|
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 - crazychristina
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23
401
« on: May 14, 2009, 03:18 »
My numbers are tiny (224 images online, 219 dls) but I think my restart is promising. My dls for this year have been 6,5,4,2 and now 7, not much to base anything on except hope maybe. My acceptance rate has improved considerably too. Interestingly, none of my recent sales have been new images. I'm guessing that buyers see my new stuff fly by in the New Uploads and then check out my port. Anyway, hope springs eternal.
402
« on: May 11, 2009, 07:15 »
I've recently started shooting stock again after a year's break. My acceptance rate on istock seems a lot better this time round, and I put that down mostly to having recently bought an excellent lens (Pentax 31mm f1.8 LTD for those interested). I don't know what sort of equipment you have, but it might be worthwhile to hire some top equipment for a weekend, shoot as wide a range of stuff as possible, and try that. It really does make a difference. Also, I don't know if you do this, but your monitor must be properly calibrated with a hardware calibrator. I can't believe istock accepted any of the stuff I submitted before I bought my Spyder.
403
« on: May 10, 2009, 05:50 »
The implementation that you've thought through sounds very interesting. My concern is the 'we' bit. 'We' is effectively an agency, a decision making body that sets some standards, determines membership?, sets prices? etc. The politics and structure of the collective are probably the central issue here.
404
« on: May 09, 2009, 19:56 »
re exclusive/non-exclusive advantage:
A man visited Rome during the reign of Mussolini. He saw a lot of people marching down the street chanting ce-du, ce-du, ce-du.
405
« on: May 09, 2009, 19:24 »
Perhaps the balance of customers (company vs individuals) is shifting as more companies come on board micro. I doubt your average joe who wants a desktop pic or something for a church flyer would buy a subscription.
406
« on: May 09, 2009, 17:07 »
Can I mention the broker model again? Works well in other industries.
Photographers put images on their own sites.
Photographers set own prices.
Brokers emerge (independent of us and each other)
Brokers catalogue (sorry, I'm Aussie) range of sites and provide search and purchase interface for customer
Broker takes 10% commission for brokering the sale, photographer gets 90%.
407
« on: May 09, 2009, 01:03 »
I have to disagree that there is an infinite supply. Rejection rates on most stock sites are clear evidence that not every image is an acceptable stock image. Also, hate to say it, but many fine amateur photographers find stock imagery boring - not what they really want to shoot without some incentive. If prices go down too far it won't be worth anyone's time to make acceptable stock images. It ain't that easy.
408
« on: May 08, 2009, 00:17 »
Sounds good, but I think we need to get away from having only a SINGLE agent. Several independent agents/brokers (maybe specialist) would be competing with each other, maybe provide specialist search and representation), and avoid the agent monopoly situation we could well be headed for.
409
« on: May 07, 2009, 22:57 »
I don't know if it's what you're looking for but RedBubble sells arwork print on demand. They charge a flat rate for printing/mounting/framing (different price for each, at various sizes) and the artist simply puts their percentage on top of that.
410
« on: May 07, 2009, 22:53 »
An alternate business model - each photographer has their own portfolio online, and independent brokers provide marketing and search and transactions (forwarded to photographer - cut). Brokers could be specialist or general, and provide the 'reliability' by representing only trusted contributors (content-wise). Happens in other industries - accommodation, care hire, insurance, etc.
411
« on: May 06, 2009, 16:34 »
You can't calculate on percentages alone. Exclusives get preference in search. What's that worth?
412
« on: May 04, 2009, 02:22 »
Don't assume eligible images are necessarily inferior. Plenty of istock photographers complain of good images disappearing into a black hole due to the vagaries of best match or something else. JJRD said pretty much the same thing about this deal.
413
« on: May 03, 2009, 17:41 »
Given that SS and istock are the top two earners here I'm wondering how subs can be so disastrous, and how the two models can't coexist successfully.
