My understanding is that a designer can buy RF (royalty free) images and then use them for as many projects as he desires (e.g., advertisements, brochures, etc).

ELs (extended licenses) are meant to be used for:

- reselling images on other products (mouse pads, coffee mugs, tshirts, etc)
- increased production runs (for magazines/newspapers with large circulations)
- web usage/templates
- additional license seats

but be warned that each site has its own way that they handle ELs.

I normally don't like to step in on a 'whats your opinion of this site' conversation, but GeoPappas you should be aware we pay all our Artists, all the money they are owed, -whenever- they ask for it.   This includes making exceptions to our $10 minimum.   It is not our money it is yours. If you are really in need of <$10, you must be a student, or in a situation where those few dollars means more to you then one would normally expect, so it is worth our effort to send this money.  And yes it is scalable to do this (just don't request one penny at a time plz!). 

Quote from: GeoPappas on October 14, 2008, 08:20

If you plan on uploading your images to a dozen or more sites, then it is probably worth it.

If you plan on sticking to the Big 5 or 6 sites, then it definitely isn't worth it.

Either way, it will probably take months or years for a payout (depending on the number of photos that you have, their quality, their stock-worthiness, and where they show up in the search results).  And there is always a possibility that they go under before you reach a payout.

FYI: The site doesn't even rate in the Microstock Poll Results (on the right side of this thread).

I'm not sure what you are responding to, but I never stated (or implied) that you don't pay artists.  I just stated that it will probably take a while before someone will reach a payout (if ever).  I was working from your own legal document for artists (@ http://www.zymmetrical.com/help/legal/), which states the following:

"The minimum payout is $20 USD per request. If Artist�s account is closed for any reason before the account balance has reached $20 USD , Artist shall forfeit such account balance."

So your statements above seem to go against your own legal document.  If you really mean what you state above, then you probably should update your legal document to state that.

BTW: While I was on your site, I decided to do a simple search.  I searched for the word "blue" and received a "DotNetNuke Configuration Error".  If you plan on making any sales, you might want to make sure that your search engine works.

I take it that you aren't exclusive?

 

This is an question that has been asked across the ages.

Is it the equipment that makes the professional better, or the professional that makes the equipment better?

As a matter of fact, Nike made an ad campaign (with Michael Jordan) based around this question ("It's gotta be the shoes").

While equipment does play a part in success, I believe that it has a lot more to do with who is behind the camera.

I would probably think that the reason that you are seeing more sales from better cameras is because that is what the pros usually use.  Most pros won't go out and buy a lesser camera.

Getting a Canon EOS 5D will probably allow you to receive higher royalties (since it will probably allow larger size downloads), but images from this camera will also sometimes get a higher rejection rate (because some reviewers think that they see graininess in the image at large resolutions).

Quote from: RH on October 12, 2008, 05:10

Wow, over 7% having around $3000 - $4000. Are these only pro�s?

I think its fair to say that this forum is over-representative of the top end of contributors.

I agree.

I wonder what happens to the earnings of a portfolio that is deleted.  The earnings should go to the original creator of the content...

I agree with this sentiment.

I would hope that those artists that have their images stolen and sold, would be given the earnings that are seized.

I would also hope that the buyers would be reimbursed and notified that they cannot use some of the images that they purchased (e.g., the Peanuts characters discussed above).  If the original artist was compensated for the sale, then (I would think) that the buyer should be able to use the image (since it is now a legitimate sale) and this is a compelling reason for the stock agencies to transfer the funds that they have seized.

This brings up a good question:

Lizard (and any others that have had their images stolen):

Have any of you been reimbursed for stolen images (by the stock agencies)?

Just some thoughts...

- For a prize, cash is "King".  As some have stated, it allows the winner(s) to purchase what they need (whether it is photography equipment or food).

- Judging is the single biggest issue with contests (of any sort).  There are always problems with contests because of the judging.  All you have to do is watch some of the TV "contests" to see this in action (e.g., American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, etc).  Many times, the most skilled contestant doesn't win, but the most popular.

If you leave it up to the audience, then it will be a matter of who can gather the most votes.  There have been many times that I have seen people ask (or beg) that people vote for them in a contest.  Depending on the contest, you might also get "phantom" votes (i.e., votes from people that create multiple accounts and vote many times).

If you leave it up to the judges, then their idiosyncrasies might skew the results.  Judges have favorites (whether it is a certain artist or style).

Of the two (community vs a panel of judges), I would prefer a panel of judges, but I would make sure that the images that they are judging would be "blind".  That is, the judges should only be able to see the image and nothing else (such as the artist's name, description, etc.).  After all, it is the image that should be judged, and not the person, how well it is described, the keywords, etc.

- There should also be a limit on the number of entries that a contestant can submit.  This way, a contestant can't just submit 100 images to increase their chances.

- As far as websites are concerned, DPChallenge (http://www.dpchallenge.com/) seems to do a good job.

- Finally, make sure that the rules are VERY clear.  There are many times when there are ambiguous rules and they can be interpreted in a lot of different ways.

For example, I once did a photo contest that was titled "Liquids".  Basically, entries had to contain a liquid as a major theme in the image.  But then it became clear that the term "liquid" was not enough, because questions arose as to whether images of glass (which is considered a liquid by many) would be valid.  There were also questions on whether Photoshop plugins that create water/liquid were allowable.  Those questions (and many more) needed to be ironed out before the contest started.

I hope that helps and good luck.

I just did a search on "Christmas" and found some members with quite a few images on the first page.

For example, Liliboas had 11 images and onurdongel had 9 images.  So just those two contributors had 20 images out of 50 on the first page.

I guess that they will have a nice gift under the tree this year!

You might also want to take a look at the Canon Powershot SD950 IS (IXUS 960).  Many of the reviews rate this camera very highly.

Unfortunately, I think that subs will become more and more prevalent as time goes on.

Thanks for working the deal out.

I am a big B&H fan, but this discount might turn the tide (at least for my next order).

Some of you might find this an interesting read:

http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm

One other thing -

That person must have used a telescope or spotting scope for that image (or cropped it immensely), because from the port to the Statue of Liberty is about 1.7 miles.  And it's another 2 miles (at least) to the buildings behind the Statue of Liberty.

I decided to go back and take a look at the image and the following EXIF info is available:

Camera: Nikon D300
Exposure: 20 sec
Apeture: f/11
Focal Length: 460000 mm

So it looks like my suspicions are right.

Unless you expect to be carrying a monster lens, I wouldn't waste my time trying to get a shot from there.