|
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 - PaulieWalnuts
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 120
401
« on: February 22, 2016, 18:17 »
Monopd with a heavy ballhead can serve more than one useful purpose
We have a winner! I can finally use my monopod for something. Just have to figure out how to add a trailer hitch ball to the end. And practice my martial arts yells.
402
« on: February 22, 2016, 07:44 »
I've been attacked, grabbed, hit, threatened, yelled at...I think some men feel it's their duty to harass small women. I've carried pepper spray a couple of times but never used it. An iPhone is sometimes effective...when people see they're being recorded they try to calm down. I would think pepper spray would be better than a knife, because you don"t have to be so close to use it. But I'm always concerned that I'll wind up being sprayed more than they will.
Wow, sorry to hear that. Good point with the phone.
403
« on: February 22, 2016, 07:43 »
Was out shooting in a city I hadn't been to before and ran into trouble. I noticed a guy across the street checking me out. Sizing me up. Then he started following me. When I went to go back down the street he crossed the street and stood in my way yelling something. I stopped and he was about 15 feet in front of me. He was probably in his early 30s, strong build, and may have been homeless, on drugs, or just a mouthy thug looking for a victim. I'm a pretty big guy and just stared him down until he backed off. He still followed me and kept yelling.
I've had a few minor run-ins with people but nothing as close to a brawl as this. When I'm in my hometown I carry a knife. Can't do that when traveling on an airplane.
Ever have any problems like this? You carry any extra protection while traveling?
The only weapon I carry is comprehensive equipment insurance. Getting mugged means a camera upgrade for me...
Better Idea than a knife :-) In which country was Paulie? Mind sharing the city?
USA. Major southeastern city.
404
« on: February 22, 2016, 07:42 »
Was out shooting in a city I hadn't been to before and ran into trouble. I noticed a guy across the street checking me out. Sizing me up. Then he started following me. When I went to go back down the street he crossed the street and stood in my way yelling something. I stopped and he was about 15 feet in front of me. He was probably in his early 30s, strong build, and may have been homeless, on drugs, or just a mouthy thug looking for a victim. I'm a pretty big guy and just stared him down until he backed off. He still followed me and kept yelling.
I've had a few minor run-ins with people but nothing as close to a brawl as this. When I'm in my hometown I carry a knife. Can't do that when traveling on an airplane.
Ever have any problems like this? You carry any extra protection while traveling?
The only weapon I carry is comprehensive equipment insurance. Getting mugged means a camera upgrade for me...
Insurance is great for replacing equipment but what about your life? Some people just want to steal but some seem more interested in doing harm.
405
« on: February 21, 2016, 21:33 »
Was out shooting in a city I hadn't been to before and ran into trouble. I noticed a guy across the street checking me out. Sizing me up. Then he started following me. When I went to go back down the street he crossed the street and stood in my way yelling something. I stopped and he was about 15 feet in front of me. He was probably in his early 30s, strong build, and may have been homeless, on drugs, or just a mouthy thug looking for a victim. I'm a pretty big guy and just stared him down until he backed off. He still followed me and kept yelling.
I've had a few minor run-ins with people but nothing as close to a brawl as this. When I'm in my hometown I carry a knife. Can't do that when traveling on an airplane.
Ever have any problems like this? You carry any extra protection while traveling?
406
« on: February 14, 2016, 20:01 »
I was at a Target store earlier. Saw a framed canvas 16x24 print of a city for $35. Turned it over and it had a Shutterstock copyright on the back. If the SS customer actually bothered to buy an extended resale license the contributor got probably $25 total. The print was made in China and probably cost a few US dollars to make. I have no idea what Target's profit would be but I'm guessing $5-10 a print. Even if they sold one per month at each of their 2,000 stores that would be several hundred thousand dollars a year in profit from one print. Comparatively the contributor probably will make less than .0001% over several years of sales. That seems like a pretty bad deal for the contributor and even SS. But it's not SS's fault. The contributor provided them with the image. It's not Target's fault. SS and the contributor provided the insanely cheap option. If you could pay $100 for something and make $250,000 a year from it, who wouldn't?
I've been saying for a while that licensing needs to change. I think a good place to start is to change to single-use licenses. This all you can eat subscription stuff will eventually implode for both sites and contributors. Current prices are ridiculously cheap so is it really asking too much to pay a couple dollars for a single use license instead of the you-can-do-whatever-you-want-with-it-indefinately model? RedBox vs Netflix.
I'm doing something. On my site I came up with a simplified RM license based mostly on duration so a buyer doesn't need to go through the traditional RM maze. RF simplicity with RM rights control. Pricing is in the $25-$2000 range with $200 being about the normal amount for commercial use. This is a single-use single-company license. I know who every buyer is so now I can easily spot and pursue infringements which is almost impossible with RF. So far it's working well.
