|
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 - ClaridgeJ
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 23
326
« on: November 19, 2012, 10:57 »
With the development of cheaper digital cameras, the internet and jpeg formats it was inevitable that microstock would emerge and be successful. The RM model was impractical for most marketing needs. Trust me. I lived through it.
Quality still prevails. Those that shoot better work will prosper. My mentor pulls in about a million a year. Nuff said. Don't ask.
Well you didnt live through it the right way then, did you? last month, out of 14, RM sales, 4, sales alone netted me close to a five figured amount. Good or bad?
Mind, having said that, thats after 20 years of RM photography.
Most people here havent really got the slightest idea of how to treat RM photography. Its like you plan a specific commercial shoot and you know beforehand that it will sell big-time, it might take you 2 or 3, days to get it right and all you have is one single shot BUT! it will sell, for sure.
My point is from the buyers/art director's perspective as it relates to client budgets. The price point and annual licensing arrangement of RM was beyond the budgets for MANY small business's marketing programs. Then came the Getty and Corbis lawyers if an image ever got used for something outside of the original license. That would always send a shock through a company.
Then microstock emerged and ALL of my clients would tell me not to use the RM photos.
And that is after 27 years of buying stock photography.
[/quotte)
Sure! but I dont see anything of that having anything to do with if a client wants to buy RM, with rights even worldrights for a specific reason?
I have never met an Art-director so far that have complained about an RM price for an image he needed exclusive and why should they.
Lots of people here keep mentioning "closed shop" etc, ofcourse and why not? show me any profession that isnt closed for the ones not educated for it? joke isnt it?
Micro shooters has got to be among the very few "professions" where you can get the tools for it but dont need to know how to use them properly, hence you have 100 million images out there, with approx 80% of total irrelevant garbage.
Good isnt it?
327
« on: November 19, 2012, 07:06 »
NO! not yet. Four days back they said money was being processed but zip! all.
328
« on: November 19, 2012, 03:51 »
With the development of cheaper digital cameras, the internet and jpeg formats it was inevitable that microstock would emerge and be successful. The RM model was impractical for most marketing needs. Trust me. I lived through it.
Quality still prevails. Those that shoot better work will prosper. My mentor pulls in about a million a year. Nuff said. Don't ask.
Well you didnt live through it the right way then, did you? last month, out of 14, RM sales, 4, sales alone netted me close to a five figured amount. Good or bad? Mind, having said that, thats after 20 years of RM photography. Most people here havent really got the slightest idea of how to treat RM photography. Its like you plan a specific commercial shoot and you know beforehand that it will sell big-time, it might take you 2 or 3, days to get it right and all you have is one single shot BUT! it will sell, for sure.
329
« on: November 19, 2012, 03:28 »
Good! tell him to stop messing with the SS, search order and we will pay for his meal.
330
« on: November 19, 2012, 02:19 »
Like hell its dead! take this weekend for example which are notrmally flat. DT, was the only one producing large and juicy sales. Not dead but very much alive!. DT, is the only agency which reminds me of a trad-agency, good pricing and well run. You just have to supply them with what sell and of good commercial value and thats it. 
331
« on: November 19, 2012, 02:15 »
Typical response. In some sense they are right, in some they are wrong. Evolution destroyed their business and it is understandable that those who were not willing to move on are very bitter (I used to be one of those 8 years ago). Nevertheless even evolution sweeps away some good things too. Nowadays I live off Micro but although see its downsides...mainly I critisize (ATM lol) that it killed originality and art.
Good reply! ofcourse they are right, ofcourse micro has killed of the monopoly we once had. I just hope the Getty plan of slowly killing off micro will work out, good for us bad for the happy-snapper. When its done, the agencies I want to see left are DT and IS and possibly SS if they skip the subs. Micro is a perfect plan for the hobby guy but terrible for the full time photographer and I dont think anybody can deny that, the money side is a differant story. Micro is responsible for putting quantity before quality, resulting in bad photography which is attracting non-quality concious and bad buyers with a " give it to me free" flee-market attitude.
332
« on: November 18, 2012, 13:03 »
It seems like whatever I upload, stuff that I check and double check at 100% is being rejected for "does not meet our desired level of aesthetic quality."
Have I all of the sudden become a really bad photographer or are other contributors finding the same results?
