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 - CJPhoto
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 41
501
« on: December 07, 2006, 09:55 »
Apparently you can search and sort but them but I dont know how (not that I need to - I am only a photog).
I think with istocks new tags, this will become less important and will eventually die. If Getty doesn't need it, why does istock. My opinion only.
502
« on: December 07, 2006, 07:19 »
The preferential treatment in teh best match search has apparently ended (it only lasted a weekend). though the ratings gangs still get preference (you need a 5 star rating to be best match).
Getting to exclusive isn't a major - if you upload 15 per week, I would expect you would get their easily in a year. Get to diamond where it makes sense to be exclusive is a whole different matter.
Do a search on disambiguation or look on the istock forum. Basically, they have taken you keywords and assigned tags to them. ie orange can be orange (colour), orange (fruit) or you can tick both. However, the computer obviously doens't know which so it made a guess. when you disambiguate, you correct the computers errror.
503
« on: December 06, 2006, 10:32 »
I just uplaoded a few more last night. Definately one of the slowest processes, especially when my flatmate was using a lot of the upstream bandwidth. lets see how many get accepted. I have had 2 BEM in a row so I thought it might be time to start getting a few more up there, expecially with the price rise next month.
504
« on: December 06, 2006, 07:01 »
 Which macro doesn't own a micro (Getty, Corbus and Jupiter already do)
505
« on: December 05, 2006, 11:52 »
So how much will a credit be worth. Surely they aren't going to have multiple prices depending on the level of discount you received (like 123rf does), surely it will just be new credit 24c, old credit 20c, really old credit 10c.
I also assume the free vox uploads will only be for the new x-small price.
506
« on: December 03, 2006, 16:27 »
I had a BEM for the second month in a row (from a small base though).
Not really sure what they are playing at. Exclusives are good but if you dont have the same images everyone else has, some people will start shopping around.
507
« on: November 25, 2006, 16:03 »
I have updated to IE7 and can no longer get into fotolia. Anyone else had this issue?
508
« on: November 25, 2006, 16:02 »
yingyang - for old members inst the limit 2mp and it is only 4mp for new people (since about 2 months ago). imagine buying an upsized 2mp image.
509
« on: November 24, 2006, 11:49 »
As English is not my first language, I maybe get it wrong, but for me, 123rf release says that the model accept to be subject to scandal and that they allowed 123rf customers to attempt to their dignity... right? You have it back to front (I hope). What the MR says is that the photo can NOT be use in a sitation that will ... scandal, dignity .... What SS does is give examples that make create scandal or affect someones dignity ans says that those are unacceptable uses.
510
« on: November 24, 2006, 07:53 »
I cant remember where I read it but I think the views numbers are misleading as they were excluding the crawlers from Google etc.
That is a good number of Dl from a new site.
511
« on: November 24, 2006, 04:22 »
I thought fotolia was for 5 years.
iStock do referreals for buyers and also for footage ($1 for each footage uploaded).
Referrals can be worthwhile but only if you get the right person. I have lots of referrees at SS but most haven't been accepted to submit photos.
512
« on: November 24, 2006, 04:19 »
SS are my biggest earner and they only pay 25c regardless of size (thats why i only ever send them 4 mp)
Do you think you limit your chance of a sale (and future sales) by only havnig 4mp pics. A designer might like it but not buy as it is small.
513
« on: November 23, 2006, 07:41 »
See edit re 123rf - I had an El which mess up last months %.
514
« on: November 23, 2006, 07:38 »
Very non scientific but if the person on the street cannot see the difference, and they are the ones that will be viewing the photo, brochere, billboard etc, does it matter.
there are issues re whether his 5mp output is the same as what a 5mp camera would have delivered (or even a 13mp camera set to a lower resolution) but I dont think you need to up-rez. The up-rez is being done by the photo lab (via lower dpi I assume).
515
« on: November 23, 2006, 06:35 »
Stolen from another forum: I thought it was interesting so here is the article from NY times tech writer Pogue: (link, http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/ ) BTW, test were all done with same camera but printed at different resolutons (down rezzed from native 13 MP) - Will
The Truth About Digital Cameras
. . . Actually, Ill tell you about one thing right now. We did an episode on digital cameras. Part of the fun involved visiting a couple of big electronics stores, posing as somebody who didnt know much about cameras, and, later, commenting on what they told me.
The clerks at one store recognized me. The guy at the other store had no clue that Im a tech writer. Both of them were surprisingly frank, pointing out, for example, that five megapixels is plenty for prints up to smallish poster size.
Now, every time I write that, I hear from furious or baffled readers. I dont get it, wrote one. A ten-megapixel camera produces photos about 3640 pixels wideenough to make a 12-inch print at 300 dpi (dots per inch) on a good printer. Sure, you can go lower, but quality is sacrificed; you cant make an 1114 print, let alone anything bigger.
I have to say, the math sounds right. But I also have to say that hes wrong.
