|
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 - cdwheatley
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20
451
« on: April 16, 2008, 12:51 »
The only way a new stock site could/would make it is by offering exclusive content, pictures not to be found on other stock sites.. but what photographer would invest his time in that.?..
Patrick.
right, this is why istock is leading the way and selling more than anyone else
452
« on: April 16, 2008, 12:45 »
I think the problem for a lot of these sites outside of the big 6 is, not everyone submits to them. Its hard to compete when you don't have the product. If everyone submits to a certain site it will have a good chance of being successful, with a modest marketting plan. Its going to be hard for future startups to get everyone on board. Why would you shop at site X when these other sites offer so much more in content at a similar price. I could be wrong but this is how I see it.
453
« on: April 05, 2008, 02:22 »
By the way, it's pretty useless to have more than 2Gig if you don't run a 64bit operating system. A second observation is that XP still is faster and leaner than Vista.
I have 32bit dual core 3.2 that came with 2gig Ram and 3 raid drives running on XP pro. I was built for editing music, upgraded to 4 gig Ram and received very little speed or working capacity benefit. Machine still got bogged down at the same spots. Found out later that more than 2 gigs is useless with 32bit and xp.
454
« on: April 05, 2008, 01:47 »
Is it just a waste of time to upload Adobe RGB? Starting to get that impression 
455
« on: April 03, 2008, 12:10 »
317,190 since Dec 2004
Started with no images now I just passed the 10,000 barrier 
Thats a hell of a lot of downloads! I started with 0 in march 2007, now have 364 images and 25,236 downloads
456
« on: April 02, 2008, 17:40 »
I know Istock converts Adobe rgb to srgb for thumbnails, but how many of the other sites are doing that now?
457
« on: April 02, 2008, 11:21 »
Suprised at the response! I guess its different for everyone. I noticed a huge difference in sales at istock after I started linking series, similars, and lightboxes. Its a ton of work, but worth it for a small port.
458
« on: April 01, 2008, 19:53 »
We are all human and everyone makes mistakes at some point. With light fading fast, I ran a quarter mile down the beach, long lens and monopod in tow. There was an offshore breeze blowing and 8 foot waves, which never happen in Florida. I wanted to get some shots of a couple of guys surfing before the sun faded past the waves. Anyway, completely winded from the run I made it just in time. Checklist: check iso, check aperature, check shutter speed, check to make sure image stabalizer on..snap, snap, snap.....what!!! forgot memory card (card back at house quarter mile away)  Also, I was shooting a beautiful calm clear day at Bahia Honda State park in the Florida Keys. I shot for hours and got some great shots!! to bad they were all at Iso 800. Anyone else??
459
« on: April 01, 2008, 03:18 »
Just examine the March earnings breakdown thread. iStock is way down from where they were 1 year ago on a lot of larger contributor's lists. Take a look at AndresR's percentages. Fotolia has been far and away his best earner for 3 or 4 months straight.
I like iStock. They are my #2 earnings producer and always contribute a lot to my bottom line. But not nearly enough to consider going exclusive.
I think the numbers on some contributers with huge portfolios will be a little misleading, due to the amount of images on each site(istock upload limits). Plus, if you sell enough images on fotolia you can jack your prices up quite a bit. Not quite sure, but guessing fotolia only gets a fraction of the traffic that istock gets.
460
« on: April 01, 2008, 00:34 »
The market is too big and too diversified to be dominated by anybody, particularly with IS' new policy on copyrighted items like cars etc.
For me, SS is still bigger, and DT equal in size to IS. In addition, StockXpert, 123, BS and not least FT are growing fast. This is not the time to put all the eggs in one basket.
Right, maybe not such a good idea at this point. But I bet there are a lot more people thinking about exclusivity now than say..this same time last year. Everyone has their braking point. If Istock was 60% of your earnings for 6 months in row you might reconsider? Thats not the case for me, but I could see it happening with one more price increase. Or maybe if a good portion of good getty shooters jump on the microstock bandwagon.
461
« on: March 31, 2008, 21:47 »
Yes, it seems that a lot is riding on what shutterstock does with their next increase, as far as keeping the market stable. If this trend continues, what is going to stop most of the top microstock photographers (diamond level) from going exclusive? Istock could become the next microsoft of microstock. Its to bad some of the other sites didn't bump up their prices a little higher.
462
« on: March 31, 2008, 20:51 »
Even with the price increase, Istock earnings for this month will almost double my second place site this month. This is strange? was wondering if anyone else is experiencing this trend? or maybe just a fluke?
463
« on: March 31, 2008, 18:46 »
I can't understand why they picked it. There should be at least one image more pleasing to the eye than that one. What do you think ?
https://www.snapvillage.com/Default.aspx
Actually, I have been spending a lot of time cruising shorelines and have yet to come across a coconut that is growing. So in that respect I find it kind of interesting.
