|
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 - dnavarrojr
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 17
26
« on: April 27, 2011, 10:48 »
I could never get any form of steadycam to work and give me what I wanted. I switched to a shoulder mount for my DSLR and a Fig Rig. Those combined with using an IS lens are the most versatile in my opinion.
27
« on: April 21, 2011, 02:44 »
Alamy accept everything, as long as its technically OK. They might never sell it but they also might sell it for a really big commission.
Thanks, I'll check them out.
28
« on: April 20, 2011, 22:41 »
Thanks... Artsy might be wrong... but it's not typical stock material so I didn't know if it would be worth submitting. I guess I called it artsy because I have prints of it in several local art galleries where it sells well.
Curious, I would never imagine people buying that for decoration purposes. But then, there is a lot in art galleries that I would never buy either.
Not really sure either. I did a print for an "Art Walk" in our downtown more to show it off than any expectation of selling it and it sold pretty quickly (I told the buyer he could have it at the end of the evening) and even after I put "sold" on it, I had two others who wanted to buy it. I made them prints a few days later. A couple of the "Arts District" galleries asked for prints for their show rooms and it sold a few more times. Interestingly, one of the large poster prints was sold to a video production company downtown and is in their lobby. I don't know where the others ended up. This one of her has also sold 3 times as poster prints: 
29
« on: April 20, 2011, 22:35 »
I guess I called it artsy because I have prints of it in several local art galleries where it sells well.
I really can't understand why you would like to degrade the image by selling the image on microstock sites (Why not sell it as RM?)
The only RM sites I know of tend to also only accept "commercial appeal" images as opposed to stuff like this.
30
« on: April 20, 2011, 10:55 »
Thanks... Artsy might be wrong... but it's not typical stock material so I didn't know if it would be worth submitting. I guess I called it artsy because I have prints of it in several local art galleries where it sells well.
--Dave
31
« on: April 19, 2011, 08:33 »
I honestly haven't looked much yet, but do the MicroStock agencies take the more artsy shots or strictly commercial appeal? For example:  I've sold several prints of this in a gallery along with similar art portrait shots and I'm curious if it's worth submitting to ShutterStock, Dreamstime, etc...
32
« on: April 03, 2011, 12:53 »
All of the moves iStock has been doing lately has me thinking they are intentionally trying to thin the herd of less attractive contributors. They want iStockers that are committed to iStock and their entire philosophy and the rest can take a flying leap...
33
« on: April 03, 2011, 12:14 »
If 99% of your sales are 33 cent subs, should you be reducing the size of your uploads to the minimum resolution allowed? Or should you submit full resolution for those rare non-sub sales and even rarer ELs?
34
« on: April 02, 2011, 16:39 »
I fill in all the info on my releases for IS. All they care about is the signature and the witness info.
Thanks. I am curious as to who will accept it as is, so I went ahead and submitted a clip to Pond5, SS, RevoStock, and CanStock. And I submitted a still to Dreamstime. If necessary, I'll fill in her email/phone. I really wish the agencies would accept electronic signatures so that I could just use my iPhone model release app.
35
« on: April 02, 2011, 16:28 »
I did a video shoot with an actress yesterday and I just noticed today that when she filled out the model release, she left out her phone number and email.
My first question is... Are those two items required? I can imagine instances where you shoot a homeless person or something who doesn't have either. She did fill out her correct address.
My second question is... If either or both are required by ShutterStock, Dreamstime, etc... could I fill that info in, or does it have to be in her handwriting?
TIA for your help.
36
« on: March 17, 2011, 10:43 »
Shutterstock buyers will download anything new. That's the fun of a subscription. Of course, for the privilege of selling more, you get paid less.
So non-exclusive iStock contributors get paid more for subscription downloads?
37
« on: March 16, 2011, 19:37 »
Can anyone point me to a release for Crew? I'm doing my first big photo/video shoot with several actors and a couple of crew members. I have talent releases for the actors/models but I need a release for the crew, both of whom may be operating cameras.
38
« on: March 16, 2011, 13:32 »
In order to help contributors to drive sales, you might want to consider creating a WordPress plugin which integrates a contributors portfolio with their own blog.
I heavily promote my work on my own web site and I do my own mailings (both physical and email) to buyers to promote my portfolio through my own web site. What makes that work for me is that Pond5 released code which allowed me to integrate my portfolio directly into my web site. From that I have seen an increase in traceable sales (through Google web analytics and referral income).
39
« on: March 16, 2011, 08:09 »
I wouldn't upload HD to Fotolia... They sell 1080p HD for $4 through subscription. Other than that, it's a good list.
40
« on: March 16, 2011, 08:07 »
Revostock is VERY artist friendly, no doubt about that. But they are primarily an AE Template shop and video sales there are pretty poor compared to Pond5, ShutterStock and even (gasp!) iStock. They just don't put as much effort into video as they do their bread and butter.
41
« on: March 16, 2011, 08:04 »
^^^I have some on Pond5 for $10. Hopefully we can replace the images they have from the 3rd party sites with our own. With their 50% commission, $5 isn't bad and we should be able to raise prices if we want to.
