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 - Pixart
3051
« on: August 03, 2007, 00:02 »
I just spotted one of mine in a featured lightbox at Shutterstock. It's not selling by the dozens, but more than usual. Is the lightbox just for today, or how long? I don't mind at all if they want to keep it there for a while! Back to School is the theme.
3052
« on: August 01, 2007, 17:43 »
Son of a %#!h!  I've got about 48 hours to finish a website for a client and I can't download the photos. This happens each and every rare time I have a design job..... UGH. I'm sorry folks. It's my fault.
3053
« on: August 01, 2007, 14:09 »
Well, doesn't that suck? At least he had the decency to (seemingly) pay for an EL and it doesn't seem like he is doing anything contrary to the terms? And it looks like he is giving proper credit to the photog as well.
No experience selling posters. I think a.k.a. tom's wife if he is out there has a little experience on Cafe Press if I remember correctly. Tom, is it worth the effort?
Freezing, a friend has an old Christmas card on her fridge of penguins and every time I go over there it catches my eye. I think that some of yours might do very well as greeting card or wall art because of the uniqueness. That iceberg and some of the penguins. The penguins are a subject that we often see as an illustration rather than a photograph. They are a bit of an enigma to the rest of us, aren't they?
3054
« on: August 01, 2007, 14:02 »
I second those congrats FreezingPics! I want to be just like you.  Perhaps I need to specialize in that adorable, cuddly Canadian icon - the beaver  since you already have the penguin and see if I can make beavers wildy popular (LOL). Hey, no ideas Sharply.
3055
« on: July 31, 2007, 19:21 »
That was my word doc. If you use it yes, PC is Postal Code, and you might want to change that part to State or whatever applies to you.
I think I removed reference to Alberta in it, didn't I?
I don't know really know what the exact repercussions would be if you used Istock's release as it is - but if you are sued by this particular model and you keep Alberta, Canada in there - would you not have to attend arbitration in the province of Alberta Canada?
3056
« on: July 31, 2007, 16:18 »
Thanks for the link!
Oh, my. If I ever submit there may my photos end up in the Judge Ross worst of the day? I take it they are rejected submissions.... Oh, wouldn't that be embarrasing!
3057
« on: July 31, 2007, 14:43 »
I'm not familar with the Crestock site and can't find the photo.... would anyone mind putting up a link?
3058
« on: July 28, 2007, 11:43 »
I think that a professional association would be much more suited to our needs and, if established well, could wield as much clout, if not more, than a union.
This trend of thinking makes more sense to me. (The skeptic in me wonders why someone hasn't already run with the idea and charged annual membership?)
3059
« on: July 27, 2007, 18:53 »
I have been having a great month, thanks mostly to 4 EL's (SS, LO & 2xFT). I've also uploaded a few here and there. I don't upload in the high quantities that some of you do - but I've really noticed this month that the more I upload, the more I sell. And ironically, it's not the new uploads selling, either.
So, back to what everyone has always said... upload frequently.
3060
« on: July 25, 2007, 17:17 »
Hi gang. We seem to be a pretty diverse group, so I hope you don't mind if I post here in off-topic, and sorry it's so lengthy. I'm wondering if anyone can share some tips with me, as this will be the biggest event I have done. It is a week-long soccer tournament the end of August with approximitely 150 teams from 5 - 16 years of age. This is a big deal around here, the municipality throws family days on the weekend, kids bouncers, tatoos, fireworks etc.
It sounds like the photographers didn't do much in past years. They primarily want me to do stills for their sponsors, their website and all the winners on the final day of the tournament. We have worked out a percentage I will pay the tournament for any additional work I get.
I had investigated action photography in the past and it seemed to me that it is a hit-or-miss thing. If you make prints up, you risk not getting them back from the coach, or not enough interest to cover the cost of the prints. Any one have experience?
I could publish on a website, but the passion about these things dwindles as the days pass - and the thought of posting a few thousand photos does not excite me. If you have positive experience with this, please share!
I'd really prefer to get advance bookings of some kind and am in the process of making up advertising inserts for 2000 families. If any of you have done this sort of thing - or have been to a tournament and noticed what they are offering your kids - I'd love to hear about it! Here's a couple things I can think of so far:
1. Offering traditional team photo packages. (A lot of teams missed their photo days due to rain this spring.)
2. Taking pre-bookings to make individual posters. But how much should I charge? It costs me $20 to order a 16x20 print. No I won't print at Costco or Walmart. 8x10s are only $2.50 - but that isn't big enough is it?
Ideally, if I could book 3 or 4 individual kids to shoot at one game the prices could be lower for those three. How many kids can I concentrate on in an hour. Is 4 about the limit?
3. My nephew's volleyball team paid a tournament photographer $150 for a disc full of action photos plus a team photo. The team split the cost and made copies. Does this sound like a reasonable price? It sounds like a lot but consider it's about an hour and half of shooting, plus post processing, less comission... then there's taxes, do I include them, or add to the top? And also the fact that I'd be giving away files. If it was Toronto, I'd say $150 is a bargain, but this is a notoriously cheap province.
