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 - ap
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 21
226
« on: April 23, 2010, 18:16 »
That means NO NOISE as well in-camera colors... Try not to radically process your images and that is all!
[ADDED] Preferred Cameras for iStock: Nikon D700, Canon 5DMkII... And similar! If you have such camera - you'll have full pass!
not so fast, my nikon d700 does not get automatic pass, in fact get lots of overfiltered rejections when the colors were in-camera and not altered. however, ss likes them.  in fact, my acceptance rate has gone down since i replaced my nikon d90, but i think this may have more to do with their recent changes in review policy.
227
« on: April 21, 2010, 12:12 »
I honestly don't see the point of these kind of posts. Altough the OP is in my block list for an abundance of self-serving and totally useless posts, I keep seeing the fallout. Ah, while I'm at it, I got a bunch of EL's at SS. Who f*ing cares? Grrr...
hey, mr. grinch. i like hearing success stories. let's hear yours.  but since the op had posted the el photos, it gives us a better idea of the kind of images buyers are looking for larger print runs/products, etc.
228
« on: April 20, 2010, 18:12 »
There was one comment from early in March this year from a designer looking for a free photo site - he commented that he used to use iStock exclusively but didn't any more because of price increases.
doesn't sound like a very professional designer forum.
229
« on: April 19, 2010, 22:36 »
i'm surprised at all the swearing. for all the venting microstockers do, we seem a much more civil lot.  maybe it's because we don't have 'clients' to deal with.
230
« on: April 19, 2010, 14:41 »
i love ss.  congrats!
231
« on: April 18, 2010, 23:50 »
The micro market has already been ruined by dirt low prices, each site trying to under sell the others and pay the photographers less to cover their losses. They make less and we make less. Many of the sites will fail and go broke very soon. Another bad point: Free images on every site to attract the low payers or no payers to the site. NONE of my images are free on any site and never will be. Thousands more are stolen every day and the sites do next to nothing to stop it. Ever hear of a image theft being fined or put in jail for copyright theft? NO. So why pay?
When I sold stock photos in the 50's 60's and through the early 80's NONE sold for less than $100.00 for RF images and RM sold for $200 to $5,000.00 per image. Calendar and greeting card companies never paid less than $500.00 for an image. Book covers $250.00 and up. Now they get them for less than a cup of coffee.
The Internet ruined it all. That is why I have lost nearly all interest in up loading any more to any site. I can sell Cd's full of images on Ebay for $25.00 per each for low res shots RF and not give a crap what they actually do with them. They do not get my best, only my rejects the ones I did not ever try to up load. Junk.
Sorry to sound sour but those are the facts. I for one just don't want to work for 5 cents an hour.
Larry
i'm surprised with such a solid photography background as yours that you even attempted to dabble in microstock at microstock prices. if you're only a member at the three sites on your profile, then i can understand why you're so obsessed with the commission per photo. microstock is all about volume and dt and bs have little volume to speak of. if you'd join is and ss, you'll be more concerned with the bottom line, which should be 10-20x of what you're getting. at that rate, you won't care whether your photos sell for a $1 or $20. also, a lot of us happen to like the microstock online business model. the immediacy, of it, both for buyers and sellers, is really appealing. if i wanted to be fairly paid at the prices you used to get, i'd put everything on alamy. there are a lot of photographers who do really well there. i remember one gentleman who's based in a remote part of scotland, never leaves his hometown and takes mostly rm, no mr, photos and is making hand over fist. i presume he takes good photographs.
232
« on: April 18, 2010, 23:11 »
I made 30x more at Fotolia last month than I did at 123RF.
Fotolia has always been twice worse than 123RF.
[/quote] just to be contrarian, i made 70x more at 123 than ft last month, only last month.
233
« on: April 18, 2010, 22:26 »
No. The inspections are undertaken by humans so nothing to do with the servers.
The girl looks to be Thai, is described as Thai (and therefore presumably is Thai) so describing her as 'Chinese' is simply wrong. Do you think all Asian people look the same then? Once you start down the road of trying to stretch your keywords they'll rightly hammer you.
Agree 110%. How incredibly ignorant.
i think it's kind of difficult to see if she's thai or chinese, but i guess, gostwyck, you have your ID down to a science. however, it's accurate to say she's asian or either chinese or thai (if she is one or the other), but not both. but, then, she could even be eurasian or half chinese/half thai. it's not that cut and dry with ethnicities these days. but, i get your point about trying to pass someone off as chinese just because it's a bigger market.
234
« on: April 18, 2010, 22:17 »
Everyone who's photos are accepted to any agency should be well paid, or agencies should reject all ugly photos submitted by non-talented photographers. You compared it to singing, but you know how many bad musicians and bad singers have more money than excellent talented musicians. It's not all about talent.
Or maybe you want to say you are satisfied with the fact that you get few cents or few dollars for your images? Actually, you think what you do is worth few dollars and you don't think you should earn more?
i really don't know how much i should earn for i didn't study photography as a profession nor have i been a 'photographer' for very long. however, i'm pretty sure i'm not ready to apply for getty/corbis yet. if you really value your photos, then you should submit only to the higher paying sites or even become exclusive at IS and benefit from their much higher prices/vetta/exclusive/better search bonuses. even though i get only 25 cents for a sub at ss, i also get lots of els for $28. i'm still thrilled with the latter. one day when i feel it's no longer worth my while, then i'll move on to (hopefully) better pastures, if there are any. right now, i think there is an oversupply of photos and photographers, so one can only vent, but not beat the reality of the situation. at least, i'm really enjoying what i do.
