|
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 - Hobostocker
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 29
451
« on: November 01, 2014, 23:12 »
exactly - travel is not my life, but it's a major part of it -- being able to recoup SOME expenses means more travel -- I've escorted hiking and cultural tours, mostly in Turkey, but also Nepal, Peru, India & China, and one of the pleasures of those trips is watching people's horizons expand. the opposite is trying to explain that turkey doesn't border on Afghanistan, and dealing with misconceptions about Islam, particularly in Turkey. on our independent trips it's the non-photographic incidents that become the strongest memories.
indeed. we live in a society where almost everything is fake and embellished and trasnformed into a product with bells and whistles, the only glimpse of truth we're allowed to learn is by traveling and touching things with our hands, there's NO exceptions to this. i'm more and more depressed seeing people dismissing travelling convinced it can be replaced by watching movies or documentaries, especially among my friends and my family back home. you say Turkey i could say pretty much any country i've been so far, the logic is the same, even super touristic places like Bali and Phuket are quite a different story from how they're painted in the mainstream medias, pretty much anything the average guy in the West knows about the outer world is total bull-sh-it and he'll NEVER KNOW nor accept it. people who don't travel live in their bubble, at best, and good luck telling them otherwise. i see many negative comments here about selling travel stock, yes of course it doesn't sell like hotcakes but this is a lifestyle for us, it's a way for us to live the way we want and while there's a big price to pay for it we feel it's well worth it, i would never go back into a cubicle enslaved into a 9-to-5 "job", to each his own.
452
« on: November 01, 2014, 22:57 »
I agree completely about Antarctica as poor choice for stock, but the trip itself is amazing - most beautiful landscapes I've ever seen -- only close competitors are the khumbu himal and andes cordillera, which are only accessible to trekkers. stark, ice carved mountains dropping right into the sea, subtle light & colors and ice in incredible forms -- brash, iceberg, glaciers constantly changing. but again, low demand in the stock marketplace. we sailed past one huge tabular iceberg at sunset that was more than 3 miles long.
Alaskan cruise was fun but not in same class (actually best stock results from that cruise were the seattle skylines as we left port)
in fact i would go in Antarctica anyway, no matter if the place has less photo opportunities tha greenland or even the Alps, as a traveler it would be a badge of honour to add Antarctica on my travel CV ! 
453
« on: November 01, 2014, 22:55 »
how many of us work our whole lives so we can afford to travel in retirement?
classic. they're all deluded and searching excuses to avoid traveling. besides, do they really think once they hit 60-65 yrs they will still have the mental and physical energy to seriously travel around the globe ? what a joke ... best scenario they will hop on a 5-stars cruise and scammed in the usual tourist traps, i see this sh-it every day as i lived in touristic megacities since the last 20 yrs. there are a few notable exceptions, i've met crazy oldmen and grannies traveling the world on bicycle, on foot, on a van, on a moto, that's refreshing and inspiring but they're one in a million or even less. for the average westerners the "dream" is a cruise in the caribbeans, a 30 days trip in europe, 2 weeks across china, a quick holiday in japan and south-east asia, a safari in africa, or if they're cashed up and still in good shape maybe a round the world ticket, that's all.
454
« on: November 01, 2014, 00:42 »
iStock is a joke !
there will be zero benefits from adding titles and description for the simple reason that this was maybe true until 4-5 yrs ago but nowadays to rank on google you need a ton of links pointing to your page and a solid trusted domain with high-PR.
IS has a trusted domain and high PR but who is linking to istock's pages ? nobody or very few in the best scenario, and even if they do it's probably junk traffic, not potential buyers.
so the guys at IS are totally clueless and ask us to make a test drive ? moreover, they expect WE spend hours editing titles and descriptions, this is ridicolous they make billions of $ and expect me and you to work for free.
