|
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 - hatman12
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 51
401
« on: March 26, 2008, 23:34 »
No, the buyer on StockXpert's forums is quite specific in saying that he is a subscriber and that he has to pay 'one subscription credit' for a XS and 'five subscription credits' for a XL. In other words if he always buys XL he can only download 150 pictures in a month instead of 750.
402
« on: March 26, 2008, 20:05 »
The most important point of the thread at StockXpert is that the buyer says he has to 'pay more' for larger sizes under the subscription. He has said quite clearly that he can download 25 XS files a day or only 5 XL files (because an XL file uses '5 subscription credits').
Although Steve has clarified above that there is only one subscription 'price', Steve can you confirm specifically that a subscriber does not have a reduced number of downloads for larger file sizes?
403
« on: March 22, 2008, 19:48 »
Sound advice.
404
« on: March 21, 2008, 21:30 »
The most important thing is to get exposure spot on in the first place. It doesn't really matter if you shoot jpegs or RAW - if the exposure is correct you'll be fine.
Spend some time checking exposure against the histogram, and compare the results with the eyedropper tool in photoshop - that will show you if your camera habitually over or under exposes and will allow you to make the right corrections when you take pictures.
405
« on: March 21, 2008, 20:43 »
"Desperately offering lower and lower prices...."
Really? Where have you seen that? If anything the opposite is true - big price increases recently at BigStock, Istock, Fotolia.
What is dragging income down is the subscription agencies - yes, they are fighting amongst themselves, waiting to see what SS will do in May, and in the process they are all devaluing their businesses.
I said it many months ago and I'll say it again - the more agencies that are launched, and the more they squabble amongst themselves trying to scrape an income from the tail end of the market, the more the genuine high volume customers will get fed up and go to Istock (or to DT or FT).
None of these new agencies will take customers from the big players; 80% of the market has gone to the big guys and all the new agencies are fighting for the remaining 20%.
I expect to see more and more quality photographers go exclusive at iStock. And the agencies will only have themselves to blame.
406
« on: March 21, 2008, 18:57 »
This subject can be debated ad infinitum.
My view is: low commissions give the agency spare budget to spend heavily on advertising - hence the low commissions at IS and SS for many people translate into the highest actual income.
At the other end of the scale is an agency like Featurepics - high commissions, no money left for anything else. Result: low sales, low income.
407
« on: March 21, 2008, 14:22 »
I used my D300 in my studio yesterday, shooting objects against white. I use Lo1, neutral settings then add a little saturation and sharpening in photoshop. Dynamic range is easily boosted using levels, although exposure is of course critical as with every camera.
I processed the first four pictures last night - all of them are clean, free of noise and artifacts, smooth and crisp. I submitted these first four to IS full size.
edit: BTW, I shoot only jpegs, largest size, fine quality, image compression changed from 'file size' to 'optimal quality' and color space Adobe RGB in camera.
Changing the jpeg compression to 'optimal quality' is very important and results in larger file sizes and less compression.
408
« on: March 20, 2008, 04:16 »
Long Easter weekend in Europe, so that will slow things down a bit.
409
« on: March 20, 2008, 01:59 »
It is a matter of the usual business 80/20 ratio, where 20% of a business's activity generates 80% of the income or profit.
It's the same in microstock - 20% of the agencies make 80% of the revenue (which is why most of the new agencies will fail because they are all chasing the 20% tail).
Most photographers make 80% of their income from 20% of their images. But it is almost impossible to tell in advance which images will 'set the world alight' so one has to submit 100 to 'find' the 20.
There ain't no easy route to riches for most people.
410
« on: March 19, 2008, 20:18 »
I'm still seeing Christmas images here in Australia.
411
« on: March 19, 2008, 16:25 »
Yep, hurt my brain too.
412
« on: March 18, 2008, 16:59 »
Miz, some of these older tutorials seem to have a problem with scratchy vocals and in this case the vocals are out of synch with the screen image.
413
« on: March 17, 2008, 16:03 »
To be fair to DT and BigStock I think all they are trying to do is to operate a 'fair' arrangement so that all contributors get a reasonable chance for sales.
414
« on: March 17, 2008, 16:02 »
BTW, BigStock operates a similar rotation scheme which appears to be one week on and one week off at present.
415
« on: March 17, 2008, 16:00 »
(I never noticed this rotation thing they have going until, I think it was Hatman, had mentioned it last year.)
