|
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 - luissantos84
4526
« on: February 22, 2012, 18:55 »
oh boy.. thats true.. but I believe we should quit stock if we think of all that possibilities, again I think thats not the case
4527
« on: February 22, 2012, 18:05 »
nothing on iStock forum but I have my first sale and a nice one, never seen it before, 6$ on January 31th!
4528
« on: February 22, 2012, 17:52 »
There are the sites (like DepositPhotos) that have enough money to pay to contributors for uploading. And there are others that can't afford it and they prefer pretending sales and that are buying images themselves to make contributors happy. I think that it could be the case of AYCS but I have no problem with it .
perhaps thats the case I dont mind too, so far 69$
And you're one of the people on msg who reports his sales the most often, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying I know you will keep reporting back with sales figures here and other people will know too.
As a general comment and I'm not talking about All You Can Stock, I would say that people's ports are worth a lot. If I were to collect all your ports for example which are unwatermarked, full resolution images, I would have a fortune, or at least the potential to make a fortune for many years to come and there are many more avenues than just selling images online.
are you suggesting they are getting other revenue from our portfolio? actually I dont think they are doing that, perhaps giving some $$ for the continuous upload but nothing else..
4529
« on: February 22, 2012, 16:08 »
incredible  will it ever stop? amazing really! +3,784,000 in 2011 from 33 560 contributors = 112 pics each even if there are only 3 560 active = 1062 (which is only 88 pics per month) everybody is doing more than OK in microstock, hobby, pro, whatever, it is working!
4530
« on: February 22, 2012, 14:58 »
I just thought it was worth pointing out that if someone simply plugged in their past year's worth of numbers to figure out where they'll end up at the end of 2012 for the new 123RF structure won't give you an accurate result if you've been seeing growth lately. Just something to keep in mind.
A valid point, since this coming year will be so unpredictable. Alex has encouraged us to massively update our portfolios in an effort to retain our royalty rates, which means each contributor is likely to be seeing less exposure even as overall site traffic increases. No real clear way to guess or predict this since we are now dealing with so many unknowns.
that adds up something, not the marketer talk
4531
« on: February 22, 2012, 14:53 »
thank you LOL
4532
« on: February 22, 2012, 14:47 »
You should still compare your Jan 2012 vs Jan 2011 number to figure out the percent difference and apply that to each month in 2011 to figure out what your 2012 totals should be.
Pay me to update the calculator and I'll make it give you a non-committal prediction of the future  Or you could just revisit it next January and have a better idea of what your royalties will be.
why dont you sell it to 123RF? forget they are doing cuts not into expenses!
4533
« on: February 22, 2012, 14:31 »
its weird how US/THEM are growing BUT they are going to cut HELL it makes a lot of sense or is it anything else? nooo!
4534
« on: February 22, 2012, 13:56 »
2009: 185 2010: 712 2011: 2260 2012: 383 last six months included this February: 1429 looks like 45% unless they keep on growing even faster, we need revised RC too 
4535
« on: February 22, 2012, 13:45 »
I threw together a quick little Javascript based credit calculator for people who are not sure where they would land. Just go into your earnings page, highlight the past full year of data (so currently, Jan 2012 through Feb 2011), copy and paste it into the box (make sure to get the whole line), then hit the calculate button.
I don't have a sales column for EPS in my current earnings page, so this will be broken for people with illustration sales. The columns I currently have are below, if anyone else has something different, let me know and I can tweak it:
Month/Year Sub S M L XL XXLTF XXLMH PEL EEL CEL MS 100MB 200MB 300MB
http://davidgilder.com/misc/123RF_credit_calculator.html
ahah you the man
4536
« on: February 22, 2012, 13:17 »
The 24-70L is not good for stock. It is a convenient lens but with many problems. Borders are unsharp, many chromatic aberrations and uneven quality depending on the focal length. Primes trump any zoom always. Tele zooms are ok but wideangle ones in Canon territory are of borderline quality to pass the inspection process.
you have no CA on primes? yeh right...
4537
« on: February 22, 2012, 13:16 »
if we are going this way, I would say 50mm F1.8 and you will get the greatest pics for stock/other for 100 euros
how can we say a 1400 eur like 24 70 isnt good enough
Cos, everyone is trying to get perfect focus in the corners while shooting stock at f2.8
I sometimes think people just repeat what they read somewhere, without paying attention to their own real-world experience.
It's also nonsense to say the "next generation" of top quality cameras will require prime lenses. First of all, the Canon IDS MkIII and the Canon 5D Mk2 only have a theoretical resolution of about 70lp/mm (and it isn't really that much, because there is more to it than just the pixel density), which is LOWER than some of Canon's crop-sensor cameras. Secontly, if you are cropping something out of the final image you generally crop the central portion, which is sharpest, and if you are downsizing you effectively increase the sharpness of the lens.
