|
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 - Elenathewise
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 36
601
« on: February 01, 2011, 14:17 »
The reviewers will be looking at 100%, so images have to be absolutely sharp and have low level of noise at that resolution. Also watch out for color fringing, especially on the second image. As to overall look, both of the images seem a bit flat, maybe tweak curves a bit on the first one and increase saturation on the the second one?
Plus, it always helps to keep in mind whose need you are trying to satisfy when submitting images. Who would want to buy them and what for? If you have at least one positive answer to those questions, then it's a sensible choice.
602
« on: February 01, 2011, 12:15 »
Today is exactly 3 years since I walked out of my corporate job and became a full-time stock photographer. It's been a lot of work but also a lot of fun, and in spite of some unpleasant things that are happening in the industry I am looking forward to many more! I also gave in to nudging from some people and started a blog where I wrote up some thoughts about my experiences and my views on microstock: blog.elenaphoto.comThere will be more - am planning to update it weekly. Now, where is that champaign? 
603
« on: January 31, 2011, 16:35 »
You can point at my portfolio. I'm allowed to upload pretty much all I can produce, so I don't have to cherry pick out "the best". I'm not being personal - I'm just pointing out that out of a series, maybe only half are needed to give buyers a good selection of usable stuff.
Hmm... so you're saying that you as an exclusive have the opportunity to flood the library with similars? ... and it's a good thing?... And I have entire series of images that are not represented on istock. Just because we didn't get to them yet. Cherry-picking images for istock would be spending a lot of time for something with questionable results - images don't sell the same on different agency, there are variables like supply, customer base, search peculiarities, etc.
604
« on: January 31, 2011, 14:58 »
My upload slot is 38 per week. I produce at least 50 a week, often more than that. We use up the slots every single week, even if we are on vacation. Still, the backlog is mounting - and it's been doing that for 5 years.
So, if the world doesn't have access to 12 berry images on iStock, and only can see 8 there, are they really missing out? Or 5 out of 10 cakes?
http://www.elenaphoto.com/Holidays_Occasions_g38.html
The point being, you're probably smart enough to upload the best, and the rest wouldn't garner sales anyways. The buyers aren't really missing out.
Ooooh Sean, you don't want me to go poking at your portfolio. I can be really mean, people keep telling me that. But I am busy with something else right now. Plus, I don't see a need for personal attacks here 
605
« on: January 31, 2011, 14:43 »
This is hardly a logical statement. You can't assume every (or most) independents produce a constant stream of nearly identical images. Some of them do. But definitely not majority.
My own portfolio covers a wide range of subjects, simply because I get too bored to do the same thing over and over again. And more than half of it is not present on Istock. I am quite certain I am not the only one in this situation.
Is it not present on IS because you don't have enough upload slots, or because you just haven't used all your upload shots.
My upload slot is 38 per week. I produce at least 50 a week, often more than that. We use up the slots every single week, even if we are on vacation. Still, the backlog is mounting - and it's been doing that for 5 years.
606
« on: January 31, 2011, 14:07 »
It was always baffling to me why Istock thinks their policy on exclusivity brings them any advantage in the market. Anything they gain by representing exclusive work of a few talented photographers they lose by NOT having a huge body of work from non-exclusive photographers that other agencies have (and Istock doesn't).
They do have a huge body of work from independents. Seriously, do you need 1,000 of the same business images from someone, or will 400 pretty much cover the series?
This is hardly a logical statement. You can't assume every (or most) independents produce a constant stream of nearly identical images. Some of them do. But definitely not majority. My own portfolio covers a wide range of subjects, simply because I get too bored to do the same thing over and over again. And more than half of it is not present on Istock. I am quite certain I am not the only one in this situation. Of course, opening the doors would mean more competition for exclusives, but then it would have a positive effect on the quality of everyone's work. Competition makes you try harder. ---------------- On another subject - the idea of an agency that would represent the best stock artists and have a small but very sellable collection has been around for a while, and some people are trying it right now with various degrees of success. I personally like that idea very much, it would be so efficient, but it still needs to be run and marketed properly, and that costs a lot of money. "What is it?" - "Efficient" (if you know where this quote is from, you're such a nerd!)
607
« on: January 30, 2011, 22:12 »
It was always baffling to me why Istock thinks their policy on exclusivity brings them any advantage in the market. Anything they gain by representing exclusive work of a few talented photographers they lose by NOT having a huge body of work from non-exclusive photographers that other agencies have (and Istock doesn't).
If they had nice exclusivity program and did not limit non-exclusive content, they'd have the best of both worlds and would just rule the marketplace.
608
« on: January 30, 2011, 22:01 »
Congrats! Very nice work - your amur tiger photo is amazing (saw it on your website). Hope that tiger was friendly
609
« on: January 30, 2011, 17:54 »
Its well isolated I think, but not sharp enough.
I don't see a problem with isolation, but for things like that I'd also prefer better sharpness. Plus, I'd remove stains and spots on the surface (there are also fingerprints but those are hard to remove in post-processing, the object needs to be cleaned very carefully for the shoot). But then, I am a perfectionist
610
« on: January 30, 2011, 17:46 »
Content exclusivity is OK, but contributor exclusivity is a pure slavery , just wrapped in nice paper.
I agree it's pure slavery, but where is the nice paper?
611
« on: January 28, 2011, 20:27 »
People isolated on white are easy to get accepted, true, but I don't find they sell all that well anymore, because the market is so oversaturated with them.
I know! ... But if you want higher acceptance, that's what you do.... Or office scenes, endless business people in meeting rooms... That stuff is easy to get accepted, but then it won't sell anywhere as much as some really good travel or nature shot (if you ever manage to get that through). My advice above was on how to get less rejections, not how to make more sales...
