|
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 - Adeptris
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26
501
« on: September 18, 2008, 06:24 »
Maybe her dad died and left her $12,000,000 and she needs your help, to get it out of her country 
502
« on: September 18, 2008, 06:22 »
Yeah it is a great insight as to how buyers search, not all buyers are part of measures only some selected buyers and the Alamy research team view and add to lightboxes which they sent to customers, these are not recorded.
The column that is missing is the number of images returned by a search, this is not views, they are related to the number of pages the buyer looked at, often over 100 pages at 102 thumbnails.
But for research it can be of use, look at the low views and then do a proper search.
Another thing Microsite contributors will need to factor in is that 76% of sales are editorial, and 78% RM images, but this is not so relevent as RM is often cheaper than RF.
David
503
« on: September 16, 2008, 11:40 »
Loads of young people in the UK use the word "Yay!" and saying like "that image is bad" which means "good photograph",when my daughter said she "got off" with someone and I flipped, she explained it meant "kissed or sucked face", but it had another meaning when I was a teenager in the 60's, Yay has just replaced some words like wow, it may have its origin's elsewhere but it is better know as a positive! It is also used on a lot of microstock forums when someone gets a payout, "I got a payout, yay! thanks Yay" unless they are saying "I have reached a payout now I can buy some coke", but then "coke" is a soft drink, and then "Charlie" is my grandson that was not named after a drug? Maybe Yay realise that the world is bigger, and not all buyers will be familiar with local slang. But it is not as bad as PhotoShelters campaign "Shoot the Day", and how the "face of stock was going to change with STD!"  , now that was not to well thought out! David
504
« on: September 16, 2008, 06:39 »
It's important to keep in mind that most magazine use is editorial and the magazines like to have RM images so that they can be assured that the images they use don't show up in their competitors publication in the same month.
Eric: with Alamy another factor is the price point, unlike commercial as you say a lot of usage is editorial, but often are just spot image size for a single publication, these do not need the higher cost of a RF licence for a single run use, as the price of RF in these cases is higher than RM, so they get to use the RM image for one run at a lower price point, and will pay for second use if they need to use it again in the future. Over at Alamy the "Average image price" in the last quarter was RM=$147 and RF=$225, the RM values change between Editorial $116 and Commercial $383, as you can see it could be more price point than an RM vs RF licence issue, as we often see a same front page lead image. Alamy percentage of image sales RF = 22% to RM = 78% Alamy percentage of image sales Commercial = 27% to Editorial = 73% David
505
« on: September 11, 2008, 14:16 »
"4. A crowd-source model for stock will likely never work
Licensing a photo is not a simple proposition. It is not like selling a widget. There are huge intellectual property issues, technical issues, and meta data issues that are difficult for even full-time pros to grasp. Companies that represent collections of stock photography have to build entire divisions of staff to deal with rights clearances and lawsuit that arise from improper clearance."
A bit sudden, I wonder if they had thier fingers burnt with an image they supplied, they had good points but the Shoot the Day which was going to "change the face of stock photography" only had 3000+ photographers sign up, many of them had images turned down so it did not do what it was meant to, I quite liked the forum and the feel of the site, but all the hype was just hot air, oh well never mind! David
506
« on: September 08, 2008, 04:30 »
maybe I'll delete all my landscapes and editorials from micros on different sites? right?
That is your call, selling stock is not a "instant gratification" business, so just make a plan and give yourself plenty of time do not expect instant results, take down a few or better still offer similars first. Try researching Alamy's content and offer sharp quality images, you will have to learn how to prepare and resize an image for Alamy, there is plenty of advice on Alamy and thier forums for this, they only reject on image quality not content as they expect you to only upload images that you have self edited, I have had 1 rejection on Alamy. PhotoShelter is a new site so sales are picking up there, but they do want specific content, again research on what is getting accepted, and expect some rejections that you cannot understand as they are a subjective edited site, I have had 33% rejected there, also if the same image is found on sale for <$50 on another site your account could be closed. If your images are selling on the microsites leave them there and upload different style images to use the macrosite as another avenue of revenue. David
507
« on: September 08, 2008, 03:22 »
I agree Leaf, I am not defending or promoting one over the other. as a 12000+ image on Istock is by no means average but as rare as a $8000 download on Mid-stock, there are only 5 images on Istock that have 8000+ downloads, and the top 15 images range from 6000 - 12000 downloads. You often read posts about which is more profitable, RM vs RF, Micro vs Trad, but it all depends on if your images are saleable and fit the content of the agencies you upload to. I understand that this quote means, "Don't put the same images on both", which I fully support, but there is a market on both for similar images, so being open minded and not tied into one is not a bad move! Don't you think buyers are smart enough to look for the cheapest option?
