|
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 ... 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73
1776
« on: March 04, 2007, 16:20 »
eendicott: I upload to SS on an almost daily basis, so that isn't a problem. Thanks for the IS tip - I'll have to start spending a bit of time there, making comments and rating images. Flickr is about the same way - by "socializing" you get more views, and thus become more "popular". I hope you're right about DT - my income from there and FT sure could use a good kick in the, um, pants.
1777
« on: March 04, 2007, 14:47 »
Is that the 'exclusive bonus estimator' you are talking about?
No, I'm not talking about that at all. I am talking about the Excel spreadsheet developed by iStock user dbabbage. It tracks and projects your iStock performance by importing your monthly statistics. It's very obvious that a lot of work has been put into this model. I'd be interested in hearing how it matches with your experiences, leaf. It can be downloaded here. The iStock forum thread is here.
1778
« on: March 04, 2007, 14:33 »
Hmmm, looks like I opened a can of worms. I made an honest statement about my current income from selling stock photography; I'm not trying to mislead anyone or prop myself up in any way. I'm sorry if that caused anyone grief.
StockManiac: I didn't say that I earned $1000 last month, I said that my current level is about $1000/month. My 7 day average has me at $28/day. Given my current portfolio build rate, I should meet and surpass the $1000 mark this month. I'll be very concerned if I don't. Meeting this target is in line with my income goals for the year. I'm not doing this as a hobby, or to generate extra income. I'm shooting stock photography to make my living. I cannot afford to do it pell-mell. I have mapped out what it is I have to do to get where I want to be. The reason I am here is to compare experiences and learn from others who have been doing it (far) longer than I have. I am not here to boast about how well I am doing, and I'm sorry if you interpreted my remarks that way.
CJPhoto: $12/image/year works out to $1/image/month, which is a mark I've set my sights on to surpass. I'm above that on SS and IS, but nowhere near it on DT and FT. This puzzles me to no end. I've read where people get a leading portion of their income from FT and DT, which further confuses me. I'm beginning to realize that I must be doing something wrong at DT and FT ...
FWIW, I've only had one EL sale. Those things are nice surprises, but it sounds like they come by as often as lunar eclipses. leaf: Didn't you get 4 of yours in one day?(!)
1779
« on: March 04, 2007, 04:18 »
0/40 ... 15/30 ... 3/3 ... way to go with the improving - keep it up!
1780
« on: March 04, 2007, 04:16 »
Congratulations!
I got one, too - my first - on the last day of the month.
1781
« on: March 04, 2007, 04:14 »
Does anyone use the iStock spreadsheet? Despite the fact that it's been about dead-on since I started using it (only a few months ago), I'm a bit suspicious of its accuracy. It took me 3 months to get to 500 sales, and the spreadsheet has me passing the 2500 mark in another 3. It's forecasting my upcoming months to go extremely well (10,000+ sales in my first year), which makes me think it's a bit too optimistic. What is your experience with it? [Edit]: It can be downloaded here. The iStock forum thread is here.
1782
« on: March 04, 2007, 03:57 »
Gee ... you really jumped into it. Dont you do other photo work as well?
Nope, not anymore. I've run the photo biz gamut and find shooting stock by far the most rewarding: I can shoot what I want, when I want, and how I want. Sure, the money's not too good right now - my current level is at about $1000 per month - but I'm building. Odd thing I've noticed about this site: Nobody seems to talk about money. Why is that? It might prove helpful to compare portfolio productivity.
1783
« on: March 03, 2007, 00:39 »
I'm wondering what the breakdown is with people who use this site in terms of using microstock for F/T or P/T income.
I'm very new to this industry (started 50 days ago) and it appears that one can have a comfortable and stress-free lifestyle by doing this, so I jumped right in.
I rely on microstock for 100% of my income. Although it's quite meager right now, it is by far the most enjoyable and easiest money I've earned in quite a while.
How about you?
1784
« on: March 03, 2007, 00:25 »
My standards are quite high, and I only upload stuff that I think is good. I don't have a problem with a high rejection rate at any site I contribute to - they're all at least 85% acceptance rate. There are many images I see on stock sites - even on iStock - that I would have personally thrown out.
My main issue with iStock is with their undue pickiness towards images that are not technically "perfect" - I find that they often reject stuff that sells well at other sites. I cannot help but think that they are shooting themselves in the foot when they do this.
I also don't like the way their CV keywording works, and have found "hidden" keywords and categories that I would have normally lost out on. On the flipside, their keywording sometimes comes up with things I hadn't thought of. Overall, keywording at IS is a big pain - good thing that I only have to do it 3 times/day!
1785
« on: March 01, 2007, 05:28 »
My first full month shooting stock:
SS: 67% of total revenue, sales up 101% from Jan, $1.30/image
IS: 22%, +53%, $1.70/image
DT: 8%, +247%, $0.20/image
FT: 3%, +228%, $0.21/image
Total revenue was up by 120%, which makes me happy, but I'm very unhappy with the performance of DT & FT. On the bright side, DT is close to generating a payout each month, and FT is half way there.
1786
« on: March 01, 2007, 02:18 »
I use BreezeBrowser Pro. Highly recommended.
I second that. I don't use the Pro version, but this software is a cornerstone to my business. I just can't say enough about it! My gf uses ACDC, which works fine for JPGs. But it is far to slow for serious use if you shoot RAW.
