|
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 - travelstock
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 40
353
« on: January 23, 2011, 10:58 »
I had looked a Photographer's Direct a long time ago - once I saw that they didn't work with anyone selling via micros, I stopped investigating. I just had another look this evening after following the link to the article about them.
The big problem is that the site looks awful and the photos are really nothing special. I like the idea of fair trade, but expecting some sort of price negotiation over very ordinary images (many of which just look dated, although perhaps they aren't) seems to require buyers to do a ton of heavy lifting when the prize is a a rather unappealing one anyway.
I think the fair trade idea is well worth pursuing, but you need a state of the art web site, search and great looking images. Don't think Photographer's Direct cuts the mustard. Do they sell a lot? Is the concept working?
(I know this thread is going off on a tangent but... ) To me the US$382 per year subscription option seems like much more of a scam to me than anything else. If they're a credible agency (which is a sort of contradiction to the whole premise of being "photographers direct") why wouldn't they actually have some sort of "who are we" page that lists a company name, address and gives some details of who is actually behind the site? From what I can see the only person who promotes this site is a blogger called "freetradephotographer" who also happens to be associated with the website itself and does so by ignorantly criticising microstock sites. I bet he has a good laugh at the "lack of industry-experience of amateur photographers" who pay for subscriptions on his site.
354
« on: January 21, 2011, 00:08 »
Reminded me of the investigative journalism by Amos in October last year...
I was watching this thinking: I bet this guy is lying... For those that don't understand the German... @ about 2:30 mins: "We're looking at the situation at the moment.... but we don't have any ambitions to change things in the near future" (in response to Amos' questions about the IS royalty cuts). Despite the words, you watch this interview and how shifty the answers are (watch the guy's eyes when he answers the question) and get the impression that the real answer is "we'll continue to make whatever cuts to commissions that we think we can get away with." I didn't believe they'd do it quite this quickly, but doubt its the last round there - more like an annual event. Stay tuned for an announcement of annual targets there soon... Sorry to the independents who are getting hurt by this. Even though this time round I'm not affected directly, I think its bad news for everyone in microstock.
355
« on: January 20, 2011, 23:16 »
As do many others. Facebook is constantly adding new elements to their site design and they don't even have any significant income from the site yet as iStock does. And the list goes on.
You are joking aren't you??
356
« on: January 20, 2011, 10:19 »
Anything that keeps your competitors focused on checking their stats and re-calculating them to take into account a hypothetical future, instead of doing actual work, should of course stay! 
357
« on: December 26, 2010, 06:22 »
Crazy! Seems like if it is a render of a non-specific location it shouldn't be able to use ANY specific locations in the keywords. 
I agree - location keywords are a common problem, both for illustrations and for photos. Just because its a beach doesn't mean its Hawaii. Its not just a problem at IS though - all the sites have contributors that decide its a good way to rank higher in searches by adding keywords for many popular destinations. The danger is when a buyer uses one mistakenly and gets in trouble for including an image of the Philippines on an advertisement for Hawaii (for example).
359
« on: December 02, 2010, 00:29 »
+1 Hugin
360
« on: December 01, 2010, 20:20 »
BME in $$ terms for me - the first since March this year, and the first since going exclusive. DLs at iStock are at their highest level this year, but still down on all-time highs.
361
« on: November 28, 2010, 22:00 »
Well now I am seeing double from looking at all the sample photos at 100% resolution for 2 days from different lightweight cameras. The only one I liked quality-wise was Leica M9 which costs like a small car, has only manual focus, no zoom and very limited number of lenses. And it's not even that small. The quality is quite nice though, no question there. So I guess it's either M9 or wait till technology makes another leap... ("Come on technology... you can do it... leap already..." ok now I really do need a break:))
If at all possible - try to borrow a camera that you're interested in, shoot with it for a day and process the images yourself - that's really the only way you'll know if it meets your needs. What you see on the web is really a reflection of the users shoot settings and the post-processing used than anything. 100% enlargements that have gone through web-processing and hosting aren't the same as what you'd get out of a clean workflow. I'm sure if you look for D3X samples you'll find some that are nice, and some that would make you think you're looking at the output from a cheap P&S. The same applies more to the smaller cameras because that there are far more people who can afford one than is the case with a Leica or a D3X.
362
« on: November 28, 2010, 15:16 »
The A55 seems to be getting a good response from users, but there's not really that much difference size-wise when compared to a small DSLR, particularly seeing as there aren't any lenses that are any more compact that traditional DSLR lenses. I can't see any reason why you'd get this over a D3100 if you already have Nikon lenses - its only about 50g lighter.
Its in the video specifications and capabilities that the Panasonic cameras, particularly the GH2 are really nice. I'll probably get one for the video features when it becomes more widely available.
