|
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 - increasingdifficulty
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 74
451
« on: May 12, 2018, 00:37 »
Well, that of course depends on a large number of things.
"portfolio size of several thousand videos" means nothing without seeing what they are.
How good is the quality?
What is the content?
What is the pricing?
Is your SEO good?
Are there 200,000 clips competing for the same main keywords?
Do you have many similars (i.e. "thousands" is really hundreds or tens)?
How good are your sales elsewhere?
---
If you have a thousand drone clips of the same beach and some roads, a few cloud time lapses and random snapshots, then the answer might be "never".
If you have really good, unique stuff that shows up in the search without having 200,000 clips before you, then the answer might be "soon".
---
That being said, Pond5 has an enormous library and favors older content over new, so it's generally the hardest to get into as a newcomer, even if your clips are good.
However, if you are seeing sales every day at Shutterstock and Fotolia with that portfolio, it's likely it will start selling, but expect years before the snowball has really started rolling.
Getting any views? That's a decent indication.
452
« on: May 11, 2018, 11:45 »
Sorry for replying to old topic but you are sending all agencies and earning $300 a year? I apologize if I got it wrong, English is not my native language.
But it costs nothing in terms of my time to put them there and it is still $300 a year or more.
Steve
I'm sure he meant that from his lowest 8 agencies he gets $300, which is 10% of his total micro income.
Yes, and I also think he meant $3,000, not $300. According to his blog that would be about 10%.
453
« on: May 11, 2018, 08:54 »
After SS's miserable footage pricing the avalanche began, at least these guys give us an opt out.
Just curious how you consider $70 for HD and $180 for 4k to be an "avalanche-like" drop? Did you get $5,000 before? By the way, a quick look here will give you all the information you need: https://www.123rf.com/products/
454
« on: May 09, 2018, 07:32 »
Actually, I think that "2015 horizontal photography" might be one of the most common search terms ever.
455
« on: May 09, 2018, 07:24 »
Some of the tiny payments are for access to a picture for a short time.
So what is the fair rate for use of a photo per day?
What someone will pay.....when did "fair" ever enter the industry?
Exactly, but "fair" is wide open for interpretation. However, what I believe many people mean when they say "fair compensation" is that if you were to spend 40 hours per week working with something, fair compensation would be an average (or low average) monthly salary where you live. I doubt many people in the stock business are actually spending 40 hours per week, every week - maybe closer to 2 hours per week over the course of a year... Fair compensation would mean 5% of a standard monthly salary then. 
456
« on: May 04, 2018, 11:22 »
Nice!
Seems like the D850 RAW files really can handle big exposure adjustments well!
457
« on: May 03, 2018, 12:28 »
Some people were wondering how this would work, this is how I see it, how about you?
Basically, with this system, assuming a 'better' case scenario, it looks like the founders will become very rich. You, as a photographer, if you get on the ground floor *and* it takes off, will make "some" money (probably better than you are right now) - but it really makes the founders rich.
So, just like any other business then?
thats about $1 billion/employee per year for basically doing nothing, especially because the system is 'distributed' (i.e., doesn't really cost them anything to maintain).
Wow, that's great!
If they do basically nothing, I have a few questions:
Why are there now no less than three active threads discussing them here by us?
Why doesn't each and every contributor here have their own successful site making a billion or so a year? Or even just 10 million?
Makes you think...
lol,
a) re: your first comment, not exactly. usually executives make a 'decent' amount ($200-$300k) but these is a huge difference.
b) well, yes, they do basically do nothing once the system is set up (not sure if you have any programming experience, but by design, this is relatively easy to set up, and maitenance is virtually nil, so yes - they would basically do nothing. if they were smart, which they probably would be - they would hire a customer support company to deal with any customer issues, etc). as for why the photograhpers aren't making that kind of moeny - probably precisely because of what you just said - they are photographers and not programmers. if a photographer decided to set up a blockchain site like this, I'm sure he or she could see similar results.
Executive does not equal founder. It is very normal that employees, and especially executives, get paid in stock (here tokens). Obviously, the three founders would get a larger relative cut of the 11%. The job of an investor is to supply early money to potentially earn a lot later on. They can also provide advice and actively work with the business, but the main job is to risk their money before they know if the project will be successful. Thereby, quite natural to get a lot of tokens. Can you point to a single successful online business that does not require a team of employees working 24/7? Thought so. The "lol" is on you.  Also, how come very few programmers are billionaires?
458
« on: May 03, 2018, 11:06 »
Some people were wondering how this would work, this is how I see it, how about you?
