|
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 - Minsc
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 23
376
« on: September 30, 2016, 13:39 »
Sales at 123rf has picked up recently. It's up 30% from August.
377
« on: September 29, 2016, 19:01 »
I'm really starting to believe that Getty want people to steal images from them. By not having watermarks, it make it really easy to pin to Pinterest or share a decent sized un-watermarked image on other social websites without knowing the source. Once someone downloads it and uses its on their website, Getty send the "enforcement" letters and demand large sums of money. They take advantage of people's ignorance of the stock photography market and the rights attached to it.
They've build a machine around sending these letters and they've gotten incredibly efficient at it. I'm sure this has become a good percentage of their revenue and they would hate to lose it. It's like a Venus Flytrap eating the unsuspecting insect nibble on the sweet nectar.
378
« on: September 29, 2016, 15:45 »
All Getty images from Getty appears in the search with watermarks now.
Not so:
However, that applies to pages linked to from the front page.
Search isn't working at all for me.
You're right. Getty isn't doing their part to protect the images. People can easily just download it and use it on a website, but then again, maybe that's what Getty wants, so they can send lawyers after them and demand a high fee.
379
« on: September 29, 2016, 14:02 »
All Getty images from Getty appears in the search with watermarks now. I believe we've had this discussion before. Getty doesn't want Google to display their watermarked image on the image search with a size larger than a thumbnail. They want people to go to Getty Images to view big watermarked thumbnail images. They can opt out of that of giving Google high res watermark images, but they're not doing that. They want Google to index it so they can get traffic.
What they want from Google is to fundamentally change the design of the image search to not show anything more than a tiny thumbnail and force the user to go to the original website to see a high res watermarked image. This will cause a usability nightmare and the chance of it happening is extremely low. This lawsuit has been going on for 4 years and the market has changed so much. If they think they can strong arm Google with a petition, good luck. It's like us trying to sign a petition to strong arm Getty into deleting our portfolios or give us a better split. Almost zero chance of happening.
380
« on: September 27, 2016, 12:47 »
Every search engine presents the images the same way. If Getty doesn't like it, they can exclude themselves from the search results, just like contributors can...oh wait, we can't delete our portfolios anymore.
381
« on: September 26, 2016, 18:08 »
Good keywording is one of the most important aspects of being successful in Microstock. If you want to rely on an automate tool, go ahead, but don't complain if nobody can find your images.
382
« on: September 22, 2016, 11:29 »
Both SS and FT are heading toward BMEs. Looks like 123RF is also on its way.
383
« on: September 19, 2016, 02:31 »
I don't see anything arrogant or elitist about wanting to maximise your income. The market will soon decide if you are any good. If I honestly thought my talent/commitment was good enough to sell on higher priced channels I'd be crazy not to.
I wasn't referring to wanting to maximizing income. Nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong when someone is constantly bringing up how much he makes in a subtle way to belittle others. That's pretty arrogant to me and the way he acts like he's too good for microstock (this happens to be a microstock group) seems very elitist to me. Calling someone a 'slave' for not going against SS is not exactly a good way to make an impression.
384
« on: September 18, 2016, 23:17 »
I dont know about you but I make a full living ( close to five figure monthly ) from stock photography.....not a dime comes from Shutterstock, so keep calm that I will not take anything from this agency for me. If it works for you and the time & investment you put into pays off go ahead. But if someone is reading this thread and has a powerful photographic style I would recommend to look out for much higher revenue generating agencies. If you are into easy images or lazy to push the boundaries stay with pay by the weight agencies. Now I am not against micro they are here for a hundred reasons that have to do with the digital revolution. But for those photographers that push themselves far ahead from there are much better alternatives out there.
Good for you. Whatever works for you isn't going work for everyone and what works for everyone isn't going to work for you. If I choose to quit my job now, I can live off of my Microstock earnings, but I won't since my job pays me so well. In a couple years, I may just hit 5 figures per month with Microstock. If I don't upload my work to Microstock, it would just be sitting around collecting digitial dust. I like the alternative and if you don't like it, you can go rant elsewhere. You're not on SS, and yet you wish for its death. You seem quite flustered. You're probably good at what you do, but so are many other people on here, so don't flatter yourself. The difference is that many of us are not acting like arrogant, elitist snobs.
385
« on: September 17, 2016, 22:17 »
What a load of crap.......I wish photographers with your mentality would dissapear so threads like this would not even exists. Sorry but I cannot stand this slave mentality......
You need more than just me to disappear. You need 70,000 other contributors to disappear, so they can only sell your stuff. If this industry is too much for you, no one is asking you to stay. You choose to be part of it, so you'll have to play by the same set of rules as everyone else.
386
« on: September 17, 2016, 13:02 »
DT isn't trying to be socialist. In fact it is harder to succeed there than at any of the other top sites. If anything pricing images by sales is less socialist than the others and reflects market forces more closely.
They just market themselves as a "community"
They make it harder because have such a narrow criteria for what is accepted into their portfolio. If they accept what all the other agencies accept, they would have more buyers. Contributors would also be a lot more successful. A redesign to their website could help too. Outside of their recent Asian women success, their page views are abysmal compared to an average website.
387
« on: September 17, 2016, 12:40 »
SS sales won't go back to the back old days and people need to accept that. It's still a great agency where the contributors can thrive. I like SS because it forces people to be at their best to really succeed. The only reason why anyone should want an agency to fail is when they intentionally harm contributors and buyers like iStock/Getty or agencies that try to be socialist like DT. Those buyers would move over to other agencies and it'll benefit everyone.
