MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Graffoto

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 34
401
The first time that you a get a rejection from IS for "file has been altered too far from it's original appearance" you will appricate that they can tell.

Another example; I shot a test with a young African-American model.
I shoot raw and place a WhiBal card in the first frame.
The shots I sent her were dead on accurate, but she was unhappy with her skin tones.
She thought I made her look like an 'orange moon'.

Why? Because she does not have a calibrated monitor.
So on her screen she looked too orange.

This is the reason that color science exits and why calibrating to a known standard is essisential for consistency.

No one cares if the grass in your shots is a little too blue or too yellow... Unless the person buying the shot is in the grass seed business.
The same applies to many fields in science and industry. Accurate color matters.

And as in my example above, certain ethnic groups are very aware of how their skin tones are represented. 

402
I didn't say I don't check it !!  I use test cards to check colour, contrast and gamma.  If it was way out then it would be disasterous, but it's never far out and I don't do it often.  I just question the practice of using optical aids to attemppt to get things spot on !?  Can anyone reall tell ??



Yes, anyone who ever prints from Lightroom or Photoshop can tell.
Anyone who puts their images on a keydrive and then takes them to a friends house to view on an uncalibrated monitor can tell.
And the inspectors that are required to calibrate their monitors every single day can tell.

403
Site Related / Re: Welcome to the new server.
« on: December 03, 2009, 00:29 »
Back from the Twilight Zone.
What a strange trip it has been!

404
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Refund- client did not want this file.
« on: December 01, 2009, 20:09 »
Thanks for that info, Sean.
Does IS provide us with a copy of that certificate?

405
iStockPhoto.com / Refund- client did not want this file.
« on: December 01, 2009, 19:18 »
So today I get a notice from IS:

"We regret to inform you that a refund has been issued for a purchase of your file #5688410:

client did not want this image.

Regards,
The iStockphoto Team"

Okay, it's only around five dollars, and certainly not the end if the world.
But the thing that bothers me is that the file was downloaded early in the morning and I did not get this notice until late in the afternoon.

Now how do I know that the client is not keeping the file and then asking for a refund?

If the file had been downloaded in error, and immediatly contacted IS, would I not have recieved a more timely message?

Maybe am being too suspicious, because my wife has a habit of buying five or six of the same garment in different colors and then returning all but one or two.

What's to stop a designer from doing something similar?



406
Off Topic / Re: Nikon VS Canon - Joey L
« on: November 28, 2009, 19:21 »
I dunno, I think the best part is the Coke swizzling tattooed dude at the end  ;D.

407
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Free Image of the Week... does it help?
« on: November 28, 2009, 15:09 »

I don't see the logic behind your conclusion. If you offer your files for free and if your image gets chosen as FIOTW, it may bring say up to $100 income you would not get otherwise. That would be the logical conclusion. Does it mean that it pays to offer your files for free? How many files have you offered for free? How high is the probability it will be chosen as FIOTW? How much does the usual file that is not featured as FIOTW bring? The math needs to include that to draw the conclusion.

I understand that it feels well to be there on the front page. Yet I doubt one will get compensated for that.  And, obviously, on top of that there is the larger picture - 47,810 free downloads of this one picture? Did 47 000+ designers needed this particular image in this particular time frame? Hardly. It is possible they are building library of free images for future needs. Look at the archive of FIOTWs on iStock alone. Quite a collection of good quality stuff.

Will this trend have longterm significant impact (like moving towards free in much larger volume)? I doubt that. Yet I'm pretty sure it does not pay off.

Visibility brings sales. It really is that simple.
This file had a 'sister' image from the same shoot that was an "editors pick" @ Dreamstime (before I went exclusive).
It sold well for a short period of time.

But this image had been laying fallow for close to a year on IS and now it has a new life for the time being.
There is absolutely no way to 'do the math' that you are asking for in your first paragraph. It would all be based on supposition.

How much would it have earned without the exposure?
My guess is it would have been moved to the dollar bin in another year and made next to nothing.

I had nine files in a lightbox offered for use as FIOTW. This one was chosen.
Chance of having another file chosen within a years time? Almost nill.

And no, I don't see IS increasing its give away collection. They do have to generate revenue after all.



408
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Free Image of the Week... does it help?
« on: November 28, 2009, 12:58 »
@Leaf, thanks for posting that.
I was going to try and type it out..... but my fingers are slow  ;D


409
iStockPhoto.com / Re: How much do you like Istockphoto?
« on: November 28, 2009, 12:16 »
I liked IS enough that I went exclusive. 'Nuff said.

410
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Free Image of the Week... does it help?
« on: November 28, 2009, 01:43 »
I am back to answer my own question.

After a week as FIOTW and an additional two weeks available as a free download, my file had nearly 100,000 views. It was downloaded a total of 47,810 times mostly in large and xlarge sizes (hey if it's free might as well go for the largest size available, right?)

Now the interesting part is this: The last time the file had any action prior to being FIOTW was Dec 2008.
Now after nearly a year of no action at all.... and AFTER the file is no longer free, it has had 10 paid downloads in just six days and generated $42.96 net in that time.

