|
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 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 31
276
« on: October 18, 2010, 23:07 »
Ansel would have been on the cutting edge of everything Photoshop...plus HDR and whatever is coming next.
277
« on: October 18, 2010, 22:05 »
I will be using HDR more in the future. I've found that it can help resurrect some images that I had written off for one reason or another. Plus lots of play value...and sometimes it makes a winner. The best thing is that you can use it without detection in many cases.
I also agree that it is somewhat of a fad -- like some of the overused filters we can all recognize in like one second. I put HDR in the same category as pinhole, panoramic, infrared, Holga and similar techniques. At least when not used with finesse. The only time any of those fad things work is if it would have been a good photograph to start with.
278
« on: October 15, 2010, 16:54 »
Why not offer me 100% of my sales? So far in 2010 I've had 0 sales with Yay. So think of all the money they'll save. 
279
« on: October 14, 2010, 12:32 »
Too late to worry. In today's info world your ssn is already anything but anonymous.
280
« on: October 13, 2010, 16:58 »
You did a terrific job. I also you hit upon a very nice concept in your About Us page... : "RFStocks is a microstock website that sells the photos and illustrations of a single artist."
It led me to thinking that the industry should be ripe for very specialized stock sites. Maybe not just a single artist but perhaps a single concept such as "medical only", "off beat" stock or "very edgy" stock. The nature of that beast is that it must be highly selective to supply what's promised.
And you just may have folks pestering you with money in their hands to make one like yours for them. As I was typing this zenpix posted with your first sales lead!
281
« on: October 08, 2010, 16:51 »
I've been very negative about Veer this last year due to horrible sales, at least for my images. But the last few weeks have brought some very nice sales. Not up to SS or IS but certainly more than I expected. So, whatever they're doing lately I hope they keep doing it. I've even started to upload there again.
282
« on: October 08, 2010, 10:52 »
Randy,
I agree the business side of things can get quite messy. I prefer to think of microstock as a minefield. I gladly let the novices rush onto new sites mindlessly. After the requisite carnage I may or may not venture in. Fewer missteps, and much less pain, for me.
283
« on: October 07, 2010, 18:26 »
I don't understand those feeling they must "support" non-producing sites. As far as I can tell those sites aren't sending company shares to contributors. The healthy relationship I believe is to upload to those sites that are producing for me and ignoring those that can't generate the business. There is no shortage of images for them to successfully market if they had the skills and wherewithal to do so. I don't begrudge them making piles of money off my images as long as I get something in return. After six years in this business and wasting my time with too many start-ups that looked pretty in the beginning but returned next to nothing in results I've learned to ignore low earners.
284
« on: October 04, 2010, 18:00 »
This topic is just another example that lawyers control sites. I'd like to ask a lawyer where has there been a lawsuit brought by heirs over a 100 year old picture. In my experience heirs can never identify pictures just 2 or 3 generations old of their ancestors let alone anyone else. That's why there are so many old portraits in the antique shops and flea markets.
285
« on: September 29, 2010, 13:12 »
286
« on: September 21, 2010, 11:30 »
I'd say no. But I've had plenty of rejections in this area with a person who is barely recognized as a human. I rarely shoot anyone anymore in any type of "natural" scene unless I'm the model. Lots of sites are just plain nuts in this area. Blame the fear of lawyers.
287
« on: September 17, 2010, 17:41 »
I always send the largest file size without up-resing. I'm shooting 24 mp. It's amazing how often the largest sizes are purchased at all my sites. I'm always skeptical of those who "save" larger files for certain sites. I think some folks are doing it to "get back" at sites they think don't pay enough. Anyway, I don't think you can fine-tune that accurately between sites. It also assumes that buyers have a perfect knowledge of the marketplace and spend time comparing sizes and costs between all sites. Never happen. And I'd hate to lose those larger sales. So I think the larger mp sizes you are thinking about will add to sales volumes some. But you may also find you'll get fewer quality rejections because each generation of camera seems to solve lots of technical problems.
288
« on: September 05, 2010, 17:22 »
So many of those "get rich quick" schemes result in a steep fall off in effort once the suckers realize that this business also results in "get rejected quick". Somehow that reality isn't stressed in the come-on promotions.
289
« on: September 05, 2010, 09:36 »
Ellen Boughn is such a great person, and she is very professional. Once I asked her to look at my portfolio at DT and she was so helpful giving me all these advices about my strong and weak points, which market to target, what direction to go etc. I have to buy her book.
The most successful people are those who help others succeed.
290
« on: September 05, 2010, 09:25 »
gaja:
The top of the SS list are certainly not the "best performers", only the good performers that have been there the longest. The SS reports you mention are only the accumulation of downloads, with no way to measure the success of an image relative to time on line. Most of the top of my list there have been on line for 6 years whereas an image I uploaded last month can only be found near the bottom by scrolling down through dozens of pages. Even then there is no way to track VELOCITY of sales such as is possible with iStocks "Dls per month" column. A simple programming change at SS to add a downloads per month calculation would be a great tool, especially for those with 500+ images.
As an example, my best selling image on iStock is only there due to an accident. Using DT's sales results (much better than SS's) I saw a large number of sales of that image and realized that the same image was refused by iStock when originally uploaded. So I resubmitted the image to iStock three months ago and it is now my most frequently downloaded image there by far. And because it was easy to track the results on iStock using the DLs/month column I made sure to upload it to other sites I had overlooked. Without that tracking ability I would have missed out on hundreds of dollars in sales at iStock and others.
291
« on: September 04, 2010, 13:54 »
Pet_:
Good comment about studying your top earners to more productively submit more work of the same type.
MY WEEKLY RANT STARTS HERE:
Too bad iStock is the only site you can readily see how each image is performing. Why other sites make it so difficult to view our own images with their DL/Month, total sales, etc. is beyond me. You'd think they would figure out the more info we have of our own results the more intelligently we can contribute. SS is one of the worst, burying the data so deep it would take me forever to make sense out of which images are doing well compared to others. It's as if they haven't learned how to use a sort function.
If it were my site I'd give automatic feedback to each contributor regarding good performers. Why not a "Your Best Selling Images" column? Or automatic responses to a hot selling image: "Have more like this? This is your number 5 best selling image."
292
« on: September 04, 2010, 10:31 »
A good rule of thumb I've found to represent ANY product line is that the top 10-20% will represent 80% of sales. In my portfolio it's closer to 10% = 80% of sales.
293
« on: September 01, 2010, 17:10 »
Looks like they fixed it a few weeks ago according to the normal views of my images.
294
« on: August 27, 2010, 15:24 »
I wish I could understand why my best selling images at other sites have sold zero on Yay for over a year.  . I have uploaded zero new work even with the easy uploading there. Why bother? Am I missing something?
295
« on: August 26, 2010, 17:15 »
I have just one image that is simply dirt. A large 6-foot high pile of dirt. No other object. 4 dls on IS after 26 months. Ooops--I hope this isn't too much info. Don't want copy cats stealing this idea.
296
« on: August 22, 2010, 17:46 »
Or it just may mean that the image stinks. 
297
« on: August 22, 2010, 09:31 »
Well to deal with it is no problem at all, if a shot is bad or technically wrong it should be dumped. Having said that, Im making myself a promise. Im not going to entertain sites anymore if they show what I call untrained, uneducated reviewing. I dont want some half-assed part-timer reviewing my shots.
This summer Ive seen such piss-poor editing, obviously from summer staff with total lack of the English language that you get more out of it in a burger bar.
Im not wasting my time any further with total dilletants.
Nicely summarized overview of the microstock business. But the word is "dilettantes." Just accept this business for what it is and pass the mustard please.
298
« on: August 22, 2010, 09:25 »
"Framed" magazine pictures on the wall?
I've seen prints I sold thumb-tacked on the wall. I take it as a tribute to the stand-alone beauty of my work.
299
« on: August 22, 2010, 09:22 »
make a portfolio of your work about twtnry to thirty images. Just some real good 4x6 or 5x7's. By showing them that you are pro and also giving them a copy of the print, msot people will be happy to sign. Also be willing to give them a med res. jpeg. One of your outtakes so they can send a copy to mom or facebook. After school is in, I am going to run an post in craigslist that I am willing to shoot a casual portrait (environmental) for free if they willing to sign a release for stock photography
I wouldn't carry a portfolio around as you suggest and try to "sell" anyone on my professionalism. That seems unprofessional to me. Better -- and easier to carry is a business card. But I think this topic question is mostly for how to handle the off-chance encounter on the street. I do like the Craigs List idea. A portrait class at my local jr. college did that and we had a large response of talented models on the way up and actress/actor wannabes. They worked hard for free prints. This was in a Chicago suburb and many of these models drove from far distances to participate.
300
« on: August 21, 2010, 12:14 »
Warning: Odd situation ahead: After MONTHS of zero sales and spectacularly high view counts...I got a few sales. The really odd thing is that the view counts dropped nearly to zero during the short period I got those sales. ?? If the sales/view chart is accurate there is an weird inverse ratio going on. The fewer sales the greater the views, and with fabulous views zero sales. If nobody looks at my images any more I'll make a fortune.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 31
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
