|
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 - Fred
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15
326
« on: June 03, 2008, 11:57 »
About .25 but I am estimating the number of images I had at the beginning of the month and I am still in the lowest payment tier (.25). fred
327
« on: May 27, 2008, 12:48 »
Why will Photographers Direct not represent photographers who have images on microstock / micropayment sites?
Because they are the antithesis of Fair Trade Photography. Microstock sites (which sell Royalty Free images for 1 to 3 dollars) prey on the lack of industry-experience of amateur photographers.
The only people who benefit from these sites are:
The site owners, ... etc.
Even if this is all true and it is a problem what solution can you recommend that is not worse than the problem. License all photographers? Register all camera and camera owners? Call out the photo price police? The market is setting the prices and you can't do anything about it. Get over it!! fred
328
« on: April 10, 2008, 23:05 »
to me it is not a bad line to take, obvisously not aimed at large corporate customers. plenty of people still out there who think google images is the answer to their problems. hitting people who just rip images off because they think it will cost them a fortune isn't too bad a tactic (as part of a whole marketing campaign). not sure about your mama bit?
Well it wouldn't be so bad if they were doing other things but as far as I can tell this is the only advertising/marketing they are doing. fred
329
« on: March 04, 2008, 00:22 »
Yes, after 3.5 years and thousands of downloads, I've only found two images of mine used and both were accidents. One was used in a local magazine without proper attribution (that really burned me) and one by a local wine association for the cover of their brochure. Otherwise, the best way to look is on google and search for your name...
Something similar happened to me with an image on the cover of a brochure - first usage I had ever found - there was no attribution but on the back it credited a number people for photos. I gave them a call to be sure someone else had not sold my image as theirs. The people were very nice. Told me they had gotten it from Fotolia and apologized for not crediting me - other credits were for pictures provided by their staff. They eventually used the same photo on their website and made sure to credit me there. c h e e r s fred
330
« on: February 29, 2008, 00:42 »
Furthermore, concerning yourself with getting images accepted is pointless - the only thing that matters is producing images that sell.
That should be the point of this whole thread. The best way to measure reviewer performance is the selling rate of what they approve. For me at least SS is so far ahead of any of the other five sites I submit to that I have to believe they have the best reviewers. I sell over 90% of what is accepted at SS versus less than 30 % at IS and single digit levels elsewhere. To me that is the measure that matters. fred
331
« on: February 27, 2008, 14:25 »
This is very true!! As I have pointed out before, the idea that images need comments to be sold on LO is not supported by any evidence I've seen.
That's funny because the only time I've had sales is when I've played the ratings game. Although, not necessarily the photos with new comments.
I just wish they would get the keyword indexing working.
The site is a joke - a carnival that is run like a circus!! c h e e r s fred
332
« on: February 27, 2008, 00:25 »
I just wish they would take the site down and fix it!! Ever changing problems - ftp, upload, disappearing thumbnails, etc. - are getting very irritating. Now it seems that new images never get indexed!! Not sure why I started uploading again. This site is just not ready for prime time.
fred
333
« on: February 27, 2008, 00:15 »
I spend about 5 minutes a week making comments, it isn't a big deal.
It's not a big deal, but it's also completely pointless.
This is very true!! As I have pointed out before, the idea that images need comments to be sold on LO is not supported by any evidence I've seen. I have checked the most recent downloads list on several occasions - just now for instance - and there have never been more than 2 of the 25 with comments - less than 10%. I have been fairly active in the forums and commenting there and still have only 12 downloads - only 1 in the last 4 months! That doesn't prove anything - I only recently went over 200 in my portfolio - however, a variety of images I have there that sell - some quite well - on IS, SS, DT, FT, BS do not even get looked at on LO. I started uploading again recently in hopes the site upgrade would improve things but it seems to be taking a long time to get it to work right. Currently it takes forever for new images to get indexed into the search. Hope for LO is fading fast!! fred
335
« on: January 27, 2008, 00:57 »
Yep that's the main reason. I actually really like DT, and it does show some promise and makes up about 10% for me at the moment, but I want to see how IS and SS go over the next few months - if it becomes worthwhile to become exclusive on IS, then I want to be able to exercise that option - unfortunately that means no uploads to DT for 6mths.
I have stopped uploading to BigStock because of the 90 day lock in and may do the same at DT if sales don't improve. Would like to see everyone stop uploading to these sites that require you to keep your portfolio there after you quit. Perhaps we could influence a change in that policy. fred
336
« on: January 21, 2008, 13:50 »
$1 per photo PER MONTH is the AVERAGE income in microstock when you submit to the big 7 and you have a portfolio of more than 200 photos.
Top earners earn between $3-6 dollars per photo per month.
It's a fact, I am not making the numbers up.
It all comes down to individual portfolios no matter we talk about micro macro or whatever. So saying the average for micro is that xx amount and the average of macro is this xx amount is pretty senseless.
Actually I find the numbers very useful. As rather new to MS. The numbers not only tell me how well I am doing they tell me what I should expect and what I should strive for. If I am making $.25 per photo per month after a year I should recognize that I am either going to have to learn a lot, work a lot harder or give it up. fred
337
« on: January 17, 2008, 13:07 »
You should only apply the noise reduction where it is needed. Otherwise you lose too much detail where you want it. Some of the NR programs (I'm most familiar with Noise Ninja) apply noise reduction and sharpening to help avoid this but I think this would be difficult to achieve by hand using GIMP. fred
338
« on: January 17, 2008, 06:26 »
I have used Gimp for noise reduction and it is quite good. I believe it has a "noise" filter but I have not used it and don't know how well it works. I usually just use one of the tools to select the area I want to apply noise reduction to and the select the Gaussian Blur filter (or effect - not sure which pull down menu it its in) you can then modify the amount of blur. This works quite wll I have found. fred
339
« on: January 16, 2008, 00:36 »
About 75 downloads for this across 5 sites in 4 months.  fred
340
« on: January 15, 2008, 13:38 »
Well I have yet to see any evidence that comments lead to sales on LO. My own experience does not bear it out and I have gone through the 25 recent downloads on several occasions and never seen more than two of the 25 commented - and those could have come as a result of their being in the recent download list (as is obvious with the single commented image in the current recent downloads list there). Hear a lot of huffing and puffing on here about comments and downloads but very little hard evidence.
