|
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 - louoates
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 31
251
« on: November 17, 2010, 15:39 »
Map is novel and interesting but I don't see much real use except for bragging about that sale in Vladivostok. I do confess to feeling rather godlike in seeing my work zipping around the world.
I don't get any more info by mousing over the small circle on the image. Better idea for the space: 1. A running total of sales of those new downloads along with their number of sales per month.
The overall earnings is helpful, showing my sales performance over time.
The earnings from New Content: Nice useful idea showing productivity of my latest work. I'd add pictures of, say, 5 of my hottest selling images from that graph.
And please, SS, make it easy to find out how much each of my images are selling. I want to sort my images quickly by date, total sales, and downloads per month. The current method is too time to be of value.
Did I mention that the most useful single tool in microstock is IS's Downloads per Month calculation.
252
« on: November 14, 2010, 11:49 »
I've had some in queue there for 6 weeks. I guess Veer doesn't factor in image freshness as an advantage in the micro-wars. There is a "newest" search function on other sites for some reason. When SS is approving images in hours and selling them immediately you'd think someone with a competitive brain over at Veer would take notice. You'd think an ad push of "Newest images in stock photography!" would get some notice.
253
« on: November 12, 2010, 20:52 »
I fancy myself a wizard with the pen tool otherwise cutting out from the background is way too difficult and time consuming. I did a large series using antique black and white portraits as raw material for composites and all the figures were cut out. But I had no inspectors to worry about.
254
« on: November 12, 2010, 16:29 »
I have no idea what some reviewers are smoking when they reject a perfectly cut out image. Poor lighting, incorrect white balance, even "stray" pixels with perfectly clean white areas. Maybe some dead pixels on their monitors? And you are right about too much work for too little return. How about a buyer's request button that offers the photographer an extra $20-$50 to cut out an image to order?
255
« on: November 09, 2010, 18:44 »
You mean WE are hit with a share of the discount? I'm shocked, shocked.
256
« on: November 09, 2010, 18:40 »
I'm the last one to complain about those who complain. I love to carp about the strange goings-on in this business. It's one of life's pleasures that those of us who have no water cooler to gather around can enjoy here.
So....
I very carefully read stockmarketer's post and found it to be exactly on target. Absolutely accurate. I agree with every point he made. My only complaint is that I would have written it a bit "softer" so as not to even come close to a charge of being preachy by the thinner skinned among us. Oops, I hope that doesn't sound condescending.
Anyway, I've long advocated the "get out of the kitchen" action if one takes particular offense at one site or another -- sites all need to be taken down a notch or two from time to time. But that's the hand we've been dealt. I'm reminded of the guy who was asked why he kept playing poker with a group known for cheating. He answered, "it's the only game in town."
257
« on: November 07, 2010, 14:27 »
I round up sime really nice gals, they get hq pictures of themselves for free if they sign MR, and I try to get laid. That way it's worth shooting for microcrap. If don't get laid at all, I stop, coz that is just unsustainable : ) Or maybe I should drop my DSLR, seems like it's becoming a loosers icon as I read here, and just pimp them, I dunno, we'll see. I was also thinking maybe it's easier to mug people disguised as photographer.
I second your last and excellent concept. My Glock fits nicely and unobtrusively into my tamrac camera bag.
258
« on: November 07, 2010, 12:19 »
And what comes after selling my props on ebay?
In this order: camera bags, flash and studio lighting setups, tripods, shutter releases, light meter, white cards, Canon battery recharger, spare batteries, compact disk flash cards, closeup attachment, closeup filters, macro lenses, telephoto lenses, Photoshop plug-ins and third party programs, inkjet paper and canvases, extra 220 ml ink cartridges, Epson 9800 printer, 50 mm lens, CS5 suite, Eizo monitor, Apple deskpro computer and keyboard, complete micro-stock portfolio, and password to Microstockgroup. This is sounding a lot like a plan.
259
« on: November 07, 2010, 10:35 »
Why even shoot? I'd probably make more money just selling my props on ebay than bothering to shoot them for microstock. 
260
« on: November 04, 2010, 23:33 »
I get approved often within 24 hours, sometimes within 2 hours at SS. And downloads often within minutes of approval. So, yes, I'm frustrated with Veer's approval time. Competitive-wise Veer is missing having fresh images in a timely manner. Why search Veer when buyers can see new images on all the other sites weeks or months ahead of Veer? It smacks of discovering leftovers in the fridge that have turned blue weeks before.
261
« on: November 01, 2010, 11:38 »
i shoot only studio shots of objects I already own or can get at no cost.
I think we're seeing this the same way. I've had some success shooting unusual, old, and/or retro objects but soon ran out of subjects I already owned. Just for the fun of it, I went to some surplus/scrap outlets, picked up a few things and did images of them. Sure, they sold, in some cases surprisingly well, but they also cost me a few bucks plus some amount of time.
As you point out, the way this ends is with a few high-volume producers scratching out a slim margin on repetitious shots costing little or nothing to produce.
Very close to my conclusions. The key will be, as you say, the "little or nothing to produce" approach. Very high-volume commercially aware producers only. Those who think that microstock will somehow reward the edgy creative efforts are dead wrong. The costs in time and effort will overwhelm the returns. The only way I can see otherwise is for highly specialized content with much higher contributor commissions. Do I dare say macro or some morph of it?
262
« on: October 30, 2010, 11:02 »
Six years ago this was a dynamic fairly quick-return business. Probably due to the shortage of images relative to the demand. The steady decline in earnings per image uploaded has put a damper on my enthusiasm. My IS income is 1/3 of what it was 5 years ago with 4 times the images. Lots of reasons market-wise for that if you've been following this group. For me, now, I upload much less, check results less often, and generally regard this business as more of a curiosity/hobby than as a money-making venture. Plus it's fun to follow the rants, prognostications, and trends. I don't have a dog to play with. Thank God I don't need to make a living at this.