Is just you... i have 95% acceptance ratio on FT.
Same here, very high acceptance rate.
333
« on: November 18, 2012, 07:23 »
Not everybody, only a handful
Hanful? about 70% including yourself? hmmmmmmm?
334
« on: November 18, 2012, 05:49 »
This month is super slow($$$) on SS. Is it only me or........
Any thoughts?
Same for me... 
Last month was the best... I don't know what happened!?...
Well what happend is obvious. For some reason as everybody have noticed over there, they are somehow changing their search-algorithm and it seems to be on a daily basis. Im not sure if its just pure coincidecne or whatever but since this IPO business, small changes here and there are beginning to creep into their system. Oh well so far they are the best, no doubt about that but it wouldnt surprise me if there are some big changes coming.
335
« on: November 18, 2012, 04:43 »
True! worst week ever almost and for everybody.
I think I stay away from these sets. Couple of friends at SS did these sets, etc and all of a sudden their earnings went right down and these guys have big ports and I mean BIG.
Not true, it was probably my best week ever.
I thought that you were one of the others that had loads of SOD sales last week,
I don't see how doing the sets can possible lower your sales!!!!
I dont mean last week, that was one of the best ever, yes loads of ODs and ELs. Im talking about this week! or say the last 5 days which cant have escaped you. About the seats? I dont know, I havent done any. Im only reffering to what some other people are saying.
336
« on: November 18, 2012, 02:37 »
Well Im surprised actually because I was dead against it from the start but as indies with big ports we had no option. For me the PP has worked out really well and not just subs but some good sales as well.
337
« on: November 18, 2012, 02:32 »
True! worst week ever almost and for everybody.
I think I stay away from these sets. Couple of friends at SS did these sets, etc and all of a sudden their earnings went right down and these guys have big ports and I mean BIG.
338
« on: November 17, 2012, 16:28 »
Hope we will have the same views on SS a year from now on.
339
« on: November 17, 2012, 13:31 »
lol
Thank you for your intelligent post.
I plussed your comment because I thought it was a good post and I had to giggle at your last line. I apologise for not being so intelligent as you today on this saturday with this massive hangover from yesterdays crazy party.
Hey! just lay off the booze will ya, its brginning to cloud your judgements, if you must drink, how about some Scotch instead of that moonshine your gulping.
340
« on: November 17, 2012, 12:12 »
Back in the mid 80s when I embarked on freelance commercial photography, I had a Vet-surgeon degree, education and over 100K in my pocket. Was a lot of dosh in them days. It was a very easy transition.
What have you got? yes, wife and kids, a costly asset. Any savings? cause you gonna need it.
3 years ago in micro I would have encouraged your decision 100%. Today, its one hell of a gamble. There is not one single site that one can call secure.
anyway, best of luck and I really hope you make it. Seen too many broken homes and marriages I guess.
341
« on: November 17, 2012, 10:30 »
Forget PS alltogether and photomatix as well. Nik HDR effex pro, is the software to go for. Most people create 3 identical images, from RAW that is, normal, under and over exposed. Not enough really, to get as much info in shadows etc, create 5 exposures of same image, in RAW, normal, 2 over and 2 under.
The art is to get it as natural as possible, no tone-mapping and then work from there.
342
« on: November 17, 2012, 02:11 »
all good tips and points- I have been able to remove most of it via RAW and lens correction in CS. I have the Canon 24-70 F2.8 First Generation- I wonder if the 2nd Generation is much better for stuff like this?
First copy of 24-70 is well known for CA, second copy, slightly better but can still produce CA if too much contrast on the wide side. Not much you can do about it really. You know the old saying? Nikon for wides, Canon for teles. You want to be sure? then go for Primes of the same focals. BTW. all my wides for an HD4 produce slight CA, so even the very best is not faultless.
343
« on: November 16, 2012, 15:42 »
No. He must mean Chromatic-aberration and its got nothing to do with high ISO, its either the sensor or the lens. Sorry to say it but most often its got to do with either a bad copy of the lens or just cheap kit lenses.
Its nothing to worry about you just remove it in the raw-converter tool for chromatic aberration.
344
« on: November 16, 2012, 13:04 »
First of all ignore all the people asking for your port. That's the last thing you should be doing at the moment.