I really doubt that the 50/1.8 first version outperforms the 24-70/2.8, even stopped down to 2.8. The new version has to be stopped down to f4 or beyond to overtake the zoom in the corners (that's what the technical charts say, anyway) is the second version worse than the first version?
of course, the 50mm perfom very close to 24 70 at F9, everything in focus, not talking about a macro, a regular landmark per example.. 1.8 is actually very shallow, need like 2.5, and 24 70 at 3.5.. it depends on the distance we are too, we all know that
4538
« on: February 22, 2012, 10:33 »
if we are going this way, I would say 50mm F1.8 and you will get the greatest pics for stock/other for 100 euros how can we say a 1400 eur like 24 70 isnt good enough
4540
« on: February 22, 2012, 09:35 »
If there's a misuse issue, you might have problems establishing which site the image was bought from, but as far as I can see, the agencies don't give you that much support on these issues anyway.
misuse? hell with that
imagine a top contributor like Sean perhaps, it is impossible to track an EL unless you have only 1 per pic, if more it become quite hard no? IS will track them?
I was thinking more of if a buyer used an image in a way contrary to the terms and conditions, maybe in a way that made your model threaten you ...
I see, had that in mind too, I believe if we are doing any "sexy" pics we kind of ask for it (yep not allowed for porn), sure there is the sensitive use thing too but looking at jools I dont think he even got models for now
4541
« on: February 22, 2012, 09:25 »
it would be a lot more interesting doing month totals but great job anyway
4542
« on: February 22, 2012, 09:08 »
Afternoon all
I have a curious question to you all.
When it comes to Microstock images, if you had 100 images with one particular library such as Dreamstime, would you then put those same 100 images on other sites such as Fotolia; IStockPhoto and Shutterstock?
Do you think this is a bad thing?
If there's a misuse issue, you might have problems establishing which site the image was bought from, but as far as I can see, the agencies don't give you that much support on these issues anyway.
misuse? hell with that imagine a top contributor like Sean perhaps, it is impossible to track an EL unless you have only 1 per pic, if more it become quite hard no? IS will track them? I do remember an EL issue on SS and many contributors got huge EL sales at once, SS "demanded" the buyer to purchase it, it was a few k $
4543
« on: February 22, 2012, 08:53 »
thats microstock, you cannot go anywhere having only 1 agency.
I'm sure Sean will find that advice really helpful.
ahah there is exclusivity possibility too, available on FT, DT, IS.. etc
4544
« on: February 22, 2012, 08:51 »
this app gives totals? only that?
4545
« on: February 22, 2012, 08:44 »
thats microstock, you cannot go anywhere having only 1 agency, go ahead at least top 5
4546
« on: February 22, 2012, 08:17 »
There are the sites (like DepositPhotos) that have enough money to pay to contributors for uploading. And there are others that can't afford it and they prefer pretending sales and that are buying images themselves to make contributors happy. I think that it could be the case of AYCS but I have no problem with it .
perhaps thats the case I dont mind too, so far 69$
4547
« on: February 21, 2012, 22:40 »
not available in Portugal
4548
« on: February 21, 2012, 21:44 »
Robert you have some heavy gear Canon 5D Mark II Canon 7D 430 EX Flash Sigma 50mm 1.4 17-55mm f2.8 USM Canon 100mm f2.8 IS 24-70 70-200 f2.8 L USM 100-400mm 2x teleconverter 4 tripods (1 the gitzo traveler) wow
4549
« on: February 21, 2012, 19:23 »
Luis - no exaggeration...I didn't submit the image to Alamy for a reason...and I cropped it for a reason. The image is currently at Bigstock, Shutterstock, 123RF, and iStock. It was refused at DT.
at F8 it doesnt make much sense but I believe in you.. it would make on cheap sigma 18 200 per example
4550
« on: February 21, 2012, 19:17 »
I can't see your image at 100%...but I'll give you my experience. I'm not sure what brand you shoot, but I shoot Canon and I own the 24-70 f/2.8L. That lens sucks...big time. It's great for editorial and reportage but for creative stock, it's the pits. I'm willing to bet that the "soft and lacking definition" is a result of the lens being soft in the corners. Take a look at the image at 100% and look at all four corners. Is it soft? Is it in focus?
I have an image submitted on the microstock agencies of a wind farm. I couldn't submit the image to the traditional agencies I work with because all four corners were soft. I cropped it to a smaller size and submitted it to the micros (that allow for smaller image sizes) and it has done very well.
That's my experience.
what F you playing with? at F3.5 I dont see any soft corners, its not a sigma... talking about the Nikon 24-70
My particular image was shot at f/8 at 50mm. It's the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. I had to crop down to 8.7 megapixel to crop out the corners in order to get it into Shutterstock and other agencies. Last month, I got a $28 EL out of it at Shutterstock...I count it as a blessing because it almost ended up getting deleted. I am very interested in the second version of the lens due out in April.
arent you exaggerating? perhaps it would be approved
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
