|
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 - Bateleur
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 35
601
« on: March 25, 2007, 02:38 »
I've got to disagree here  ... and take the thread back to the original question. What's the reason for having a tripod? To hold the camera rock-steady in certain shooting situations e.g. low light/long exposures. The best head in the world is useless if it isn't fixed to firm foundations. What's more, as several people have observed, the really good heads tend to be heavy. What's the point of mounting a heavy head on rickety legs? Get good legs first.
602
« on: March 23, 2007, 17:45 »
it wasn't exactly an unknown sender. it was the fact that it was blank that it was suspicious. YOu can only tell this by openning it I assume?
No. I can tell before opening it, strange though it may sound. I use an anti-spam program called Mailwasher which gives me a list of e-mails waiting on the server, and which allows me to delete unwanted ones, or even bounce them (making it look as if my e-mail address doesn't exist), before I download them to my computer. It also allows me to look inside e-mails to see what they contain before I download them. That's how I knew this e-mail was blank. Of course I contacted support, and this was the reply I received ...
Thank you for contacting us.
This is a legitimate email address of Dreamstime.
Most likely this was sent by accident. We apologize for any inconvenience.So ... problem solved.
603
« on: March 23, 2007, 04:23 »
I've just received a completely blank e-mail from Dreamstime ... or apparently from Dreamstime. No text, no subject line, nothing. The address of the sender is [email protected]I'm reluctant to reply to it directly as, with scammers these days, you never know. Anyone else had one of these?
604
« on: March 23, 2007, 02:31 »
It's one of the great things about this medium ... that people will go to the time and trouble of tracking down a fellow worker to pass on good news, or share information.
Way to go!
605
« on: March 22, 2007, 13:25 »
iStock's exclusivity deal is very restrictive.
That's why I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. I want to retain my freedom to sell my images whatever way I want, when I want.
606
« on: March 22, 2007, 01:59 »
One important thing mentioned by Bateleur: image quality inspection. This is very important but might be a source of conflicts...
Thanks for picking up and enlarging on that, Adelaide. In any venture of this sort it would be important to keep the quality high. Buyers don't want to wade through a load of rubbish. They'll go elsewhere, and they're spoiled for choice nowadays. But, with a cooperative venture, who's going to be the judge of quality? It could indeed be a source of conflict. Maybe there would have to be some sort of voting system. But that could be horribly unwieldy with thousands of images ... oh boy!
607
« on: March 21, 2007, 17:41 »
Oui ... je peux lire le franais. Un peu. Mais les documents juridiques ... oooh l l. 
608
« on: March 21, 2007, 13:36 »
I am certainly very interested in a coop idea. I'd be honoured to be counted in if there is anything set up.
However, I think it's as well to bear in mind that there are at least four sides to this ...
1) The creation of photographs. This is (obviously) what we're all good at. And would there have to be inspection of submisssions to keep the coop up to standard?
2) The creation of a means to sell them ... I guess a dynamic web site. There may well be people in this group who are knowlegable and skilled in this area too.
3) The advertising and marketing of the images. Letting the whole world know that these images exist and are up for sale. Anyone skilled in that area?
4) The collecting of the money, keeping track of it, chasing up and dealing with infringements, handling dissatisfied customers ... etc. etc. ... The rather boring but vitally important bits. Anyone for that job?
609
« on: March 20, 2007, 08:43 »
As I only just joined last month I only have a small portfolio with them, however I had a steady trickle of downloads, that suddenly stopped on Friday. I wondered if anyone else had experienced the same.
Things always go very quiet over the weekend, on all the stock agencies. Your downloads drop dramatically, and if you only have a small portfolio you could well have none. For example, I currently have a portfolio of just over 600 images on IS. I can get between 15-30 downloads a day on weekdays. But at weekends this can drop to 3 or 4. Sometimes even none. It's called 'ebb and flow'
610
« on: March 20, 2007, 07:31 »
Freezing, you should never divulge an interesting business idea unless you have confidence that the other parties will not take that idea for themselves.
I agree. The internet is a bit like the Wild West must have been. Lots of bandits about who'd happily steal from you. Like the others have said, deal with a few people you trust at first, run your ideas past them. certainly not in public. Apart from anything else, anyone can come on to this forum as a guest.