LO's problem is it has far too many contributors chasing far too few buyers. Until they address those problems it will not improve there. fred
341
« on: January 15, 2008, 13:16 »
I've done lots of searches at LO, and I always find my own images at page one zillion, which is probably the reason why I have no sales there.
And that is what it is really all about -- sales and buyers. I don't know why buyers are not going to LO but my own experience and all the reliable statistics I have been able to drudge up indicate they are not. Perhaps it is because they can't find what they need due to the search algorythm perhaps it is something else - lack of marketing/advertising for instance - but the plain fact is there are not enough buyers to generate reasonable sales for contributors and over the last 6 months it has only gotten worse rather than better. fred
342
« on: January 12, 2008, 06:01 »
Well downsizing to minimum acceptable MP sizes on subscription sites may not be as painless as many here feel. I can certainly see the wisdom in downsizing 39, 16 and even 12 or10 MP images but taking everything down to the minimum 2.5 or even 4 MP could well discourage Extended License sales I think.
fred
Fred, I don't think 2.5MP affects much EL sales.
With a portfolio of 800 pictures, I get between 2 to 6 EL sales every months with SS, and most of my pics are arround 3MP.
Well, I am sure you have a great deal more experience in MicroStock than I have and I do appreciate the value of your opinion. However, (other shoe dropping) you are unlikely to know which of your pictures were NOT downloaded as ELs because they did not fit the customers resolution needs. I admit this is may be a rare instance but ELs represent over 20% of my SS earnings - admittedly only two months experience there though - so the occasional lost opportunity could be a significant hit on my income even if relatively rare. The 80 to 1 price leverage of ELs over normal downloads can make them extremely important to the income stream. fred
343
« on: January 11, 2008, 12:48 »
I do think so. The search placement is debatable but there are plenty of exclusives who feel their images had immediate better placement after becoming exclusive. How would you explain immediate increases of earnings of 50-100% or more when they may have only jumped a canister level in commission (25%?)? IS gives exclusives the edge with everything. Why not search placement too?
Well it is certainly to iStock's advantage if everyone thinks Exclusivity improves search placement. Just makes it all that more attractive an alternative. fred
344
« on: January 11, 2008, 12:35 »
Well downsizing to minimum acceptable MP sizes on subscription sites may not be as painless as many here feel. I can certainly see the wisdom in downsizing 39, 16 and even 12 or10 MP images but taking everything down to the minimum 2.5 or even 4 MP could well discourage Extended License sales I think.
fred
345
« on: January 11, 2008, 07:04 »
...This is an unethical practice called skimming. They do it all the time in Australia, and wonder why people buy stuff overseas and import...
Yeah, That would be like me selling the same image at iStock for $1.34 that I sell at ShutterStock for $.25. ;-0 fred
346
« on: January 11, 2008, 06:58 »
Hmmmmmmmm, I see $.10 - and dropping - per image subscription
rates in our future.
fred
347
« on: January 07, 2008, 12:04 »
...And I must say, as for the number of images we review in a day versus the number of complaints we get, I'd say we are doing pretty good, but we always strive to be better...
Do you track the number of complaints against the number of images reviewed? Can you give us some numbers? fred
348
« on: January 05, 2008, 01:52 »
....And last : my e-mail was to the writer himself, not to his lawyer, and he answered in person. Well whether to the writer or his lawyer(s) - he may have sought counsel before replying anyway - I think it would be difficult to phrase the question in such a way that he could be comfortable in saying yes. I mean if you asked "Does your copyright on the vegetable designs/styles in your book preclude others from making/selling similar designs/styles with vegetables?" You and/or your lawyers might construe his response as consent/license to copy and sell his designs/styles with some unspecified - possibly minor in his opinion - differences. Without seeing exactly what you were talking about he would undoubtedly want to be careful in protecting his rights. It seems to me this is always tricky for both parties and when one's work approaches the margins of someone elses the decision on copyright violation in the end can only be made in court. fred
349
« on: January 03, 2008, 06:53 »
It's not the just the fact that there is a difference in price - prices differ on just about everything - it is the magnitude of the price difference. I think you will be hard pressed to find the same DVD on sale for $10 and $50 (or even more if we want to talk about RM image differences) at different stores.
And I am not saying there is anything unethical about it - I am pretty much a Caveat Emptor kinda guy - but customers might find it as exploitive as photographers might find a 20% commission. Where you stand depends on where you sit. fred
350
« on: January 03, 2008, 03:17 »
I'm not sure "Ethics" really come into this. After all many of us sell the same picture at many different prices (some places size matters some it doesn't). Some customers might not consider that particularly ethical.
I just look at it like this. I am letting iStock try and sell my picture for between $.23 and $1.35 depending on size and Shutterstock sell the same picture in all sizes for $.25. Do I really care what iStock or Shutterstock makes on it? What I really care about is whether they sell them at all so that my effort in providing them is rewarded with an amount I consider profitable. fred
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
