|
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 - ap
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21
451
« on: October 29, 2009, 12:33 »
1. Make some art work on an inkjet printer that matches the size of the frame and place it over the original glass. We keep our modern art pretty simple, an orange circle on a white background or something of the sort. If you choose this route make your prints support the surrounding color pallet of that room.
3. Post produce some art in PS and drop it in in post production over the original, this is the easiest and quickest way as apposed to bringing your art work. Keep the image of the print you will cover clear of any foreground obstructions like a lamp so you don't have to much work with your selection path.
some really great ideas, jonathan. not to split hairs, but in the new artwork you create in ps, do you provide an art release for that? or can the agency tell it's pretend art (since it's so simple)?
452
« on: October 28, 2009, 21:48 »
If this seems daunting to consider at this point in your career one thing to remember is that my wife and I started off shooting RF Macro 11 years ago just the two of us on the super cheap ( like free ) this just all developed over time. it is not so hard as it seems now looking back, and with the technology that is going to be at the fingertips of this new generation the work we think is out there and on the edge now will seem passe in no time. The fun part for me is it always allows you to learn something new, this buisness never sleeps 
that's really inspiring...you sound like an indie filmmaker. i used to be in that field, but i never heard of anyone making mucho dosh.
453
« on: October 28, 2009, 18:07 »
454
« on: October 26, 2009, 13:47 »
I notice that the 40D isn't on the "recommended list" - but I think it still meets their technical requirements - ie. over 6MP.
if epantha's 40d is the canon eos, then it's on the rec list, but not the nikon d40 (only d40x).
455
« on: October 26, 2009, 13:11 »
Funny, because my Oct is double the number of Sept. for me so far.
maybe your port is more oct oriented? i am very lacking in the pumpkins and ghouls department. 
456
« on: October 26, 2009, 13:09 »
I upload photos from my 40D 10 mp camera but have had problems at times with the softness rejection. Alamy has tightened their technical standards since I joined about a year ago. They used to take uploads from my 10 mp Canon Sureshot but not any more.
i think the canon sureshot is no longer on their recommended camera list, but 40d is. so, i guess you can go as low as 10mp. http://www.alamy.com/contributors/stock-photography-rec-camera-list.asp
457
« on: October 26, 2009, 12:27 »
great advice racephoto. in your experience, what is the minimal mp you can get away with to upsize to 16mp if the photo is super sharp? i shoot with a 12mp slr so i know that's ok, but wondered about other cameras with lesser specs.
458
« on: October 26, 2009, 12:19 »
i've noticed october is a lot quieter than sept. but it usually picks up at the end of the month.
459
« on: October 23, 2009, 20:27 »
yeah, i think you can be proud. i was only accepted at StockXpert only after is and ss. congrats! 123 should be a cinch after this.
460
« on: October 23, 2009, 16:01 »
congrats to those who's had some sales at cc. did you find exclusive photos had better sales pattern?
461
« on: October 22, 2009, 02:16 »
Almost no dl of my landscapes, but many overwhite models.
 disambiguation required for overwhite: did you mean caucasian or isolation? 
462
« on: October 21, 2009, 23:33 »
they must love you then, for i know they also hate flowers. but veggies, food, isolations are almost 100% foolproof. i just ruined my acceptance rate by sending in some landscapes. but i like playing with fire.
463
« on: October 21, 2009, 23:16 »
i don't know if you're a member at ft, but i found anything that passes through both ft and is a shoe-in for the ss test.
464
« on: October 21, 2009, 19:27 »
really? never got that. one file i offered for free i found on an affiliate site. when i tried deleting it from fotolia, it remained on the affliate, forever now it seems.
at least at 123rf, you can manage how many 'days' you're offering it for free, from 1-30 days. the ones that had the most downloads (while free) also tend to become the best sellers.
465
« on: October 21, 2009, 19:09 »
Yes that line about "desired level of aesthetic quality" still burns me up every time I get it. Particularly because it usually happens when I submit a shot that I know is good but probably too artsy for stock. Why they use such a patronizing, insulting tone in a routine rejection notice just totally escapes me.
it's a true orwellian perversion of the word 'aesthetic' as we know it. funny though, the shots they reject tend to do well elsewhere. so they don't seem either commercially nor aesthetically savvy. it will be hard to do well at ft for the high rejection rates and the high # of subs. but, you may have a portfolio they like. hint: they truly hate landscapes and anything aesthetically inclined.
466
« on: October 21, 2009, 17:22 »
I just hope shutterstock will start an exclusive images collection, that might be good option.
what do you think would be the incentive for them to do this? it would be of great benefit to contributors since they offer the highest earnings potential.
467
« on: October 21, 2009, 00:02 »
wow, that's a really inspiring story. he's like the photographer of the cooking world, opening his own restuarant after being the sous chef for a few grueling years.
do you know how he designed his website and was that the biggest startup cost?
468
« on: October 20, 2009, 22:00 »
Photographers share numbers all the time, at least some do.
that's true, a lot of high profile microstock bloggers religiously share their #s, so it's no shock there. but, it's probably a bit different from other industries where people are more obtuse about it. i think these absolute #s behind the ratios are of real benefit for other photogs to guage their place and how the industry is paying on the whole. but, i also respect those who would rather stay mum, simply because it's more the norm in society. but, jonathan, what i think is really invaluable is your reportage of how a big macro stocker is venturing into microstock full heartedly and sharing all info. i think that's worthy of a blog, if you don't already have one.
469
« on: October 20, 2009, 14:48 »
the ambience of the portraiture seems to imply a more personal rather than commercial use. that is, these were shot for a client for her own album. i know, it's a subtle difference.
but, if fotolia accepted it, then it is truly stockworthy. they never accept anything less than outright commercial.
470
« on: October 19, 2009, 16:28 »
I did considered S-Corp for while, but I discovered thats SCREAMING TO BE AUDITED. S-Corps can save lots of money, and as of late, have been increasingly targeted by the IRS. It's due to a loophole regarding dividend payments and "reasonable" salaries.
would you say that it's s-corps across the board getting audited or just those who are using these loopholes? if the latter, perhaps just be more careful when using them.
471
« on: October 19, 2009, 16:13 »
most microstock offer only rf licences, which means you can sell on multiple sites anywhere, mugs and t-shirts included. the only exception is if you have an exclusive relationship, but even then i think it's ok for selling your own products.
472
« on: October 19, 2009, 15:59 »
The first. I'm certainly not any rep. Although if you thought that, it would back up my "paranoid" assertion .
i'm glad you're an independent thinker, sean.
473
« on: October 19, 2009, 15:42 »
I do believe that representatives of the agencies are here to disrupt and instigate divisiveness. It should be obvious.
Paranoid?
paranoid that we have a rep of the agencies amongst our midst or that we think you're the rep?
474
« on: October 19, 2009, 15:40 »
 wow, that's really interesting, and you sound like a very conscientious photographer. but, i thought (not having any experience with this), the first one in line to be sued is the company (or the show) that's misusing the photo in the first place. then, the second in line would be the agency or the photographer who licensed the photo to them. third, would be the hapless photographer, who just took the photo but didn't actually license it to the end user.
475
« on: October 19, 2009, 15:26 »
we're on the west coast and we really need to disclose, down to the penny, how much we earn.  joking aside, i thought jonathan's rpi comparison across the micro cos were really helpful. i mean, if anyone need to figure out which stock site to join or marry in exclusivity, you have a very scientific # to refer to. whilst rpd indicate how generous or well paying a site is, it doesn't really tell you now well you'll do there. perhaps, a chart of everyone's rpi, averaged out, would be the NUMBER to rule over all the other #s.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
