|
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 - PaulieWalnuts
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 120
601
« on: February 27, 2015, 12:37 »
602
« on: February 27, 2015, 12:33 »
It's just a flesh wound!
603
« on: February 27, 2015, 09:09 »
This is why my focus this year is my own site and building my personal brand and direct sales. It's almost impossible to keep up with all of the shady changes at all of these sites.
but PW, you just said on the other thread
Setting up the website is the easy part. Getting traffic to it is the hard part. If you want to actually get traffic you'll need to become pretty skilled at marketing, SEO and Social Media. Without the marketing you're wasting your time and money.
how do you intend to overcome the "not-easy" part of Getting traffic ... marketing, SEO and Social Media
Haaa! Well, I already have. I've spent the past couple of years on marketing my new site so I know it's not easy. But with hard work the results have been good. I get to set my own pricing and keep 100%. Plus I don't need to worry about all of the shady deals. It's refreshing. So, selling direct is my top goal for 2015.
604
« on: February 26, 2015, 19:51 »
I strongly believe exclusivity is on its way back in, in some way or another.
I think exclusivity is a factor for uncommon images at higher price points. I don't think buyers who are getting into micro subscriptions really care about exclusive images. They want the best selection at the lowest price. We've reached a point where buyers are willing to accept images that are "good enough" if the price is low enough. Sure, there are exceptions, but seeing how SS has skyrocketing growth and GI/IS seems to be in a downward spiral being forced to compete on price, exclusive doesn't seem to matter.
605
« on: February 26, 2015, 19:33 »
This is why my focus this year is my own site and building my personal brand and direct sales. It's almost impossible to keep up with all of the shady changes at all of these sites. http://www.epuk.org/news/an-open-letter-from-epuk-to-alamy-regarding-the-new-contributor-contract-terms"Alamy, it seems is trying to establish a perpetual and irrevocable contract with images that they have previously sold on our behalf at a time when this was not the case, which allows them to continue selling them even after the contract with the photographer has been terminated. While this may have advantages for Alamy it has significant disadvantages for the photographer. The provision would last for the full term of copyright and we see it as unreasonably extensive."
606
« on: February 26, 2015, 18:00 »
I've tried a few different systems including Photoshelter, GPP Sell Media, and Photodeck, I prefer Photodeck.
Setting up the website is the easy part. Getting traffic to it is the hard part. If you want to actually get traffic you'll need to become pretty skilled at marketing, SEO and Social Media. Without the marketing you're wasting your time and money.
607
« on: February 26, 2015, 10:04 »
@hatman - good analysis, welcome back
608
« on: February 25, 2015, 18:29 »
Post-processing. Time consuming evil preventing me from being filthy rich.
609
« on: February 25, 2015, 14:36 »
Shutterstock was the downfall to stock with their ridiculous 25 and 39 cent payouts for subscriptions!
It is my opinion they ruined the stock industry for everyone! All of you that submit there deserve what they pay!
Not just SS. Microstock as a whole, with huge influence from SS, has shaped stock photography into what it is today. Whether not stock photography is ruined probably will vary per person.
610
« on: February 25, 2015, 14:32 »
I said it in another post. They have no reason to give a raise. Everything is going great.
Every time they do an announcement it's about excellent financials and huge growth. Contributors are submitting a bazillion new images a month with a bazillion new contributors joining all the time. Buyers are flocking to them and abandoning higher priced places. They've rewarded themselves for a job well done by moving into an insanely expensive office in NY.
Why would they give contributors a raise? No problems to fix, no need to give a raise.
611
« on: February 25, 2015, 07:49 »
Scam? Hardly. He's just applying traditional sales and marketing methods to art. Scarcity, urgency, and luxury branding rather than bottom dollar commodity. And he does have some nice work but arguably may not be much nicer than some work being sold for $1 in micro.
He's clearly a businessperson first and artist distant second. Which goes to show that with art it may not be the art itself that dictates the price but how much sales and marketing hype creates interest and perceived value.
612
« on: February 23, 2015, 19:35 »
Excellent post by David Bryne. Sounds eerily similar to stock photography.
I've heard a lot of artists accepted some pretty bad deals over the years. [Promoter] "Hey you get to hear your music on the radio, fly jets to concerts, party all day and night, and live like a rockstar. No you don't get any royalties and yes you're signing over all of your music rights to us forever but that's normal! You wanna be a rock star or go back to being a nobody who's barely getting by doing odd jobs. Sign here now or we'll offer it to another band".
He's right though. How will artists be compensated? Things aren't headed in the right direction.
