|
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 - MichaelJayFoto
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27
527
« on: May 24, 2013, 02:13 »
So, the base line is: You screwed up; you asked for support; support gave you information how to solve the problem yourself; you come in and claim that this is not what you expect from support.
Apparently getting information how to fix your own problems is not enough, you need others to clean it up for you.
I am quite sure ANY agency you give the axe will be very relieved...
528
« on: May 19, 2013, 14:31 »
after they increased the uploads to 999 it appears many are reporting much longer review times than normal.
So for now, up to a month can be considered "normal". I uploaded a few mother's day images 2 weeks before the date, they're still pending. ah well. sold them on SS and DT at least.
Till now I have always uploaded few images at a time, waiting that they were reviewed - to avoid too much rejections on series for example and eventually then correct the issue before to continue the upload of the whole series.
So, if now I will upload 100 images at a time, will this speed up the review time?
Or will it change NOTHING?
Well, the main difference is: If you upload them NOW they will be reviewed quicker than if you upload them LATER. Given that a few hundred thousand additional images have been added to the queue in a very short time after they raised the limit PLUS the iStockalypse having taken away some inspector capacity for the last week, long wait times for non-exclusives right now should not be a surprise. I am quite sure that eventually times will come down again but first the inspectors have to work through the backlog images uploaded by many people right away after the change. Though I am sure if you stop uploading images, those images will be reviewed even later in the end.
529
« on: May 17, 2013, 00:30 »
I find it a bit weird that at most agencies I have a lot of single downloads each month, but never had one on Shutterstock even though I'm selling a lot more pictures there. Let's take the main agencies for the last month.
Fotolia: 11 single downloads and 17 subscriptions
Dreamstime: 5 single downloads and 4 subscriptions
Shutterstock: 80 subscription downloads and...that's all.
Why is this? I was expecting to have a lot of singles for that sales volume...
Fotolia, Dreamstime and iStockphoto all started with a credit-based pricing, customers were coming to them knowing that they are buying image by image (or credits for a few images) while Shutterstock was only offering subscriptions for a long time. This has changed only over the last few years when the credit based sites introduced subscriptions and Shutterstock in turn introduced single image sales and packages. So it is no surprise that traditionally you will find subscriptions are more popular with Shutterstock than with other sites. However, 80 subs without any other downloads is a bit extreme, though randomly it can happen. My stats this month is 167 subs sales, 11 on demand downloads and 2 single images. However, the single and on demand are making about a third of the royalties. Since I started a few months ago, I have a total of $250 coming from subs and $248 coming from other downloads, almost an even split.
530
« on: May 16, 2013, 04:20 »
I read your blog, what risk is there for exclusives? I don't see any that you have written about except for lower prices on Agency files (for most contributors that isn't much concern) and that nonselling files will cost less of which you say "it might have no big impact". Correct: The Agency files will sell at a lower price points as I understand it. That is a fact. My assumption that those files will not sell more often at the lower price is probably not far fetched, so there is almost certainly a lower royalty expectation on those files. The other collections are quite unclear how they are going to be divided. But I expect the Standard and Standard+ collection mostly to be sourced from the now Exclusive and Exclusive+ collections. With the main exception being that some non-exclusive files will be added to these collections, potentially diluting the exclusivity of these collections, so exclusive files might get a few sales less. Thirdly, there will be a certain amount of images moved down in price from former Exclusive to the new Main collection. This will not have a negative impact on those with 0 download, of course, but the message wasn't too specific yet which and how many files might be moving down in price. All of those are "risks" in my opinion while I can't see many potential "rewards" for exclusive members with the exception of the overall client experience to become much better for the future. Non-exclusive members are far more likely to profit because their files won't get cheaper but their best selling images are moving up in price. And my assumption is that they will not lose too many sales because the average iStock buyer is less price sensitive than on other sites (otherwise he wouldn't be buying at iStock anymore). That's just my assessment which you might like or not, agree with or not but you can't prove it to be wrong (neither can I prove it to be right)
531
« on: May 15, 2013, 02:52 »
I have allowed myself to think about the changes in my blog, so I am not going to re-post the whole thing here. But the main thought is: I am happy to be non-exclusive right now because as I see it the risks are lying with the exclusive contributors while the non-exclusives are more likely to profit (or at least not lose out).
