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 - stockastic
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 160
426
« on: September 08, 2016, 19:48 »
Nothing said about the price. Are we sure this isn't another giveaway, where we get reduced payments but are supposed to believe it's a good deal because these are "sales we would otherwise not have gotten"?
427
« on: August 22, 2016, 13:09 »
A6300 handles noise very well. I have a ISO3200 photo of a bird, that was approved by SS, and the other agencies I upload to.
One thing you can do to reduce noise, and make sharpness look better, is to resize. If a 6000 pixel wide photo is reduced to 3000 pixels, it looks a lot better.
Yes - if you have a good bright exposure, you can get an acceptable photo even at 3200. I've done it with insects. Really, I have no need for a better sensor, for anything I do. The a6300 isn't holding me back in any way.
428
« on: August 22, 2016, 12:30 »
When I zoomed in to 100% I had my images rejected for noise. Since I zoom in 200% I don't get rejections for noise. Did you mean that the A6300 is slightly better when it comes to noise than the RX100M3?
I don't know about the RX100M3. Check DxOMark for sensor scores.
429
« on: August 22, 2016, 11:40 »
HappyBunny,
Too many questions, but I can try to answer a couple. I use the Sony 50mm 1.8 a lot for tabletop, for really small things I add an extension ring, or go to a Rokinon 100mm macro lens. The a6300 noise is slightly better than the a6300. In my experience noise problems are mostly due to underexposure; shoot raw, expose well and pull down the highlights as necessary in LR. With LR's noise reduction and a good exposure I produce good salable images to ISO 1000 and maybe beyond, depending on the subject.
Never zoom to 200%, you're just chasing phantom problems.
430
« on: August 22, 2016, 10:04 »
I use the a6300. IMHO it is good enough for ANYTHING. I think 'full frame' is 80% hype. Wait, make that 90%. The 10% is extremely low light situations.
431
« on: August 18, 2016, 20:08 »
My first guess is that they're for a fake "dating" "escort" or "marriage" site.
432
« on: August 18, 2016, 09:57 »
RedBubble doesn't read IPTC data so it's a non-starter for me. I uploaded a bunch to Photo4Me, although it's a pain - way too many clicks. But when I look at "recently sold" it's 90% UK tourist and landscape subjects, the remainder being mostly RAF planes, historic trains etc. so I gave up there. On FAA, I sell a couple a month, sometimes more.
I'm pulling for Crated because it's a better looking presentation than FAA. I'll keep uploading there, but it would be nice if they gave us some visitor stats.
433
« on: August 17, 2016, 15:26 »
Justanotherphotographer, perception of value, its what the buyer thinks the image is worth, they dont care about your cost.
It's no different than with any other product. Producers find a market, set a price, buyers accept or decline. Adjustments are made over time. At least that's how it's supposed to work in a free, open market - not one totally controlled by a couple of middlemen adding little value but keeping the lions share of the money.
434
« on: August 17, 2016, 15:22 »
I guess we're using the word 'curating' two different ways. AFAIK, if you just open and account and upload images, they won't show up in search. You have to be seen and approved by the curator. Mine initially sat there quite a while, finally I emailed them and asked about getting this approval, and they very promptly granted it. Before they did that, I didn't appear in search; afterward, I did. As far as showing up on the main page or being featured in some way, I don't know.
At least, that's how it used to work. But within the last few months I started noticing really poor quality stuff turning up in searches. Clueless snapshots, in repetitious groups. I could post examples here but that's probably not a good idea, because I'm not alleging anything fraudulent.
I've also seen a couple of portfolios of high quality images which are pretty obviously from multiple sources - not the work of one person - which is a red flag.
So, I'm left wondering what's going on. Seems to be an honest operation so maybe I'm misunderstanding something.
435
« on: August 16, 2016, 17:37 »
But I have to say that the scenario given earlier - a buyer searches for an image, downloads it, and composes a blog post all on his phone - seems a bit far-fetched to me.
I'm sitting here laughing because you must be my age! My tween daughter (who would not in a billion years PURCHASE a photo) shoots video, edits, posts and/or creates tutorials all the time from her phone. Trying to win a parents-of-the-year award we bought her a laptop but the only one who uses it is her brother's friend when he's here and wants to connect to the game my son is playing.
Not sure if there is anything to be concerned with the iPhone gen, they don't pay for anything anyway.
Yeah I'm dimly aware this is happening (doing everything on a phone) but I freely admit I don't get it. Why restrict yourself to 2 thumbs? Somehow, it's a social thing - having to do with working in odd locations, isolated, not sitting at a table.
436
« on: August 16, 2016, 16:07 »
I think it's obvious - as advertising and blogs are increasingly viewed on phones and not desktop systems, we're gutting ourselves if we price based on pixel size. Many applications of stock photos are in fact mobile-only and those buyers will never again buy a "full size" image. Do we give them a huge price cut for life?
The fact that the price doesn't involve pixel size doesn't mean an agency can't offer small sizes for download, if that's what the buyer wants. But I have to say that the scenario given earlier - a buyer searches for an image, downloads it, and composes a blog post all on his phone - seems a bit far-fetched to me.
437
« on: August 16, 2016, 15:33 »
Yes I deliberately awakened this old thread - seemed appropriate. I've actually sold 1 print at Crated and if others are selling, great. But I've noticed that 'curation' doesn't mean much anymore because all sorts of lousy, repetitious - and possibly some stolen - stuff is now turning up in their search. Since there's no traffic statistics or view count, it's impossible to know if there's any significant activity.
The main page is pretty much unchanging. It shows a bunch of images, many of which have been there for ages, and many of which are IMHO not very good.
They sure aren't giving FAA any competition as far as I can see.