I was just pointing out that there may be cheaper options, but that does not mean that buyers take them, as often they are tied to where they can download by association and accounts, but if they find the same image on trad and micro you will likely loose a sale or have a 30 day refund. David
509
« on: September 08, 2008, 02:55 »
Research and look at the type of Images on the Mid-Stock sites, you may well have some on your harddrive that at the time you thought would not be accepted for microstock that may fit in on mid-stock.
If we take Alamy as an example you should not upload as RM anything that has had sales as RF and Alamy sales statistics show that 75% of the sales there are RM and also 75% of sales are editorial.
You also may have some suitable images in you micro portfolio with no sales that you could pull from all sites to try on mid-stock.
But if you do not have time to create another portfolio then you likely do not have the time to research the mid-stock agencies and what sell there, you will only get out what you are willing to put in, so it looks like nothing!
David
510
« on: September 03, 2008, 02:52 »
Nice survey, with some things I find amusing.
Photos wanted, cars/trucks/auto parts, which when we take get refused for trademark issues.
Look at this from another perspective, that could be just the reason the Buyers want them, as the Microsites have to manage risk more than the traditional sites, the reason is quite simple the "Buyers", the world and thier mum can buy a few credits for little dollars from a microsites and use these to licence and download an image, and belive it is theirs to use how they want, prints, presentations, website, flyers, collages etc:, I mean does Joe public ever reads the T&C's, so the mocrosites have to be very strict over copyright infringement content, as they are unsure of how the iamge may be used and how aware the buyer really is. Now the traditional sites have mainly professional account customers, many editorial customers as well as commercial, so for editorial the "Nike tick" on a trainer is not an issue or used in a travel context, the editors and designers will know what for and how they can use an image, and they also have checks and balances in place to protect the client, thier job and themself, so the risk management is less for these traditional sites. David
511
« on: September 01, 2008, 14:55 »
They sent everyone an email last week and were down Sunday for a few hours to add a new buyer feature, read about it in thier blog.
David
512
« on: August 29, 2008, 02:37 »
Where it says: Failed QC - Resubmit Media Click on the Failed QC and it will take you to the list of images and you will see a short text as to what failed. A couple of more steps, lets say the error was 'Noticable Retouching', click on the wording and it will take you to a list, click on the phrase and you will see an example View the Image then make a call to Fix or Trash David 
513
« on: August 27, 2008, 14:23 »
Isn't this a pay for storage site? I need a place to market some vintage motor sports images but am hesitant to pay to upload.
Warren, PhotoShelter has two interfaces, the Collection which is a Macrosite where you can upload specific images, they just like the microsites review (Edit) the images, if they are accepted then you can price them RF or RM for sale this service like other sites is free, no images in the collection are allowed to be on a microsite. The second interface is as you say where you pay for space I have this as well $35 a month but there are cheaper options, and they have some features that allow you to offer your images for download sale or print, you set the price and drive your own traffic to the gallery, they can take care of the sale for a 10% fee, and the money goes straight to your paypal and they invoice you. This is my Personal Sales Archive, linked from another website, you can use CSS to modify the look but I have not got that far yet: http://pa.photoshelter.com/usr-show/U0000hocWAXVho_YThey are trying hard, started to report some sales one photographer getting $8000 for a single image, I know of another $6000 from two images, but most are a couple of hundred dollars: http://blog.photoshelter.com/school/2008/08/how-ryan-cardone-sold-an-image.htmlThey have a "School of Stock" and lots of information on what to shoot, based on buyers feedback, and just this week they have started selling limited edition prints, with a 50/50 split. Will they be here in a couple of years, who knows but it is worth a go! David!
