|
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
4801
« on: July 07, 2009, 05:42 »
It is something I've been meaning to do but I haven't got the kit to do it the way I'd want to (I need the rather expensive Canon WFT-E2 transmitter).
I shoot a lot of food and I sometimes find that a harsh reflection or shadow, not noticeable at LCD screen size, only becomes apparent when I view the images on my PC. I think shooting tethered would probably produce better images with fewer messed-up shoots.
4802
« on: July 07, 2009, 05:28 »
you should take care of:
low contrast
poor light
dull colors
Exactly. Also there are several images with obvious dirt/debris. Not bothering to clone stuff like that out is just sloppy work __ if you don't do it then any buyers will probably have to. As they say "stock imagery is largely about portraying the world as we'd like it to be, not how it actually is". Nowadays FT are also very reluctant to accept images of buildings without property releases too. Those images could have been rejected quite legitimately for any of several different reasons. They are simply not quality stock. I'm actually quite surprised that any agency would continue to permit uploads from any contributor with an acceptance ratio of 25% or anything like it. The cost of dealing with such individuals must be hugely disproportionate in comparison with professional contributors who'd certainly expect to maintain 80% as a minimum __ and you can bet that it is the latter who generate the vast majority of sales too.
4803
« on: July 06, 2009, 05:09 »
That's a good idea __ I will try it out to see what happens.
In reality I usually buy the card one below the very latest model, Sandisk III rather than Sandisk IV for example. I assume I'm getting most of the performance for a lot less money.
I only rarely shoot high-speed sports, etc and have always assumed that the main limitation is the camera's own processing speed rather than the card itself. I note that when Canon specify the camera's capability of 9 fps or whatever they never add a clause "when used with such and such type of card".
4804
« on: July 06, 2009, 04:46 »
I used to 'always use Sandisk' until I realised that the last two 4GB cards I'd bought from eBay were actually fake! By that time I'd used them hundreds of times without any problems over about 18 months.
I'm actually fairly sceptical that the supposed differences in performance are worth the money. They all seem to be the same to me. There's no moving parts (other than electrons) and they are probably all manufactured in a very small number of plants worldwide. You may be surprised to know that there are only two plants that produce all the world's ethylene glycol (antifreeze) and it's the same with granular salt (for your dishwasher).
Currently my main cards are 3 x 8GB, one Sandisk and two Kingston.
4805
« on: July 02, 2009, 19:02 »
No one said it was the smartest business model...
Sean, are you saying that you have yet to turn a profit? 
Some people use every chance they can get to put down others.
Sounded more like a tongue-in-cheek, joking remark than a serious put down to me. 
Of course it was. Stockmania __ maybe you're not aware but Sean is undoubtedly the most helpful and generous 'Black Diamond' level contributor (or anything close to it) on the planet. As someone on another forum observed "I'm sure there must be three of him just to have the time to do what he does". Check out the IS 'Help' forum __ Sean doesn't go there to learn I can assure you!
4806
« on: July 02, 2009, 18:49 »
No because if they were rejected, they most likely aren't any good.
what utter garbage
Yup, that has to be the single most idiotic statement I have ever read on these boards, bar none.
really? then either you can't read very well or you haven't been on the forum lately. however worthless your opinion actually is, i'm glad that that there is a place that you can write it
perhaps that there are rejections for files on every site even though the file might have some value, however, IN MY EXPERIENCE (to satisfy those idiots here who hate when people try to generalize or will interpret everything as a generalization) my rejected files on ISTOCK, apart from technical blunders, have been files that were not good and I've moved on...i'm not going to be some whiny bitch about that stuff anymore... and if you really think your precious files are all that, then re-submit again and see what happens
i would say something about artifacting rejections and them disappearing, but i would have to prove through calculus and some derivative formulas to some people here that this is the case. Or perhaps I've become technically awesome...who knows...
I do know that if it wasn't for me being bored at work, I would probably never come to this forum anymore because its a far cry from where it was when I joined up many years ago, and thats disappointing.
In case you hadn't noticed, your opinions and absurd generalisations appear to generate almost unanimous derison and hostility. Maybe the problem is not with everyone else, as you seem to think, but possibly with that bloke you see in your mirror?