The answer to my question then is an unequivocal yes.
It does pay to offer your file for free as a traffic builder  :)


411
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I have two monitors side by side.
One is an LCD and the other is a CRT.

The CRT is set to 100 while the LCD is dialed down to 90 cd/m2.
Setting them this way renders the brightness of the two monitors approximately equal.

LCDs as a general rule are set too bright and contrasty from the factory.
This makes them look fantastic displayed in the bright electronics store environment, but makes for crappy prints.

Remember that even though your images bought from micro are purchased while being viewed from a computer display, many times they are destined to be used in print.

412
SJLOCKE wrote: "Or are we the "candid camera".  Looking in on something, somewhere we aren't supposed to be?"

I think that's a big part of it.
Try getting a novice or semi-pro model to NOT look at the bloody camera!

Most of the models I have worked with instinctively find the lens and try to connect with it.
Shooting with multiple models and getting them to interact naturally with each other, is the pinnacle of 'real' in my book.

So this is the more difficult stuff to get and that's what the clients are willing to pay for.

As for the 'creative' lighting? Well, I think that buyers are bored with perfect exposures and predictable lighting.
Is it bad photography? Technically I would say, yes. But who really cares if it sells.

The late Dean Collin's said that one of the most difficult things for a commercial photographer was not dictating to the industry buyers what was good.
We have to produce what sells. It doens't matter that we think that its garbage.





413
General Stock Discussion / Re: Whats New in Stock Photo
« on: November 21, 2009, 12:10 »
Wait; do vectors of jumping/dancing smiling goldfish, wearing headphones still require a model release?

414
sorry....what is the flood filter?  ::)

thanks,
simone


http://www.flamingpear.com/flood.html

BTW, I am quite sure that Sean was being sarcastic  :)

415
General Stock Discussion / Re: Suddenly stops!!!
« on: November 19, 2009, 18:16 »
Well we are coming up on a holiday very soon in the USA.

My sales are better than they were last Nov... But this is the slowest month that I have had since last winter. Glad to hear that I am not alone.

416
Lisa is spot on.

Photographs are more similar to music than to a clothing line.

How much is the Beatles compendium of music still worth?
Should musicians and record labels just purge all of last years songs, because they are now out of season?



417
Video Equipment / Sofware / Technique / Re: GoPro
« on: November 15, 2009, 00:47 »
I am continually amazed at the lengths homo sapiens will go to for an adrenaline rush!

Cool footage, even though the idea of shooting video is anathema to me  ;D

418
He is very lucky that the seal took him for an equal & not as prey.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0806_030806_sealkiller.html

419
General Macrostock / Re: The Flickr Floodgate to Getty Has Opened
« on: November 05, 2009, 21:27 »
And, there goes the neighborhood.... again  ;D

420
Off Topic / Re: Uncovering Steve Jobs' Presentation Secrets
« on: November 04, 2009, 14:21 »
Without a doubt, one of the scariest displays of phony enthusiam I have ever seen.
I am now selling ally shares of microsoft... Oh, I just remembered, I never bought any...

421
iStockPhoto.com / Free Image of the Week... does it help?
« on: October 31, 2009, 16:42 »
HI All,

I had the FIOTW on iStock last week.
I was pretty excited to see it featured on the front page and it generated well over 54,000 views over the weeks time.

I also had a few downloads of related images this week (same model), so there has been a small amount of action from it, but not nearly what I was hoping for from the exposure.

Has anyone else here had a similar experience?
Is donating images to be used as traffic generators a waste of time?

Your thoughts please.

422
General Stock Discussion / Re: Are U Mac or PC?
« on: October 30, 2009, 19:01 »
I wasnt going to say anything but I can't help myself.

The Windows OS has to be made to work on many different machines.
Dell, Asus, HP etc, etc.

The Mac OS ( based on Unix) is purpose built to run on the Apple architecture.
This makes them inherently more stable and faster.

Is there any other REAL advantage to a Mac. Nope.

But I promise you, if you get a Mac Pro and use one for six months, you will wonder why anyone bothers with a PC anymore.

423
General Stock Discussion / Re: Are U Mac or PC?
« on: October 30, 2009, 17:30 »
I'm going to grab some popcorn & sit back to watch the sparks fly.
I have both PC & Mac... But do all my editing on my Mac.

424
Sounds pretty threatening to me.   It is the natural evolution of the image factories that have already flooded microstock sites. 

Another step in making this an unviable business for the small independent producer. 

Too bad, really, because most of the original style and ideas come from the little guys.  Once they/we are gone it will be just the same redundant stuff all over the place.


In my opinion, the large 'image factories' tend to produce bland cookie cutter images.
They really have to in order to maximize ROI.
That means the high end creative niche is left wide open to the small independent.

In any event, as loop pointed out, this is a very cheap buyout price and I don't think a lot of producers would be chomping at the bit to sell this way.

425
Hmmm, so current contributors are S.O.L?

I like what level I'd be at :)...

Sorry what exactly is S.O.L?

S_ _ t Outta Luck

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 34

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors