|
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 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26
526
« on: July 17, 2008, 06:59 »
Maybe it is due to the credit crunch and talk of recession, looking at other reported trend like nostalgic toys due to make a comeback this year.
So it could be that buyers are looking for different images to meet the "Comfort Feeling" that people are looking for, if the Inspectors have not picked up on this they they could have rejected the images the buyers want.
Maybe the days of the scary, false, isolated and "Cheesy Smile" is numbered and real images with natural real looking people in natural surroundings that you can "relate to" (comfort zone) will become the order of the day?
David
527
« on: July 16, 2008, 13:39 »
Can't you just upload i,ages with keywords and a description? Sounds confusing to me. If I ever get accepted, I'll probably be confused by the system. Being one of the dimest bulbs in the room, I like to keep things simple.
Woul I be better off just forgetting Alamy? I tried twice, but got shot in the head twice.
Just the same as other sites, upload as normal I embed my images with the keywords descriptions etc:, which are picked up, the only difference is I group my images by Pseudonyms, which works best for me, other don't, just use the default. And with Alamy less is more as far as keywords are concerned, the more images get buyers Zooms the higher up the rank you go, and your images move up in the search, so bad keywording means your thumbnails might get onto the page these are called views, but if the image is irrelevent to the buyers search and buyers Zooms are few, this will damage where you are in a search. David
528
« on: July 16, 2008, 13:32 »
Thank you for your response I guess I need to contact support since I created and moved the images on Sunday. Maybe I did something wrong.
Thanks again
Jorge
If you are still getting views on your old Pseudonym, check your "Manage Images" and that the new Pseudonyms you selected for the images when you did your edit have been updated, just to make sure you saved the changes.  David
529
« on: July 16, 2008, 09:07 »
Jorge If you have Created new Pseudonyms and changed your images to reflect these changes, it will likely be 24 hours before the changes are reflected in your measures. I have 11 Pseudonyms and I can see them all from measures, when I moved mine the statistics moves as well, this is to stop people moving images to change the ranking, but remember Alalmy only update once a day. David 
530
« on: July 14, 2008, 06:44 »
If I remember its's the date you signed the release, there is also a "Date of Shoot" under photographer and a "Date of Birth" for a minor (under 18).
david
531
« on: July 14, 2008, 02:29 »
If an article was about domestic rubbish building up due to a change in collections, then an "isolated clean microstock recycle bin" will not sell that story, so if you are shooting with your non editorial head on, you may not think about taking or uploading an image of an overfilled waste bin, so it's just like when you had to "think microstock" and now for Alamy you have to think about editorial and include images that will tell a story as well. As if to give an example for my earlier post, the "Front Page" Lead on one of the National UK Papers today (Monday) is about possible domestic rubbish build up due local authority's changing to once a fortnight collections, other papers are likely to carry the same story over the next couple of days. David
532
« on: July 14, 2008, 02:17 »
Thanks for all your responses. It was just odd that today (albeit a weekend) was the first morning in weeks that I woke up to check that there had been no downloads overnight (usually 4-6). Oddly enough, since posting I've had 3 or 4. So it looks like they haven't completely stopped.
p.s. I never looked at stock, micro or otherwise, as get rich quick. It's growing into a decent supplement though.
ami/gsc
I had the same as Ami, joined SS, uploaded my images, plenty of downloads, stopped uploading and the downloads bottomed right out, I did not think it a good long term prospect so I closed my accounts and I am now with the Macrosites, where the statistics are updated 5 times a week, once a day Monday to Friday. Personal preference for me is 1 RF Sale netting me $85.00 on the macrosite, rather than 340 RF Sales on SS, so if I do not have to uploads hundreds of images just to get $85, the Image that sold had been on the micros but I had withdrawn it before my sale so I could have nearly lost out on $84.75 if they had looked found it on SS. David
533
« on: July 12, 2008, 08:53 »
If one site give the best return per image treating it's photographers well in theory, but then it has no sales, if another site gives less of a return but has more sales, then do we want fair rates with little sales or the cash?
534
« on: July 12, 2008, 07:41 »
Adelaide
Your comments about editorial are quite correct, the point I was trying to make was that some photographers that have been shooting classic microstock, and are new to the editorial concept when coming to Alamy, may think that editorial is "Current and News Worthy Only", rather than exploring concept images that could be used in an editorial context, however some images do cross and can be used in both markets.
My post was more in response to "No Model Release = Editorial", and I was trying to expand on what might make editorial use, as in an image that can be used to tell or enhance a story, I tried to give the bucket and mop (Hospital Cleaning Standards) and the ventilation grill (Legionaires or MRSA) as how a standard stock image could be used in an "Editorial" article on Hospitals.