263
« on: October 30, 2010, 10:14 »
Yes its quite depressing, ... Apart from the MS pin up boys, seems like the photographer is the loser here?
Warning -- Biased Opinion: Welcome to reality. This business is what it is. No sense in complaining about others who you think are getting a better deal than you. If you feel like a loser, what is keeping you from seeking other work?
264
« on: October 27, 2010, 16:57 »
Highly dubious. Nobody in his/her sane mind would submit to such a site.
Correct.
265
« on: October 27, 2010, 13:45 »
I should also add that of my top 10 earners, 7 almost never or never sold at other sites, and vice versa. Which leads to think the best match is hugely manipulated, much more than on DT and SS since the overlap between good sellers is much larger there. This far-off best match plus the fact that recent files (of 2010) sink to the bottom and never sell at all made me stop uploading even before the royalty cut announcement.
I hate to see such speculation regarding Best Match formulas. My mind hurts trying to assign reasons why they do what they do. My experience is that each site caters to different buyers and needs. Some of my best sellers on IS are rarely, if ever, sold at FT. And FT sells only a few of my categories but sells them often. No rhyme or reason. If every site had identical best match formulas I'd wager that my images would sell about the same on every site as they do now. I'd much rather shoot some more instead of incurring further brain pain.
266
« on: October 27, 2010, 08:04 »
Thanks basti. You cleared up lots of questions I had. Will try both programs again.
267
« on: October 26, 2010, 19:12 »
My top five sellers at IS are 24.2 16.3 8.8 7.7 and 5.9 dls/month.
Lou, are any of top sellers landscapes?
Not really. My 16.3 dls/month is a person sitting on a river bank backlit by a sunset but it would be a stretch to call it a landscape. So my top 48 has zero landscapes. But I make most of my photography income from landscapes. Go figure.
268
« on: October 26, 2010, 17:21 »
Tracking is too cumbersome on any site except IS. Especially dls/month. It's as if the sites are embarrassed to clearly show you your own results. The nice thing about the dls/month stat is that it leads you to focus on the kinds of shots that do better for your shooting style. In my opinion it also shows you where not to waste your time.
When I started in this business about 6 years ago I uploaded topics that I was shooting anyway. Mostly landscapes and oddities that I found during my travels. Those images for the most part really sucked in microstock. As I began to put the microstock "hat" on during my travels I shot more and more with commercial use in mind. It was just as challenging as what I was doing before but I had more play value involved when seeing folks actually paying me to shoot. Luckily I don't have to make a living at this stuff but it's nice to get some money recognition for your time.
Now at art shows I value less the oohs and ahhs about my landscape work and more on the "dollar votes" of the landscape images that actually sell.
But this business is so screwy. A few years ago I uploaded to IS a landscape image I rejected for any art show display. I had zero expectations. To my surprise it jumped up to 20+ dls/month. It's receded to 16 dls/month this year but is still my number 2 seller.
I may have set a record for wandering off topic but it's nice to chat and share stuff.
269
« on: October 26, 2010, 15:47 »
I haven't had a single smashing hit photo
Interesting what's considered a smash hit. For my portfolio my best seller is now at about 24 dls/month at IS. With 704 total images. The top dls/month on my page two of IS (24 per page) is only 3 dls/month.
My top five sellers at IS are 24.2 16.3 8.8 7.7 and 5.9 dls/month.
So for me if an image is selling 2-3 per month right from the first month I consider it a winner.
270
« on: October 26, 2010, 10:58 »
basti,
Thanks for the info but I have trouble understanding it. Can you elaborate? I'd love to see some tutorials if you know of any. I have Photomatix Pro and CS5 but haven't been happy with experimenting so far. I think there is great potential in HDR or HDRI (?) -- especially with selling landscapes at art shows, etc. -- with a little more tech info.
271
« on: October 26, 2010, 10:48 »
I've long railed against exclusivity so I'd be the last person to urge you to stay with IS only. You're in a good position now with a large portfolio that for the most part will be accepted by the other sites. I believe that within a few months your income can exceed what you are making now if you get to work at the upload limits. Having multiple outlets at the top and middle tiers is like buying insurance against the goofiness that seems inevitable on any one site from time to time. Keep in mind that many of these good producing sites will accept images that IS rejected. So you'll immediately gain from exposure of those fresh images to the market.
Warning -- biased opinion:
Forget about any site except the first four top earners and maybe a few from the next five on the middle tier earners list. You don't need to waste time now with the so-far losers. Let the uninformed test out the wanna-bes.
272
« on: October 25, 2010, 15:50 »
It is incredibly ignorant to advertise a new microstock venture to this group without, apparently, doing your homework. Searching related topics here would have alerted you to the dangers of your asking for images without having any of the pertinent information. We are not a bunch of dummies here. We value our time.
If you are just unaware that these issues are important up front, I hope you didn't quit your day job.
There is no way to fix a rotten first impression. You dug yourself into a pretty deep hole.
To sum things up, no sale.
273
« on: October 22, 2010, 10:21 »
By the way. The boots are not HDR.
274
« on: October 22, 2010, 10:19 »
 I just tried this and I think it will work. -- another old fart
275
« on: October 20, 2010, 10:27 »
I would think that vector piracy is a tiny bit of the problem of thievery when compared to theft of thumbnail images via cloning out watermarks. I put those worries just behind concern that my next image will be rejected with another arbitrary reason.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 31
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
