|
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 - CJH Photography
26
« on: March 23, 2017, 11:14 »
Hey all,
These were taken with 100% natural light, at a cafe.
Critique would be appreciated, including post.
Thanks
Brasilnut
They don't make me want to drink the coffee,which is important. It just seems a bit flat and the colors a bit off. It would be nice to see some steam wafting up and maybe a little brighter. Since most of them got accepted, though-see if they sell. It's what the customers like that matters.
27
« on: March 23, 2017, 11:13 »
Hey all,
These were taken with 100% natural light, at a cafe.
Critique would be appreciated, including post.
Thanks
Brasilnut
They don't make me want to drink the coffee,which is important. It just seems a bit flat and the colors a bit off. It would be nice to see some steam wafting up and maybe a little brighter and less saturated. Since most of them got accepted, though-see if they sell. It's what the customers like that matters.
28
« on: March 23, 2017, 11:09 »
I'd be interested to know if it gets through at that asa. I have a Nikon D7000 and struggle to get much through above 400. Though to be fair I haven't tried much lately.
The one with the barista didn't get through for noise/grain rejection but I've since resubmitted with more noise reduction. The rest got through OK.
I'm using a Nikon D800 and it's quite impressive, even at higher ISO.
Yep quite a step up from mine I'm guessing being full frame is a bit benefit noise wise
Yup, I noticed a huge difference in noise when I went to full frame. It was great! I still like my crop sensor for "getting closer" to pictures at events, etc, though
29
« on: March 14, 2017, 13:15 »
You wouldn't necessarily need (at least in US) a specialized photography policy to cover gear. What you are looking for is what we call an Inland Marine or "floater" policy. I recommend getting some recommendations for agents from your friends and getting at least three quotes. You will want to check to see if there is a deductible and if the equipment is covered at actual cash value or replacement cost. You also want to be sure the coverage will cover the equipment wherever it is (assuming you are mobile) and covers "special causes of loss" instead of "named perils."
Anyway, I have worked in insurance for about 30 years and insured my own gear, so if you have questions I will try and clarify.
30
« on: December 22, 2016, 13:08 »
dup post
31
« on: December 22, 2016, 13:08 »
Does is make sense to tell everybody his present sales figures?
I am up 25 percent...
I am down 50 percent....
I am happy...
I am pissed off...
What shall I do with this information? Any idea?
Mostly ignore it...some start talking about the WME or BME no later than the 4th of the month and sometimes sooner. If they enjoy it, fine, doesn't hurt anybody. But certainly don't adjust your business model or expectations. 
32
« on: December 22, 2016, 13:05 »
Every time I read news about istock I am so glad I pulled my portfolio.
33
« on: December 14, 2016, 11:36 »
please, show me the result of your 2080 hours
On an annual basis, an Full Time Employee is considered to be 2,080 hours, which is calculated as:
8 hours per day
x 5 work days per week
x 52 weeks per year
= 2,080 hours per year
FTE in The Netherlands is around 1650 hours, but we also probably earn less. 
Is this for stock only?
34
« on: December 14, 2016, 10:28 »
I am able to click on the thumbnail and an image comes up with licensing prices and an option to DL. I hope this means it has been fixed for you.
35
« on: December 12, 2016, 12:50 »
... ... And why would you put the same images on an RM agency that you have on SS?
Because he "really didn't care".
I gave you a like for that. True! if the agencies dont care then why should I?
Contractual obligations and professional reputation come to mind. Congrats on the sales though.
36
« on: December 07, 2016, 17:19 »
Happy for you! Hope some of those good sales are coming my way!
37
« on: December 07, 2016, 11:39 »
Totally agree with the "Alamy Sucks" statement.... they managed to check ONE, yes the first one, didn't like it and hence rejected them all. ...we uploaded 6 images and the same BULLCRAP attitude - 1st one rejected, all rejected. ...
I understand rejections are frustrating, but for the benefit of anyone else reading this thread in the future, Alamy is very straightforward about quality control - no editorial curation, just checks for technical quality.
I've never had an image rejected by them, so I have to think that if you have had two back to back rejections, you need to inspect your uploads more carefully. Impossible to say what the issues are without seeing the images. Did you look over the second upload of 6 before submitting or just assumed the first rejection was a fluke and not a flaw in your work?
Dealing with rejections without bursting a blood vessel is important for longevity if you plan to upload stock - all the other agencies inspect for composition and their commercial value opinions as well as technical quality. Alamy is as good as it gets 
They are also very straight forward in saying that your review times will be slower if you get rejections. So, doing quality control yourself is extremely important.
38
« on: December 07, 2016, 10:43 »
I sell every now and then but the so called "Quality Control" is a total joke. In the past they let everything just through, nowadays it happens more and more that a whole series of Batches is stuck for a month and then rejected because one image was bad....very unprofessional.