Life's too short to be angry. Turn the anger into something productive.
That's a perfect example of where things have ended up. Our slice of the actual, total 'pie' is probably so small we'd be shocked - even today - if we found out. A guy can buy my photo on SS and sell it on FAA, right against me. He can even stuff it with spam keywords, and because FAA's search rank is based on a seller's volume - not even the sales of the particular image, just the overal er's numbers - he could outrank me in search and get the sales instead of me.
All of this has to end. I'm really close to pulling the plug on SS.
Im probably not going to pull the plug on SS or micro. I'm just leaving my old simple stuff there that nobody is willing to pay more than a couple dollars for. I moved all of my stuff thats proven to sell well at higher amounts and as art prints to my site and I don't offer resale licensing options. And for the stuff i have on Alamy as RM I restrict any resale options. I sell 32x48 canvas for $600. If they can buy the image for $1 on micro or even $50 on Alamy and print it themselves why would they buy my $600 print? They won't. Even on my own site i set my RM decor print licensing to end up being the same price if they buy the print or buy the download and print it themselves. I get that all the time "$600 for the print? Oh ok how about I just buy the image and print it myself? $450 for the download? Thats not really any cheaper". Nope it's not. Exactly.
407
« on: February 14, 2016, 19:20 »
I was at a Target store earlier. Saw a framed canvas 16x24 print of a city for $35. Turned it over and it had a Shutterstock copyright on the back. If the SS customer actually bothered to buy an extended resale license the contributor got probably $25 total. The print was made in China and probably cost a few US dollars to make. I have no idea what Target's profit would be but I'm guessing $5-10 a print. Even if they sold one per month at each of their 2,000 stores that would be several hundred thousand dollars a year in profit from one print. Comparatively the contributor probably will make less than .0001% over several years of sales. That seems like a pretty bad deal for the contributor and even SS. But it's not SS's fault. The contributor provided them with the image. It's not Target's fault. SS and the contributor provided the insanely cheap option. If you could pay $100 for something and make $250,000 a year from it, who wouldn't?
I've been saying for a while that licensing needs to change. I think a good place to start is to change to single-use licenses. This all you can eat subscription stuff will eventually implode for both sites and contributors. Current prices are ridiculously cheap so is it really asking too much to pay a couple dollars for a single use license instead of the you-can-do-whatever-you-want-with-it-indefinately model? RedBox vs Netflix.
I'm doing something. On my site I came up with a simplified RM license based mostly on duration so a buyer doesn't need to go through the traditional RM maze. RF simplicity with RM rights control. Pricing is in the $25-$2000 range with $200 being about the normal amount for commercial use. This is a single-use single-company license. I know who every buyer is so now I can easily spot and pursue infringements which is almost impossible with RF. So far it's working well.
Life's too short to be angry. Turn the anger into something productive.
408
« on: February 13, 2016, 10:42 »
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
Complaining is good. Squeeky wheel gets the grease. 
Not always. If you're too squeaky you get the Vaseline.
409
« on: February 11, 2016, 18:49 »
Gannett papers sell images uploaded by volunteer contributors with no compensation other than your photo is seen by many. So, maybe the bottom is when they start charging us to sell our images. Oh, wait, there are sites out there that actually do that already. Never mind.
And that may actually be the true bottom. Where commissions are cut to the point where contributors only get bragging rights and are strung along being told they are providing a great service to humanity and saving the planet by sending in their images. Not just Gannett. Most newspapers do this to some extent. Does this sound familiar? "The weather was beautiful today. Send us your pictures of how you spent your beautiful summer day! (so we can put them on our commercial website and use them to attract more traffic and make more money without having to pay you, for a photographer, or stock photo) The problem is there is a never-ending supply of new contributors who are happy with whatever is being offered today. 2010: New contributor "20% of $5? Great I'll take it" Existing macro contributor "this sucks" 2015: New contributor ".25 per subscription download? Great I'll take it" Existing micro contributor "this sucks" 2020: New contributor ".001 per subscription download? Great I'll take it" Existing ultramicro contributor "this sucks" The bottom will be when the saleability of new contributors and their images decreases to a point where sites revenue growth stalls and they start losing customers faster than they can add new ones. But even then, a site can just adjust prices and also reduce contributor commissions to make up for the loss. The problem is if this whole thing gets to the bottom and stays there.
410
« on: February 11, 2016, 13:06 »
I dont think we're anywhere close to the bottom yet. Way too many people are still gladly submitting images that are causing record growth at places like SS.
I do believe things are happening that will eventually lead to the bottom but it's at least a few years down the road. Like sites continuing to make shell game changes that reduce commissions. Eventually when it gets to the point where SS and other sites have gone too far they'll need to start reversing the damage. It already happened at IS and they don't seem to have recovered from the damage they caused. They started giving things back to try and make contributors happy but it doesn't seem to be working.