514
« on: August 21, 2008, 07:29 »
Richard
If the Image is on other sites as RM, should not the photographer add restrictions on the other sites, for the same image and useage?
David
515
« on: August 19, 2008, 10:44 »
He uses paper, a nine-foot wide roll of paper (a bit less than 3m). Such a roll of paper does not lend itself to portability if you have to set up your equipment "somewhere else." This is something that I need to do from time to time.
Why not just have both, paper is good for a static location and if you are in an environment where dirt will get transfered to the trailing background like a converted garage and then you just waste the last 2 metres on each shoot. I have two supermarket budget ($14 Each) kingsize "Flat White Bed Sheets" sewn together, nice and cheap fold away and transportable fit on the background frame well, if I am shooting at my daughters then I take the portable stands in the car trunk, and we iron the sheets before use, and they are affordable in different colors as well. David 
516
« on: August 19, 2008, 10:12 »
...In any case, because of the search bias towards images (and/or contributors) that have already sold on most sites it is extremely difficult for a new contributor today to "break in" and start making lots of money. The best way to get your images noticed is to market them in some fashion yourself. Drive traffic to them in whatever way you can or are willing.
It is hard for new contributors but not impossible. Look at best selling contributors on istock and some of them haven't been there very long.
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=91126
For example, I found this persons portfolio today. They joined June last year and have uploaded 309 photos and have had 35,643 downloads.
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2051513
Looks like they were lucky and have been part of a promotion of some sort, image of blue sky and clouds with 11000 views in a year, thats about 30 views a day??
517
« on: July 28, 2008, 07:29 »
Simple really don't fill it in and they will withold 30% of your 70% cut when they pay you, it will not be $0.25 and if you are happy with that no problem, however if you do have a sale, you can fill it in and if your country has an agreement with the US then they will not withold tax or withold a different percentage, and you will then pay your local tax.
That is the way it works in the US, and it is not optional.
David (UK)
518
« on: July 26, 2008, 01:33 »
As has already been mentioned, the 5D is probably the ultimate microstock camera. 12.8mp gets you the very high resolution credit sales, and it is a full format camera. That means great sharpness, wonderful color differential and saturation, and some great wide angle shots if you have the right lens.
Thanks Dan, that helps me make up my mind, I have a 400D and I am currently looking at which upgrade path, 40D or 5D, I read that some lens do not work as well on the 5D, and it does not have the self lens cleaning so images can suffer from dust so I was leaning to smaller steps and the 40D, but now I am thinking 5D and differently.
David
519
« on: July 24, 2008, 16:24 »
It is a two pronged attack, firstly I.M.H.O. Getty are not interested in the images, they would not licence an image that has been on flickr and might be blogged or downloaded via the flickr API, which does not filter images with the photographers "Licence" preferences.
So what is it about, Firstly the deal excludes contributors from linking to other stock agencies, there has always been a non commercial clause, but photographers have worked around this, now things may get harder, lets see what happens to some of the groups that link back to stocksites.
Second they may cream a few of the photographers from Flickr, any professionals that use Flickr as a showcase will already have sites and may not be interested, and many others will not have equipment that Getty accept, so that may leave very few photographers at a standard for Getty to pick up.
So it is likely more about restricting Flickr from marketing or making links with other stock sites that compete with Getty or Istock, or creating thier own ecommerece, if you read the details what Flickr get from the deal remains "undisclosed", so is it a smoke screen about finding new images or restricting the use of Flickr for non getty photographers and other stock sites?
David
520
« on: July 24, 2008, 05:47 »
i had that trouble with upsizing, so after my first rejection, i stop trying to upsize for Alamy, as i do see a loss of clarity and detail when i do with with PS.
obviously, if i can see the poorer quality, so will Alamy. so i've sort of given up on Alamy, for now, at least.
until i find a way to upsize properly.