On the show, we did a test. We blew up a photograph to 16 x 24 inches at a professional photo lab. One print had 13-megapixel resolution; one had 8; the third had 5. Same exact photo, down-rezzed twice, all three printed at the same poster size. I wanted to hang them all on a wall in Times Square and challenge passersby to see if they could tell the difference.
Even the technician at the photo lab told me that I was crazy, that thered be a huge difference between 5 megapixels and 13.
Anyway, we ran the test for about 45 minutes. Dozens of people stopped to take the test; a little crowd gathered. About 95 percent of the volunteers gave up, announcing that there was no possible way to tell the difference, even when mashing their faces right up against the prints. A handful of them attempted guessesbut were wrong. Only one person correctly ranked the prints in megapixel order, although (a) she was a photography professor, and (b) I believe she just got lucky.
Im telling you, there was NO DIFFERENCE.
This post is going to get a lot of people riled up, I know, because in THEORY, you should be able to see a difference. But you cant.
And Im hoping this little test can save you some bucks the next time youre shopping for a camera.
516
« on: November 23, 2006, 04:36 »
These are the sites I submit to and the % earnings from them:
20% shutterstock (BEST EVER MONTH - BEM) 17% dreamtime (2nd BEM) 9% Fotolia (BEM) 13% istockphoto (BEM) 4% bigstockphoto 25% 123RF (BEM) 7% StockXpert 1% Featurepics 2% Canstock 1% Galastock 1% LuckyOliver
[edit - 123rf did well because of an EL and due to my small portfoio size - this had a major effect. It would normall be around 5-7% with the rest split amount the others]
Fearturepics had a bad month and due to their high % payout, I recommend people support them as it would be great if they took off.(not even a referal link as I cant be bothered). the others dont seem to be worth it at this stage. Only one sale at LO and none at GS this month.
517
« on: November 23, 2006, 04:31 »
I can say with about 90% certainty that Jon Phillips (one of the partners) didnt make that post as he is out of the country at the moment. As if being out of the country makes a difference. I have posted from many hotel lobbies and I think Fintastic was a roving photographer for a while too.
518
« on: November 22, 2006, 11:08 »
In theory what iStock provides for their higher commision is higher marketing. Considering they are 1 or 2 on peoles lists, this is probably try.
519
« on: November 22, 2006, 08:58 »
I have hit my monthly average already but not my best ever month. The amounts are small though so a few sales either way can effect this. Most sales are now for $1 which is good (and interesting).
Pixelbrat - I thing it is fair that they have your image hostage for 90 days. You have used their bandwidth to upload, had the image reviewed and put it on their server. This all costs them money. They dont charge you for this (not that anyone would pay) but in return, ask for the commision for a minimum of 90 days. I dont "sell the rights" at DT but if I did, I would probably have to make the same move you are making.
520
« on: November 21, 2006, 09:01 »
Each company potentially processes the images in different ways, so to download the same image from different sites would make lots of sense.  ?? why  ?? I like the image but there is something a bit harsh about it. The lines aren't going in the right direction or something?
521
« on: November 21, 2006, 08:29 »
From another thread: Maybe out of topic, maybe useful, but I think you shold notice this: Web Rank by Alexa.com Daily reach per million (averages by myself... in alexa there are graphs my months) IS 1800 DT 450 SS 400 FT 220 BS 220
Please keep in mind these are averages by myself and they are only orientative, just to notice IS has four times visitors than DT and SS, and DT and SS have two times visitors than FT and BS. Questions: who has an alexa bar and contributes to these surveys. If so, and you have more than one computer (work and home) is it on both? Just one? which one? I have a Google bar are work but does anyones work not allow the use of task bars (technically my work doesn't allow but they are lax unless there is an issue).
522
« on: November 21, 2006, 08:26 »
i don't really see the problem with the fact that alexa only measures the hits for people with their search bar. it still accuratly shows the visits on one site in relation to another site. Agree but, business are less likely to use an alexa bar (maybe i am wrong) so this is skewed towards individuals (submitters??). Sampling is fine but does the use of the alexa bar make it a random sample or does it favour certain demographics (ie is it more of a US thing? is it more individuals rather than corporates etc). Will start a new thread.
523
« on: November 21, 2006, 07:07 »
The problem with Alexa ratings are:
1. they only survey people who have their search bar. 2. they include photographers as well. Not sure if they count unique hits but if someone goes to the site 5 times a day to check there stats, is that one hit or 5?
Interesting none the less.
524
« on: November 20, 2006, 09:49 »
I dont think that is a factor.
My guess is it is based on their business plan. Work out what costs are then figure out what you can pay suppliers. SS increased their payout to 25c (from 20c) - you would expect this as overheads get spread over more sales. I think istock hasn't updated theirs as they dont have to but it maybe becasue they spend more on marketing (hence more sales).
525
« on: November 20, 2006, 08:23 »
They are still there.
I keep checking that I have no sales for the month. No sales for Luckioliver either this month. Had a few sales at Canstock which I have forgotton about and not uploaded for about 4 months.
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 41
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|