But I also think a lot of people are dropping out of micro or moving stuff to RM. I'm one of them. I still have a small amount of stuff in micro but I'm doing direct sales and I'm testing out Alamy RF and RM and it's showing some promise. I've had a couple of decent sales with very few images at Alamy so I'm continuing to add stuff and see how it goes. I had two decent size RM sales yesterday on my site. Feels good to be free.
411
« on: February 09, 2016, 18:49 »
That A7R image looks out of focus. If you were using Canon lenses on the A7R then that may be related to whatever adapter you're using. My A7R and even my NEX-7 have had some of the most reliable focusing of any camera I've owned.
I have the 5DMII which from what I understand the image quality isn't much different from the 5DMIII. My 5D image quality is great but my D800 or A7R are better especially with pushing shadows. All my work is in RAW so I haven't compared JPGs to see the differences.
Also, I've read a lot about shutter vibration and image quality issues on forums and that the 36MP+ sensor cameras require special handling. I've never found this to be my experience. I've gotten very sharp images with long 30+ second exposures even on an ultra compact MeFoto travel tripod using a 2 second delay or wireless remote. If there's any shutter shake I haven't seen anything that makes me think I should be concerned.
Next time try a supported Sony Zeiss or G lens and see what kind of results you get.
412
« on: February 07, 2016, 08:34 »
...
I'm not sure if this has changed on the A7RII but one thing I don't like this it's missing a quick way of moving a focus point. On the D800 you just hit the little joystick. On the A7R you need to hit the focus menu, select focus positon, press the wheel, then shoot. Kind of a pain. Sony needs a better method for this.
...
On the A6000 I just have to hit the center button to be able to move the focus point, if focus is set to flexible spot or zone. Isn't it the same for the A7 cameras?
Yeah I just checked into the custom settings again and was able to set the center button to activate the focus point menu.
413
« on: February 06, 2016, 08:06 »
I think we're getting to point where cellphones are probably good enough for "professional microstock photographers"
Funny how people somehow think smaller or mirrorless cameras are automatically questionable when compared to a DSLR.
I can't directly speak to the A7RII but I have an A7R so I can only assume it's better. Image quality is exceptional. As good as or better than my Nikon D800. They have the same sensor. Since getting the A7R I rarely use my D800. Excellent camera with a few quirks that from what I hear the A7RII has improved.
Regarding focus points, the size can be adjusted on my A7R as small, medium, and large. Small is, well, pretty small and should work for eyes. I'm not sure if this has changed on the A7RII but one thing I don't like this it's missing a quick way of moving a focus point. On the D800 you just hit the little joystick. On the A7R you need to hit the focus menu, select focus positon, press the wheel, then shoot. Kind of a pain. Sony needs a better method for this.
Then there's the whole "you don't look like a pro unless you're using a DSLR" crowd that thinks mirrorless is for amateurs. I personally don't care but there seem to be some pretty strong opinions on this for portrait, wedding, and other people photographers.
414
« on: February 03, 2016, 18:02 »
Duplicate
415
« on: February 03, 2016, 18:00 »
who writes these stupid announcements? 10 percent the crooks.
They (another example is ss) think we are idiots we are just cashcows for them.
Well tens of thousands of people go along with this stuff so I guess they're useful idiots. I'm having Deja Vu again. Where have I hard this before? "Let us give your stiff away for free and we promise it will bring in more buyers". Is there one person here who has more sales than they did a year ago? Two years ago? Five years ago? Even though you've increased your portfolios by 25%, 100% or 200%? I have no problem getting $45 for an 8x10 print selling direct. I would need to sell 180 prints to match selling one regular print. That kind of volume will never happen. Especially for a low volume site like CanStock. One of these days all of this subscription sh*t is going to burn to a flaming halt. That includes Netflix, Pandora, and all the rest. This stuff can be sustained. It will collapse in on itself. Isock's pitch sums it up. "Explore millions of royalty-free images, illustrations, videos, and music clips at ridiculously great prices". Why does everything need to be ridiculously low? </rant>
416
« on: January 28, 2016, 19:10 »
"only thing i know is... whoever is still making money with ss, and is seeing an uptick in earnings
...
why would they come in here to tell you their way???
obviously the ones who are not talking, are the ones not whining and the ones still making $$$$$$"
I was mainly talking about this I don't think anyone has some great secret about SEO or anything else you can look at your own stats and portfolio and see what sells and is profitable for you and do more of that. No one is forcing you to do this and if you think your pictures are worth more of course you should pull them and make the money elsewhere.
There is no great secret. It's usually the small details that makes the big difference, isn't it? I'm not trying to sell anyone a service, so we can strike that out.