532
« on: May 07, 2013, 09:12 »
Funny how Bruce nowadays insists that photographers should be paid a minimum of 50% royalty. He wasn't saying that in 2004 when I joined Istock. Back then he thought we should be grateful for the 20% that Istock paid to all contributors.
That was coming from a different perspective, having started as a free exchange platform, right? And then again, while Bruce was there I don't remember iStock having cut any royalties, only risen over time, isn't it?
533
« on: May 04, 2013, 01:31 »
I would call an image a bestseller if it returns more than $1,000 in royalties. On Shutterstock, I'm only $920 short of that for my best earning file. 
534
« on: May 02, 2013, 14:03 »
2- What's the return on such a shoot? I estimated around $1-1,500 up front cost (model, hair & makeup, studio, and retouching - I work in fashion so I can style). In return I'd like to get around 50+ images per session (multiple scenario, multiple angles). Can I make that money back with in 6 month or less, given it's well executed? Among those who publish their numbers in blog, it appears there is a base line of about $1 per image per month as return within microstock. That is, if you are established at the agencies at higher than the starting royalty levels. And there are no guarantees to get that return. Based on that you're looking at a potential return of $300 over six months with 50 images. But probably you'll end up with less, especially when you're just starting. I do agree, a shoot worth more than $1000 should be on (a good) location and with more than one model to pay off. But even then you're likely to see no break even for more than a year.
535
« on: May 02, 2013, 08:52 »
Completely understand the concept, but my point is that they DO sell the images of the subject they have refused from me. I wouldn't write this post otherwise. I see similar images to what they have refused selling well. Don't tell me it's because my images are bad quality and so on. If they were, they wouldn't have been accepted anywhere else. So... assuming you ended up on some kind of black list that still allows you to upload but they reject everything, is the more reasonable explanation? I don't think so. Your images are - purely topic-wise, I haven't even had a close look - border line for (micro)stock. There are agencies accepting almost everything, there are others who judge by technical quality, again others are judging by potential commercial value, some use a mix of all them. And all have their own ideas about what they like and don't. And that changes over time. So either you try to figure out what exactly the reason is (did you mention the reason given? ) and try to adapt, or you move on to other topics or other agencies.
536
« on: April 30, 2013, 14:09 »
Hm, for a choice there seems to be a lot of very similar options, font and color wise... and one reminds me far too much of Microsoft with the speech bubbles similar to the Windows logo a few years ago. The other's font is not really a great choice in my opinion. Well, I cast my votes and rated all of them. Good luck with the choice, I'd be surprised if you'd find any that makes everyone happy.
537
« on: April 29, 2013, 13:39 »
my camera has a 1.3 sensor. I feel the 70-200 will be great for outdoor portraits and my 24-70 for indoor studio. Last night I test the heavy 70-200 at F 2.8 at 1/50 hand held while shooting a wild rabbit. The photo came out awesome- eyes, nose and ears sharp. That IS must be very good because with my 24-70 I could shoot anything under 1/100 hand held without focus issues... If you have a crop sensor, look around for a 50mm. You can get a f/1.8 for below $100 and it could be working well. Personally I prefer shooting portraits with a 85mm/1.8 when in studio. In studio I'm in full control of the set, light, position etc. So a fixed lens is a great solution and you get them really cheap. A zoom is always a technical compromise, so it's hard to match the sharpness of a fixed lens. The 70-200 (I have a Sigma instead) is my preferred choice outdoors when I sometimes need a bit flexibility. But it's pretty heavy, so you might feel your shoulders and neck for a few days if you shoot a whole day. Also the 24-105 f/4 is a pretty good and versatile lens. It gives a full range between a wide angle and a good portrait lens on a full frame but might work well as a portrait lens on a crop.