613
« on: February 18, 2015, 15:00 »
Why so many complaints? Well, MSG is probably the most popular microstock forum so people tend to come here to vent with other contributors. The scenario below is probably why people here are a bit grumpy. - New contributor starts submitting images to agencies and is euphoric over finding out people will pay for their images. They dream of quitting their day job and retiring early. They're also oblivious to the history of agency/contributors relations so this is a fresh starting point for them
- After getting a few sales they submit images like crazy and enjoy BDEs, BWEs, and every other acronym you can think of that begins with Best. They can't understand why some of the people who have been around for a while complain so much
- One of the agencies decides it's time to change the contributor royalty model and not to the benefit of the contributors. Not a big deal to the newbie but people flock to the forums to complain that their sales have dropped 25/50/75% and this is the worst sales since 200X.
- Not-so-new-ish contributor is still submitting images like crazy but royalties aren't increasing much or have plateaud. They aren't happy but don't complain and go MSG to start asking questions if this is normal.
- One of the agencies is outed for trying to hide some scamish partnering deal where contributors either get nothing or pennies for sales. Another agency cuts the contributor royalty percentage. Another agency drops prices. Not-so-new-ish contributor's sales are falling and they're getting tired of constant bad news. They go to MSG to complain. And they complain more as more bad things continue to happen
- A new contributor joins MSG and their first post is asking why so many people complain. See #1.
614
« on: February 07, 2015, 17:29 »
If I were you I'd buy an old DSLR on Ebay for cheap
615
« on: February 07, 2015, 17:23 »
It's Save Old-Thread Saturday. #SOS
616
« on: February 06, 2015, 12:04 »
I have no problem with free photos as long as the ones you get for free are clearly not as good as the ones you pay for - as noted above.
In everything I've seen to date - and I looked at the Canva blog post, though not at the many sites they reviewed - it's very clear what the difference is. Free stuff generally looks like it was someone's own snapshot - best way to see that is one of the sites that runs paid shots next to free ones, like this:
http://freerangestock.com/search.php?search=woman+computer&submit=&match_type=all
I still see things like Dollar Photo Club as a much bigger threat - full size images and illustrations for $1 with no volume commitment. That gets you really good quality stuff for a pittance.
Problem is those photos are plenty usable for somebody like for a blog. A few years ago those would have been in some sort of discounted dollar bin. Now, buyers are used to getting high resolution photos taken with professional models in an exotic location for $1. So they no longer have a need to pay for pictures that are lower in perceived quality. Bottom line is, any photo that is worth using is worth something monetarily. Maybe it's only a penny or quarter but anything is better than free.
617
« on: February 06, 2015, 10:18 »
Nice, but I'm waiting to see what Sony comes up with.
I love my NEX-7 and if they do 50MP in a similar size A-series body I have no reason to buy a DSLR. So nice to travel with one small light bag, small body and a couple lenses than a 50lb backpack full of stuff.
I also have a D800/28-300mm which is great but still big, bulky and heavy compared to the NEX. Plus Canon's 28-300mm is a monster so for my goal of downsizing, Canon as a whole doesn't fit my needs. I love my 5DMII but I haven't regularly used it in a couple years and my collection of Canon lenses are collecting dust. As time goes on neither Canon or Nikon seem to be the platform that fits my needs.
618
« on: February 06, 2015, 07:27 »
Most sites are accepting cellphone images. While my iPhone5 makes good quality images I don't see them being as good as this picture. I downloaded the pic, looked at 100%, and think it's plenty good for today's standards. I'd bet if it was a family playing at the beach with sunflare tone it would have been accepted.
619
« on: February 05, 2015, 08:15 »
I'd say the quality and sharpness looks very good. Maybe they don't like the subject and are just using sharpness as an easy out.
620
« on: February 04, 2015, 20:38 »
If it actually produced good sales it could be worth the money. I'm more than willing to invest where there's good return
But I looked at their Live briefs and there are only a couple dozen. None of them fit what I shoot so I can't see it being a good investment for me. And a couple dozen seems like pretty low activity. Especially when there seems to be anywhere from dozens to hundreds of participants for each brief. Not sure what a good number is but I would think a couple hundred live briefs would be needed to support hundreds of participants.
And on top of that they're actively recruiting more participants. What are they doing to attract more buyers?
621
« on: January 31, 2015, 10:40 »
My super duper Nikon D810 si way more than enough for me... Seriously guys, do you know how difficult is to keep your image tack sharp and without shake at 36mpix when zooming? And do you know how challenging is to find fitting glass of quality to match this sensor? Well, good luck with 50mpix :-)
I have a D800 and getting sharp images is no different than any other camera I've owned. As long as I apply basic photography rules I get good results. If I try shooting 300mm f/16 at 1/60 handheld I would expect the images not to be sharp on any camera. Certain Canon lenses are excellent and I would expect those not to have any problem with 50MP.