611
« on: March 20, 2007, 05:46 »
Aaaaaaah ... that's so sweet. She sees your photos and immediately falls in love with you. I'm so touched. What sort of photos do you put up to get that reaction? No one ever falls in love with me 'cos of my photos 
612
« on: March 19, 2007, 13:29 »
I went through a phase where I found and referred loads of photographers thinking the extra 3 cents from their sales would make a pleasant little top-up sum.
My findings ...
About 4/5 of those I referred either didn't get accepted, or if they did, they never opened a portfolio.
And of those few who did get accepted and uploaded , almost all of them uploaded no more than 10-12 photos and then seemed to give up. Not one is a regular contributor.
So ... I get a few cents every day from their work, but hardly worth the effort.
On the other hand, if this is typical, it must be very good business for SS ... loads of small portfolios of images that sell every now and again, but taking forever to reach each individual's $100 payout point.
613
« on: March 19, 2007, 01:54 »
What's up with the 7 day count down to pay out. Why is IS waiting so long. Stupid.
I guess they want to give themselves some leeway, in case there are a whole run of people wanting payouts. Also ... putting on my cynical hat ... that could be 7 days extra interest for them. The interest may not sound like a lot to the individual with his/her 100 bucks. But multiply that by a good few thousands and it gets interesting. Actually, to give iS credit, I've never found it takes 7 days.
614
« on: March 17, 2007, 17:12 »
I send the following to the macro agencies I'm with:
a) My very best images (the ones I consider best, anyway).
b) Images of unique scenes or happenings. Quirky photos.
c) Images with identifiable people for whom I've no model release. They can be used as 'editorial' through the macros.
d) Travel-related images and scenes.
615
« on: March 15, 2007, 02:10 »
Anyone installed Microsoft's Vista yet? I haven't, but I'm told that the wallpaper images that they supply with it are 'stunning'. Apparently quite a number of them were shot by a guy called Hamad Darwish who's only been wielding a camera for about 2 years. There's a fascinating interview with him here: http://www.istartedsomething.com/20070203/interview-hamad-darwish/Maybe I should open an account with Flickr in the hopes of hitting the jackpot
616
« on: March 15, 2007, 01:58 »
I save the RAW file and a TIFF version with LZW compression. That's lossless and works well for me.
617
« on: March 15, 2007, 01:48 »
In stark contrast the non-exclusives are made up of thousands of weekend and holiday snappers many of whom bombard the agency with images that get examined and rejected.
Hey ... hang on a second! I'm a non-exclusive with iStock and I don't consider myself a "weekend and holiday snapper". Whatever you may think of my portfolio, I do this full time - more than full time actually - have been taking photographs for over 40 years, have won awards for them, and am currently writing a book on photography for a UK publisher. I don't go exclusive with iStock for two main reasons: a) I can (and do) make more money selling through a range of agencies. b) I consider iStock's exclusivity conditions unreasonably restrictive. And I believe, in the long run, their conditions are detrimental to the individual photographer - despite the fact that they trumpet them as being the best thing since sliced bread.
618
« on: March 15, 2007, 01:36 »
Chapeau! as they say in these parts.
A classic picture, and the lighting is beautiful. It will sell and sell, that's for sure.
(Edited to say ... Oops! I didn't notice the shadows. Just goes to show ... dunnit. Even so, it's still a great shot)
619
« on: March 14, 2007, 01:54 »
There's nothing wrong with the picture.
Okay ... there are a few relatively minor technical issues that people have highlighted, but I doubt if a customer is going to throw up her/his hands in horror and reject it because of them.
I think that maybe you are making the mistake of assuming there is something 'wrong' with the picture because no one wants to buy it. The two don't follow. You just haven't found a customer for it yet ... that's all.
I have an image with iStock that has been online nearly a year, has 5-star ratings from 3 people and a great comment, has been included in the lightbox of a complete stranger, and hasn't sold once. Is there something 'wrong' with it?