438
« on: August 16, 2016, 14:44 »
The subject is far AND large - it's a city skyline. I don't have a feel, yet, for the focal length I'll need, it might not be long. 4 inches of smooth, linear sensor movement might be insignificant and 1/250 might get it.
439
« on: August 16, 2016, 13:29 »
Crickets are chirping over there.
Does anyone know anything about the ownership of this site? It began with lofty goals and PR, but at some point, activity ceased.
440
« on: August 16, 2016, 11:07 »
It's an interstate highway with a minimal shoulder on the bridge - emergency stopping only. Pulling over would actually be dangerous.
441
« on: August 15, 2016, 20:07 »
Does anyone have some good pointers for shooting stills from a moving car? The subject I want to get is big, and far away, which is good - but the view is only available while driving across a bridge. And I need to shoot in early evening so I won't be able to use a really fast shutter speed.
I know nothing about camera stabilzers. Would some sort of gyroscopic rig actually help, or are they just for video?
442
« on: August 14, 2016, 16:32 »
I think the idea that a small 'web' sized image should cost less is just another unfortunate buyer expectation created by existing microstocks. The photographer and the agency see the same costs. The large 'print' image might be seen by 1000 people, the small 'web' image by 10,000. So why the discount - are we selling content, or pixels?
When you buy music, you get the full fidelity tracks, maybe 192kbs or 256 kbs. You don't the option to pay a lower price for a scratchy 32kbs version just because you're only going to play it through cheap earbuds.
Doesn't really matter how it happened, the fact is many sites have tried one price for all sizes and have then changed to different prices for different sizes. They must of done that because buyers have demanded it and I really don't see how GL can go against that tide when they are selling the same images.
The comparison with music doesn't work because that's not being used for business purposes, like most of out images are. I doubt someone making a 5 second music clip for an advert would charge the same as a 1 minute clip.
Sellers don't have to cave in to every discount request from buyers. I'd like all the shirts at Macy's to be the same price, but it isn't going to happen. That's because producers of those shirts have some control over their pricing. As far as GL doing things differently, well, not every store has to be a Dollar Store, selling the same merchandise in the same way. There are many ways to differentiate yourself in the market. And maybe, eventually, they aren't selling "the same images". SS will never get another photo from me, but GL will.
443
« on: August 13, 2016, 13:22 »
I think the idea that a small 'web' sized image should cost less is just another unfortunate buyer expectation created by existing microstocks. The photographer and the agency see the same costs. The large 'print' image might be seen by 1000 people, the small 'web' image by 10,000. So why the discount - are we selling content, or pixels?
When you buy music, you get the full fidelity tracks, maybe 192kbs or 256 kbs. You don't the option to pay a lower price for a scratchy 32kbs version just because you're only going to play it through cheap earbuds.
444
« on: August 05, 2016, 11:47 »
I like DT's system of individual images gaining in value over time. In other words, tier advancement per image rather than per contributor. It takes forever to move up a contributor tier, but if it's per image, you can get the motivation of seeing a couple of successes. Eventually a good selling image starts to make a few bucks per sale, and you don't feel like a total sap for participating.
You'll get all sorts of opinions on this, of course, but that's what works for me.
445
« on: August 05, 2016, 10:04 »
You know what? I'm not expecting a miracle. I'd just like to see some of the arrows moving in a different direction - up, not down. So many of us got disgusted and gave up. We felt like we'd been taken advantage of, and that the future was only going to be worse.
Imagine, 10 or more years ago, if you were told that someone wanted to use your photo in a magazine - a really good photo that took you an afternoon to produce. And that asking $5 for that use would get you laughed out of the room.
446
« on: August 04, 2016, 18:37 »
The new ownership team comes from a marketing background. Honestly I'll take a non-stock background over a stock background when it comes to these companies today. Which companies led by people from within the business have done well lately?
Agreed. Someone new has to come in and challenge some of the assumptions. One such assumption, I think, is that the typical buyer is working on a 5-figure project with a budget of exactly $5 for photos. :-) I think the one-size-fits-all pricing model had more to do with simplifying an agency's accounting and IT operations than it did with actual buyer expectations.
447
« on: August 04, 2016, 18:00 »
I think some degree of contributor control over pricing will be essential.
Since you're very forthrightly coming here to MSG looking for input, notice the discussion in another thread about the loss of the 'niche' market. To us, 'niche' means anything that takes some time and money to shoot, but won't sell very often. There's no point in submitting such photos for sub-$1 returns. Some of us think the existing agencies are just writing off this part of the market.
Microstock has become like the Middle East - no one can figure out how to make things work. Years of competition on nothing but price have taken a huge toll on the perceived value of stock photos. New thinking is needed.
FYI, I never had a single bad thing to say about GL's previous owners. They were unfailingly friendly, fair and helpful. The business seemed to get off to a good start but at some point took a huge hit when Google changed their game.
448
« on: August 04, 2016, 17:12 »
competing on price, pushing out free images, stuff contributors love to hear these days,
I think GL will encounter negative reaction to the idea of competing primarily on price. Although current contributors (I am one) are locked in at 52% commission, can we expect current prices to be maintained?
449
« on: August 04, 2016, 12:43 »
I think where it all went wrong was when agencies assumed that every image has to be the same price. That made their systems, accounting and IT much simpler. But I don't think it's really that important to buyers, and it's had a huge impact on contributors.
450
« on: August 04, 2016, 10:43 »
Assuming the problem wasn't just noise in the shadows, Stocksy rejected his aesthetic. If I were working as a designer and an agency told me they didn't think my photos were good enough, they wouldn't hear from me again unless I were really in a bind. Call it whatever you want, I guess, but people who put down my work wouldn't be my partners.
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 160
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|