235
« on: April 18, 2010, 22:07 »
dead in the water, but just surfaced for a little air today - tiny bubble.
236
« on: April 17, 2010, 13:19 »
even though the hemera collection only reflects about 1/3 of my original StockXpert photos, i had more dl (same amt of earnings due to the subs). it was also an increase on last month's performance. i'm surprised it's doing better under the thinkstock brand than the old StockXpert brand, probably due to getty heavily promoting it.
237
« on: April 15, 2010, 21:17 »
this is all really interesting and thanx for the tax tips on tax day.  but, er, have you ever been audited? as an individual or company?
238
« on: April 14, 2010, 18:01 »
i just had my bde at IS and the trend has been way above average since StockXpert's demise. so, i think it's kind of ironic that the buyers have gone to IS and thinkstock (or maybe this was their devious plan all along). i have opted some of my nonselling images to ts, but i'm actually getting credit sales for these at is, so i had to quickly opt out. i'm also independent and am maybe benefiting from the lower price points. who knows?
239
« on: April 09, 2010, 14:30 »
I'm still very new with less than 200 images online. My best download day was 11 but my best dollar day was $30.88. I was thrilled to see a payout in just over 2 months. Still gathering the confidence to try iStock. 
very similar to your numbers! my mind boggles at those with 100+ dl/day. what kind of photos are those (can't see their port). i'm sure is will be a cake walk for you, but don't expect the same spectacular results with ss. they're a very steady performer though.
240
« on: April 08, 2010, 18:28 »
no great sudden increase in views, but a great increase in acceptances. is this a result of people not uploading there anymore?
241
« on: April 08, 2010, 18:25 »
242
« on: April 08, 2010, 16:29 »
what's more annoying than subs are those xsmall credit sales at is.
Really? So you find getting $0.19-$0.30 for a 300x400 sized image (0.1MP) more annoying than getting $0.35 or so for a maximum sized image (as high as 25MP)?
Not me. To me, one is ok compensation, the other is a rip-off.
sure, it's fair. but, wouldn't you rather get xxxlarge size sales? i'm talking ideally of course and i was just responding to pixel away's sardonic remark about his #xxsmall sales.
243
« on: April 08, 2010, 13:31 »
Is it not much more difficult to hold steady if it doesn't have a viewfinder? Maybe it's just a technique you have to learn and get used to.
lol, these double negatives have my head in a tizzy. do you mean, it's much more difficult w/o a viewfinder? yes, the lcd screen is useless in sunlight or strong light and the image is often much poorer than reality or the actual shot you see later. i don't like using it for i just don't get the feel of the shot.
244
« on: April 08, 2010, 13:10 »
but I had a nice BME in March anyway. Probably, I specialize in XXsmall sizes.
lol! what's almost as annoying than subs are those xsmall credit sales at is. but the fact that el's are so rare makes me wonder if the is buyers are either individuals or small cos (if not xmall). in comparison, ss buyers are probably the bigger corporates, since els are so plentiful.
245
« on: April 08, 2010, 13:09 »
for me, the rebound started yesterday, with ods and and one el at ss. even dt joined the party, a little.
246
« on: April 08, 2010, 12:08 »
The G9 passes muster at iStock at low ISOs and very careful exposure, and I've heard the current version (are we up to 11?) is even better. [/quote] the canon s90 is the p&s version (no viewfinder).
247
« on: April 07, 2010, 17:18 »
Perhaps. But you are not taking into account the better search placement that you would get as an exclusive. I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes but I'm sure it's something. So being exclusive your RPD and your number of downloads should increase, not just RPD as you estimated.
didn't you go exclusive at is only a short while ago? (i remembered the drama with dt.  ) how are you finding your new status? is it all it's cracked up to be? vetta and better search placements? any other perks? (complimentary drinks and napkins in first class, eh)
248
« on: April 07, 2010, 13:38 »
I'm not sure that this is useful, but FWIW my RPD for March for IS was $3.71 - no extended licenses last month to skew the numbers.
wow!! however, even if i adjusted my is rpd to yours (but minus your great port), i'd still be short of what my combined portfolio does as an indie by about 50%.
249
« on: April 07, 2010, 12:30 »
i only started testing the waters with a few images last august. but i feel the returns growth is commensurate, if not exceeding, portfolio growth all along. ie a 10% increase in upload can result in 50% revenue growth. so, i feel the good old times is now. i'd imagine for the real old timers, they were probably experiencing 100% growth on a monthly basis. ah.....
250
« on: April 07, 2010, 12:20 »
I would like to ask you this question now: If you'd like to opt out, kindly let me know and we will try to build an opt out mechanism for those who wish to opt out. I am sure that some of you here are programmers and don't like to have lots and lots of if...then....elses.
hi alex: i just had a great month at 123, so am not complaining. if you do include this as an opt in/opt out (maybe even on individual images) for contributors, there is really nothing that i can find fault with.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 21
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|