If an article was about domestic rubbish building up due to a change in collections, then an "isolated clean microstock recycle bin" will not sell that story, so if you are shooting with your non editorial head on, you may not think about taking or uploading an image of an overfilled waste bin, so it's just like when you had to "think microstock" and now for Alamy you have to think about editorial and include images that will tell a story as well.
As I have already said 76% of downloads on Alamy are Editorial, so if tomorrow the government announce a review on waste collection cycles due to an increase in rats caused by overfilled domestic bins, then the appropriate images needs to be there ready to use that same day, maybe two images and overfilled bin with rubbish around it, and a part or a whole rat, that would sell the story better than a headline, and get the reader to look at the text.
I am fairly new to Alamy and editorial so these are just what I have learned in a short time and my observations, I am not an authority on Editorial Stock, but what I learn I try to share, where an Advertising image has to help sell a product, an Editorial image has to help sell a story, same job different context.
David
535
« on: July 12, 2008, 04:25 »
None they are Merchants that broker the goods between the Vendors (Photographers) and the Customers, and all they are really concerned about is protecting thier own margin, which will vary from merchant to merchant based on the number of Vendors and Customer and thier own overheads, so they do not care about anything but the number of Vendors and Customers they have, if they could get away with it and keep up the supply they would give the vendors nothing.
On some sites like SS with fixed fees, every time prices go up by xx% the contributors share only goes up by x% and in the case of noobs last time 0% so the merchant rakes off a bit more.
David
536
« on: July 12, 2008, 04:14 »
I find every rejection funny, because I have already narrowed possible images for submission, about 2% - 5% of any shoot, I have already looked at the quality, zoomed at over 100%, and post processed if required, and I have already looked at the content as I did shoot the image for stock and not for someone's mom or to hang on a wall somewhere, and I subjectivly get to a few images to submit.  And then they have the cheek to reject my images!  I never try to rescue an image unless the rejection is for stray area's on an isolation or keywords, any other rejection I just laugh and move on The biggest laugh is that editing is subjective and the editors think they know what the buyers want, now that is a laugh!  David
537
« on: July 11, 2008, 01:50 »
I think of Pseudonyms like my own galleries or Albums.
I have a number of Pseudonyms this helps me manage and group images in the same categories, and I can see what Image types are popular and getting views, so if your name was "John Smith" you can create Pseudonyms like "John Smith - Formula 1", "John Smith - Toddlers", "John Smith - Lifestyle", "John Smith - Adventure" etc:, this can also help buyers looking for similars.
David
538
« on: July 11, 2008, 01:43 »
Editorial is not necessarily a newsworthy image, so some manipulation can be allowed in some cases (if the image is newsworthy then no manipulation should be done, but not all editorial images are newsworthy). Understanding what an Editorial Image is hard to start with, get the quality Sunday papers and look at the supplements articles not advertisments, some images do cross both Editorial and Advertising, you may have an image of a local area, if the paper is running an article about that area they will look for a generic local shot, if the article is about the Health Service then a micro stock style image of a drug might work but a better shot might be required one that tells the story empty beds, an airconditioning vent, a bucket with a mop, any hospital style people in a natural pose, not cheesy smiley etc: So editorial does not mean only shots with people, but shots that can tell a story with a single picture. On the subject of finding ex-micro images online, some will be found but a lot of micro images are not used on the internet, I have only found one of my ex-micro images using Google Images online, TinEye found none, now the reason would be simple, my images may well have been used for flyers, presentations, course work etc:, and these will never reach the internet. Use TinEye to search for an image that has been downloaded several thousand times and you will find less that 100 online, so if your ex-micro image has only a few downloads because it is more suited to the macro's or is not a micro style image, providing it is ex-micro upload it, one of my ex-micro images sold RF for $150 of which I will get half. David 
539
« on: July 10, 2008, 13:52 »
Then why they reject the stock photographer noisy but well composed outdoor pics and then choose the noisy outdoor Flickr users pictures? Because they have Inspectors that Inspect the images, now they are looking at quality and content and ticking the boxes, one bad mark means a rejection, this takes away any subjective and artistic licence and you end up with a lot of the same, look at the critique forums and read the "you have a bit of fringing or noise in the top left hand corner about 10 pixels down", and not comments like "well there is a tiny bit of noise but it is a fantastic image, I would use it", we have all likely had perfect usable images subjectivly rejected. Alamy on the other hand do not look at content but quality only, and we see comments like 70% dross, Photoshelter look at quality and subjectivly at the content and claim to be in touch with the buyers needs, time will tell on that one. What is needed are inspectors that can look at an image tick the boxes, if some boxes are not ticked then be able to make a call on if the image should be allowed. PhotoShelter had a poll of buyers that said stock was dated and dull and sites did not have what they really wanted, now with Getty they are looking for fresh conceptual images and photographers, but if the images hit the same inspectors will they get through, what is required is a new set of checkboxes for the inspectors and a good mix of conceptal and standard stock as they both have a place, one conceptual for grabbing attention and making you think for new markets, the other standard stock for the comfort of established businesses and markets. For all the "Conceptual Hype" the only thing that counts is servicing the buyers requirements, they alone will drive the market in the direction they want it to move and not Getty or Istock, and they will talk with thier feet if they do not get what they want. David
540
« on: July 09, 2008, 10:42 »
PS: This prices I found on Istock and Alamy are for the buyers and photographer's share depending on your Istock canister level. So I think this is not important. I am looking from the buyer's point of view.