Having agency competition is good for the industry and it's good for contributors. That's why we need agencies like SS, FT, Envato and 123RF to stay afloat.
388
« on: September 16, 2016, 14:43 »
This may be inappropriate to ask, but what kind of daily income do you get from 200-300 daily sales at SS? I know 9000 is alot of images, but if you make a living with your port, that's a great motivator for the rest of us. thanks
200-300 daily would be significantly more assuming similar od and sod composition. I'd guess 3500-4000 a month
Sounds about right.
389
« on: September 15, 2016, 17:46 »
On average, FT is about 75% of SS when comparing downloads.
390
« on: September 13, 2016, 09:37 »
Minsc, where are you located?
California, US.
391
« on: September 12, 2016, 22:04 »
I'm wondering if there are many who do wedding photography here. What do you offer for your services and how much your rate would be if that isn't too much info on here. Location would be helpful to gauge what its like around the world.
I haven't done any, but I hired a wedding photographer for my wedding a few years ago. I did a posting on craigslist and I had offers that ranged from $300 to $1500. The ones who offered to do it for $300 was pretty amateurish...like they're just starting out. The higher cost ones were more professional obviously. I ended up paying $400 for a fairly good photographer who had a partner for 6 hours of work. I did some negotiating and got the rate down. In the end, it really depends on the type of job, the size of the wedding, and how much work is required. Sometimes the couple can ask for a lot...like traveling to multiple venues for photo shoots, following them around for multiple days shooting rehearsals and makeup sessions. Sometimes they want a movie and/or prints, etc. Your best bet is estimate how much time you'll be spending on it (the actual shoot, travel, retouching, production) and charge about $50 to $100 per hour depending on experience. Add any additional cost, like a USB drive that contains all the photos, prints and DVD/Blu-Ray discs. You won't always get what you want, but you can try. You'll be competing against a lot of photographers, so be prepared to lower your rates if you want the job.
392
« on: September 12, 2016, 09:44 »
I wouldn't underestimate Apple and I'm going to reserve judgement on the photo quality until I get my hands on one. I'm not going to buy a 7 Plus, but I already know a few people who has it pre-ordered, so I'll get my hands on it soon. One of my biggest issues with the iPhone camera was the low light performance and the new camera greatly improves on it. Though it may not be DSLR or mirrorless quality, editorial doesn't need amazing quality. They appear on websites and low quality newsprint most of the time, so who needs a 28MP photo? If a photographer uses a 7 Plus as their primary tool, nobody is going to take him/her seriously unless they have a serious reputation, but as a side tool, it can be very useful. Sports Illustrated just posted some photos taken by the iPhone 7 Plus camera and the quality is very good decent. http://www.si.com/nfl/photo/2016/09/11/iphone-7-plus-sneak-preview-photos
393
« on: September 07, 2016, 15:17 »
Ignore the "why?"
Why?
Why not remove it from your signature? It's confusing to everyone who reads your posts. And you waste your time telling people that it's not part of your post.
394
« on: September 07, 2016, 14:01 »
One normal camera and one telephoto lense camera. Combined, it can be used to create depth of field. Could be a great tool for editorial and portraits. At 12MP, it could be good enough for microstock.
It's also going to make it more accessible for new photographers to enter the field.
395
« on: September 06, 2016, 14:22 »
could it be due to the latest f***ups with our portfolios vanishing that made clients of ss
look to fotolia??? istock-ers did not report a surge of sales during that period
so it can only have gone to fotolia. .. i think.
I don't think the clients even noticed. If one portfolio disappears, they'll just download images from another contributor on SS. FT has been getting quite a bit of exposure because of Adobe. Previously, many buyers wasn't even aware of FT, but they now know what Adobe Stock is because of the close integration with Adobe products. FT/Adobe Stock will only gain more traction from here on out. It's a good agency to be part of because they're currently in a growth phase...while iStock and DT continue their fall into oblivion.
396
« on: September 05, 2016, 14:54 »
FT has been on fire for me. It was on pace to surpassing SS in August, but by some miracle, I set a best day record and had a large sale on the last day of the month that put SS up by a few dollars.
Based on my sales patterns, SS put up some really high download numbers, but FT put up some high RPI. Despite the lower download numbers, it's still able to match SS.
They've been neck and neck for months. I'm seeing some strong growth on both sites and I'm happy with the performance of both sites.
397
« on: August 28, 2016, 14:02 »
Adobe/FT very often act like morons absolute beginners and instead of capitalizing on shall we say the hiccups anf glitches of SS and IS and trying to refine their search they are still thinking in terms of just quick profits and margins.
One would have thought a company like Adobe would have a bit more intelligence and know-how but no, not so.
I think they have been capitalizing on the mistakes of IS. They're killing it for me and earnings are higher than SS (mainly because of the search glitch) this month.
398
« on: August 28, 2016, 13:57 »
Seems a bit overpriced at this point.
I'm more excited for the Fuji XT2, which is my next likely purchase. Good image quality, 4K, fast AF and most importantly, affordable.
399
« on: August 28, 2016, 00:38 »
Forget the map. I rather see them add a search function to the Image Gallery Stats page instead.
400
« on: August 23, 2016, 10:29 »
Woke up to the nice surprise this morning.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