What I'm sharing is a belief and the fewer people subscribe to that belief, the better I'm off. And my belief is that if people take their time creating metadata, the better their images will perform in the long-term. I equate creating metadata to cooking. You can throw everything into a pot and pray something good will come out of it, or you can learn the nuances of it and make something good. A lot of people just throw everything into a pot and pray.
It's just like some pickup artist teaching guys to pick up women. All things being equal, the guy who believes in it and work the hardest will have the most success, while the guy who have doubts will not be good at it. Success is dependent on the whole package and in the case of Microstock quality, artistic value, commercial value & metadata / keywording. If one of the ingredients is missing, then it won't reach its full potential.
Totally agree with the bold part with a slight tweak. Optimized metadata. I'm constantly working on evaluating and updating my website metadata. This month my personal website sales will exceed all of my stock and POD sites combined. It's not metadata alone that did this but it's a big part. Until search engines can accurately identify what's in an image, metadata is the the only way they see an image
417
« on: January 27, 2016, 09:45 »
It's just a difference of opinion, nothing to get worked up about; many of my photographic friends and acquaintances look at micro earnings per image and say, "Might as well just give your pics away. Why jump through all these hoops for 25c(/whatever) and let the agency pocket the lion's share?"
Truth is, I can get my head round his viewpoint far more easily than I can get my head round the fact that Sarah Palin and Donald Trump are apparently considered serious politicians by a reasonable proportion of the US populace. See, just a difference of opinion, and on a much less important issue.
I could give it away but I'd rather use it to pay my mortgage and other stuff. Good job of tossing that political off topic bomb into here. This will now turn into a fifty page off topic thread about politics.
418
« on: January 27, 2016, 07:57 »
I think I'm going to become a photography consultant. There's probably more opportunity in charging to show people how to make money with their photos than actually taking photos.
419
« on: January 26, 2016, 19:03 »
This article just dumbfounds me. http://petapixel.com/2016/01/26/this-22-year-old-is-shaking-up-political-photography-with-creative-commons-images/Maybe this kid's family is rich and he doesn't need the money but I kinda doubt it. So he probably could have licensed these images to pay for some or even all of his tuition but didn't. He could be making money but instead is okay seeing others make money from his work. And it looks like he has paid for all of the equipment and travel out of his pocket. And wait for it... he's going to be an accountant. He's going to advise people on what to do with their money. I think he better hold on to that camera. He may need it to make money after the accountant thing doesn't work out. It amazes me that there are so many people out there who are probably barely getting by working multiple jobs just to live check to check. And as a hobby they gladly give away their photography that they could be making money from. Why don't they just also go to their job every day and refuse to accept a paycheck? Why do I never see beauticians, mechanics, carpenters or any other person who provides a service freely give away their work? I don't get it.
420
« on: January 26, 2016, 18:21 »
I'm having Deja Vu. So they're cutting commission percentage but we'll make up the difference from increased sale volume? Where have I heard this before?
421
« on: January 26, 2016, 10:55 »
Great move Shutterstock!
Now I have no other choice, I will delete all my portfolio and start to upload to Yaymicro and Cutcaster!
And when those places make changes to your disadvantage then what? There's a pattern here. When contributors get mad at a site they then flock to the "friendly" sites. Then those sites do something bad. They all eventually do. I said this back in 2010 when IS became the evil empire and everybody loved SS. Now SS seems to be following the IS playbook probably due to financial pressure from investors. That's unfortunate because those moves don't seem to have ended up well for IS. Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 07, 2010, 19:45
Quote from: dehooks on September 07, 2010, 19:38
All of this reminds me of why I love Shutterstock.
Don't kid yourself. You'll eventually need vaseline over there too. I'm now mostly selling direct and that's the only way you'll ever have control of prices and profits.
422
« on: January 22, 2016, 16:34 »
Sure does give a good look into his mind about how he views the business
423
« on: January 13, 2016, 08:59 »
I think that's going to be my goal from now on. Drive posts off topic. We've already covered every microstock topic at least a dozen times to the point where the off topic responses are more interesting.
Sounds like someone already has their new years resolutions in place.
New Years Resolutions? C'mon, who ever keeps New Years resolutions?
424
« on: January 13, 2016, 08:50 »
I think branding is more important if you're marketing your own website where buyers know to come to you for a specific subject. Buyers are going to places like SS to find the right image and I don't think they care about who the contributor is.
But I do think consistent style is important either for a portfolio or at least for each series of images. Some buyers will use multiple images for whatever campaign they're working on and usually want consistent style or tone. So that can make the difference between them buying several of your similarly styled images versus only buying one and then trying to find images from other contributors that fit the overall style of their campaign.
425
« on: January 10, 2016, 18:21 »
I think that's going to be my goal from now on. Drive posts off topic. We've already covered every microstock topic at least a dozen times to the point where the off topic responses are more interesting.
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 120
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