Well see with A55 you get this little cool flip LCD screen. I the (very) old days I used to own Canon Powershot G2 which also had that feature and I found it very useful. You can take ground level photos without actually having to lie down on your belly:) Since I haven't held the A55 myself I am not sure if it flips to the side like Powershot one was. I guess it's time go to a camera store.
About another Nikon body - I already have a D300 body that's lying around without much use, maybe I should just put a fast 50 mm lens for it and call it my "super-light" camera...;-)
There's a lot to be said for the DSLR + 50mm as a super-light camera option. The flip screen on the A55 is attached to the bottom - the GH2 has its flip-screen on the side... Also just came across this review which is of more interest for video. Not really that good reading for Canon fans: http://www.eoshd.com/content/460-Canon-60D-versus-Panasonic-GH2-Full-Review-Part-1
363
« on: November 27, 2010, 23:11 »
I've only tried the Sony cameras in-store. The NEX seems nicely built but it just handles too much like a moblie phone strapped to a big lens. If they bring out some more lenses like the 16mm it may be a bit better. The target market seems too much like the cool kids in Japan than photography enthusiasts. That said, the image quality is going to be good enough for microstock if you know what you're doing.
The A55 seems to be getting a good response from users, but there's not really that much difference size-wise when compared to a small DSLR, particularly seeing as there aren't any lenses that are any more compact that traditional DSLR lenses. I can't see any reason why you'd get this over a D3100 if you already have Nikon lenses - its only about 50g lighter.
Its in the video specifications and capabilities that the Panasonic cameras, particularly the GH2 are really nice. I'll probably get one for the video features when it becomes more widely available.
364
« on: November 27, 2010, 09:58 »
I'm sure my absolute number was a hair lower than Sean's, but I too had a best week ever last week.
I'm sure my numbers are a "fraction" lower than both of you, but also having a pretty good run at the moment.
366
« on: November 20, 2010, 20:42 »
I have had a 7D since they first came out. I love that camera..... BUT....
There is a lot of noise in the dark or shaded areas of a low light shot that show up at ISO400 viewed at 100%. I use Topaz denoise to get rid of it. Does a great job it also robs some sharpness and detail. And I am too lazy to do the 2 layer PS masking thing to fix it.
So I thought I would get a full frame...5DMKII for the higher ISO performance.
I posted a similar post on dpreview... and got a quick education about how my DOF will narrow. To get the same DOF as my crop camera I will probably have to push the aperture open a couple of stops....which is about what I gained in ISO performance. So it almost looks like its better to stick with my cropped 7D for those close in, low light shots.
Thoughts?
Noise problems are usually caused by user error, not by the camera. If you're getting unacceptable noise in the 7D, switching to the 5D II won't fixt the problem. Work out what is giving you problems and you'll get better results. I can't see why you'd need NR in either camera at these ISOs if the image is exposed properly. The DOF difference is closer to 1 stop, not a couple (I assume that means 2).
367
« on: November 17, 2010, 12:50 »
A small note: as Holgs said on your blog, you yould definitely make more $$$ as an IS exclusive.
Probably, I would make more $ as iStock exclusive. 18% vs 35% commission for 2011 (or 17% vs 30% - I am on the edge).
+ Vetta and whatever. However, my income is more stable and more predictable as independent and diversified contributor.
Of course nobody can decisively say what would happen, I was calculating that switching to exclusive would result in my income from IS being 3 times its previous level. I based this on the exclusive percentage at the exclusive file prices - not on any best match boost. Looking at my post-exclusive figures, that calculation was still a bit conservative. Before I actually did the sums assumed that going exclusive wouldn't come close to being a financially viable option. In part that's because there isn't exactly a flood of information from people who do make the switch.
368
« on: November 16, 2010, 01:53 »
Looking at the breakdown of exclusives to non-exclusives, I just have the feeling that despite what's been announced, the flow of independents to take up exclusivity still exceeds that going the other way, and that this is particularly so amongst those who are capable of producing vetta-quality images.
Do you personally know of ANY experienced (silver or above) independents who have gone exclusive since September? I don't. OTOH I know a couple dozen or so exclusives who have given up the crown, and quite a few independents who had PLANNED to go exclusive but decided not to after the royalty drop (myself included).
You may be right, but I would like to know if you have any basis for this conclusion other than your "feeling"...?
Yeah I do know of a few cases personally. Its not really the most popular headline at the moment: "woo-yay I went exclusive on iStock", but the total numbers of exclusives are still going up. Obviously there are some that are going the other way as well. To be honest if the announcement had come before I went exclusive I'm not sure if I'd have done it either - but staying independent wouldn't have been the best business decision, even with the changes.