I haven't had this problem. I have a small port with only one sale there this year, but it was a good enough price to put Alamy at about number three on my earnings for the year.
39
« on: December 05, 2016, 10:50 »
So I have to disagree, Getty might not think it matters but they are wrong.
If the top 800 leave, Getty would really notice it. If the bottom 8000 leave they would just laugh about how much wasted server space was being recovered. And those most likely to leave are those with the least to lose. The top 800 would lose quite a lot. The bottom 8000 probably would never have made a payout, anyway. That's just how it is.
I'm in the top couple hundred and if my monthly income there drops any more I DONT stand to lose a lot. This year I make so little there that if I lose even one or two hundred $ /month it won't be worth staying.
Wow, that's sad!
40
« on: December 01, 2016, 10:12 »
However, they have to pay someone to make that subjective decision. Which probably means they can't afford to.
Ya'll are old school...a person to make a decision? Are you living in the 1990s? Software can do much of the gruntwork and then there is international low cost labor to do the rest.
Put it this way, if reviewing videos is your bottleneck and costing you too much then you are simply doing it wrong...and need to take better advantage of modern automation trends.
Yeah they could easily reject 90% for some random reason and nobody would be any the wiser ;-). I'm sure that never happens when an agency has a big queue
Yes, you get it...thank you! Instead...Dissolve decides to create this counterproductive confrontation with the artist...it's just so amateur and telling of the business acumen of the leadership.
I find this confusing-you would rather upload 2500 clips and have it cut to 250 at random than be limited and have the opportunity to choose the 250 you submitted?
41
« on: December 01, 2016, 09:50 »
I had no sales there all month :-(
42
« on: November 30, 2016, 16:49 »
Probably a scam, but to what end on their end? Take down a pic? For what? Why?
n email I suspect it will be followed by a nasty attachment in a that might cause all sorts of problems.
This will be the response when "proof" is requested is my guess. Nasty scam!
43
« on: November 30, 2016, 16:44 »
Counter-suing would mean I need to come up with a retainer for a lawyer and the way SS is going, I am making pennies.
Don't tell them that...just reserve the right. You seem like a very nice person, maybe a bit too nice.
44
« on: November 30, 2016, 16:31 »
Well, they responded and this is what they said:
"Sorry if you get me wrong that logo no the picture /image was stolen from us and we have full proof as to where you get it from ,so I'm asking you again to take it down or the next step is going to legal action 2 days"
I don't get it, "full proof"? I bet they are foreign so if they take legal action wouldn't they have to come where I am? They still haven't shown me their example or let me know the business name. It all seems so strange.
Maybe I should just delete it....
If they thought they had a legit claim, I would think they would send a DMCA take down to the owner of the site on which your image is posted. That could cause some issues if it went to one of the agencies.
45
« on: November 28, 2016, 13:04 »
Nice! Definitely worth the fight~
46
« on: November 28, 2016, 13:02 »
I love doing stock.
It feels very rewarding that strangers that I will never meet use my images in projects I will never see. Even when I am long gone my files will keep circling the globe being used somewhere.
I am focussing more on macrostock or specialized agencies for photos, but have some themes that continue to do well on microstock.
I have also fallen in love with video and at the moment the average download is higher than for photos. But processing and uploading 4k takes a lot of time.
To prevent burnout, I turn to editorial video and photos.
Look at events going on in my city or drive to a new place and try to capture that.
But for me stock is the best thing ever and now we have so many different agencies and styles, you can sell anything.
I enjoy editorial, too, and they can sell quite well. I have a decent portfolio of the presidential candidates from 2015-2016 and it helps support my losers...I love to just jump in the car and go. I am, however, working on a budget now instead of constantly investing in equipment. I am also trying to build a traditional photography business.
47
« on: November 28, 2016, 12:54 »
*lol* I was so excited and looking to see what sold! Then I saw it was a glitch :-(
48
« on: November 23, 2016, 14:55 »
i guess was wrong then and you can copyright images in the PD, still dont understand how you can sell an unaltered PD work and claim copyright. if i now start selling those same images, can getty then sue me? surely not
My guess is the court found that when she donated the pictures, she donated the copyright. Therefore, she didn't have grounds for a claim against Getty for selling them. I'm not entirely sure how they could get by with claiming cr though. Anybody can sue anybody in this country, but they shouldn't win...
49
« on: November 23, 2016, 11:15 »
Their defense is crazy....
But they basically won
50
« on: November 17, 2016, 17:52 »
ok, thanks for your answers, but maybe I explained bad, do not misunderstand me, I would just like to know if there is a way to know if and how an image is protected, just not to make mistakes, there is a website or a method where the power to make this type of research? or not?
Images in the US are protected from the moment of creation, whether they are registered or published or not. So, no, there would not be one place to go to check for this.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