464
« on: March 31, 2008, 03:08 »
I agree completly that this should never have been refused but the question was 'please tell me how to fix it'.
That was my failed attempt at sarcasm. I'm no expert but, For me I focus on the color, feel, and concept. Is it inviting?, Is it balanced? could it be used to sell something? The bigest problem I see is the umbrella. It sounded like a good idea at the time but if I did it again I would lose the umbrella. Unfortunately its not cheap to get there. Its like the joke "how many photographers does it take to shoot (insert text)? it takes 100... one photographer to take the shot and 99 others to say how they would have done it different. I know Its not going to be one of my top sellers, but it will probably sell a little bit. The designers/buyers are king in the stock world, let them decide.
465
« on: March 30, 2008, 20:42 »
Are they doing it just to get women half or fully naked?
Yes. This is really what MM is all about for 90% of the photogs, no matter what they say.
LOL..Thats what my gut told me but I wasn't sure.
466
« on: March 30, 2008, 18:04 »
I've used three models found on ModelMayhem here in Australia, but rejected many more for stock work.
Here's an important tip (for stock photography): pay particular attention to those models who say they will NOT do nude under any circumstances.
I agree, the girl next door type has a much broader appeal for stock work. I'm having a hard time finding the right type at this point.
467
« on: March 30, 2008, 14:59 »
I'm curious about this discussion. I understand people may think they image could be better, but is it reasonable to have it rejected? Colors are beautiful, exposure seems perfect, assuming that focus and noise are good, why reject it?
Regards,
Adelaide
Right! and thank you! I think every picture in my portfolio could be improved in some way as I am my worst critic. This particular rejection made me kind of throw my arms up the air and say what! Normally I agree with reviewers as I feel they are more than fair with me. Hit me with noise, focus, artifacts, exposure issues, filtering, fringing, but composition? If it was cropped to tight I would understand that. I know there were a bunch of people that had similar problems a couple weeks ago, I just thought this was a good example of a bad review.
468
« on: March 30, 2008, 11:27 »
Hmmm...thanks. Does seem like its pretty saturated. It also looks like a lot of these guys are making their money by charging the models.
469
« on: March 30, 2008, 10:56 »
I like the driftwood its a little different! I guess its just a matter of personal taste. I have a similar shot without driftwood already in my port. Also have a tighter crop. I think it will sell ok over time. I actually prefer this shot from a lower angle. I was kind of surprised when Bigstock put it in the front page rotation. Thanks for your comments.
470
« on: March 30, 2008, 03:00 »
My question is: where do these guys market this material? is it considered stock? Are they doing it just to get women half or fully naked? Just wondering if and where the market is or if it is all just fun and games? 
Not every photo you take has to sell. You can enjoy photography just for the sake of photography. My grandfather did photography for 50 years and never made a penny.
And it's not just to get them naked, I'm 22 and female and love taking pictures of naked chicks!
Don't get me wrong, I would enjoy it as much as the next guy/girl. I Had a studio and played music for 20 years just for fun and self expression. Now the camera is my new guitar and the sun is my amp.. I am just wondering if there is a big market for these types of images, hoping someone who has been down that road can shed some light?
471
« on: March 29, 2008, 23:39 »
Great picture "stock worthy"! How did you do for not leaving your foot prints 
Ancient Chinese secret.
472
« on: March 29, 2008, 23:34 »
Thanks, I'll remember that for next time
473
« on: March 29, 2008, 22:14 »
These stories sound just...well, kind of unreal. Shutterstock on the whole appears to have pretty consistent review process, some of the rejections are (or used to be) a bit unjustified - but that was mostly due to sometimes a bit cryptic reason for rejection. But for the most part - the rejection is described well enough to have a second look at the picture - and to start wondering how I could have ovelooked this before ? Most of the rejected images I was able to fix and resubmit - and they were accepted. I also learned to pay attention to things which the reviewer may be looking at, and to fix them before submission. Works for me.
This one was rejected for composition  Please tell me how to fix it
474
« on: March 29, 2008, 22:03 »
I just recently opened an account on modelmayhem.com to try and hook up with some models in my area. After browsing around for about a week, I noticed there are a ton of photographers shooting artistic nudes and beauty shots of T&A cropped at the Knees. Some of these photographers are quite good, some not so good. My question is: where do these guys market this material? is it considered stock? Are they doing it just to get women half or fully naked? Just wondering if and where the market is or if it is all just fun and games? I realize if your extremely good the big glossy's would pick up your material, but what if your work is somewhere inbetween or to edgy?
475
« on: March 29, 2008, 10:31 »
That's some huge number, could you post the picture?
 I was so wiped out from shooting all day in the sun that I almost didn't shoot this series. Lucky for me my wife pushed me to do it
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