455
« on: October 31, 2014, 23:07 »
I don't have much confidence that I could make back the money from an Antarctica trip, those are pretty expensive even if you try to do it on the cheap (a quick price check looks like it could cost easily $10,000-$20,000 for one person to go on a two week cruise, taking into account hotels and flights and gear, etc..).
it can be less than 10K $ but the problem is, what are you going to shoot apart icebergs and wildlife ? there are no cities and no villages and no autoctonous people and no polar bears, just a few dozen base camps where tourists are not usually allowed and if they do it will cost you and arm and a leg to fly there (for instance McMurdo Base to Scott-Amundsen base at south pole). From all the pics i've seen so far Greenland seems to be a LOT more colorful and interesting than Antarctica, and i could say the same about Alaska which is probably the cheapest and easiest option for polar photography. so, considering the costs involved i don't think you'll ever recoup the money selling on micros.
456
« on: October 31, 2014, 22:56 »
the top sellers in Travel are always the typical "postcard" images of the most famous landmarks.
said that, there's a huge amount of second-tier landmarks and hot spots that you can shoot, and then markets, shops, lifestyle, food, whatever.
to really cut costs to the bone you must sleep in cheap guesthouses and eat cheap local food.
western europe can be very expensive now, forget about places like London or Paris but of course you can get lucky, these places have been shot to death from any possible perspective and weather situation, i wouldn't even try unless you're an expert travel shooter or if you've a lot of time in your hands.
taking it to the extreme i know of people couchsurfing or living in a van and only eating a loaf of bread with tuna cans .. that way you can travel even in expensive places like Norway or London without spending too much but you're basically living like a Hobo ... how long can you last, not more than a few weeks or months i guess, maybe i would do it if i was still 20 yrs old just for the experience, but ...
eastern europe is cheaper, but not that cheap, say 30-50% in the best scenario, 70% if you really sleep in godforsaken places.
long story short, you won't get rich with Travel but at least you'll travel and see the world.
for many, this is a good tradeoff, actually i even know some hardcore travellers that claim traveling is "the meaning of life" so to each his own ..
i can agree that no matter the money reward, traveling will definitely change you for the better and give you hands-on experience and a wider perspective in world affair, that's something you just cannot buy off the shelves, of course it has nothing to do with this discussion about production costs but in one way or another if you're a travel photographer you must be a traveller first and foremost otherwise yes you better stick to studio shootings or specialize in your own city.
there's nothing wrong doing only travel pics of your own city as long as it's touristic enough and in demand enough, say you live in paris or london or NYC, and also barcelona, rome, venice, prague, istanbul, delhi, bangkok, sydney, tokyo, HK, singapore .. there will be always demand for these places and if you live there the production costs are minimal.
457
« on: October 28, 2014, 20:30 »
Nikon and Canon are boring and lagging behind in the R&D.
of course because if they make a killer mirrorless camera it would cannibalize the sales of their DSLR line. all they can do is sell and overpriced and underpowered mirrorless camera and that's exactly what they're doing now and i'm sure they know very well it won't go far but it's their choice and things can change overnight if and when the demand for pro mirrorless will start to grow. i think we'll have to wait 2-3 more yrs before there's serious demand for mirrorless among pros. and then it will cost as much as a pro DSLR (2-3000$) so what's the point ? you think they'll sell for 500$ ? no way. i remember when the D3x came out .. 8000$ !! just because the sensor was 24MP, hahaha.
458
« on: October 28, 2014, 19:48 »
A timely blog post from a terrific photographer
http://www.nomadicdestiny.com/blog/2014/10/28/nomad-questions-answered
i think he's overspending, 200$/week for food and 200$/week for gas ?? as for finding a nomad girl he's spot on but i'm friend with a girl who's now cycling asia/oceania/americas since three years with her boyfriend, they sleep in a tent usually but sometimes they're invited in a local's home in small villages, so far so good, too bad they're not pro photographers as i'm sure they could make saleable images, you can't get any cheaper than that regarding production costs ...
459
« on: October 28, 2014, 18:14 »
In other words you would welcome the Sony A7s
in fact i'm keeping an eye on Sony since a long time but so fai i'm disappointed.
460
« on: October 28, 2014, 18:06 »
Paris will earn you more money but not if you fly first class and stay in 5 star hotels.
hahaha and if you're on a tight budget i heard of guys doing couchsurfing or sleeping in a tent or in a van.
