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 - gostwyck
4601
« on: September 28, 2009, 16:56 »
I would think that would be an acceptance use for an SL. The buyer of the photo frame is not buying it for the sample image anymore than someone buys a book mainly for the cover. The image itself is not being 'resold' as such.
I bought a new baking dish the other week and, as part of the packaging, it had a large microstock image of fish & chips lining the base of it. Similar to the photo frame it was illustrating the product in use (I guess in case people struggle to understand what a baking dish or a photo frame might be used for).
4602
« on: September 27, 2009, 16:04 »
But what really discourages me is that I was making more money on SS in March - with 20 images - than I am now, with 100.
Well maybe your first 20 images were the most saleable? Your portfolio is still tiny and therefore sales are bound to be less stable than with a portfolio of a few thousand. I'm on target to sell a few more this month than I did in March but during which time my portfolio has grown from about 3100 - 3500. I wouldn't disagree that it is getting tougher though __ much tougher. When you have 90K new images coming on-line every week then there's going to be a lot of competition for sales and only the very best images will get noticed. Quality is becoming everything, volume is pointless unless the quality is there.
4603
« on: September 26, 2009, 19:18 »
Waaaaahhhhhh....
Good point. I hadn't thought of it quite that way __ but it works nonetheless!
4604
« on: September 26, 2009, 18:01 »
Interesting. Thanks for that. Leicaman is correct to some extent in that the obscure stuff hardly exists on microstock but that because it is less easy to get accepted (as in 'Not stock oriented') and if it is then it won't sell in the volumes necessary to make it worthwhile.
If you want to buy a popular new book/CD for example then you'll probably find it cheapest at your local supermarket but if you want something older or more obscure then you'll need to find a specialist shop with more stock but much higher prices to reflect the slower turnover.
I'd imagine the microstock libraries cater extremely well and cost-effectively for 90%+ of all stock image needs.
4605
« on: September 26, 2009, 16:47 »
^^^ Yes obviously, we know this.
It's a tool __ it does the calculations for you to save you having to do them yourself. That's why it's called 'Calculator' rather than 'Magic Number Machine'.
4606
« on: September 26, 2009, 13:13 »
you'll need to read his earlier posts.
Thanks __ my tongue was firmly in my cheek. I was pointing out that he's overstated his case about 45x both here and on the DT forums over the last couple of weeks and yet is still going.
4607
« on: September 26, 2009, 12:55 »
@Traveller111 - Have DT changed their prices or something and has this affected you in some way? Why not tell us all about it?
4608
« on: September 26, 2009, 04:47 »
I see what you mean about Antoniomp. I'd seen him before and wondered how he was getting away with such an absurd amount of 'similars'. Now we know.
There's absolutely no way that I could get 18 images of the same plate of pasta accepted or 21 images of tomatoes stuffed with tuna, etc, etc (not that I'd want to as it is a pointless waste of time). I struggle sometimes just to get a horizontal and vertical version of the same shoot accepted and yet my 'Downloads per image figure' is nearly 20x that of Antoniomp. Hmm.
4609
« on: September 26, 2009, 04:25 »
People, Payoneer is solution...
How can I make that judgement? Payoneer won't let you see what the costs are unless you sign up for an account with them. That always makes me suspicious that they're actually quite expensive and/or you're going to be inundated with spam.
4610
« on: September 25, 2009, 10:07 »
Interesting. Moneybookers appear to have a significantly better exchange rate than Paypal (and it's much easier to find it out too).
4611
« on: September 25, 2009, 09:08 »
20D/40D were classics, the reviews I've read on the 50D haven't been as good. The 20D wasn't a 'classic' __ I though it was expensive rubbish and the worse DLSR I've ever owned. I only reluctantly upgraded to it from my 10D because of the extra pixels but the images were nothing like as good. I was so grateful when they brought out the 5D and I could finally bin it.
4612
« on: September 25, 2009, 09:01 »
gostwyck, B&H has a 5D for $1249.00, used. The description says Item Condition : 9 Shows signs of use, but very clean Additional Comments: IN BOX
Does that sound like a good thing? Also, all my lenses are EF not EF-S, so a change to 5D would work.
Ah, no __ EF-S lenses won't work with the 5D unless they are 'modified'. There's a very good explanation of the issue and how to overcome it here; http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.htmlI'd say $1249 is on the high side for a secondhand 5D but that's because it is from a shop. I'd expect to get a significantly better deal on eBay. There are always lots of hobbyists that must have the latest model so keep selling off their barely-used gear. Maybe one day you could stretch to the 24-70mmL? In my view that lens is made for what I do (very similar to yourself) and probably accounts for 99.5% of all the shots I take. I couldn't be without it. I consider camera bodies to be almost disposable whereas good glass is forever.