1787
« on: March 01, 2007, 02:13 »
I use DxO Optics ( http://www.dxo.com) to batch process from RAW to JPG, then edit the JPGs in Photoshop. I shoot using a 1Ds MkII, and White Balance is rarely something that needs adjusting - especially for studio shots. DxO does a pretty nice job with the conversion, and it corrects for lighting, distortion, softness, vignetting, and noise to boot.
1788
« on: February 23, 2007, 18:41 »
I think that DPI is also an indicator of the size of a site's user base. My DPI is 5+ on SS, 4+ on IS, but only 0.2+ on DT and FT. All four portfolios are the same age and have the same content.
Perhaps it is the user base that is responsible for this *huge* difference in performance.
1789
« on: February 23, 2007, 18:16 »
It may have no review process or QC, but people regularly sell stuff on Flickr.
Cases in point: My gf today sold an image to a major film (by Robert Redford, called "The Unforeseen"). "Rebekka", a Flickr superstar, was approached (i.e. she didn't bid for it) for and accepted a five-figure contract to shoot the new Toyota Prius. I accepted a proposal to use a dozen of my shots as reference material for a popular book on portrait photography. The Washington State Tourist Authority decided to use images from Flickr photographers rather than hunt for stock imagery or hire professionals. The list goes on and on and on.
Maybe QC isn't that important. Maybe people care more about the emotion behind a photograph than its technical prowess. Perhaps the stock industry, which has already gone through a huge shakeup, is about to go through another one ...
1790
« on: February 23, 2007, 02:32 »
bryan: It seems to me that people here are interested solely in getting a cheque. The general consensus seems to be "Social networks ... why bother?" Stock site attempts at it (e.g. iStock's "Creative Network") aren't broadly understood, or well implemented for that matter.
Good luck with your site. Perhaps I will become a member some day ...
1791
« on: February 23, 2007, 01:40 »
Thievery can be a problem, which is why I post only low res versions of my shots (typically 900x600 px). Some people watermark everything they post.
And yes, it's definitely worth investigating - as I'm trying to explain, if you approach it correctly it can open doors, and other revenue streams, for you. Dunno why people here seem to be against it. Seems they'd rather flail away at LO or StockXpert ...
1792
« on: February 23, 2007, 01:27 »
Bateleur: Nope, that's not what happened at all. He posted a question to one of the groups I'm a member of, and I responded favorably. It helped that I'm a professional, was able to provide him with a link to my portfolio site, and zipped him off a few wedding sample shots. Took about five minutes work to secure the job.
1793
« on: February 23, 2007, 01:23 »
1794
« on: February 23, 2007, 00:23 »
Be sure to check out the performance on the cheaper lights, too. The output of Alien Bees, for example, can vary as much as 1/3 stop from flash to flash (which is why the same manufacturer makes a professional line called "White Lightning").
You get what you pay for ...
1795
« on: February 23, 2007, 00:18 »
Yeah, they're heavy alright.
I currently have a 16-35mm L, 24-70mm L, and 70-200mm IS L. I used to have a 300mm L, but that thing was so heavy that I hardly ever used it.
The 24-70 has quite a nice minimum focus distance - coupling it with a short extension tube makes a nice macro kit.
1796
« on: February 23, 2007, 00:07 »
The next camera I buy will be a next generation model: a dSLR with no mirror, where image preview is totally digital. Guess it can't be called a dSLR then ...
1797
« on: February 23, 2007, 00:04 »
It's taken me 50 days, 15 of which I abandoned DT and didn't bother posting there, but I'm nearing the point of earning $100 monthly from it on a 400 image portfolio.
I'm not too pleased with these numbers, and I'm curious as to how they compare with the norm for DT - worse, about average, or better than expected.
What are your numbers?
1798
« on: February 22, 2007, 23:11 »
Sorry, eendicott, but you don't have it straight at all.
I didn't say that you or anyone else should give away photos on Flickr. I said that Flickr can be used as an effective marketing tool (as you know, the photo biz is all about marketing).
About the $1000 wedding: How could I pass that up? $1000 for taking a thousand shots or so, with no quality control, post-processing, printing, or binding involved? Very easy money, to be sure - I wish all jobs were like this. It's been a few years since I did a wedding - I'm a commercial shooter, not a portrait or wedding shooter - and I'm looking forward to having a blast doing it.
As for the $15k-to-$20k in equipment: Nothing new there - we've all spent at least that much. It's part of the cost of doing business, and complaining about it or even bringing it up is completely irrelevant.
1799
« on: February 22, 2007, 21:18 »
Flickr is not a stock photography site. Nobody posts isolated shots of any sort on Flickr - that's not what it's all about. Not yet, anyway.
I'm merely observing that people are selling commercial stuff there with increasing frequency, that's all. I've personally been contacted by two state tourism agencies to have my pictures licensed. I know many people who have had shots licensed for magazine, catalog and corporate publication. There are countless threads of the "Help - I don't know what to charge!" ilk. I've noticed, too, that the "interestingness" score on Flickr is not too bad a barometer for how well a non-typical stock shot might sell.
Sure there's a lot of junk on Flickr, but there's plenty of world-class stuff as well. So go ahead, ignore it if you want to - it's nobody's loss but your own.
1800
« on: February 22, 2007, 18:22 »
... it would be extremely difficult for a buyer to find an image that they are looking for. A buyer would have to wade thru droves and droves of snapshots to find one good image.
Flickr ranks images according to "interestingness" (= popularity). That, and the fact that there is a total absence of keyword spamming, makes it exceedingly easy to find quality images quickly. Also, most people post their images to relevant groups, which are analogous to categories.
Pages: 1 ... 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