620
« on: March 13, 2007, 04:43 »
... just a bemused observation. I submitted an image to the micros of a row of spiked fence railings, taken from a low viewpoint, silhouetted against an evening sky. Diagonal composition. Very sparse, almost zen-like, with plenty of space for copy. Shutterstock rejected it as - " not suitable for stock." iStock accepted it. It's gained a 5 star rating from 6 different reviewers there and has sold twice (as a small and a large) in its first week online. Ah well ... you've got to develop a zen-like attitude in this game.
621
« on: March 13, 2007, 01:50 »
Thanks for those tips Miguel. I'm using a Coolscan 5000 and Nikon Scan 4
Unfortunately, most of my old transparencies are Kodachromes, and I hear that Kodachromes and ICE don't go too well together. I lived in Africa at that time and there wasn't a lot of choice in the way of film in the shops. You took what you could get. Mind you ... it was a perfectly good film and who was to know there might be problems with digitizing the images in the future. Nobody had even dreamed of digital images then.
I take your points about not messing with the colour and exposure too much. I tried that at first, got horrible results and backed off. It's a steep learning curve.
I've also heard that ICE tends to soften images slightly and adding just the tiniest bit of sharpening when scanning (Intensity 20%, Halo Width 10% Threshold 3) can help.
622
« on: March 13, 2007, 01:27 »
Unlikely. I have been having difficulty working out exactly how SS makes a profit.
They're probably banking on the facts that ... a) Not many customers will use their full download of 750 images per month. How many people need that many images? b) Out of those 50'000 contributing photographers, I guess that a load will never reach their $100 payout limit. c) And there will also be a significant proportion of contributors who will give up on SS, because it takes them an age to reach $100, (or they'll die, or will have have marital bust-ups, or other major crises in their lives) and forget they have images online. But those forgotten images will continue to earn for SS. I base those last two observations on personal experience. I went through a phase where I spread the word about SS as widely as I could to get referrals, and the tiny commission. Of the people who were accepted, not one became a regular contributor. They all have small static portfolios ranging from 5 to 100 or so images. I get a few cents every day from their sales, but I guess that hardly any of them have, personally, taken a payout.
623
« on: March 12, 2007, 15:51 »
Only SS doesn't like them, 100% rejected 
I've never had a scanned image accepted by SS ... not even the ones I had done professionally. So I've given up submitting scans to them. I took the plunge and bought the scanner after I worked out how much it was going to cost to scan all the old slides I wanted. Might as well spend the money on the equipment and then have it at the end ... so to speak. Also, I have a brilliant little pocket film camera (Olympus XA, sharp as a pin) which I've resurrected. That means I can carry a tiny camera everywhere and, with scanning the results, get files big enough for the macrostocks and for XXL on iStock. Not many pocket-sized digital p&s you can do that with. I also have my old Nikon bodies which I still use, too. A standard 35mm transparency or negative comes out of the scanner as an image 3625x5374 pixels, thats a bit over 19MP! Sometimes I downsize them, sometimes I don't (not that I've a lot of experience yet). Depends on how much the film grain shows.
624
« on: March 11, 2007, 03:37 »
I've just bought myself a scanner (Nikon Coolscan) and I'm starting to scan some of my trannies, mostly Kodachromes, going back years and years.
Does anyone else here scan? Have you got any tips, advice, or can you point to any tutorials? It's not as easy as it looks, and the instruction book is not exactly helpful.
625
« on: March 10, 2007, 04:41 »
Okay ... okay ... okay ... this isn't exactly up to date, I know but ... Someone on another forum I belong to sang the praises of an ultra-small film camera, produced by Olympus back in the 1980s ... the XA series. He posted a link to a web site: http://www.cameraquest.com/xa4.htmSo out of curiosity I took a look and ... ... Hey! I bought my wife one of those, way, way back. A quick rummage through the cupboards brought it to light and it is indeed a little beauty, so solidly made, it feels really classy. I try to live by the maxim 'Always carry a camera', but lugging a Nikon DSLR around gets a bit tiresome. This is so tiny it will slip into my pocket and can be used for taking photos in the most unobtrusive way. In fact, it looks like a simple point and shoot, but (with a scanner, which I've just started using to deal with my millions of trannies) I think this may give way, way superior results. Apparently it's even superior to the traditional spies camera, the Minox. I'm just off down the shops to get some new batteries. Anyone know anything more about these little beauties? Or got one of their own in a cupboard somewhere?
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