538
« on: April 26, 2013, 06:22 »
* do newcomers still have chances to earn a living with a reasonable portfolio and reasonable effort? Define "reasonable" - twice. What I've read from stock photographers from the 90's it was quite common for them to have 10,000+ images in their stock portfolios. And many of them did that on the side of their regular business. For some time during the microstock growth phase, there was a potential to make a living with a few thousand images. This might not be the case anymore. So I guess if your question is like "upload 1,000 images and make a living from it within 6 months" the answer is most likely no. If you have a back catalog of thousands and keep shooting thousands per year, you might still have a good chance to make a full time income but it will take you a year, maybe two or three. That's my guess. * in my research I find a good number of images that share my topics, that have often enough a similar or lesser quality than my products, images that have sold hundreds and thousands of copies
There is a difference between "perceived quality" and "usability". Maybe many photographers would agree with your judgement seeing two images side by side. Customers might not, they are not looking for the technical brillant image with perfect composition, they are looking for an image at a reasonable price as quickly as possible that will serve their purpose. So any image with mediocre quality on page 1 will be sold easier than an excellent image on page 3 of a given search. Which leads to... * are stock sites just protecting their old and loyal clientele?
* are there discussions with the agencies to purge material that has a certain age and is not top seller?
It's not about loyalty, it's about business sense. Once reviewed, an image doesn't cause much cost. Why would an agency put up effort to clean up which would cause at least some manual work. And there might still be a chance that an image gets bought by a client. The same goes for proven bestsellers: For the agency it's not about "who" produced the image, it's about images having a proven sales record. Those images are more likely to attract new clients, so they will be placed on top of new images without a record. It's a challenge for each agency to come up with a good mix of "fresh" and "proven" stuff but in case of doubt I guess they will always tend to "proven".
539
« on: April 26, 2013, 00:25 »
Since I've come to the US I learned the hard way that the "typical" German way of addressing issues is not going to get you very far as most of your conversation partners will just shut up instead of trying to carrying on a conversation where you are trying to make a point.
Sometimes it takes me quite a while to get my point across because of both the language barrier and also the culture shock effect.
Nobody should be offended by Axel. He doesn't mean to be offensive even if it appears on the first look.
In Germany issues can be discussed in quite a heated manner on both sides which does not mean that either party is mad at the other one. Well, I live in Germany (though I am half Swiss) but I still don't argue this way nor will I be very helpful to people arguing with me this way. Though I know sometimes written communication on the internet tends to sound more aggressive than you might word it in direct communication, I think if you are trying to get to a solution for your problem, it is your responsibility to word it in a way that the other person understands and makes him/her feel treated with respect. From your prior explanation I now understand that somehow an image was rejected for an invalid reason which can happen as the inspection process is human as well. However, raising the questions of MR/PR might have lead to inquire if the photographer mentioned in the MR/PR is the same as the claimed copyright holder. This might sound easy if both are the same (personal) name. But it might get complicated if you have a company. At this point you have to be aware of the differences between the German Urheberrecht (which always lies with a natural person and can not be transferred) and the American copyright (which can be transferred and can also be owner by a company). So in American law it can be a different legal situation whether the copyright lies with "Axel Lauer" or with "Axel Lauer Inc." I know from others (at least one German case) where a photographer was shooting in the name of his company. They had to provide additional documentation about the legal structure which took a while to make the Canadians understand the German legal situation but in the end was successful. So my suggestion is to get the emotions (including the claims of bullying or someone searching for some reason to justify something) out of the equation and just deal with the business facts. Maybe get help from someone who understands both the English (legal) language and the corporate mentality a bit better. In my experience, iStock has tolerated a lot of "artistic emotions" in the past without bullying people, so they are usually not actively searching for reasons to remove someone. The only question is if you want to get your problems sorted out or not.
540
« on: April 25, 2013, 11:58 »
It was nice having things approved so quick for a little while, but I image that exclusives will be back to waiting 4 weeks and non-exclusives twice that. I don't see mass uploads of non-exclusives having any impact on the review time for exclusives. And I don't think many of the additional images are those of exclusives because they already could upload more than they could have reasonably produced. What I'd be more worried about is that non-exclusives will now be reviewed by a group of recently added inspectors. Who might tend to be "on the safe side" and show their superiors that they take the job seriously. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame any of them but I think a new inspector will tend to reject easier than a senior who has seen tens of thousands of crap images and likes to look for images he can accept. Pure speculation on my side here, of course.
541
« on: April 25, 2013, 00:22 »
I agree with the others who stated before that you failed to clearly state what the actual problem is. You are describing things but then again leaving out lots of specific details. I don't know how many posts you have written but I still didn't understand what the actual issue is they are bringing up.
From your posts I also assume that there might be problems with translations back and forth, so you might have read things into whatever was told to you that are not really factual.
