 »
I was considering adding BigStock as a possible revenue source, but after reading that sharpshot gets $60+/month with 1800+ images I'm having second thoughts. This doesn't look like a very profitable place ...
1758
« on: April 02, 2007, 10:51 »
Congratulations, and way to go!
I still get a few zero days each month, but only on Fotolia.
1759
« on: April 01, 2007, 12:07 »
A record month where earnings grew by 42%, but fell just short of my target. SS sales levelled off, but the gap was made up by IS and DT, where sales more than doubled. FT still lags far behind - I find FT cumbersome enough that unless something miraculous happens I will be dropping it in favor of BigStock or StockXpert.
1760
« on: March 30, 2007, 11:53 »
Just being creative with a couple of easy-to-get boring shots: 1 moon + 1 window seat + photoshop = "Lookit me, I'm in orbit!"
1761
« on: March 30, 2007, 11:21 »
iStock requires only that are the principal copyright holder of the images you post. It is legally acceptable for you to 'grab' anything in the public domain (i.e. anything that does not have a copyright) and sell it. I've seen many "earth from space" and "world map" shots that people have downloaded, jazzed up a bit, and posted for sale. Unscrupulous behavior perhaps. I'm surprised that people pay for something that can easily be had for free. It is obviously not a rule they stick to, as I don't think that many people get to photograph the earth from space 
There shouldnt be any photos of earth from space.
I created my "earth from space" shots entirely from my own images:
1762
« on: March 27, 2007, 09:28 »
I found this lens a bit short for macro work, which goes a far way in explaining why Canon's pro series macro lens is 180mm. You should be aware that most of the focusing range is taken up in the < 1m range, which may limit its ability as a general purpose lens.
I think that you will find that you'll need to use a flash and a tripod when doing macro work. A flash will allow you to light only the subject, making it really "pop" from the background - especially essential for outdoor work.
I used this lens with a Canon MR-14 lens-mounted ring flash without any problems. The (more expensive) MR-24 flash is a superior item - if I was still shooting macro I would definitely have that flash. I sold both the lens and flash when I decided to no longer shoot macro - I found it just too finicky. Using a single on-camera flash will not work well - you have to get in fairly close with this lens (as I said, I found it a bit short), and a hotshoe-mounted flash will cast a shadow over your subject. You'll also need special lighting for shooting macro in-studio - something that would allow you to fine tune the light while staying behind the camera would be ideal, as would having a product photography table.
Like many here, I've purchased much from B&H. Lowest prices, best selection, good service - you can't go wrong with that company.
1763
« on: March 21, 2007, 19:24 »
hatman12: If you look more closely you'll see that my aircraft shots are made from only 10 or so airplanes that I use with different backgrounds and crops; I try to squeeze every last penny out of everything I shoot.
1764
« on: March 21, 2007, 09:21 »
Calling FT worthwhile depends largely on how much money you expect to make.
Does merely making the payout level each month ($50 on FT) make it worth your time to upload to this site? Certainly not for me - I expect much more than that, which is why FT is disappointing. I currently earn less than $0.1/image/month there.
1765
« on: March 20, 2007, 01:18 »
Way to go!
1766
« on: March 20, 2007, 01:14 »
My IS portfolio has really taken off this month - to the point where it's beginning to rival SS, which has me tinkering with the notion of going exclusive there when I have enough images there.
1767
« on: March 20, 2007, 00:29 »
I submit to the SS, IS, DT and FT. My FT sales are about 1/3 of my DT sales, and about 5% of my total. Is FT worthwhile? I'd have to say "Barely, for me at least".
1768
« on: March 14, 2007, 14:38 »
A belated congratulations ... I thought you knew!
This shot has been on the top 50 list for quite a while - it's 33rd in the "Photos Only" category. I hope it's always there!
1769
« on: March 09, 2007, 20:17 »
bbettina: I don't know if you can appeal, but if you can, you should. The worst that can happen is that they'll say "Wait another month", which gives you plenty of time to get things in order.
hatman12: You are experiencing the "newbie factor" - your images are more popular than they'd normally because you are new to SS. Things will calm down a bit after a few weeks. As has already been said, you'll have to keep uploading regularly in order to maintain your productivity level from SS. It's a hungry beast that needs constant feeding!
1770
« on: March 09, 2007, 16:35 »
I'm not sure about this, but I think that unless a reason was given for the rejection then the image was accepted. This may mean that you scored 6/10, missing the required 7/10 by only 1 - had you included a model release then you may well have been in.
Looking at your studio shots, I'd have to say that you need to work a bit on your lighting - they lack "pop" and look a bit dull and flat. You can remedy this by using exposure compensation when you shoot (try +1/3 or +2/3), or adjust the levels using Photoshop.
Keep up the good work!
1771
« on: March 08, 2007, 16:59 »
My sales are up on DT, though not spectacularly. I'm (still) hovering at $0.20+/file/month, $3.50+/day - enough to make a monthly payout with only a bit to spare.
On the plus side, I received an encouraging comment from the Director of Content the other day. I can't be the only one ... anyone else?
1772
« on: March 08, 2007, 12:24 »
... $100 a month from only 51 photos is my reason.
Wow, that's a superfantastic average! And yes, you definitely should be uploading to SS. They are far and away my best earning site.
1773
« on: March 08, 2007, 12:18 »
I upload only 3 per day, and try to keep the images related so that I can copy keywords and categories - apart from that, there's nothing that I can think of that eases the IS uploading pain.
1774
« on: March 04, 2007, 23:49 »
... my wife and I were asked if we would put some of our work into a gallery for a major charity auction ...
That sound like a pretty good way to begin marketing your photos, and may open a door or two ... good luck!
1775
« on: March 04, 2007, 17:31 »
... I hope it does develop and open some doors and doesn't turn out to be a one-shot deal, flash in the pan. a.k.a.-tom: It's my experience that your sale will be a one-shot deal unless you actively market yourself. Out-of-the-blue sales like that are like EL sales on microstock - they're nice to get, but don't count on people beating down your door to buy your stuff without you having a big hand in that. The only way to make any sort of appreciable money through (fine art) photography is to aggressively market yourself. That being said, a possible source of casual revenue may be to frame a handful of your best shots for use in local coffee shops and restaurants. Doing this on a regular basis, as well as displaying your work in local galleries, really helps to get your name out there.
Pages: 1 ... 66 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
