|
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 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 24
226
« on: March 21, 2015, 07:34 »
There are automatic barriers on most of the level crossings I've seen here in the UK, as well as lights. It doesn't stop people deliberately trying to get past, and occasionally getting hurt or killed.
You can guard against accident, but not deliberate stupidity.
I often wonder whether people who drive too fast and take chances to get where they are going quicker actually realise how little difference "driving fast" makes on a shortish journey.
227
« on: March 19, 2015, 09:18 »
Since I live in a place full of stinking rich people I really should be putting my stuff into some sort of exhibition. Ahh! The cost of being lazy!
The thing about doing an exhibition is that you could get "discovered"
Big money isn't from "what" but "who" and the recognition received. (In other words where it's sold and whether the "in people" recognise the artist )
Yes, and I'm rather afraid that a long history in microstock probably disqualifies one from any "artistic discovery". Anyway, starting out in exhibitions etc. is really a young artist's game and the chances are that you spend more preparing artworks than you get back in sales.
Spot on! Unless you were doing something that really was totally new and amazing, and let's admit it not many of us do, there is little real chance of making it into the big time. Some (not all!)of the guys who make "fine art" photographs spend a lot of money on setups as well. They don't all get paid millions a shot.
228
« on: March 19, 2015, 08:20 »
Since I live in a place full of stinking rich people I really should be putting my stuff into some sort of exhibition. Ahh! The cost of being lazy!
The thing about doing an exhibition is that you could get "discovered" Big money isn't from "what" but "who" and the recognition received. (In other words where it's sold and whether the "in people" recognise the artist )
229
« on: March 12, 2015, 15:05 »
As already said, there is no "right" WB. What I do think though is that it is possible to "improve" an image too much. Shooting outside I usually use "Auto" WB in the camera. I don't use LR, but I shoot RAW, so I tweak the exposure if it needs it in my preferred conversion program. Add a bit of contrast, tiny bit of saturation. Just occasionally I might warm up or cool down a shot very (very) slightly depending on the result I want. That's it as far as exposure/colour is concerned unless I'm looking for a specific effect.
Shooting indoors with flash I set a custom WB using a grey card. It's stored in the camera, so it only needs doing once.
230
« on: March 12, 2015, 10:41 »
The whole thing of "private property" as in land or buildings owned by someone or something, is fraught with difficulty when selling images. as far as I can tell.
We might consider a place owned by a local council to be "public property" and indeed it is, but whether it is from a point of view of being allowed there to take shots which are to be sold, is another matter. Certainly if there are doors or gates on it, and public access is restricted in some way, you have to ask yourself if you are OK shooting there or not.
Me being paranoid, I generally these days try to stick to the rule of never shooting on anywhere which could remotely be thought of as private ground, unless it really is anonymous.
231
« on: March 11, 2015, 08:36 »
We're probably less "slaves" than someone who has a regular job. We have the choice of whether to "be there" or not When I started work I quite enjoyed my first day. Then I realised they expected me to go back five days a week.  The morality of the case where people make vast wealth off the backs of others is another thing, but 'twas ever thus.
233
« on: March 09, 2015, 07:44 »
So far I have never been stopped by the authorities in the UK but there have been many times when I have been miles from anywhere shooting agricultural landscapes and been approached by anxious farmers who wanted to know if I was from the ministry.
Seems like farmers in the UK are more oppressed than photographers.
Same here. I had one farmer I know come out to find out what I was doing. I know her, so it really was no problem. Struck me then though that they must be a bit paranoid about being monitored.
234
« on: February 26, 2015, 11:47 »
- The big stock companies, by contrast, are essentially finance vehicles. Their primary business is finance. -
How very true. And how it shows!
235
« on: February 25, 2015, 14:55 »
. . . I also don't see why they have a 'discussion' of it in the discussion forum if it's a fait accompli and they're not going to pay attention to input. They should just put it into the announcements forum and lock it. . .
I often wonder about that. If something is as you say, fait accompli, as things usually are over there, there really is little point in discussion further discussion.
236
« on: February 24, 2015, 12:20 »
Just to say that while I'm obviously not with Dreamstime, I agree with what cathyslife said above. We put our images for sale with agencies to sell them. We don't do it to give the agency a commodity to make deals with that are of most benefit to themselves. There's too much of this attitude that once material is uploaded it somehow becomes "theirs" to do with, and deal as they please apart from actually claiming copyright. To say nothing of the attitude that any money they get in sales is somehow "theirs" which they have to pay us out of, rather than "ours" which we agree to allow them to keep a percentage of.
238
« on: February 20, 2015, 08:56 »
Interesting to note that in some cases, where the file (s) to be compressed are already compressed, then the resulting zip file can actually be slightly larger than the sum of the original(s)
239
« on: February 18, 2015, 12:59 »
"Never hit a milking cow" should surely be aimed at the agencies rather than the content providers.