Instead you are claiming some kind of "censorship" which is just a very nonsensical statement. Censorship relates to the ability to state your personal opinions in public. An image agency is not a public platform, it's a business. What happens between you and an agency is a business relationship and any business is free to decide who to deal with and under which conditions. It's your freedom to quit that relationship anytime if they are not meeting your conditions. And it's their freedom to do the same.
I also think you have a bit of a misunderstanding about how most microstock agencies work. They are dealing with tens (or hundreds) of thousands contributors. They can't manage personal agreements or adapt their ways of doing business to cater someones needs. That might well be the case with most smaller macro agencies who are working with a few hundred photographers and have a more personal relationship. If there is something in your account that is not fitting iStock's procedures, you will have to adapt and supply answers. Simple as that. If you don't want to do that, it's you choice but then don't complain about it.
542
« on: April 22, 2013, 02:46 »
When you choose where to sell your photos, what do you prefer - high commissions or more sales? Obviously selling 10 photos and earning $1 is the same as selling 1 photo and earning $10, but which is better? I see most people have their photos on a few sites, that's why I ask how you make your choose. The truth is (at least my take on it) that you rarely ever have a choice between 10 * $1 or 1 * $10. It's more like 100 * $0.25 or 1 * $5. At least my sales so far as an independent are mostly coming from Shutterstock (low royalties per sale) and iStock (low percentage) while sites with higher price/higher royalties are hardly selling at all. I don't see how I have much of a choice if the overall payment is my main focus.
543
« on: April 20, 2013, 11:01 »
Which raises the question if people have experience re-posting rejected images after a while. Do agencies recognize a second upload? Experiences of consequences? Red flag? Asking this kind of question helps everybody. Because I am happy not to find out by trying it. That saves reviewers manpower and speeds up the workflow. It depends on the rejection reason - some reasons (technical) might be overcome by different processing, so it might be worth resubmitting. Though I would mention it with agencies that allow comments to the reviewer. In general, resubmitting might be successful but more likely will cause some concern sooner or later. Some agencies have good measures to find out if you resubmit and they don't like it. Personally, I have learned to keep a professional distance between me, my pictures and my agencies. Honestly, the time to keep track, reprocess and resubmit usually doesn't pay of. I have between 80 and 98% acceptance at most agencies, so I don't ever bother thinking about images they reject. Most agencies will accept them, some won't, I don't care. Being a professional photographer is surely not the same as a professional stock photographer... Yes, each kind of photography is different. In editorial/news you easily get away with images shot at ISO 1600 or even higher. A contract shoot for a website has different requirements than a wedding. And so does stock. Get to learn to reduce rejections, wasted time, frustrations. Good luck.
544
« on: April 20, 2013, 07:19 »
well it strikes me as weird if 123RF rejects 25 out of 25 building photos for the reason of property release while dreamstime or fotolia has no problem whatsoever. Fotolia takes grafitti pictures if they are on public ground while most others reject for copyright reasons. (and there can hardly be copyright protection for illegally applied art in public space). Well, the basic idea is: It's never the agency's fault if something goes wrong. Most likely it's the person publishing something who has to make sure not to violate any rights. And in the other cases it's likely the photographer who is to blame. After all, you always confirm that your image does not violate any other people's rights when you upload them to an agency. So it's your risk, not the agency's. However, some agencies have taken up the task to make it easier and safer for the client, so they are strict with regards to potential problems. It is always a combination of "risk" and "reward" - why accept a potential risk if there are similar, less risky images that will serve the clients purpose just as well. You should be aware that your images are getting published not only within your local laws but under different laws around the world. What you know about the rights might be true in your country but doesn't have to be the same in other countries. Yes, there is no consistency between agency. You will even find incosistencies within agencies as different editors may judge the same image differently. It's not mathematics with a clear answer to every question. And while there might be a buyer for each of your images, no agency is obliged to look for that buyer for your images.
545
« on: April 19, 2013, 23:57 »
I have the worst acceptance rate with fotolia at about 12 percent, shutterstock is about 50 percent At these rates I would seriously go back and make a list about the most common rejections you get and adapt your stock submissions accordingly. It looks like you don't really understand the concept and requirements of stock photography yet. The larger sites (IS, SS, FT, DT) tend to reject more because they have stricter rules - but getting the same images accepted at other agencies doesn't mean your images are more suitable. You should re-read both technical guidelines and content guidelines at the major agencies first and try to get your acceptance to at least 80%. It's not that big a problem to get there. Start learning from the two or three most common rejection reasons you get and you'll be almost there.