The problem is that if they import millions of images to seed their collection, you can't raise your prices by much and remain competitive with the rest of the collection. And they haven't acknowledged yet if you can exclude your collection from those being imported. You may very well end up competing with your own images.
42
« on: March 16, 2011, 07:56 »
Have you considered using multiple off camera flashes for your lighting? Or even a single $6 clamp light with a CFL bulb and a cheese cloth for diffusion.
43
« on: March 16, 2011, 07:43 »
Well, after an interesting discussion with Pond5... They screwed up with their entry into the Image and Vector market.
They will be importing millions of images from 123rf and Dreamstime to "seed" their collection before they allow any artists to begin uploading. 123rf and Dreamstime will control the pricing of those images. So already the images listed on the site are priced pretty low. Any hope of getting more for your images are pretty much gone as Pond5 has allowed their competitors to control their market. And once they start getting direct contributions, they will not end their partnership... so those partners will always be in control of Pond5's market. I'm not sure I understand such a poor business decision on Pond5's part, other than they make money regardless so it doesn't really matter to them where the images come from.
The pricing on the site at the moment actually allows you to buy the largest images CHEAPER than if you buy them directly on 123rf or Dreamstime. I'm not sure why those sites decided to price the largest files at $5, but if that sticks then I'll be able to buy X-Large images from the Dreamstime collection on Pond5 cheaper than if I buy them on Pond5.
Additionally, images purchased from Pond5 use their unlimited (ie, extended) license. So while 123rf and Dreamstime have restrictions on what you can do with images purchased based on which license you buy from them, Pond5 has no such restrictions. So an image that's $250 for an extended license on Dreamstime is $5 on Pond5 for the same reproduction rights as the DT extended license.
This is going to be interesting...
44
« on: March 15, 2011, 19:27 »
Lisa,
I joined an "artist group" here in my local town that is renting booths at various art fairs, farmer's markets, etc... where we can sell artwork. So I've been printing some of my images, framing them and selling them. It's nice to get out of the house and interact with actual people you can see, touch and hear their voice. I mostly break even, but on a couple of occasions I've had a banner day (sold 2 large framed prints for $300 each). I also have entered numerous photo contests and managed to place in several where the prizes were nice (got a free 1-year family pass to my local zoo).
So there's other stuff around to get involved with.
45
« on: March 15, 2011, 18:44 »
I have actually found it to be a huge motivator to do more...
I deleted everything from my Fotolia account and closed it. I also closed my accounts on all sites where I wasn't making at least half of the minimum payout each month (except for DT which I have a thing for). Instead, I am using the time I use to waste on those sites with being more effective on the sites where I am staying. I am more diligent about keywording, spending more time doing research, and spending more time learning to improve my production quality. And it's paying off... I've doubled my sales on one site and increased my sales by at least 50% on two others. By taking a solid month to go over my entire portfolio and re-keyword (on the sites that allow it), I have seen a significant rise in sales. And I have significantly reduced my rejection rate by spending more time and effort on quality.
I renewed my Linda.com account and have been having a blast learning about how to use Lightroom and Photoshop better. I've watched literally hundreds of tutorials on YouTube and Vimeo on better lighting technics, posing models, etc... And I'm a major Craiglist addict, having upgraded several of my lenses at very little cost (selling the old once, buying new ones). I don't think I've had more fun and the wife/family have noticed the difference in my attitude.
46
« on: March 15, 2011, 18:26 »
No, it doesn't piss me off at all because the alternative is them removing royalties a month later for someone stealing images. So ... choices:
1) easier for bots to login and buy photos = remove royalties a la istock.
2) type half of an unreadable word.
I'll take #2.
You cannot buy anything from ShutterStock with a contributor account. You HAVE to set up a buyer account. It has very little to do with fraud and a lot to do with prevent external sites from scraping data.
48
« on: February 25, 2011, 18:19 »
I have no problem with rejections and I understand it's part of the process. I get them for various correctable issues occasionally, and I correct the issues and resubmit, typically with success.
The head-scratcher is the "we don't think it will sell" rejection. Especially on something that's a proven seller elsewhere. I already plan to re-submit, but I was more curious as to why that would get that kid of rejection.
And I've read the reviews in the ShutterStock Critique forum and the overwhelming majority of them are crap from people who believe there job is to discourage everyone else from uploading anything that might compete with them. It's mostly self-serving BS, not actual useful information. I agree that I'd get much more realistic and useful critiques here.
49
« on: February 25, 2011, 01:24 »
Lighten it a little and resubmit.
As I said, it looks dark because of the DT process of creating preview images. The actual image is not anywhere near that dark. That said, if it were a lighting issue... Wouldn't ShutterStock say "too dark" or something. Typically my rejections are for reasons like noise, or the reviewer doesn't actually like the way I lit a scene and says so. Why the "No commercial value" rejection? That's the part I don't understand.
50
« on: February 24, 2011, 20:03 »
Just my opinion but I'd say it's probably because the sky is too dark considering the shadows you've applied and the grass rim doesn't look realistic.
That's the DT preview causing lighting issues... I'm wondering why people keep buying it on DT, CanStock, Deposit Photos and other sites if it's that bad...
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 17
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