I have lots of jpg images shot with standard glass and a Canon 300D 6.0mp, I restrict myself to a limited non" Arty" workflow, I open the original off the camera jpg, I then look at how sharp the image is, if it is not "Pin Sharp" reject it, then look for no artifacts, no fringing, good composition and no heavy shadows, if it passes all these the only adjustments I do in PhotoShop are levels, then I use Genuine Fractals to upsize, 5100 on the longest side, title and keyword from FileInfo, save as Jpg quality 12 to a different folder, and then upload the same image to Alamy and sometimes PSC. Alamy 1 rejection, Photoshelter 25% rejected for similars. David (It's as easy as that, if I can do it anyone can)
521
« on: July 24, 2008, 05:36 »
So basically all the new contributors have to take the punch for the garbage their current contributors put on the site.
Sounds courageous.
Not if new users and current users meet the QC requirements, if you read the blog it says it will only apply to persistant offenders, if you put up a batch of 20 images, and you get a rejection and you just delete the one failed image without looking at the rest in the hope that repeat submissions will weed out the bad images for you, and 4 attempts later they get accepted, or you just put the rejected image in another batch and hope it will sneek in, then you will be penalised, if you self edit and look at the rejected image find any other in the batch and future batches with the same problem, do not upload them then there will be no problem. Alamy only look at a few from each batch and rely on the photographer to "be professional and edit thier own work, and submit good images", it is nice to be treated this way rather than "Big brother" having someone judge your work and rejected an image on an opinion, after you have been selective already. I think some of this comes from forums where rejections are greeted with "Just upload then to Alamy, they will take anything", or "I will just upload my rejects to Alamy", I have seen these type of comments a few times. David
523
« on: July 23, 2008, 14:12 »
I do my own QC and subjective selection, a lot of others don't this is what kills the Queue times, I upload only about 2% - 5% of any shoot sometimes none, after checking quality for sharpness and no artifacts, then the content, and for no heavy shadows or over cropping, and the adjustments only slight levels. I prefer Alamy, 48 Hours if none fail QC on quality, one fails they all fail, so you can have images live in 3 days, instead of in a queue for 9 days and someone subjectivly edits your image content. Alamy have just added a new rule for persistant QC failures, a 30 day upload lock out, I have only had 1 QC rejection from Alamy. Yet I have a 25% subjective rejections at Photoshelter and the usual scenario is them accepting 2 from a set of three after a 12 day wait, this has happened several times, I have had one soft rejection because I did not put the location in the caption, fixed this and re-submitted so that would be 24 days from upload to the gallery. I think all sites should have a fast track system based on your acceptance percentage, the worse you are the longer you wait. An Image in a queue for two weeks sitting behind a lot of images from percentage photographers that upload lots and hope to get a few through QC, earns no $$, so no I do not like! David
524
« on: July 21, 2008, 16:11 »
LMAO he forgot to put his referral link in the first post and had to come back again.
And he could have used the [Modify] and [Save] buttons to update his first post, I might try the link then maybe I could afford to squat in his barn conversion on $1200 a year, (as a UK IT contractor that is less than 2 days wages, or 1 months rent for a social housing room) David
525
« on: July 19, 2008, 00:01 »
I am thinking of a photographing plain backgrounds from different views, so it can be used to drop cut-outs on.  Here is a 100% Sample.... What a cool shot, bet it becomes a best seller! Failing that have a look at the PhotoShelter research here, there are links on the right with more Ideas! http://blog.photoshelter.com/school/2008/06/buyer-survey-2008.htmlYou may get a few Idea's from this forum, but your own research is the best tool, look at trends and the mood of the people, people are expecting an economic down turn, this will make them insecure what makes them feel better, they start to hang on to thoughts of better times, maybe there will be a small move to domestic holidays, prices are rising so homemaking, evenings in, home activities, bar-b-que, playing board games, cheep activities and home cooking, nostalgic images things that remind you of better times, things that keep you in a comfort zone, then look at the stable selling images and if you can make these more friendly, less cheesy smiles and less looking straight at the camera, more natural confortable non isolated images. The reports from toy buyers on what will sell this Christmas are reworked nostalgic toys, so think in these terms for your christmas images, traditional and warm family sentric, so a child playing with a traditional game with it's siblings, rather than sitting on the floor playing on the Wii console, you are looking for the parents comfort zones not the childs, so images that may remind them of thier own childhood christmas, rather than ones that add consumer pressure. Or you could just isolate a business handshake  David
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