414
« on: May 03, 2009, 01:25 »
Thanks for taking the time to check out my stuff. I'll certainly keep working on it. I didn't start with much lighting equipment but I've now built up to three strobes so should be able to do something with those. It's the outdoors stuff I get lighting rejections for - I tend to like shadows and forms defined by shading much more than inspectors do.
As for other sites, SS told me never to darken their doors again after I closed an account because I wanted to change my username. I've had stuff on DT and Fotolia but never did as well as on istock. Besides, if I reach the position of going exclusive on istock I might take it just for the extra upload slots. Once I'm accepted there I can afford to be a bit more experimental.
415
« on: May 02, 2009, 07:38 »
I'm still very much a beginner with the painting (and 3D), but my more arty stuff can be found on RedBubble
You should be posting some of these on Flickr. I suspect you would get more exposure than you have on just Redbubble.
I've had over 15,000 views of my art on RB (no sales though). Pretty happy just to have an audience.
416
« on: May 02, 2009, 07:32 »
Might you be interested to share with us now, why you were not successful the first time around?
And what you would be doing differently this time that you think would improve your chance of success?
Just curious (as a cat) , after all a "bat" isn't too different from a cat, we each have whiskers and pointed ears, lol.
My images have been pretty boring. I'm trying to be a bit more 'creative'. Not too successful at that so far, but I'm working on it. Also some improved equipment and technique. ETA: I've had more rejections than acceptances from my recent uploads, mostly for lighting. Guess I can't get too creative.
417
« on: May 01, 2009, 18:45 »
I'm still very much a beginner with the painting (and 3D), but my more arty stuff can be found on RedBubble
418
« on: May 01, 2009, 17:59 »
After a not very successful year on microstock I took a break for nearly a year to learn a bit more about art. Been doing some digital painting and 3D stuff. I'm back into photography again, and recently uploaded the first images in months. I'm more relaxed and more confident this time round. It will be interesting to see if I'm any more successful.
419
« on: May 01, 2009, 17:13 »
I think it's entirely possible to do well without too many posed models in suits. Rasmus Rasmussen ( theprint) is a good example, and I'm sure there are quite a few others with a style like his.
420
« on: May 01, 2009, 17:02 »
I believe its colloquially referred to as the Bigma.
421
« on: May 01, 2009, 16:53 »
Before microstock I was a serious amateur - camera club member - shooting film. Went digital, joined an online digital camera club (PassionForPixels) and read an interview with hidesy by Perrush, and joined istock. Shooting for stock has forced me to pay more attention to the technicalities, to take more effort over correct exposure and composition (yes those shadows really do detract from the image), to try new genres and to invest in better equipment. I used to do a lot of walk-around photography, record shots mostly, and now I'm much more conscious and creative with my image-making. I even joined the istock Steel Cage community to stimulate my creativity, as creative artistry is one of my weaknesses. So in almost every respect being involved in microstock has encouraged me to improve as a photographer and as an artist.
ETA: And as for Photoshop...well, I've won 5 battles in the cage.
422
« on: April 30, 2009, 19:00 »
Depends how you determine 'worth'. I have had little success on istock since I joined just over two years ago, but I'm certainly a much better photographer (and artist) for it, so it's worth it to me.
423
« on: April 21, 2009, 03:31 »
So how does posting helpful and relevant advice on several relevant forums make one a spammer??!!
424
« on: April 17, 2009, 23:34 »
I think the thrust of the article was not whether there would still be a market for images but whether it will be possible to make a decent living providing said images. If the market is mosly topped up by people who don't care or don't need to make a living (given the huge number of images already available) then it might be the end of 'stock photographers' if not stock photography. Not saying I agree, but not too many pay tailors any more.
425
« on: April 12, 2009, 10:06 »
I can't resist responding to the time-honoured aphorism that 'those who can, do, those who can't, teach'. Very few people can teach, and experts are usually the worst teachers (IMHO, of course).
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