The Photographers % is a lot higher on Alamy so it is important, what others are trying to say is that an Alamy buyer that spends $150+ on an Image would be unhappy if one of thier children or staff downloaded the same image for $1.00-$5.00 and put it in a presentation. Some buyers have had rebates for this very scenario and that just creates bad will between Alamy and it's clients, I was on Microstock, but have never had the same image on both Micro and Alamy at the same time, but I have had a $150 sale of a former micro image, also unlike the instant sale of the micro's, Alamy clients are mainly account holders and may have up to 90 days to pay, and you get paid when and if Alamy do, so you may have a sale reported today, and a couple of months later if is seen on a micro and a rebate is issued. 75% of Alamy Sales are Editorial and only 25% Advertising so the type of images are different although some cross both Media, think about this also if you want good Sales. David
541
« on: July 09, 2008, 10:20 »
This and other moves dispell the myth that there are thousands of "Good Photographers" to fill any gaps. Reading this means don't panic, Getty will not be selling Flickr images, they are just looking to cream off a few photographers to refresh thier own collection, and using Flickr to find the right photographers. As with PhotoShelters up and coming "School of Stock" and "Shoot the Day", they are looking as well to getting existing Photographers to take another look at what they are shooting, and PhotoShelter would be hoping to pick up some exciting new Photographers of thier own, introduce them to stock and licencing to expand the collection as well. But Getty will not be selling Flickr images, they likely would not accept anything that has been on Flickr for a while, but they will be inviting some Photographers from flickr to take "New Exclusive Images just for the Getty Collection and display them on Flickr", apart from the exclusive bit that's the same as what PhotoShelter is doing with it's own promotions. So both are looking for new photographers and fresh content, that should be a wakeup call to all existing photographers to look at what they are shooting and uploading. But as the Images will be on Flickr with a link to Getty, it will also be interesting to see what they do about the flickr feed Blogs and the RSS feeds wich ignore the licence preferences of users via the flickr API. Another Link: http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003825626I do love this quote: Srivastava (Flickr): "We range all the way from that kind of professional photographer with years of experience to my mom, who is just getting started with professional photography." Seems that every mom with a camera is a professional. Oh yeah all the Flickr images may look great on flickr but getty have a list of cameras they will accept images from and that does not include Mom's P&S Have a look at the number of Images from Canon Cameras on Flickr, then there are only a few "DSLR" camera models that Getty will accept, so this will reduce the number of good images and photographers that will be of interest, but it is good PR for Getty and Flickr. http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/?s=type#modelsThen there are the property and model releases, exclusivity clauses etc: David 
542
« on: July 08, 2008, 11:23 »
Alamy have posted a Blog entry, they have listened to thier photographers, and are looking at a per Image licencing for the Novel scheme, also at reducing the sizes for the type of use.
David
543
« on: July 05, 2008, 02:38 »
Looking for the "Level Playing Field", nah can't see it just distortions left by "Pimp Moles" grrrr!
544
« on: July 05, 2008, 02:29 »
You say she is good to work with and deaf that is why we should vote, if there is a better picture of a model that is not deaf and is a nightmare to work with why should we not vote for her?
If this model is so good then this thread should not be needed, and the fact that you are promoting her against other photographers models that may have just uploaded thier entry, compromises the whole concept of a competition.
You should upload and lets things take a natural course, not "pimp" your contribution over many forums and distort a fair and level playing field, all votes from members that registered after you print was uploaded should be voided.
The pimping does more damage than good to these competitions and the models, if she is "The One" then the image sould win on it's own merit, now if she finishes higher than the image merits then you may have given her the impression that she is better than she really is, I don't find the image special, and would not vote because you asked, this pimping is also the reason I do not bother with online competitions where people vote, these are meaningless when the winning image is not the best but the most pimped.