622
« on: January 30, 2015, 20:24 »
I'm a fairly new contributor now reaching 1000 images. I'm doing micro full time and earnings are increasing at a decent rate, but I'm a little worried about the sustainability in the long run - I hear a lot about the wall, when despite uploading your earnings eventually stop growing, and stabilize/fall in the given time. Predictable, of course, with hundreds of thousands images entering every week, there's no way to keep up. I know experiences are different for each contributor and things change with time, but I would like to hear from all of you:
- How long did it take to reach the wall?
- Do you plan to keep uploading after reaching the wall?
- Have your earnings drop after hiting the wall or just stabilized?
- Have you ever overcome the wall (made the wall taller)?
I think it will be an interesting discussion for veterans and newbies alike.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
- How long did it take to reach the wall? After about six years but I was only adding a couple hundred images a year. The more images you have the more you have to create annually to avoid the wall. - Do you plan to keep uploading after reaching the wall? Nope - Have your earnings drop after hitting the wall or just stabilized? Dropped - Have you ever overcome the wall (made the wall taller)? Haven't tried because I ran the numbers and know for what I shoot it isn't worth the effort. I'm spending time elsewhere where I feel I can maintain growth and avoid being on the hampster wheel. Your mileage may vary. Good luck!
623
« on: January 30, 2015, 19:04 »
I was in buyers shoes some time ago. A friend of mine wanted a couple of cityscapes for an interior, to be printed big. So, I recommended him the maximum size, and I was the one to download them for him. I was so disappointed with the quality of this pictures. I guess it was an older APS sensor camera. And since it was not subscription, they were not cheap at all.I will never ever again buy from microstock for large prints, especially not from that particular photographer. And who is losing here? The photographer, of course!
So, saying that even a smartphone is an overkill for microstock is childish. Why shoot for microstock at all then? Do it proper way or don't do it at all.
Who said a smartphone is overkill? A smartphone is probably plenty for most micro situations especially the ones that are putting out over 20MP. I've seen people do really nice studio portfolio work with strobes and an Iphone. Plus, your competitive threat really isn't the pro photographer with the Canikon D7X Mark MCMXLV any longer. It's the bazillion ordinary Joes/Janes with camera phones.
I'm pulling all of my high resolution cityscape stuff out of micro. Prices and sales volume are in a downward spiral. To produce high resolution and quality cityscape pictures costs me a lot of money. New 50MP camera, lenses that can resolve 50MP, airfare, hotel, cabs, gas, food, and the list never ends. And what, for a few dollars? No thanks. Soon my images will only be available through me and it won't be at micro prices.
LOL, I got a -1 for this. For what? The right smartphone is plenty good for micro. And anybody who doesn't believe the average Joe/Jane phone user is a threat to you, good luck. Maybe you should take a look around at all of the companies that are using real people for their advertising by asking those people to send pics of them using their products. Hey look at me drinking a Coke having the time of my life with my friends at our summer cottage. It's brilliant and catching on like wildfire. The company gets authentic looking pics instead of smily-cheesy-stock that buyers no longer want. Real people are endorsing their product which is exponentially more valuable than a staged model. Those companies used to pay a ton of money for custom contract shoots and stock photos. Now they get it for free from average Joe/Jane smartphone user. So, go ahead and pile on more minuses. Doesn't really affect me if someone doesn't get it.
624
« on: January 30, 2015, 18:45 »
I'm sorry to hear that you, or anybody, is pulling his stuff from micros.
But I can't agree with you that a smartphone is good enough for anything serious . I have the latest smartphone and its pictures are a joke.
Not sure what phone you have but the pics that come from my iPhone5 are pretty good and by no means a joke. Pics from my Lumia 1020 are scary good. There are some phones out there with mediocre cameras and you must have gotten one of them.
625
« on: January 30, 2015, 17:04 »
I was in buyers shoes some time ago. A friend of mine wanted a couple of cityscapes for an interior, to be printed big. So, I recommended him the maximum size, and I was the one to download them for him. I was so disappointed with the quality of this pictures. I guess it was an older APS sensor camera. And since it was not subscription, they were not cheap at all.I will never ever again buy from microstock for large prints, especially not from that particular photographer. And who is losing here? The photographer, of course!
So, saying that even a smartphone is an overkill for microstock is childish. Why shoot for microstock at all then? Do it proper way or don't do it at all.
Who said a smartphone is overkill? A smartphone is probably plenty for most micro situations especially the ones that are putting out over 20MP. I've seen people do really nice studio portfolio work with strobes and an Iphone. Plus, your competitive threat really isn't the pro photographer with the Canikon D7X Mark MCMXLV any longer. It's the bazillion ordinary Joes/Janes with camera phones. I'm pulling all of my high resolution cityscape stuff out of micro. Prices and sales volume are in a downward spiral. To produce high resolution and quality cityscape pictures costs me a lot of money. New 50MP camera, lenses that can resolve 50MP, airfare, hotel, cabs, gas, food, and the list never ends. And what, for a few dollars? No thanks. Soon my images will only be available through me and it won't be at micro prices.
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 120
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
