|
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 - robhainer
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18
276
« on: May 31, 2014, 09:34 »
A lot of people seem to be wetting the bed on this one. DT did the right thing and asked permission first. Give them a break. They wanted short term use of a few files so they could test something that might make us more money. I don't have a problem with that. Just like any other investment I make in my business, I have to spend a little now in hopes of gaining more later. The investment is small and short term.
While having your nuts in a vice. If you don't like it, you need to OPT OUT of ALL partner programs, not just this one. When partner sales go against image ranking that is a direct killer of revenue, future revenue simply by forcing you to delay pushing your files up in rank due to lack of partner sales. That's a sh1tty deal.
It's like, what, 12 files? 20? I looked at the ones they wanted to use for me, and only a couple were sellers. So it seems to me that if the other partner programs were so important to you, it makes little sense to opt out over 12 rarely sold images that will be used in a short-term test project. You all can click the minus all you want, but it seems to me that a lot of people just don't want to be reasonable anymore.
277
« on: May 31, 2014, 08:06 »
Reviewers shouldn't be active contributors at the same time. Their ports should be disabled if they are reviewing. There's a clear conflict of interest for reviewers who have the power to keep out images that would compete with theirs.
278
« on: May 31, 2014, 08:02 »
A lot of people seem to be wetting the bed on this one. DT did the right thing and asked permission first. Give them a break. They wanted short term use of a few files so they could test something that might make us more money. I don't have a problem with that. Just like any other investment I make in my business, I have to spend a little now in hopes of gaining more later. The investment is small and short term.
279
« on: May 29, 2014, 19:49 »
Hypothetically, if you were to say one of these sites was 'stealing' from photographers or 'ripping off' photographers or some other similar language, would that be true or false? All I'm saying is be careful what language you use. Make sure it's true and not up for interpretation.
280
« on: May 29, 2014, 19:12 »
If it's just stock photographer forum posts, then I think it's petty.
But if I were running a site and people were posting negative stuff on my Twitter feed where I'm trying to market my business, that'd be a different story.
Also, y'all need to be careful. I have no idea how litigious these stock companies are. Hate to see someone hit with a libel suit. You'd be OK in a U.S. court, but some other countries have libel laws that are much more favorable to plantiffs in libel cases.
281
« on: May 29, 2014, 18:04 »
People who post anonymously have less credibility. That's all there is to it. I don't have a problem with people doing that, but I have no frame of reference to judge their opinions.
For example, if the next big boycott is against Shutterstock and people with 50 images on there are telling me to delete my port because they did too, I'm going to call BS.
Sometimes you're going to get backlash when people know who you are, but that makes you watch what you say as well. It's a matter of accountability and being an adult. If I say something, I stand by it. Now if Fotolia banned my friend, Ron, for his forum postings, that's a * cheap shot and quite petty. I don't think they'd do that, but I could be wrong.
282
« on: May 27, 2014, 07:28 »
Love Color Efex 2 with pro contrast filter.
283
« on: May 26, 2014, 21:16 »
Well if it's any consolation used to get tons of rejections but they are falling off these days purely because:
A. I custom white balance each shooting session.
B. Manual focus everything (auto is just too inaccurate)
C. Blown highlights are avoided as are clipped blacks so hand held metering for everything.
D. Shoot everything on a tripod at ISO100
E. Most importantly I've done test shots at all apertures on the lens selections I have and found the optimum point for DOF and focus before circle of confusion sets in for each lens.
F. Never bother processing and submitting borderline photos.
G. Proper keywording so none of this keyword spam crapola.
H. A little selective sharpening (30~40% opacity) makes things look clean and clear.
And lo and behold rejections have fallen off and the ones I get I tend to agree with. 
I also find small batches submitted often works wonders too.
I tend to wait for batches to get through approval before submitting the next one that way you avoid the scattergun rejection approach some reviewers seem to use. 
That's a great process unless you want to shoot anything but inanimate objects.
284
« on: May 21, 2014, 13:41 »
You don't need a top end camera. Almost all the newer entry level DSLR cameras can do 10 times more than the "professional" digital cameras that came out in 2008. You definitely don't need strobes. It's nice to have them, but many buyers prefer more naturalistic, authentic lighting nowadays. If I can get an image without strobes or flash, then I will go that direction first. I prefer results from window light or a reflector.
The best investment is on good lenses because of image sharpness requirements. If you can't afford top dollar zooms, then good fixed lenses will get the job done for less money.
If were going to put together a beginner startup kit, it would be something like a Nikon D3300, 35 1.8 or 50 1.8 lens, used Tamron 90 mm macro, SB700 flash with modifier, a 5 in 1 reflector and a Vanguard tripod.
That's just an example. You do something similar with a Fuji, Sony or Canon kit.
285
« on: May 20, 2014, 08:20 »
You get 150 at Bigstock for $69.
286
« on: May 19, 2014, 23:08 »
Even though it annoys me that I only get 31 cents compared to people on bridge who get .38 like I would if I were on bridge, Bigstock has turned into a decent secondary earner since it start selling subs. It earns as much, if not sometimes more, than Dreamstime and Fotolia for me. It also brings in double what I make on Canstock, 123RF, Deposit Photos. Subs on Canstock only pay 25 cents, so I can't really complain about 31 cents from Bigstock.
287
« on: May 19, 2014, 21:09 »
It's not a guess. I wrote to Bigstock support, and that's what they told me. They still pay people who joined bridge the same as what they get on Shutterstock, but the rest of us are stuck with less.