If she does well reflect on this "she will never know if she really did well, because the "pimped" photographers on shutterstock distorted the vote"
David
545
« on: July 04, 2008, 10:52 »
If we all start thinking so analytically like a Costing Manager,
we would all quit making photographs in an instance;
or start to shoot like a mass-production machine .
Results: our images will be hoaky ( fake ) ,and the buyers will sense that too.
Some photographers do just that, Yuri has people post processing and keywording like a production line, and then there are other specialist photographers that have expectations of a revenue return for a shoot that is calculated before they lift the camera. David
546
« on: July 04, 2008, 10:11 »
Also how do you divide the cost? Studio Shoot may cost $300 Studio Model Props expences plus your time add another $200 from that you may get 20 lets say 30 from 300-400 images, now how do I allocate cost they all took some element of time, $500 / 300 = $1.66 per image, now I need to write off 270 of these images, or I could say $16.66 per Image to submit, 30 post process and uploads $60 time and materials, $18.66 For each of the 30 I want to upload, I am goint to upload to 4 sites that is $4.66 per image per site, if I had a rejection rate of 25% that would mean an adjustment to $5.82 per image online as I now have 88 (22 x 4 sites) from 120 submitted. Should each image now stand on it's own or do I say "Woopee!" when I have 40 $1.00 downloads from a batch that could have cost me $560 to produce? Or I could just go into the garden or take the family out for a day, get lots of shots negate the cost, because I had a good day out as well and just count all downloads as profit, "I would have gone out with the family and taken photographs anyway, or photography is my hobby anyway so it don't matter!" See it depends on if you are taking stock for a living and earning a wage, what the subject is and how you run your business, some guys go abroad just to take stock images and claim the cost against thier earning, others take photographs on holiday and submit these, the chargable cost element is different for the same style of image, taken by two different photographers at the same time and location. For a lot of us if we wrote down all our costs, kit, power, depreciation, expences and counted all the hours spent doing stock images and used the minimum wage to calculate and add into our costs, then took this figure from our total stock revenue minus taxes etc:, we would likely be left with a positive or negative profit, then add up all images live from all sites, divide the profit by that and you are left with your net revenue per online image. If I was offered it as a job I would likely say "You want me to pay you how much!" Another point I see a lot calculate thier RPI from the best site, but your RPI is all revenue from all sites divided by your image count from all sites, so a slow site will affect your RPI across all sites. Currently I am off the micros and have had 1 sale on Alamy and I had at the time only 10 images on Alamy so at the time $8.50 RPI, but now with 54 images as of today and I also have 37 on Photoshelter my current RPI is Alamy $85/54 = 1.57, PhotoShelter = $0.00 and a total RPI of $85 / 91 = 0.98. See I can twist it both ways and another single sale will blow that out of the water, with no more sales but more uploads this will affect my total RPI . David
547
« on: July 03, 2008, 14:46 »
Now in the United Kingdom: To be sure you have the rights to post the photographs. Ownership of photographs taken before 1 January 1945: The only way in which copyright can exist for such photographs is where it has been revived. Ownership of photographs taken on or after 1 January 1945 but before 1 August 1989: If you are the owner of the material on which the photograph was taken, then you are the first owner. After this 70 years after the photographers death "family or next of kin" of the photographer. But if the Photograph was paid for as in taken as a commision, or as part of a paid job, then the copyright is not with the photographer I would think to claim any of these as a right you would need the negatives, I used to collect vintage glass and plastic negatives as they could not be copied that easy. For full details: www.patent.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-photo.htmSimple
548
« on: July 02, 2008, 15:31 »
I am there as well but do not get carried away, there is a market for all image types Micro's and Macro's, sales seem few on PhotoShelter as they are new. There is a lot of information to take in, review times of 12 days, rejection reasons are not given and are subjective, but they do seem to be moving in the right direction, the buyers and buyer requests seem to be American based. If you are expecting a Micro type experience then you wil be dissapointed, it is a far slower pace of life on the Macro's. David
549
« on: July 01, 2008, 04:30 »
it's called putting things into perspective!
550
« on: July 01, 2008, 02:06 »
Trinity Mirror shares suffered a record one-day fall yesterday, as the advertising revenue has fallen by 12 -14%, the CEO said "All we can do is understand and react to what is going on, building our digital business and managing our cost base", Trinity Mirror publishes the Daily and Sunday Mirror and The People tabloids.
As thier advertisers are cutting costs as well, is this a trend in the USA as well, and is this bad news for all micro and macro contributors?
David
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