4807
« on: July 01, 2009, 18:53 »
Maybe I'm wrong then ... Well, that would follow a regular and consistent pattern to date. Maybe you could try basing your future 'findings' on some actual, real, genuine data rather than just the ridiculous musings that seem to be generated adhock in your head without any basis on fact.
4808
« on: July 01, 2009, 15:21 »
Nearly a BME for me __ one more day would have done it.
Stat's as follows (with June 2008);
IS - 39.6 (32.9)
SS - 27.9 (30)
FT - 14.1 (12.6)
DT - 11.4 (11.9)
StockXpert - 4.3 (9)
BigStock - 1.8 (3.7)
Unfortunately StockXpert and BigStock have fallen off a cliff since last year.
4809
« on: June 30, 2009, 16:53 »
^^^ Great post click-click! Take a heart.
4810
« on: June 29, 2009, 19:15 »
I'm not saying its for everyone, but if you are a diamond contributor, you most likely know what you are doing, so you won't lose that much.
And the time you save and the aggrevation you save is priceless
Utter nonsense __ as usual!
4811
« on: June 28, 2009, 16:48 »
As an independent contributor I'd be delighted if you chose exclusivity __ makes my life so much easier everywhere else!
I would warn you though that it's a easy road to travel down but much more difficult and costly to reverse. Apart from all the re-uploading you'd be back at the bottom rankings on commissions at SS & FT and Level 1 for all your images at DT. What a horrible thought.
FT, for all their many faults, appear to be the most aggressive and fastest growing agency out there. They've come from virtually nowhere to being the 3rd biggest agency in little more than three years. With the newly-recruited management team and the rumoured vast funding it doesn't look like they're happy to sit there either. I reckon they'll be up there jostling for position with IS before too long.
4812
« on: June 27, 2009, 19:15 »
The one thing you have total control over is the setting of goals, these goals should be small manageble milestones, and at any point you should be able to be realistic and adjust these as you need to without losing sight of the end game or feeling bad, you have already pointed out that many factors are out of your control, so concentrate and set goals on the ones that are within your control and you may feel better.
This is a general observation and not aimed at anybody specific, but you will see it every day, "I have just been accepted and I will have xxxx number of images online and be earning $xxx by the end of the year", this ends with the photographer aiming for their 'goal' by not preparing the assets correctly and taking a chance on uploading so-so images hoping they get through, feeling upset at rejections and the so-so images not getting views, zooms or sales, so the photographer then blames everyone else.
By not setting one distant goal, but many manageable ones the photographer could feel a lot better about things, by setting small goals, like being self paced and not worrying how others that started the same time are doing, prepare one or two images a day, only upload a maximum of 10 a week for six months, seek advice on rejections and adjust the workflow, review these goals once a month, so if the acceptance rate is falling or low, just add or change a goal to address this, by cutting the 10 uploads a week to 5 and looking at the content or workflow more.
what is more likely to bring in revenue uploading a target of 20 images by including so-so images, or uploading 5-10 fewer but more stock worthy images.
Many are seduced by the "earn money from them snaps" marketing scams, and come along and think an online business can be built in a few weeks, but there is a steep learning curve they are unaware of and many hurdles, but all these are manageable by taking one step at a time and each hurdle when you reach it, and setting many small manageable goals.
That's quality advice David. Take a heart.
4813
« on: June 27, 2009, 13:13 »
I think you should hold off new uploads for now __ and so should everyone else too. I will write again when it is safe to carry on.
Seriously __ what summer slowdown? I'm on target for a BME thanks to projected record months at both IS and SS. FT are steady although DT, StockXpert & BigStock are down a bit.
According to my stat's July should be a bit better than June, followed by a minor slump in August and then growth in Sept/Oct.
4814
« on: June 26, 2009, 16:14 »
It's fixed now!
4815
« on: June 26, 2009, 06:38 »
It's always the same. Every time we have a recession 'the rules' change permanently, not temporarily.
I remember having a conversation with a supplier in the early 90's. I asked him how he was coping with the recession. "What recession?" he said glumly "This is how it is now". He was right too.