Basically, with this system, assuming a 'better' case scenario, it looks like the founders will become very rich. You, as a photographer, if you get on the ground floor *and* it takes off, will make "some" money (probably better than you are right now) - but it really makes the founders rich. So, just like any other business then? thats about $1 billion/employee per year for basically doing nothing, especially because the system is 'distributed' (i.e., doesn't really cost them anything to maintain).
Wow, that's great! If they do basically nothing, I have a few questions: Why are there now no less than three active threads discussing them here by us? Why doesn't each and every contributor here have their own successful site making a billion or so a year? Or even just 10 million? Makes you think...
459
« on: May 03, 2018, 05:17 »
There is a filter to view the ones in the marketplace, but it doesn't seem to be working.
In other words there is no way to visualise anything else but their stupid membership (unless I did it wrong).
That would explain the disaster in sales in the last couple of months.
And yes, I have the feeling that their re branding was an incredible exercise in self harm
As far as I'm aware, there is only a filter to show Member Library items. This means you can view ALL clips (marketplace + membership) or just the membership items. For a common word like "sunset" you will just see membership items because there are so many matches, unless you sort by "Most Recent" or "Undiscovered". Search for "switzerland beach" and you will mostly see marketplace clips, because there aren't many (or any) in the membership library. Naturally, they will always push membership content first. There is no point in hiding that to show marketplace clips only. --- I don't know if the rebranding ACTUALLY hurt their sales, probably not that much, but the fact that their membership library is now much, much bigger makes marketplace sales less likely for every day that goes by. If I can get 5 HD downloads for $1.65 each (their basic plan), it seems very expensive to buy one clip for $49. If you go to an all-you-can-eat buffet and pay $40, you probably don't think it makes sense to pay $100 for an extra higher quality item...
460
« on: May 01, 2018, 12:55 »
Could anyone confirm that from your earnings history ?
Cannot confirm. Having average to slightly above average sales right now (Monday/Tuesday), and historically, May as a whole is usually a very good month. US holidays are the only ones that cause a noticeable drop in sales for me. According to my statistics, US buyers buy as much as the next 10 countries combined! ...and by the way, buyer #2 UK Labour Day is on Monday the 7th. Australia too (parts of the country).
461
« on: May 01, 2018, 11:44 »
convert play money into real $$$ that you can actually go into a real store in the real world and buy a tangible edible such as peanut butter...
Just as much "play money" as the credits you are used to at Fotolia. As with all cryptocurrencies, you would have a digital wallet where they are stored, and you are free to exchange them for anything else (Bitcoin, $$$, Ethereum, etc.) at an exchange of your choice, just like with yen to dollars, or you can exchange them directly with another individual.
462
« on: April 27, 2018, 12:06 »
Maybe the noise reduction thing didn't help?
Noise reduction = blurring. It can also create banding in the sky, so be very careful! Noise is often ADDED to remove banding. I would turn off the in-camera long exposure noise reduction and do everything in post, for full control. Many times you would mask out things with lots of detail and apply less noise reduction there, or none at all, and more in areas like a sky where the noise will be more visible, and you don't need any details. But again, be careful so you don't create banding. Never go 100%! As you can understand, getting perfect images is a job for Photoshop, not Lightroom. Ideally, when you shoot at ISO 200, you shouldn't need much noise reduction. On an m43 sensor, there might be lots of noise anyway, but it gets MUCH, MUCH better if you overexpose a bit and bring it down in post. Of course you still need to make sure the highlights are intact, except for lights. For example, on the GH4/GH5, the big brothers of the G85, the image quality when filming can be 10 times better if you expose to the right, ETTR, and bring it down to a natural level in post. You will get much more noise and artifacts if it's a bit underexposed or in the middle. Just like monsters, noise likes to live in the shadows. 
463
« on: April 27, 2018, 03:40 »
Also, one last thing I forgot to mention: atmospheric distortion/heat distortion! You said you took the photo at 45 mm, which would be equivalent to 90 mm on a 35 mm. That suggests you are quite far away from the skyline. Heat distortion, or atmospheric distortion, is yet another factor that can impact sharpness. It would depend on the conditions on that particular day, but sometimes it will just be completely impossible to get a perfectly sharp image if you are too far away from your subject. The light gets distorted and it doesn't matter what equipment you have or how still your tripod stands. --- I shot a 600 mm time lapse from a 10 km distance the other day and it was completely ruined by heat distortion. On a day without temperature fluctuations between the water/ground and the air it would have worked, but now it looked like I put a turbulent displacement effect on it. 