461
« on: October 28, 2014, 18:01 »
i don't have the feeling the ones making good sales with Paris or NYC or London are just photographers based on Paris/NYC/London ... actually they're the ones angry about losing sales from random tourists and snappers coming on holidays.
claiming that all you need is to live there and have lots of time is only true in part, just look at how people shoot weddings, it can be done in so many different ways, some pro wedding guys are absolutely amazing just give them a church and and a bride and the sky is the limit, there are no boring subjects just boring photographers !
462
« on: October 28, 2014, 00:43 »
yep, local photographers who can ask people to sign a model release too
good luck making illiterate street food sellers sign a model release in a backward third world country ... even more funny if they're hilltribes ... for the record i had decent sales with images of people in asian markets, but they're all editorial for obvious reasons.
463
« on: October 23, 2014, 23:26 »
as a technology, DSLR is a dead man walking and it must go, the sooner the better !
said that, what we really need is 72mm sensors and bigger lenses.
35mm is a relic of the past, all the troubles we're having now with low iso and noise are because we're still stuck with small sensors.
on top of this, pro cameras are sold as "all purposes" cameras and this is not a good thing, i would welcome a proper "night camera" that is specifically designed for shooting hand held by night at decent speed with a custom sensor that only works in low light.
464
« on: October 23, 2014, 23:16 »
"Adolf 34" - the year Hitler became Fuhrer, presumably the thief is a joker.
makes sense. Hitler met Eva Brown when she was working in a photography store.
465
« on: October 20, 2014, 22:33 »
Information is one of the main actor in democracy. The day when all (again: all) info will be manipulated, distorted and organised to bring consensus to one part, without exception, we will understand that information isn't an industry or a business like every other. We are not too far from it
they don't even need to manipulate or distort anything, all they need is to not publish images that show a different story ... MOST of the pics coming from war zones are never published and this is all you need to know.
466
« on: October 15, 2014, 23:36 »
Indeed: in 1994 photojournalism was a serious matter
journalism and news photography are not a godgiven right. they will exist only as long as somebody is willing to pay for it and this happens in every other industry in the world. there's not one single reason for journalists to think they're a special case deserving any privilege. there's a supply and there's demand. if now they're all begging for money it means their product is no more in demand enough, simple as that.
467
« on: October 15, 2014, 01:22 »
Please, don't sell news on microstock agencies, we can't destroy photography and photographers more than this.
i don't think there will be ever space for News on micros as the money is just not there. amateurs will upload the odd iphone shot here and there but will soon realize it's not sustainable moneywise.
468
« on: October 09, 2014, 22:15 »
The best pictures will survive (the best pictures will survive in any scenario).
as long as there is demand for it, and that's the point. for Travel so many destinations just don't sell, no matter if the pics are beautiful, you can have 10000 great travel images and sell zero, and nobody now is going in places like somalia, sudan, lybia, sirya, ukraine, yemen, pakistan, afghanistan, iraq, etc moreover i see a LOT of newspapers using travel images from AP/AFP/Reuters, often they're terrible snapshots but they cost nothing to them as they've subscriptions with the wire agencies.
469
« on: October 09, 2014, 17:54 »
and that's just for SS.
on Alamy there are 15000 photos of Papua, 1.3 millions for London, and 3.5 millions for UK
So the ratio of roughly 200 London pics for one Papua pic holds on both Alamy and SS. I've always felt that "low commercial value" is a bit of a red-herring, because people don't shoot so much of it, so it benefits by having less competition. There are some LCV niches with so little stuff in them that a buyer can easily browse everything there - and if you have the best shot it will pick up most of the sales for that subject.
sure, but Papua is too expensive, you won't recoup the production costs and you'll probably catch malaria. there must be little demand for it and yes, low commercial value.