288
« on: May 18, 2014, 10:17 »
I believe a class action lawsuit in the U.S. is free until you win; then the attorneys take 1/3. But you do need a group of people to initiate things and follow through and an attorney who thinks the case has merit and potential monetary damages are worth taking on the case.
For a still-small player like DPC, it's so much easier to simply choke off their revenue by opting out and starving them of product. The problem is getting in touch with all the contributors.
It depends on the lawyer. There's nothing that says class action lawsuits must pay that way, it's just there's a whole sector of that profession that seeks out winnable class action lawsuits and takes the proceeds if they win. I don't think a trial lawyer would take this case.
289
« on: May 16, 2014, 20:39 »
It looks like you had sharpening up to 50 - that's very high and could account for the noise. Sharpening at 50 seems really high - with a subject like yours, there should only be a need for very minimal sharpening, IMHO.
Noise can also be affected by which camera profile you use. I shoot with a Nikon D700 and a D5100 and find that particularly where a subject has a lot of shadows or my light wasn't optimum, using "Camera Neutral" will give me the lightest image since any increase in exposure or shadows done in LR will increase the possibility of creating noise. You can then tweak the contrast and saturation slowly to see how it affects the image.
Even though newer cameras are quite good at high ISOs, if you're shooting an image with large areas of solid color, using a lower ISO will generally give you a cleaner image, but this will change as the camera gets hotter and long exposures do increase the noise. Best idea is to bracket and see which gives you the best shot.
If you're shooting raw, it doesn't matter what profile you use except for how you want the image to look on the screen on the back of your camera. If you want the camera to record as much information as possible in the shadows and highlights, and keep it saved for you, you should shoot raw anyway.
290
« on: May 16, 2014, 20:36 »
I don't think I've ever had to use such a long shutter speed, even for night shots. My blue hour landscape shots are usually in the 6 to 15 second range at f8, f11 or f16. Six to 8 seconds is enough time to smooth out water. So I don't see the point of the question. Maybe if you wanted to do star trails, but in that case, it's better to stack a lot of exposures so you don't get hot pixels.
If you're doing a still life indoors, it's better to add light with strobes or a window and reflector.
291
« on: May 15, 2014, 10:20 »
"Greedy photogs" is a bit much. It's not like we're working on Wall Street making millions while producing nothing of value.
292
« on: May 15, 2014, 03:55 »
I had a couple of subs for 40 cents.
293
« on: May 14, 2014, 15:57 »
To be honest, my sales at FT have gone in the crapper since opting out. I'm not sure it was the right decision.
What's the connection? How could opting out of DPC impact sales at FT?
I don't see how that's possible.
Because I was getting sales from DPC before I opted out, probably? How does that not make sense? They've been doing DPC since January, and you can't tell if you're getting DPC sales or regular FT sales.
294
« on: May 14, 2014, 12:42 »
Unless you all are going to offer to pay Lisa's bills, then you should just keep your criticisms to yourself.
295
« on: May 14, 2014, 09:24 »
You won't get it. They don't offer it anymore.
296
« on: May 13, 2014, 17:29 »
Make sales on DPC count like credit sales (since that's what they really are) for the purposes of moving up a level instead of counting 1/4 like subs. It's not a subscription if there's no termination period.
297
« on: May 13, 2014, 17:10 »
And here are screen shots (minus the missing megaphone tweet) of the images Dollar Photo Club used in their promotional tweets and which are now opted out and thus unavailable to buyers (click for full size)
My superhero photo.  I didn't know they tweeted it. I could have gotten a boost before opting out. To be honest, my sales at FT have gone in the crapper since opting out. I'm not sure it was the right decision.
298
« on: May 11, 2014, 00:24 »
Here are the results of my search for "business man" from New York, US.
I get different results when I search with different devices even from the same location. If I search for most popular "pet" photo on my tablet, it sometimes gives a different popular result than when I do it with my laptop. I wouldn't read in too much to the different location search.
299
« on: May 10, 2014, 07:16 »
overall if you consider lens like the 16-35 or the 17-40...
Presumably there was some useful information you had intended to impart at the end of the sentence which got truncated to '...'
Sorry, English is not my first language and insomnia doesn't help :-). I mean a "cheap" lens like the canon 85 1.8 is better than a 24-105 L lens for example, obviously only at 85mmm. The canon 100 macro has same quality of the 100 macro l is and has half price. The sigma 35 1.4 is a lot better of the canon 35 1.4 l and has half price too. "L" means luxury, not professional.
I bought a number of cheaper lenses starting out, including Sigmas. Some of them were quite good, like the Sigma 20mm 1.8 prime. However, their quality control is spotty. You can get a wide variation of quality and have to rely on luck to get a good copy. Also, Sigma customer service is famously bad. Since I started shooting L glass I have gotten consistently high quality lenses and tack sharp pictures. It's worth the extra price to me.
All that's true. Or it was. Tamron, Sigma and Tokina have made strides in the past year or so to produce more professional lenses. You just have to know which lenses to buy. And you'd have to pry my Tamron 90 mm macro from my cold, dead fingers. Pin sharp on my D800 everytime and it only cost me $275.
300
« on: May 09, 2014, 14:46 »
I'm not sure it works the same way on an individual portfolio. I consider my port average or even below, but I way outsold overall Shutterstock in the first quarter based on the way you're figuring it. I had 1,850 images in my port on March 30 with 5,161 sales for the first three months. That would be 279 percent. I could also delete about 60 percent of my port and get the same amount of sales because most of my stuff doesn't sell.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