4816
« on: June 26, 2009, 05:56 »
I seems to be acceptable policy for istock admins to unsolicedly discuss members account information, in the past 24 hours I also saw Rob bringing up a buyers purchasing details in open forum too. Coming from the UK where we have strong data protection laws I'm surprised.
I'd agree and I was thinking the same. Both forums have the facility to PM the individual too so the communication could have been more discreet. In both instances the Admin's were using private information (some of which was inaccurate) to openly question the validity of a statement. I was amazed when it was used against a good customer complaining about the price increase!
4817
« on: June 25, 2009, 14:58 »
In my experience most professionals in most fields keep themselves up to date with trade and industry journals. It is unprofessional not to
No it isn't.
Hmm __ would you want your doctor to be aware of the latest thinking or medical advances? Would you want your architect to be up to date on the latest planning or building regulations, etc, etc?
I don't buy photo magazines.
Good. That gives a competitive advantage to those of us who do.
4818
« on: June 25, 2009, 14:12 »
.... so I have to suspect the woman interviewed was doing the same - trying to appear helpful while not actually sharing any information of substance.
Good point. I don't blame or wish to undermine the interviewee either. I just thought, as you rightly pointed out, that the greater article didn't justify it's billing. Not even close.
4819
« on: June 25, 2009, 13:34 »
Except for the part where he calls people with differing opinions ignorant and stupid?
But he (or she) doesn't actually say that __ but hey, don't let's get the truth in the way!
4820
« on: June 25, 2009, 13:26 »
I thought it was a fair question.
In my experience most professionals in most fields keep themselves up to date with trade and industry journals. It is unprofessional not to. What would you recommend a general commercial/stock photographer to read then?
4821
« on: June 25, 2009, 13:17 »
The economy is in fact the main guilty for this situation.
That's because the economy exposes weaknesses in business models. To quote WB "It's only when the tide goes out ... etc" Microstock in my view is in robust good health. My May 2009 was 29.6% up on May 2008 (which itself was 80% up on 2007) and this month is projected to be 35% up on June 2008. What's not to like? Thanks for the post Oldhand. Interesting reading.
4822
« on: June 25, 2009, 13:06 »
^^^ Good answer.
4823
« on: June 25, 2009, 13:05 »
There seems to be a contradiction with the closing statements. Good stock photos as good as fine arts. Then the next breath emphasizes the importance of volume.
To be honest I was very disappointed with the article. Quite frankly it could have been written 5 years or more ago __ for all I know it might have been. Of course the 'expert view' that they've based the article on is herself part of a small specialist macro agency. Maybe she knows relatively little about the wider world and the latest trends or perhaps she just chooses to ignore them. I guess it is hardly in her interests to promote or even acknowledge the impact of microstock on the greater industry. However to describe the article as "the definitive state of stock" almost without mentioning microstock is a pretty feeble attempt to define the industry IMHO.
4824
« on: June 25, 2009, 12:50 »
Does anyone know any 'profesional photographers' who actual buy that magazine? I've seen it at the airport but never in a studio.
I've no idea __ I don't actually go into other photographers' studios. Do you? The couple of top pro's that I do know tend to write for it and other hobbyist-oriented magazines. (NB: Those guys can actually spell 'professional photographer' too). I've been buying it for about 3 years and generally speaking, even as a self-confessed sceptic of most magazines and newspapers, I have found it useful and well worth the price. I've learned quite a bit how pro's who specialise in different fields operate (as well as my own) and the going rate for the work. The reviews and adverts for new equipment are useful too and I've bought quite a bit of stuff as a result __ the latest being Hoya's new 'HD' pro circular polariser which apparently lets in 25% more light than standard and is also 4x more robust. I'm just heading out to Norway/Sweden/Finland so I'll have plenty of opportunity to test it out and compare it to my others! I was particularly grateful to be warned of an impending massive price rise for Canon gear about six months ago __ a combination of the exchange rate between the Yen/Euro (where many expensive components are sourced) and also the plummetting . Bringing forward an equipment purchase by about 3 weeks saved me many years of the subscription price. They've just changed editor though and I'm not sure I like the direction the new bloke is taking it. Fancier layout but less useful and relevant articles to me.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
