|
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 - bjorn
26
« on: September 29, 2007, 02:03 »
27
« on: September 18, 2007, 01:12 »
28
« on: September 08, 2007, 01:09 »
FP thanks for the comments, I thought about the idea, but not sure if it would sell better. The story it would tell is rather limited I would think, perhaps as 'breakfast at the golfclub'  But it would sure be fun to make it  Had/have more blue sky and clouds (shot it portrait) but it sort of distracted from the grass/egg. If I can find the time, i'll give it a try...
29
« on: September 07, 2007, 09:49 »
To get you guys inspired (or vomit I shot my egg photo today, now lets hope it gets accepted  Assuming you all are creative enough to think of something better and not steal the idea... Not enough time to go really creative (vacation planned). Comments to improve are welcome... Great idea Leaf! 
30
« on: September 06, 2007, 06:55 »
Two of my images had the over filtered rejection. Like Leaf's, they are not 100% sharp. The subject is sharp but foreground is not sharp. See http://www.dreamstime.com/squash-break-through-image2890487 http://www.dreamstime.com/wind-energy-image1954088 I don't think the PS:level or curves have much to do with it. I even once got a rejection with the comment to use Levels! +a slight levels adjust would greatly help this file. There are times i think the pre judge the images with software, and human's after that. Leaf, i don't know the image size but what if you cut out the bottom right? So the darker (unsharp) background on the left is cut out. I wouldn't be surprised if its accepted then (unless there are artifacts). After the help on artifacts here i turned off sharpening all together and no more rejections on artifacts. (see thread http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=2205.msg18635#msg18635) Hope it helps...
31
« on: September 05, 2007, 11:44 »
With all due respect and nothing personal, but sharpshot's best shot sold 124 times in roughly 1 year (i would sign for it). But the top selling images i referred to sell that much in one week.
I guess the only way to find out is if you double or half your keywords and look over a longer time what happens.
I think that if you add more general keywords like 'email' or 'contact' to sharpshot's top image, sales will go up. Once again, learn from the best, look at how general and objective their keywords are.
Just my 2 cents...
32
« on: September 05, 2007, 10:59 »
Lets learn from the best : This weeks top 10 sellers on IStock ( http://www.istockphoto.com/most_popular.php) have respectively 43, 39, 43, 35, 37, 27, 40, 33, 32, 28 keywords.
33
« on: September 05, 2007, 00:53 »
34
« on: September 04, 2007, 09:39 »
35
« on: September 03, 2007, 06:03 »
>Given how much higher sales prices are on IS...  ? perhaps i don't understand,but for me, on average, Dreamstime & StockXpert give me more /photo then istock
36
« on: September 03, 2007, 01:13 »
Hi, Just an idea regarding the 'monthly sales/earnings' I see a lot of 'best month ever' and in terms of earnings, august was my best month too. But isn't that so because we keep adding photo's? And hopefully get better and add better photo's. So how fair is it to compare eg. a july where you have 150 photo's online with an august with 175 photo's (or whatever). So how can we make this more objective? One way of doing it is by dividing the sales by the total number of photos you have online. (and to get a more workable number multiply it by 100, to get your earnings per photo in cents). eg. lets say you have 150 pictures on 4 sites so a total of 600 images online. And you earned that month $75, it simply comes down to ($75/600 * 100) = 12.5 We could call it the Portfolio Sales Index or Monthly Sales Index It also says something about your portfolio itself since the better you pictures the more sales and the higher the number. Eg Someone with 100 pictures that bring $50/month has a much higher index then someone with 400 pictures and $50. Obviously what is interesting is your personal change in that number over the months. If i calculate that index for my own portfolio over the past few months, it comes to: May 11.49 June 10.08 July 9.65 August 10.64 Interesting to see May was better then August (although i earned less). (perhaps i made worse pictures after ) My portfolio isn't great, i have photo's in there that never sold, and obviously if you delete those the number goes up. So be careful with that, perhaps (if you want to) delete only a few a month not to influence your index too much. If anybody has a better idea, lets hear!
37
« on: September 01, 2007, 06:02 »
August 2007 (best month ever ) Istock 19.71% Dreamstime 37.09% Fotolia 2.06% StockXpert 41.13% IStock was bad, StockXpert was great... Fotalia seems to be dead But on total it was the best month ever.