369
« on: November 15, 2010, 17:54 »
Maybe I am misreading you, but it seems you are saying that only a few (several does not imply a large number) of independents are as good as the Istock exclusives who have images in Vetta. Do you believe Istock exclusives are somehow inherently better photographers than independents?
I have browsed the Vetta collection a number of times and, while there is some stunning and unique imagery there, it also has a lot of just plain good stock. Quite a few of the images there are the one or two outstanding contributions from otherwise very mediocre exclusive contributors.
I have to agree with Christian - many independents could and do produce similar quality of images on a regular basis. They just aren't getting found on Istock because they aren't pushed to the front of the best match.
I was more referring to the "producing" part of it than getting a few images in. I wouldn't consider the number of exclusives who are regularly producing vetta images accepted in the many category either. Look at the total number of files in the collection - its an average of less than 10 vetta files per exclusive - as with all these numbers its an average that's weighted very strongly to the top. Looking at the breakdown of exclusives to non-exclusives, I just have the feeling that despite what's been announced, the flow of independents to take up exclusivity still exceeds that going the other way, and that this is particularly so amongst those who are capable of producing vetta-quality images.
370
« on: November 15, 2010, 14:19 »
Remember! Vetta was only for the Exclusive contributors. Now most independants I know including myself could easily produce this quality BUT we were not allowed to, since this was the Excl. perks really. It kind of gave the impression that exclusives were better then independants, hence the price differance. This is the big mistake, it pretended to be something which it isnt.
Most independents is a bit of a stretch - there are certainly some that can, probably several. Often though its those who wouldn't do particularly well with the normal microstock model. The problem is its hard to justify selling a product at a premium price if its available for much less somewhere else. Vetta and Agency are in a way acknowledgement that microstockers can produce content that is up there with the best. If you're aiming to produce outstanding content that isn't going to sell thousands of times, then its a good place to do that. A good example is the current featured photo http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=13619836 - its a great photo that's part of (I think) a cracking series. These types of images just aren't worth producing under the regular microstock model, but are flourishing with Vetta.
371
« on: November 15, 2010, 13:35 »
It would make more sense to me if Vetta images were exclusive. If you have something nobody else has, you can more easily put a higher price on it.
Unless you know something I don't, they are exclusive at the moment, though 'towards the end of the year' they are being rolled out to some of the 'Getty family'.
If you do know otherwise, please tell.
Oh, I didn't know holgs was exclusive. Sorry for the confusion.
I haven't been exclusive for very long! Just to confuse things even more, none of the images of mine that were linked earlier in the thread were differently priced from one another.
372
« on: November 14, 2010, 00:05 »
Sneaking suggests someone did something on purpose in an underhanded way. Not sure you have any basis for saying that.
Some of those photos appear identical (versus similar) and were uploaded in different months. That just suggests a mistake in uploading the same image twice. We all make mistakes sometimes - it's always nice if someone points those out gently and privately.
I don't like the policies over similars with Vettas/Agency but no reason to turn this into some slug-fest over something that wasn't even your original issue.
Hardly a slug fest, he was implying my images are similar, I think they are not. I think it's fair to point out several from his portfolio that are similar.
My point was that you have images with no apparent difference in quality with similar concepts at different price points: free vs paid. I didn't say that they were the same. Nor are the images you link - they're different concepts. Yes I have some images that are similars - up until recently I've been uploading mainly from slow connections on a laptop and on a variety of agencies. The upload restrictions on iStock meant you need to keep track of what's been uploaded, and usually can't upload a full batch at once. Guess what - I occasionally make mistakes. FWIW I think similars often actually hurt you in the search on iStock because your images end up competing against each other.
374
« on: November 12, 2010, 10:19 »
Nice work Bob - looking forward to seeing the final product!
375
« on: November 12, 2010, 07:37 »
Just for a reference, here is Yuri's new setup: The Yuri Arcurs SteadyPod
That's 2/2 posts bumping threads to promote your product - if your only involvement in this community is to advertise a product why not just buy a little box at the top of the page? As far as monopods go, I tried one for a while, but found it was an extra thing to carry in the end and restricted my movement too much in practice. In the situations where it could have been of use, a small tripod would have been much better. I've just got one of these tripods for those situations: http://www.zssirui.com/en/products.html?proTypeID=100036810&proID=100322584&proName=T-1005X - came across it in a local store - it has the same features as this one featured on DPreview: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1010/10102801benrotrvaleangel.asp - but compared to the Benro tripods I saw in stores here, build quality seemed much better, and is small enough to fit inside my camera bag. Total weight is 1.3kg with the G10 ball head. Amazon have this combination for about $170 - it was $140 here in Thailand. Another alternative that's often suggested is a small beanbag to be able to rest the camera on things that you find around you.
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 40
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