464
« on: April 27, 2018, 01:46 »
Thanks for posting the info christiano! To me, it looks like you got the focus perfect, but that diffraction is the issue due to f18. I don't know the capabilities of that particular lens, however. Some lenses just cannot get tack sharp. See if you can find out the sweet spot focal length also. Do lots of tests near your home, with plenty of light, and you will see what kind of sharpness your lens is capable of. Also, I would say that 40 seconds is a bit too long here. The risk of a tiny movement during that time is very high, and that will of course cause a small smear of the entire image. And in the future, for important shots, always take multiple pictures at different settings - f4, f5.6, f8, f11, and check the focus between each to make sure you get at least one keeper. You can always add motion blur in post, although it's not as much fun as making it for real, but you can't remove it. Many so called "perfect" shots are composites. It could be focus stacking, or a long exposure for just the water and other moving parts, and a short exposure for the buildings. Maybe f8 for for the details, and f18-f22 just for the lights to get the nice stars.
465
« on: April 26, 2018, 10:50 »
Ok, i will do that, but i'm not home right now... i can confirm you that i took this pic with a small aperture, like f/22. i will come back with the full resolution pic later. thanks
Then it's most likely a diffraction issue. Could of course have other issues in addition to that, but never use f22 unless you absolutely HAVE to, if you're looking for maximum detail. I recommend everyone to do some tests to see how much f22 to around f18 or f16, depending on the lens, ruins the image quality, compared to f4-f11.
466
« on: April 26, 2018, 10:15 »
mm, two things, without actually seeing the picture.
a) Maybe you really do have a good quality image, and the agency you submitted to rejected it. Don't take it personally, not everyone accepts everything. It doesn't necessary mean its a 'bad' image - just means they don't want it for their site.
b) if it is a large cityscape - I find focusing on a stronger lightsource tends to produce a better picture, because then the exposure/etc is set correctly for the surrounding elements. I'd also do a couple tests to see what produces the best results for you.
Hi to all, i have a lot to learn from you! here's one of the rejected picture downsized for web usage... i will read you all and come back
Please post the full resolution. With a big fat watermark if you wish. We can't pixel peep the focus without full resolution. It does look soft now, possibly a diffraction issue (aperture at a high f number). But it could be due to downsizing - impossible to tell without the original resolution. Also, if you post the metadata if would be really helpful - aperture, shutter speed, ISO, focal length and which lens you used.
467
« on: April 26, 2018, 08:50 »
Mirror lock up if it's not already on the list. I don't know if I missed reading that?
It's a mirrorless camera.
468
« on: April 26, 2018, 08:04 »
Does anyone feel the ability to have lower noise levels at high asa is an advantage....I'm desperately trying to rationalise a new toy but to be honest I'm not sure the marginal improvement in IQ is worth the ££s anymore.
I assume you meant ISO? Better ISO performance is a huge advantage in my opinion. But I'm out and about filming, relying on natural light pretty much all the time. The most exciting things usually happen when light is weak. A high megapixel count usually means worse ISO performance, however, as the size of the pixels is smaller. The bigger the pixels, the better the ISO performance. So it's always a trade-off, like with most things.
469
« on: April 26, 2018, 04:36 »
But do higher resolution images sell better? Is it something that buyers look a lot at?
Not really, but it's much more flexible to work with. Most buyers use very small resolutions, and people have been printing large posters with great success from 8mp images for years.
470
« on: April 26, 2018, 01:49 »
My method: I focus on a particular point and then I put the camera in manual mode + manual focus, then I take the pose ...
"Focus on a particular point" - do you mean point the camera there and then use manual focus to focus? Or do you mean use autofocus to focus, and then change to manual focus just so it doesn't change when you take the picture? Panasonic mirrorless cameras are not necessarily reliable when it comes to night photography autofocus. You need to double-check and focus manually, with the biggest magnification possible on the screen. Also make sure you focus with the aperture wide open! This is very important. If you're planning on taking the picture at f9 on an f4 lens for example, you may THINK you focused correctly at f9, but if changed to f4, you might see that the focus is actually quite off. When you take the picture, make sure you're using the sweet spot aperture of your lens, which is usually around two-three stops down from wide open. Like Paulie said, also use a shutter delay of at least 2 seconds to eliminate any camera shake from your hand. One last thing - if you stop down too much to get a really long shutter speed, say f22 or f16, your image will also become blurry. This is called diffraction and becomes very apparent on cityscapes with lots of small details. You may need an ND filter even at night if you want to use really long shutter speeds. If you use an ND filter, focus without it, and put it on after. Just make sure you don't touch the focus ring while putting it on. --- To sum up: Focus manually, don't trust autofocus! Focus with the aperture wide open, and a shutter speed fast enough (like 1/50) so you can see the changes in real time. You will have to raise the ISO temporarily to see anything. Change back to the settings you want to use for the photo. Usually an aperture setting of 2-3 stops down from wide open, lowest possible ISO and a long shutter. Don't use a really closed down aperture (high f number like f16/f22) - your photo will not be sharp. Use a shutter delay, or remote trigger. One last thing - most lenses will actually go "beyond" infinity focus, which means if you just set it to focus at the maximum distance, it will be very out of focus. Never do that. You could of course find out where true infinity focus is on your particular lens, and mark it. There would still be margin for error so I would double-check both one and two times.