546
« on: April 19, 2013, 05:51 »
So I guess this means I can resubmit the files they rejected because I have a German istock model release.
I had my German MR images accepted at SS after submitting them a second time in a separate batch and specifically mention in the Comment to Reviewer that "this is the industry standard release and I confirm that the wording is the same as the standard English release". It didn't work the first round but the second round all were accepted. Make sure to let them know why you are resubmitting in the comments. So they were already accepting those but on a case by case basis. I think it makes sense to make it a more global rule. Legally there is no issue with some other agency's logo and address on the release as long as the release is clearly between the photographer and the model (different than iStockalypse releases which are not for a specific photographer).
547
« on: April 19, 2013, 05:44 »
Thanks for your replies. Let me put the question this way.
How do you rate all sites in the ease of submitting photos? I love SS. Once I have edited, added key words , categories etc in light burner, I can simply go to SS and select all and submit. In Ft, I have to go one by one
I am submitting to several agencies and almost all of them allow batch editing. The two exceptions are IS and DT. For IS I recommend downloading DeepMeta ( http://www.deepmeta.com/) - it's free and helps a lot preparing images locally and then upload them from the app. It makes a lot of tasks (copying data, categories, model releases) much easier than the on-site process. IS is selling good even on low royalty percentages, so despite upload limits and complicated upload process I think it's a must have if you are in it for business. For DT I don't have a good solution, though there are tools allowing the upload across agencies out there. For me, DT is the agency with the most difficult upload process, highest rejections (mostly for "similar" images if you upload more than two of the same series), and compared to IS the sales are quite limited. If sales don't improve, it would be the first agency to drop for me. CanStock, 123RF and GL Stock are the easiest to submit to. FTP, confirm, done.
548
« on: April 18, 2013, 12:43 »
But i am unsure if i even need 400Ws.
Would you guys think that two 200Ws strobes would be enough? The Bowens Gemini 200 for example?
I would like to buy a large Softbox, something around 150cm and a Beauty Dish and maybe a Set of Strip Lights. Obviously all these accessories also suck a bit of light.
Would 200Ws be enough for stock photos. Mostly portraits with 1-3 people etc.? I used to shoot with 2 x 200 Ws when I started. It's perfectly fine for objects, for fill lights and accents. But don't try to use them as main light for people. Not even for one, don't start talking about groups. We currently shoot with 3 x 600 Ws - one for main light, two for the background - and 1 x 300 Ws for accent light. Excellent for one or two people, borderline for three, not enough to light large enough for more people. In my opinion, you could go for 400 Ws for the background light but I would certainly get something stronger for main light if you want to shoot groups. PS: What I describe is for shooting on white background. You might need less for background if want to shoot in real scenery and just need fill light for the surroundings. Still you want the main light to be strong, especially if you want to shoot more than one or two people.
549
« on: April 17, 2013, 04:07 »
I finally got selected in shutterstock and iStock.
My portfolio. http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1249963p1.html
I have few questions.
1) I am not a regular photographer as it takes a lot of time for the entire process. Should I load my portfolio to all the websites? I am currently on fotolia as well.
2) I had few sales in fotoli 13c each and shutterstock it is 25c each is this the payout most of you het and shutterstock. Fotolia the payout is around
I'd think you need to make a decision if you want to make some money or not. If the decision is "yes", you should upload your image to multiple sites, at least the top 4 on the right side, preferrably also the middle tier agencies. If you got accepted at both, Shutterstock and iStock, you won't have problems at other sites. Also to make money in the long term you need to produce and upload new images regularly; set yourself a goal, even if it's just 3 images per week or 10 a month. But stick to it for a long time, at least a year. I'd think it takes a few hundred or even more than 1,000 images to make microstock worth the time you spend. If you can't come to a certain level, chances are that you will lose interest before ever making the payout limits on any of the sites and end up with no money at all.
550
« on: April 15, 2013, 08:23 »
any suggestions on how to DO that? I've been successful ijn getting my websites indexed, but with images much less so - I've included both captions and alt-tags in image displays but not much difference No offense but this is one of the very few things I wouldn't want to share it with the world... if I had figured it out.
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