I did go full time and it took me only a year to make up for the loss of income from my 'day job'. Since you are already making much more from stock it's not that important I guess. The change in life's quality is so great that it's worth it even if you would be earning less.
Ofcourse its worth it! and as you say, should he be earning less for his keep, wife, kids, mortgages, etc, etc, you know after a few search changes and reduced percentages. You will make up the balance no doubt. Especially when the bailiffs comes to the door. 
345
« on: November 16, 2012, 10:57 »
Same here! got a mail telling me its got into my Paypal account? as of yet, no lolly shows up. Maybe they bit the dust.
346
« on: November 16, 2012, 07:35 »
Thats nothing new.
If your new pictures took off when they were new or if they were burried, has been more or less random in the last couple of years.
Then keywords and concepts become more important.
Nah it depends on what you upload. Sure lots of generic, middle of the road stuff, fair enough but if you start uploading special, nieched material, believe me you dont want to see that burried in the sand. Too difficult and hard to come by.
347
« on: November 16, 2012, 06:23 »
My sales this month on a very general port have typically been one or two days when things are way up - then way way way down for the next few. Really odd variation. And nothing new moving.
The same happened with my port at SS. Real strange and It seems they're messing with search results on a daily basis.
The trouble is. You cant upload with this changing of sort. The ones that did ( according to their forum) had disaster, images ended up way, way back.
348
« on: November 16, 2012, 05:29 »
The Big 4 are doing fine for me just now... SS is exceptional, iStock and DT are up, and even FT is doing better than usual. Other than that, only 123RF is performing for me. Everywhere else is pretty dead.
Thanks to the increases at the Big 4 (particularly SS), I'm seeing an overall increase even with the drops from middle tier and below.
Agree 100%, all of them are doing fine. Is, is really coming back, the last three days have produced great results for an indie that is, cant believe it really. DT, same thing.
349
« on: November 16, 2012, 05:27 »
I did not say "The cheaper the better". I advocate investments that can pay back. Investments that can do the job, not overdo it.
I also suggested such an investment might not be in hardware, but maybe rather in software or light.
However I will argue, that is its not the gear, but the eye that makes you earn money on microstock.
The eye and brain, that is. It is all about concepts and trends.
The gear is just a tool.
And yes, there is no doubt that a nikon d 800 is far better than the old d 200, but I have learned to compensate via software and technique.
+ you cannot have it all: You cannot pay both a new boat, a new car, a new house and fishing gear, guns and furniture. Whatever. If you do not take pleasure in collecting gear, it is important to be selective. And Im too old to find it interesting to chase new hardware and things.
Which is why, back then when I was a spare time farmer, I had pigs. They earn their money back, horses and dogs dont.
However, the filesize argument for RM is correct.
But for micro, the newest first and fancy full frame crap, does not hold water.
My guess is that one of the places in the world where most investments are lost and never put to use in in the grey zone of cheap end "commercial" photography. People use their meagre earnings as an excuse to make high end investments. No farmer would ever buy a combine harvester to harvest parsley in a pot in the window.
Well you know all that rubbish Cartier-Bresson said, camera is just a tool, extention of your eye, etc, went out the window with todays commercial photography, its dirt old values and has no part whatsoever in todays color photography. In those days thay didnt have to battle with noise, CA, fringing, this and that, even those days optical quality was joke, Ive got about four 45 year old Leica lenses here and not one would pass todays QC. As a full time commercial photographer you got three options, either invest in equipment or give it to the tax-man or cooking the books. I know what I prefer.
350
« on: November 16, 2012, 04:15 »
Exactly! and a very weird thread. See I am sure the OP is under the impression that only because he is earning 8K now, he will also do this in the future? not so. I strongly believe that he is not too aware of all these lowering of commissions, cut-rates, killer search-changes and all that or perhaps has had the fortune of not being effected by is, YET! but it will come.
Take Lisa! one of our most professional and prolific suppliers of the industry. Her earnings been cut in half! if that isnt a sign of the times, I dont know what is? and myself! two years back I was earning well above his 8K, today Im trailling by at least 30% less, however I am lucky in the sense that my 20 years of supplying the RM industry is ofcourse paying off a hell of a lot more.
Its not going forward, as the OP tends to think, its going backwards.
However whatever he decides, good luck to him and his decisions.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