The people who supply them have, in cow terms, had their fields sold, are being kept inside on concrete, and are fed a minimum ration to maintain milk production.
It might make for rich "farmers", but it makes for damned unhappy cows!
240
« on: February 14, 2015, 12:39 »
Was fish jumping from a bowl a clich until people starting stealing the concept ? I would love to know who came up with that first.
Interesting question. The first person I remember getting big sales with versions of that was Lise Gagne on IS.
That is also how I remember it. (I also have the impression that there is a whole look and feel which either started with her -- or certainly that was the first place I saw it).
Back to the fish - I think that there may have been some either British or European (possibly cigarette) advertising in the 70s or 80s which might have used this concept or something similar. Possibly from whichever agency was behind the surrealistic stuff which Benson & Hedges and Silk Cut were using in that era. I might not be exactly right but I think I am in the right area.
Maybe Shelma1 would know.
Agreed. There was something with goldfish back then. Colour supplement type advertising IIRC. It's itching in the back of my brain!
241
« on: February 13, 2015, 06:49 »
Don't know the software, but a lot of the well known download sites that offer downloads of free software put it in "installers" that can also install all sorts of adware and malware. Best to see if you can download direct from the maker, or at least check on Google to see if the site you are DLing from is free of fleas.
242
« on: February 12, 2015, 13:00 »
Yes, you can get a pretty good idea of what's going on generally, by by a bit of research on the site there.
If you visit a forum regularly, it's also pretty easy to pick out who is generally worth listening to.
I haven't been uploading as much as I once did, but I had an EL yesterday on a file I uploaded less than twelve months ago.
Not much choice for exclusives but to upload some at least. Nowhere else much to go.
243
« on: February 11, 2015, 10:19 »
As Liz say. It'll all be moot soon if this continues.
I have uploaded there to sell my images.
Simple idea. I upload. They try their best to sell.
I became exclusive to make more money for those sales, and to make things simpler dealing with one agency.
This is no longer happening for me there.
244
« on: February 11, 2015, 06:28 »
Dunno, either my math is seriously flawed or there are some misconceptions about the royalty percentages. Exclusivity seems to be a good earner for iStock according to my calculations:
iStock takes 0.80-0.85 credits per sold non-exclusive file (80-85% of 1 credit) - contributor gets 0.15-0.20 credits (15-20%);
iStock takes 1.65-2.40 credits per sold exclusive file (55-80% of 3 credits) - contributor gets 0.60-1.35 credits (20-45%).
Looking at credit sales only, iStock actually makes 2-2.8 times more money on the sale of an exclusive file - despite the higher royalty rates. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
But of course against that you have lower sales at the higher price. Or at least presumably so. So it's anybody's guess which is actually better, outside those who actually have access to the figures that is.
245
« on: February 10, 2015, 08:09 »
The reality is that if it was possible to say precisely which images made money, "we" as contributors wouldn't get a look in, as "they" would do their own shoots in house and take 100% of the profit. The system as it is works on this basic premise: If there are enough people clicking shutter buttons at enough diverse subjects, then eventually they will get a usable image that sells. (It's more or less the same principle as the infinite number of monkeys typing randomly, and coming up with the entire works of Shakespeare) My apologies to any monkeys offended by this. . . We all know (or we should) what sells best and most, but like Liz says we don't all have access to it. Because it's known to sell, it's also hotly contested. And as already said no one actually in the know will give any real explanation for why a PF that did make reasonable sales, can suddenly fall off it's perch.
246
« on: February 09, 2015, 14:17 »
I just hope it hasn't stabilised for me as it is now. Seriously it's like Christmas week sales.
All of last week, and today has made about one days money that used to be.
I just can't see subs making up for it.
247
« on: February 05, 2015, 11:22 »
Zeiss on the rx100 as well. I don't know if there's much to choose between them in that way apart from the rx10's much greater zoom range, and the rx100's bigger aperture.
I'd assumed that part of the slight softness thing (and it is only slight IMO) was to do with tending to shoot at at bigger apertures.
248
« on: February 05, 2015, 10:18 »
For what it's worth I nearly always find that the output from my RX100 (same sensor) needs a touch of sharpening to appear "sharp" to me.
ETA I nearly always shoot RAW.
249
« on: February 01, 2015, 07:51 »
I really, really, can't see this as being "good news" for contributors in any shape or form. I reckon BaldricksTrousers has the measure of it when he likens the situation to that of the UK dairy farmers. The problem we all have as well is that any changes at any of the agencies tend to ripple through the whole industry here. They're all looking for a way to maximise their profits. In general, from what I've seen, that tends to come from our cut in some way.
250
« on: January 29, 2015, 13:16 »
None of my business really as I don't use Adobe products, nor am I with Fotolia. However I can't help thinking that this has all the making of "Exciting News" for contributors.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