38
« on: September 01, 2007, 05:51 »
I'm one of the very few Dutch Bjorn's around (Guess my parents just liked the name, and I'm happy with it) But i can understand your reasoning, with the posting time, euro and name... hmm, so i better have a look around, for the Lacie photon20vision
39
« on: September 01, 2007, 02:02 »
On the samsung i read that the same model may have different panels. Some great, some bad. Problem is you don't know what you get... Also see there is a lot of difference on contrast ratio. The screens you buy around the corner are roughly 1:500 or 1:800, but if you look closer some go up to 1:3000 (eg. FP's Samsung Sycmaster 223BW) and even to 1:10000. I guess that makes a lot of difference on the contrast (now lets hope its the same on every corner of the screen From the other hand, i read that its not a standard and manufacturers can fiddle the numbers, also i saw great contrast on screens with a ration of only 1:400 End 2005 i read a review on the Eizo CG210, (its great) problem was it cost euro 2000+. But when i check recently the models dropped to around euro 1000 The dell 2707WFP or 2407WFP are about the same price. Ok you get a bigger screen but I would choose for a 20 eizo above the 24 dell. As a techy i have trouble with nothing saying marketing phrases like TrueColour and UltraSharp, etc... On the Eizo site they talk about colour space, no. of colours, look up tables, calibration, etc, all makes a lot more sense to me. Also there are no Dell showrooms here too proof their technology. (for those interested check www.Eizo.com) Budget, hmmm , I want something that is at least as good as my crt/trinitron. I guess I need to buy a new video card with some memory and to get DVI so that would be around euro200-300. And then obv. a screen >=20 Also read that the new HDTV standard is 1920x1080, so it would be nice if the screen can handle that. But very little can. And seen the reputation and speed on hdtv , i better scratch it of my wish list. It would be nice to buy something between 500 to 700, but if that can't beat the old trinitron i'll wait. It seems that technology goes up and prices down quickly. Thanks for the tip Leaf, The lacie's look good, price in same range as the Eizo, and just a bit above budget. http://www.lacie.com/products/range.htm?id=10016Read a good review on an old LaCie photon20 Vision II (euro 800) but that was 2 years ago and can't be bought anymore (or i can't find it). Can't find 'enzo' guess you mean eizo. For those with flash installed and fans of youtube (and bored you may want to have a look at a Gamut comparison, Eizo CG211 vs LaCie Electron (i haven't seen in, run it to it on the way searching)
| <![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vej7Qfkjq5Y" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vej7Qfkjq5Y</a>]]> | Perhaps save a bit more (sell more pictures, more months like august  ) If anybody runs into something nice or read a good review, let me know.
40
« on: August 30, 2007, 09:36 »
Hi, I'm still using one of those old and dusty Trinitron CRT's. Currently looking around for a good LCD. Dell clames to have a good screen, with all kind of hyper words. TrueColor & UltraSharp, TrueLife, etc... Does any of you have one of those TrueColor & UltraSharp dell screens? eg. dell 3007WFP, 2707WFP or 2407WFP? In that case (or if you think your screen is great! ) can you have a look at the following image and see if you can see 2 times 8 bars sticking out of there background? Haven't yet seen an LCD where you could see all 16 (so that's why i'm stuck to my CRT). see: image.jpgIf you can see all the 16 bars (at the same time  ) please let me/us know the brand & model (or a link). Details about the Dell: -Dell TrueColor Technology (92% color gamut) delivers rich and life-like colors.
-features a 92 percent colour gamut W-CCFL (Wide Cold-Cathode Fluorescent Lighting) backlight that delivers the latest in dynamic colour technology, making colours richer and enabling a more realistic gaming experience.http://accessories.euro.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=nl&l=nl&s=dhs&cs=nldhs1&sku=104712thanks. PS: i know eizo has a few nice screens, but i can't afford that > euro 2000.
41
« on: August 29, 2007, 03:21 »
what about sales?