Would I give full 10mb files?
4. They have not had a photo-booth in the past and the coordinator wondered if I might have one. I am just a one-person show and my husband is not remotely interested in learning how to hold a camera, or to work with any computer program other than Exel. I've made loads of templates I could try to sell, magazine covers, wanted posters, motivational etc. BUT, I would have to do strictly the booth on the big fair day.
Would I need a dye-sub printer? Or would this be a good excuse to buy that $700 Canon wide-bed photo printer I've been looking at? No, I'm not rich - I'm definitely on the struggling side of artist so let me clarify that it was the 90's the last time I bought a printer, hopefully I'll make a good choice again - but do I need dye-sub for this? There's a couple other events I would be able to do then, plus I make nursery schools wait for their Santa Clause photos... could be used there as well and perhaps I could get more Santa jobs.
Hopefully a few of you can offer me a few tidbits from your experience. I really appreciate all you can offer. (Apoligies that this is so long-winded).
3061
« on: July 25, 2007, 14:19 »
If you can open a Word doc, scroll down to my post on the following link I uploaded a model release in Word. It was modified from Istock's release but not much, I forget exactly, but I just searched for alberta in it and I must have removed. Anyhow, if you work from this text document you could modify it to suit your needs. (Has been accepted by all on the Big 6) http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=1435.0If you can't open Word let me know and maybe I can e-mail you RTF.
3062
« on: July 25, 2007, 12:06 »
Dragging up an old thread here... but it seems like they are back to a fast review pace again. Uploaded 2 last night and they were in my port this morning.
3063
« on: July 24, 2007, 14:42 »
Well, today I made bronze (not that it means much) after submitting since March. It's not such a big accomplishment now that they've dropped from 500 to 250 - but still an accomplishment because I have a pathetic number of photos there (6!). Out of my 250 sales, 228 of them are of the same photo. Now, if I could only duplicate that exact success with 100 more I'll be very happy! (Anyone know the secret?)
I took a little break trying, but finally sent a couple in this weekend. (We'll see if I've improved at all.) Rejections there are so much more difficult to take when it takes so much effort to submit!
3064
« on: July 22, 2007, 11:19 »
- Some sites you must earn $100 before payout (unresonable). - One site is $30 (reasonable). - The most reasonable site (in my opinion) has a $50 payout with no fees, or you can request funds earlier by paying a couple credits. Many will never reach a cashout at $100 so in effect the agency is witholding their earnings which is illegal in most civilized countries. Which category would you like your site to fall into? I hope you would like to be thought of as honest, ethical, nurturing to the community that makes your business possible? Also: If you would like to study how NOT to launch, read about SnapVillage in this post http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=1982.0Also, if you read these forums LuckyOliver is also a yearling - the sales aren't there yet, but they have groomed a seriously loyal and dedicated community. They are a fresh and exciting site that treats everyone with RESPECT. Most of the others are rigid and anonymous. At LO (and StockXpert - don't forget Steve) there's real people who have a real presence. Good luck to you, and keep us posted
3065
« on: July 20, 2007, 01:18 »
They are in cahoots with Fotolia. When I get dls at Bigstock I don't at Fotolia. When I get them at Fotolia, I don't at Bigstock. This week is Bigstock's turn.
3066
« on: July 20, 2007, 01:07 »
Traveler, I enjoy hearing your perspective. First, I must say that for you to earn $90,000 per year shooting stock would put you into Icon status in my books and would very much like to see a link to your portfolios if you wouldn't mind sharing.
To be fair, I don't think many macros would take Joe's pocket camera submissions seriously. A lot of microstockers started on public photo sharing sites and evolved into submitting to agencies, updating to a Rebel... having more and more success. Myself, I found this as part of a family-life change. I lived in a big city with a good job, then we started a family, husband had a job transfer to a small prairie city... salaries here suck, and I didn't feel it was worth it to work for someone else for lousy wages, and well my digital imaging business just evolved. I didn't even know "micro" stock existed until last year when I needed images for a travel client.
While a lot of microstockers could be labeled "hobbyist", there are serious kick-ass photographers making staggering sums of money - Lise Gagne at Istock for example was recently reported (NY Times?) at making over $100k/year - but that girl must work her *ss off too.
When I started submitting it was a thrill just to have a photo accepted. I had no clue that that quantity meant nothing. My idea about that has changed and submissions are now very deliberate.
My knowledge and photography/photoshop skills continue to grow on a daily basis. Personally, I'm not ready for macro. But, hopefully next year at this time I will be.
So, I sell photos for 25 cents. I also sold one this week for $20, and two last week for $17.50. I know it's taboo to talk money, but by the end of July I will have made $1000 this year with the disclaimer that I didn't really start "quality over quantity" uploading until February and I've only been on the 2 "best" agencies since March - with 6 on one and 30 on the other. My portfolio is hardly macro caliber - but I'm still getting cashouts.