Yeah, this week and next are my 'turn' to have bouyant sales. The rotation thing is being adjusted now and again to take into account the growing number of contributors (which presumably is growing faster than the customer base); I reckon the current rotation is two and a half weeks at the bottom of the pile and one and a half weeks at the top.
416
« on: March 16, 2008, 20:09 »
You're surprised?
417
« on: March 16, 2008, 18:47 »
Vonkara I only shoot jpegs. I found with my D200 that IF I could get exposure correct the jpeg was as good quality as RAW (in fact the jpeg had less noise when converting RAW with ACR).
I have an 83% acceptance rate at IS shooting jpegs with my D200, so I see no need to change to RAW.
I intend to do exactly the same with my D300. I will try RAW and also Capture NX when I get some spare time, but my feeling is that jpeg quality will be fine so long as exposure is correct.
I have 100% acceptance at IS for my first few D300 jpeg images but it is early days.
418
« on: March 16, 2008, 08:15 »
Sharpshot my comments about Snapvillage should be taken on a relative basis. As people keep pointing out, this venture is funded by Corbis who (apparently) are the second largest photo agency in the world. They are (apparently) backed by the unlimited zillions of Bill Gates.
Given this backdrop they have exhibited incompetence, complete lack of understanding, an inability to recognise what the microstock market wants (and needs) and site development which smacks of simply 'couldn't care less'.
Their keywording department is rubbish, their web site operation appears to be one man and his dog, and the beta goes on and on and on because frankly they haven't got the faintest idea.
Yes, they will make sales. But in my opinion in five years from now they won't be within a hundredth of iStock.
If it was any other start up operation, funded by small capital, I could understand. But this is meant to be a push into microstock by Corbis, and relative to THAT what we have seen so far is rubbish.
You'll recall Yuri's comment that he had had an hour's conversation with SV's CEO. His conclusion was 'nice lady, doesn't understand the business'.
Worst of all, Snapvillage is an insult to the amount of work and effort we devote as photographers, and the very name of the place cocks a snook to you, me, and any other photographer that doesn't fit into the Corbis definition of 'professional'. And that is why I will not have my portfolio there.
419
« on: March 15, 2008, 23:29 »
As you all know, I don't contribute to Snapvillage; pulled my portfolio weeks ago.
Had a quick look to see what all the 'changes' might be, and I noticed 'free images' in the search selection box.
I don't recall 'free' being an option when I uploaded there (but my eyesight isn't as good as it once was).
Is this 'free images' thing new?
420
« on: March 15, 2008, 20:18 »
This new site is so tempting that I'm considering going exclusive.
421
« on: March 15, 2008, 19:21 »
The one GOOD thing I can think of about Snapvillage is that because they are so incompetent, any money they spend on advertising will drive more and more customers to the OTHER stock agencies......
422
« on: March 15, 2008, 07:27 »
I'll be very interested to see what these 'site improvements' are.
But if I had to place a bet between Slappertown becoming a success, or me having a night of rampant sex with Milla Jovovitch....
...I'd place the bet on Milla.
423
« on: March 15, 2008, 02:03 »
I see that here in Australia the price of the D3 has suddenly fallen to the $5400 area (AUD). That's from a launch price in the $6900 range.
Although undoubtedly a great camera, my personal opinion was that the price at launch was way too high for an advanced 12.3mp camera.
Presumably the price has fallen in anticipation of the new Canon 5D being announced in April.
New 5D or not, the price difference between the existing 5D and Nikon's D3 was also too much - the 5D is a great tool so why pay an extra $4,000 to get the D3.
In my opinion the 'correct' price for a Nikon D3 is about $3,900 and I expect it to get there within a year, or earlier if Nikon announces a 16mp model for the Olympics (very likely).
With Pentax and Sony also in the frame, it looks like there will be some hefty price competition in the semi to pro end of the DSLR market.
424
« on: March 14, 2008, 23:15 »
In each instance I prefer the 'before' rather than the 'after'.
Yes, the 'before' versions have a little too much red, but that is preferable to the 'after' versions which (to my eye) seem too green and lack punch.
425
« on: March 13, 2008, 19:49 »
Thanks Vonkara. I'm not that concerned about wide angle distortions because these can be easily corrected in photoshop using the lens distortion filter (I use this all the time with a correction factor of 1.35 - 1.65 for my 35mm F2).
Sharpness across the field of view is of greater concern.
I might instead look for a used 28-70mm on ebay. After all, the price is about $1,000 less.
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 51
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