42
« on: August 04, 2007, 11:32 »
Thanks guys (and ladies?), that was really helpful! I looked up the Raw file and found out it has to do with the sharpening options in C1. (as you suggested) The sharpening creates the white edges around the cable, mountain, and (in some minor extent) the problem with the cloud. I used to use 90% sharpening, but went back to 50% hope that is ok  (prefer some sharpening). Any better (sharpening) software around? Or do all have this problem? For those interested, I made some screen shots: the 2 extremes: 0% sharp0.jpg400% sharp400.jpgand 50% sharp50.jpgonce again, thank! Regards, Bjorn
43
« on: August 04, 2007, 06:16 »
Hi, I had a rejection from istock that I don't really understand. I don't mind rejections, as long as i can learn something from it. I would really appreciate it if one of you can have a look at the photo and can tell me what i'm doing wrong. Describe where i have to look or (even better) Cut out a part, put some arrows ;-) and email it or post it here, whatever you prefer... I know there has been some posts on artifacting, and i read them but still... Point is also, i shot it in Raw (canon 350d), used C1 to convert it to jpg12 so where are the artifacts created? Below the iStock feedback, i asked for more details/reason and got the reply in the second line. This file contains artifacting when viewed at full size. This technical issue is commonly created by the quality settings in-camera or in post-processing.
As you've requested I've taken another look at image number xxx which was rejected due to artifacting. The compression is contained in the ejects of the objects in the image and the cloud areas of the file. Thanks a million! Regards, Bjorn see: mg_9352.jpg
44
« on: July 26, 2007, 11:16 »
yes, sure 5d. here an example, Canon EOS 5D body $18,690.00HKD 10,7 hong kong dollars in a euro, so comes to 1750 euro. here i can't find any under 2500 euro. and that is from the internet, i guess if you look around locally you should get it for 1500 euro at least. http://www.tincheungcamera.com.hk/index.php?cPath=1_63&osCsid=6400f3ebf04d6872641f6e6d03c9a6cbthat almost makes it worth flying up there (or in combination with a vacation). strange world...
45
« on: July 26, 2007, 10:59 »
Does anybody know where in the world you can buy the cheapest body? (i'm thinking of buying a canon D5).
Prices differ quite a bit from continent to continent.
I know there is already a big difference between EU & usa, just wondering if Asia (hong-kong or Singapore) would be even cheaper.
It may be worth to look around if I'm there anyway.
Anybody know some websites?
thanks,
Bjorn
46
« on: May 19, 2007, 02:18 »
Hi le_cyclope/Claude & others, Interesting to see we both sell mostly large images on DT and mostly small on Istock. It would be interesting to see if that is just us or more common. (so common guys/girls show your numbers). Could it be that IS has more web buyers and DT more print customers? If this is true, it may be worth putting small/medium versions on the microstock sites and the XL versions on eg. Alamy. (anyone doing this?) (and it gives an excuse to buy that 16Mb camera ) Personally I believe my customers are intelligent enough to see quality by looking at the image and not on the size of...
47
« on: May 18, 2007, 00:42 »
Hi, Just curious... What size photo's do you sell most? Would there be a difference per agent, or per image? (if i look at my numbers there is). I checked the last couple of weeks and here are my stats (in %): If I look at my % there is little need for a bigger camera DT:Max 68% Large 15% Mid 4% Small 13% FT:XL Standard 4% L Standard 26% M Standard 70% Istock:Large 17% Medium 21% Small 45% Xsmal 17% looking forward to see your score's and to hear what you think of it. Regards, Bjorn
48
« on: January 03, 2007, 11:49 »
Personally i like the first one best (posture & color)
Also has the first has the best colour (on my screen).
Second is too redisch too me, and last one has a greenisch glow.
Don't want to start a colour monitor thing ;-) (but do wonder if you guys see the same) (i have a trinitron & calibrated it last month)
(look at her legs)
well done!
49
« on: December 30, 2006, 07:13 »
Just wondering, what do you really get paid per photo?
If you take what you (totally) earned this year (per agent) and devide it by the photo's sold there, what does it give you (so include ext. license, etc...)
my list...
Istock $0.46
Dreamstime $0.70
Fotolia $0.73
StockXpert $0.94
50
« on: December 30, 2006, 07:05 »
Hi David/litifeta,
Don't see why you should have any trouble uploading, you have nice quality work.
StockXpert rejected some of my landscape photo's, so try those later, but you have plenty of variation, you won't have a problem.
KR,
bjorn
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