As a professional on the other side of the grass, how many times does a macro photo sell per year? Based on your earnings your average is about $90 per photo per year. If I took all the crap out of my portfolio and whittled it down to the 20 that actually sell on a regular basis, I wouldn't be far away from that average.
I'm sorry to stereotype you Traveler, but I assume you are a highly skilled and exceptionally talented photographer. I also bet that stock may not your primary income either.
I know micro must look like a serious insult to a professional such as your self. It's the digital evolution. No business can be taken seriously without slick marketing and the imagery in their ads. Small businesses simply can't pay macro prices. Ladies making church bulletins cannot pay macro prices. I predict this thing is going to level out at some point. Micro may be - not so great quality - and Istock and the likes will be charging perhaps double what they do now.
Back to the original question. Am I a serious microstocker? No, of course not - I've shared my numbers. Could I be? Yes. I am so convinced of this that I could see myself moving towards this very thing over the next couple of years. (No more deadlines. No more phone calls. No pleading with the lab to rush 100 photos through by noon.) The first years would be lean - but think of a real estate agent - all the training, the tough first years - then the referrals come in and after 5 years or so the same clients sell and buy again. I would hopefully get out of it what I have the time to put into it.
And would I try macro. Definitely. But, this microstocker ain't ready yet.
3067
« on: July 19, 2007, 22:23 »
Hi Pixart
I've answered your question in the StockXpert forum for multiple releases.
Hope it make sense
Stu
Thanks Stu. Go figure, now they are closed for maintenance! Oh, I guess I wait till morning! Congratulations! Keep us updated on how it goes please, I am still of open mind on that one 
Thanks! 2nd try was a charm. If they are as picky as I hear - I think I'll have a very small portfolio. Trying to build up that rejection skin, but I"m not too tough yet!
3068
« on: July 19, 2007, 19:27 »
I just got approval today and would like to start uploading, but I'm hung up on the ones with more than one model. Also, found the 2nd answer on their forum and you have to reupload those application photos. (I asked about this on their forum too, but no replies yet).
Is it Istock where you need to paste jpegs of model releases together? Do I need to do this too for StockXpert? Or can I add several releases somehow?
3069
« on: July 19, 2007, 17:31 »
Quick question here... I just applied to StockXpert again and trying to get used to a new site. I can only seem to apply one model release to a group. Am I doing something wrong? A lot of my pix need 3 or 4 releases.
I can't find the photos from my application anywhere. I assume I upload again?
3070
« on: July 19, 2007, 10:11 »
My sales were picking up quite nicely. Then last week I uploaded about 20. I also opened up each old file and fiddled around with the order of the keywords and made sure my pricing was correct for the ELs.
Havent had a sale since. Haven't had a view on the new files yet. Did I mess things up when I fiddled with all my files? It seemed like things were really looking up till I did that.
Also, one previous submission has been in a pending state since July 11.
3071
« on: July 13, 2007, 21:19 »
Nope, I'm positive. Yours is much nicer  . For sure, try slapping some sunglasses on the same image and submit another version. The sunglasses they used didn't have legs, just the black frame. Their glasses could have used some white spots / reflected light? - unless it didn't come across so well on newsprint.
3072
« on: July 13, 2007, 14:42 »
It's quite a useful image I suspect. Actually today I had to double check and ad in the paper if it was yours, there was a local Toyota sale and it used a similar (but with sunglasses) - having their "Sunshine Sale".
3073
« on: July 13, 2007, 13:12 »
Here's a new one. I have a few that have been sitting there for a while but needed keywords. Today I am updating those old files and they have a - (negative) in the credits. If they sold, I would have to pay??? I could change it easily, but I hope anyone else noticed.
I've had more sales already in July than I did in June. I don't usually cash out till the end of the month. Hopefully it will be no trouble.
3074
« on: July 13, 2007, 01:23 »
Would the output resolution not depend on the size you print it at? A 4 megapixel has 4 million megapixels, a 16 has 16 million. If you are printing at 300dpi with no cropping, the 16 would still be 4 times larger?
When it comes to stock approval it should be judged upon viewing at 100% size so the "illusion" of artifacts/noise shouldn't come into play. I know that some of the book publishers (i.e. mypublisher it think) want the photos downsampled to 5 mp, the larger files appear blurry in their finished products. I think regular photolabs have software that take care of that problem though.
But, what do I know?
3075
« on: July 12, 2007, 22:18 »
The number is still dropping, so I think they are daily removing everything without sales for 18 months, and are still not reviewing new images.
Olga
One of 3 dissapeared yesterday as soon as I hit submit. The other two are still pending. I did receive an e-mail that they declined photo vt27 or something equally as useless to me... Not very useful to someone who may have submitted a few dozen!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|