612
« on: January 28, 2011, 15:24 »
yup Alamy doesn't suck:) Would be nice to see more consistent sales though. Sometimes it's really good, and then - nothing........
613
« on: January 28, 2011, 15:21 »
Don't even try submitting nature, landscapes or travel shots. That gets rejected consistently.
Do people isolated on white and simple concepts. Not that they don't have more than enough of those, but they will accept it - less time wasted.
614
« on: January 28, 2011, 15:19 »
I am a full time stock photographer for the last 3 years (almost exactly to the day:)). Before that I was a physicist, medical researcher, software developer for a big company. Who knows what's next:)
615
« on: January 27, 2011, 16:54 »
Plus for some people stock shooting, and maybe only iStock (or other) is their entire income.
All eggs + 1 basket = certain doom
Not at all. if the basket breaks, your eggs are still alive and can always upload them to other MS sites.
So in our case: All eggs + 1 basket = good business decision.
If the basket breaks you lose your position in searches and will have to spend time to reupload your portfolio to other sites. Where your position in searches will be not nearly as good because there will be much more (already established) competition. Don't see how is this good business decision. I think you guys know this and it this is what makes you nervous. But - hey - whatever floats your boat.
616
« on: January 27, 2011, 16:26 »
617
« on: January 27, 2011, 16:21 »
I'll just say I was making more than my day job 4 years ago after 2+ years of work, which is why I quit 3 years ago. Agree with ^ that you could not start today and expect that. For once I timed something correctly.
I did the same 3 years ago, and I had a well paying corporate job. However, it's absolutely true that you can't start today and expect the same results. We were in the right time in the right place when demand was still way bigger than supply and were able to get to the level of quitting the day job fairly fast - in 2-3 years. IT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT STORY NOW. Yes you still can get to the level of reasonable income in microstock starting from zero, but it would require investing tons of money into production. There is no place for amateurs or semi-pros anymore. That time is over.
618
« on: January 27, 2011, 13:42 »
My accountant tells me it's better to send paperwork, not electronic submission. Plus, as mentioned, there is an HST issue (if your income from stock is big enough). If you don't do that they'll eventually get you and make you pay a fine.
619
« on: January 26, 2011, 17:44 »
Hi BaldricksTrousers,
Dead on the money my friend. Quit tomorrow make millions for the next few years story over...WINNER! That is spoken from an old guy, Yuri still has a lot of time in the meter and loves his work. I am sure when it is getting to the point of truly being unsustainable he will hang his hat and live a wonderful life.
No one in this business can continue to keep there RPI the same as they build a larger and larger portfolio it is just a numbers thing for all of us, it has nothing to do with his business model. His revenue will continue to increase but his RPI will drop. 38,000 images x $85 ( $7 x 12 months )= $3.3 million a year. I would soooo quit, but that is just my Knees talking
Best,
Jonathan
Oh I doubt you'd ever quit entirely Jonathan - you like what you're doing way too much:) Quit running high-yield production company - maybe, but quit shooting - can't see that.
620
« on: January 26, 2011, 14:29 »
Take it:)
621
« on: January 26, 2011, 14:27 »
I was accepted to Getty PC a while ago. I had some sales but nothing really worthwhile. I have just 28 images there (I think) and mostly used free placement opportunities - but if I spent 1400 bucks on placement fees it wouldn't make financial sense.
622
« on: January 25, 2011, 22:34 »
I don't know about reversing - but charging same price for all sizes would definitely make sense.
623
« on: January 25, 2011, 22:28 »
I do. I just can't do it any other way - my images have to perfect. Sometimes I ask myself is it insane to remove every tiny imperfection when images are selling for so little money, but I still do it. My every try to outsource image editing failed for the same reason - noone was good enough.
I could cut on quality and produce double amount of images a year, but it's important for me too feel good about what I am doing.
624
« on: January 25, 2011, 17:07 »
From my experience, most DT customers are looking to buy the rights for cheap - I get these requests all the time and now stopped even responding to them. You enable the "sell the rights" option and set a fair price (I tried between 2000 and 4000), and then they never get back to you. You'd be lucky if you get your $1000 (keep in mind that DT keeps half of it). Mind you there were some big rights sales in DTs history (more than 10,000), but those are extremely rare.
625
« on: January 22, 2011, 22:56 »
Cory, about affiliates - you'd be doing exactly what you don't want to do: driving traffic to other people's sites for free. You won't be losing sales, but why should someone who never spent a cent or made other effort to advertise their store benefit from your advertising? In the scheme I propose everyone will have to chip in to drive traffic to the common place. Only fair in my opinion.
And yes, I think we will do a trial run - offer a month for free while we're setting up, but after that we'll need cash to start marketing.
I'm confused. I meant my own affiliate program, so I would pay you a percentage for each sale you drove to my site. That way I'm paying for performance, and I don't have to worry about getting priced out of an advertising program. I haven't set up an affiliate program yet, so I'm open to suggestions on that. It would mean less upfront capital for you, but I think it would work better in the long run. You'll have sales statistics, so you can move your best performing sites to the top of the list and searches or as featured sites.
Also, I'd prefer not to have people leave my site for another similar site. Even if they can't find what they want, it is possible I can create it, so I'd rather have them contact me as opposed to leaving to find it somewhere else. Those are my concerns with the way you've described the setup.
Now I am confused. I don't understand why I would be interested to drive traffic to your site in this scenario - to get a couple of bucks a month from your sales? I was talking about generating new traffic to the portal site so everyone benefits from new hits and we don't lose customers to outside because we can't provide required content. But I think I explained that already, no point in repeating.
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 36
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