470
« on: October 09, 2014, 05:33 »
Yeah, but in reality SS has 152,000 pictures of London and fewer than 2,000 (a lot fewer once all the postage stamps and computer-generated flags are discounted) of Papua New Guinea. So if 200 pictures of London sell for every one of PNG then the return per file will be similar. Some very small and very popular places (e.g. Venice and Oia on Santorini) as so swamped with near identical images of iconic scenes that it is purely pot-luck (or search-placement luck) whether you will ever be able to sell anything from there.
and that's just for SS. on Alamy there are 15000 photos of Papua, 1.3 millions for London, and 3.5 millions for UK (that's 5% of their whole archive). i've no magic recipe for the oversaturation in Travel. ultimately buyers will probably stick with new uploads or a mix of new and old, nobody is going to browse more than 10 pages with 50 thumbnails each, soon the search placement will become the biggest factor even for "long tail" search keywords.
471
« on: October 08, 2014, 23:04 »
impossible to print to my satisfaction.
of course. reds are always the crucial factor. and CMYK printers don't have pure red, they mix magenta and yellow etc, while monitor are natively RGB so they've pure red to display on screen. as much as DTP in the 90s promised WYSIWIG (what you see is what you get), this is still far from being reality in 2014.
472
« on: October 08, 2014, 23:01 »
if it fades, i print another one.
they WILL fade. because they're not UV resistant colors. if you need UV then they'll cover the photo with a UV film, or alternatively you will print using injjet UV-resistant colors, but good luck keeping the original colors as these colors are a bit different and need their own ICC profiles, you need somebody expert working in a Lab, you can't expect top results from the print shop next door. applying a UV film will add a yellowish layer, no big deal but it's visible and it will be more visible over time depending on which film they use, if the cheapest or top quality. this is not an issue for black and white images, but wait a second ... often they print blacks using some green too, this is the norm for 6-colors printers.
473
« on: October 08, 2014, 22:56 »
The answer to all of these is What are the photos? not how many, not RPD and not RPI.
exactly. i never see discussions about specific categories of images, like lifestyle, business, travel. travel is just not selling much compared to business or conceptual. how much less ? we don't know ... it could be even 10 times less, especially for travel images of places and locations that are not much in demand and there's plenty of them. 1000 pics of London will probably outsell 10000 pics of Papua New Guinea and by a long shot !
474
« on: October 07, 2014, 23:05 »
The photographers who do best with us submit well edited work regularly and keyword (relevantly) and thoroughly...
yes but their dirty little secret is most of their images are about the UK.
475
« on: October 07, 2014, 22:37 »
+10 hobo
i have 3 monitors and really, the best monitor makes my image look good all the time. but the only important thing to me is when i print . i use only my desktop , an ancient workstation for most computer nerds, when i print for my clients.
as you said, if it looks like crap on my old desktop, it will in fact print like crap.
i also use this old desktop to finalise my stock photos. i am only satisfied when it looks good on this dinosaur with the cheapest monitor of the three.
yes, nowadays they're making such a big fuss about calibration, mostly for PR and marketing reasons. as for the display of reference, what's the gold standard ? there's no accepted gold standard and never will. if i look around i see people using tablets and smartphones and laptops. well, that's maybe the only reference at the moment. if your pics look good on an iPad and on a cheap-as-s android smartphone you can bet they will also print OK. Contrast is the crucial factor that differentiate a screen from the other but colors are more or less acceptable nowadays. there's no more such a big difference between monitors as in '90s .. now even the cheapest screen will have decent colors at least. calibration will be needed only if you love over saturated colors, in that case you need to be careful as most of the consumer screens are already high on saturation but as i said before i found it easier to do this on a cheap screen because they're already looking like sh-it compared to pro monitors. pushing the Reds too much for instance, don't do it. but look at the histogram and you can't go wrong, you can edit a photo using the histogram even on a b/w monitor ... this for generic images. of course if you have special needs that's another story. as for prints, it's getting better and better compared to the past ! before you had to print in a Lab, now the cheapest prints are a decent tradeoff as long as they dont do any color correction in pre-print. moreover, prints will be eventually framed behind a glass, that's another factor, what glass you'll be using ? real glass, plastic, whatever. or they'll be coated with anti-UV film, even worse as it will affect the white balance, turning it a bit yellowish. it's a never ending battle, what you see in never what you get but again things are a lot better than in the past and we can't complain.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 29
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