4613
« on: September 25, 2009, 08:43 »
I am getting tired of the extremely poor conversion rate that paypal offers between american and other currencies (2.5% goes to Paypal)
Does anyone have any good solutions?
The PayPal rates are actually not as bad as most people assume. They're generally on a par with the banks' commercial rate (which is obviously far better than the tourist rates you'd get on the high street) and there's no 'transaction fee'. If I want to send money via my bank (HSBC) then I'll get their commercial rate but will also have to pay a transaction fee of 25 (about $40) irrespective of the amount. There's always a cost when exchanging/transferring money and most places are significantly more expensive and/or more hassle than PayPal as far as I'm aware.
4614
« on: September 25, 2009, 08:11 »
I haven't tried the 50D Cathy but I think you should seriously consider a second-hand 5D instead which would probably be cheaper.
The 5D is virtually noise-free (much better than my 1Ds MkIII) has a full-frame sensor, only marginally fewer pixels than the 50D and feels lovely in the hand. I really wish I hadn't sold mine when I upgraded.
It would be a massive step-up in quality and crop-ability from your Rebel-XT too.
4615
« on: September 25, 2009, 07:58 »
"Bump"
I've been plugging my numbers into this for nearly a month now and I think it works well.
Thanks for this Yuri __ very useful. It is certainly much easier and probably more accurate than the basic division/multiplication of days that I have been doing up to now.
Cheers!
4616
« on: September 25, 2009, 07:37 »
I'd agree with the Big 4+2 although the way things are going at DT I really wonder how long they'll be classified within the Big 4.
Static sales, ridiculous default sort-order, plummetting RPD (this month lowest since Jul 08) and silly 'too many' rejections do not give me much confidence for the future.
4617
« on: September 23, 2009, 21:18 »
^^^ Must admit it never fails to amaze me how well so many of you non-native English speakers make themselves understood on these forums (most usually with almost impeccable grammar/punctuation). Thus my exasperation with a fellow Englishman __ it must make it even more difficult for you guys.
4618
« on: September 23, 2009, 20:31 »
Agreed, you can emit smoke signals and bonk your head with a stick, as long as it makes general sense, grammar school be damned.
Grammar is not the issue __ it's punctuation. Basic punctuation exists to make the text understandable to the reader. Most six-year olds know how to denote the beginning and the end of a sentence in their native language. Sorry but I'm with Suljo. Writing stuff like that is just plain lazy and inconsiderate to the reader (as well as being one of my pet hates). If you're asking for help then at least try to make it easy for people to understand you.
4619
« on: September 23, 2009, 19:46 »
D
4620
« on: September 23, 2009, 14:26 »
Well, if there is any merging I just hope that DT swallows FT and not the other way around.
No chance of that happening I think. FT are possibly nearly twice the turnover of DT already and the gap is widening on a monthly basis. Also didn't FT recently get a $100M 'investment' too? That's acquisition-sized funding. Thinking about it, if you happened to own an established agency and you wanted to get the best price when selling it, then it would help if you could do something to rapidly boost profits. Of course reducing the commissions paid to contributors would do very nicely if you could get away with it. Hmm.
4621
« on: September 23, 2009, 13:39 »
PLEASE-O-PLEASE import Big Stock Photos upload system into Shutterstocks site!!! Shutterstock uploading is so arcane compared to all the other agencies.
You are joking __ right?
4622
« on: September 23, 2009, 12:20 »
The news is indeed big but I simply can't understand why SS has done that.
With both sites being non-exclusive I don't expect BigStock to add big (if any) value to SS collection.
Speaking about credit-based sales I can't believe that buying an existing established business and integrating it with the SS is any cheaper than to design a piece of interface at SS.
Customer base? But it must be several times smaller in BSB than what SS has...
So what's the catch?
I was going to point out that BigStock already has a decent customer base __ but then, after a quick check of the numbers, I've realised that I actually make 2-3x more per month from OD sales at SS than I do from BigStock. If the OD sales at SS were a seperate agency then they'd already be more than twice the size of BigStock.
4623
« on: September 23, 2009, 10:07 »
What is wrong with BSPs home page? I always thought it one of the best and most informative of all the sites.
-Larry
To me it looks cluttered, ugly and is not particularly intuitive. The sort-order options are simply bizarre too, if a buyer gets that far which I suspect most don't.
4624
« on: September 23, 2009, 09:19 »
What is not good, and I base this in what has happened in the macro market, is too much amalgamation of the big players. It does not serve the photographer well at all.
Good point but I don't think we're at danger levels yet. There are still 4 distinct major players in IS, SS, DT and FT and we also have Veer (Corbis) trying to muscle in on micro too. It's probably only a matter of time before Alamy comes to the party too __ either by choice or the lack of.
4625
« on: September 23, 2009, 08:34 »
Would you sell the rights of one of your photos for $50 commission?
I'd certainly consider it if it were a poor seller. It would depend on who was doing the asking too.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|