471
« on: April 25, 2018, 13:43 »
Hello,
I was contacted by an agency for selling full copyright on one of my image for $2,xxx and was wondering if there is a con (or cons) that I should be aware of. To be honest, this image will make more money than that in its lifetime since it already made almost that much in just couple years. However, it is also something that I can easily create again (not the same image of course) so I am not really worrying about giving it up forever.
Does anyone have an experience with this and do you feel it's worth it? Are there questions that I should be asking them?
Thank you so much in advance!
If you need money now, sell it. If you don't need money now, and you're confident it will make more over the years, don't sell it. It's as simple as that. --- The thing with recreating a good seller is that you lose your search rankings. This can mean your recreated image won't sell much at all, even if it's better than the original.
472
« on: April 24, 2018, 04:43 »
They pride themselves for their "photocase style", so prepare yourself for a 90% rejection rate... 100% if you only upload microstock style images.
In other words, they try to only sell good photos?
473
« on: April 22, 2018, 11:47 »
I can't help feeling that you have overspent on equipment and you might never make a reasonable return on the capital you have committed.
This kind of reasoning always seems so strange to me. It only really makes sense if you look at filming and selling footage as something you just have to do to survive, and not because you like it. But why not just work a regular office job then? I can only speak for myself, but I'd like to believe that I'm not alone here. I film, I photograph, and I make music because it's something I love. Something I have passion for. Therefore I don't buy the bare minimum quality equipment in order to make a sale possible. I use equipment that is a joy to use and that inspires me to create. I don't buy the cheapest guitar possible that still sounds good enough in order to sell a piece of stock music. I buy a guitar that is a joy to play and sounds great, and looks good, because I absolutely love playing guitar. The same with photography equipment. Sure, money in must be more than money out if you like food and a roof over your head, but if a creative "job" is something you look at as a necessary evil in order to pay rent, you're better off doing something else. Sure, I understand that you're just looking at it from purely a business perspective, but that is a sure way to take joy out of any creative work.
474
« on: April 21, 2018, 05:59 »
If you want monthly sales then you need way more clips. You only have 300+- so you will get dry months with little consistency. I don't agree with this. You could get a four-figure monthly income with 300 clips. But they have to be the right clips of course. You should concentrate on content - for 360 we want to experience the environment. You need more interesting things going on. Place the camera on things, get a little movement. Think unique niches.
Also film way more HD-4K content. That's the bread and butter at the moment. Get friends and family to model for you. Don't be afraid to experiment with camera angles and camera movement. I fully agree with this. I like watching VR stuff, even scenes without much movement as I can create the movement myself, and it feels real. I'm sure I'm not the only one, and it's much more interesting and useful than 3D. Right now, resolution is a big problem. I would say that 4k is the absolute minimum to be somewhat enjoyable, but 7-8k is necessary for good quality. To feel like you're there, I think 12k and up would be necessary. An HD 360 clip is barely watchable in my opinion, like a 2003 consumer digital camera video. Still, I see you have sold some. I know it's not possible to shoot (HQ) 8k+ yet with consumer priced equipment, but if you're really serious about it, I would invest in better gear for the future, or do stills for scenes that don't have any movement in them anyway. You could simply add some moving elements in post. Furthermore Chris, you have two clips in the most popular 2% of the search results for "360 vr". That tells you that the overall demand for 360 content right now is absolutely minimal! Almost non-existent. I do believe it will grow, however, as the quality of the cameras increases, and every home owns a pair of VR googles.
475
« on: April 19, 2018, 16:32 »
Suddenly all my 4K material, shot with $25.000 drone equipment starts to sell for $0.40
May I ask what drone equipment you have?
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
