|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
6651
« on: March 08, 2011, 12:44 »
It's a lot of guesswork with only small (versus 100%) images, but I think it's technical flaws that are the problem with these three.
Even at the small size I can see a dark ring around the bell pepper - the background wasn't white and your post processing wasn't precise enough. If you can't see that dark halo, then you need to look at calibrating your monitor. Without a calibrated monitor it's all guesswork and you sometimes can't see the flaws.
The child with the chessboard was shot at ISO 400 and so may be rather noisy (can't tell at the reduced size, but with the Rebel, I wouldn't go above IS 200 for stock)
The asparagus shot was at f/2.8 and I'm guessing the issues there were focus - the sharp area is so tiny at f/2.8 that may not have been the best choice for this composition.
6652
« on: March 08, 2011, 01:38 »
what
How my pending videos have few (1-6) views if they are not accepted jet and not visible to buyers?
When admins or others view the pending file (most often if there's some sort of problem - stuck in the wrong part of the queue, missing a MR, some other glitch) it registers as a view.
6653
« on: March 07, 2011, 23:54 »
I am really curious about IS and how much $ people are making there. I am assuming these tiny sales represent the minority of overall sales there right?
What's the most common size and price for a sale there?
Mat
That's going to vary so much - vector vs. photos (or video or audio); image sizes available (it goes up to XXXL), exclusive/non (more credits per image for exclusives). For February I averaged about $4.25 per sale (almost all photos, handful of vectors). I don't do Vetta or Agency. Some of those who do will have much higher average sales.
6654
« on: March 07, 2011, 14:08 »
I started a thread in IS's help forum this morning because I received a 34 cent royalty on an XS image sale (regular collection, not dollar bin). At a 35% royalty rate and 2 credits for that size, the buyer paid 48 cents a credit. If a newbie independent - at 15% royalty - made an XS sale (1 credit) that would net them just over 7 cents. That's less than the 10 cents a sale royalty I got for a small size (it was S, M, L then) in 2004 when I was a newbie (and there was no exclusivity then; everyone was 20%). Even Yuri at 20% would only net 9.6 cents royalty on an XS. You can see the discssion - if there is any - here, including Sean's referencce to an earlier enquiry about 50 cent per credit prices where CR had responded that it was a special deal for a large buyer. I guess my thought was that too many credit sales at that sort of a discount and you've effectively brought the partner program to iStock - I'd have made 42 cents a sale on that image if it had been via the partner program. I'm not sure where contributors go with this sort of price squeeze. But it does make me think that we have more to worry about than the RC targets that will determine our 2012 royalty rates. If IS is trying to bolster market share by cutting prices to bigger buyers our $$ per download are going to slip. Very depressing stuff.
6655
« on: March 07, 2011, 13:36 »
That web site is just a blank page - not going to sell much of anything that way 
6656
« on: March 07, 2011, 13:34 »
Sean McHugh is who sends the e-mail if you subscribe to CiC's newsletter. I am as sure as I can be without knowing that Mr. Shankie has nothing to do with CiC as he poo-poohed an article on it I referred him to way back when. He was wrong about something and I pointed to CiC's tutorial on that subject. He said who had time to read; he just wanted to take photos
6657
« on: March 06, 2011, 23:28 »
Is it better to upload images as RGB or sRGB? ...
Do you mean Adobe RGB or sRGB? AFAIK the only common denominator across all sites at the moment is sRGB. If a site does not convert images in spaces other than sRGB to sRGB when creating thumbs, lots of browsers will display the image with really unpleasant colors. As more browswers become color management aware (i.e. can read ICC profiles) it'd be OK for any image with an embedded profile, but I doubt sites will ever put profiles into thumbnail images as it'd make the files too large. iStock is the only site that handles automatic conversion for thumbnail creation and web sizes from whatever profile you upload in - ProPhoto or Adobe RGB - but that's been broken for a month or so (fix supposedly just around the corner). When I was independent, I always converted to sRGB when making the JPEGs to upload.
6658
« on: March 04, 2011, 22:55 »
I would say that you should stop paying any attention to views and focus on sales and uploading.
Some images get viewed because it isn't immediately obvious from the thumb what the image is, and some because they have a huge emotional draw. In either case, it just doesn't matter if you're focused on producing images that buyers want to purchase. There are other places to upload your work if you're solely interested in who likes what.
6659
« on: March 04, 2011, 16:28 »
Before I became exclusive with iStock in the middle of 2010, I made about $40 something from Veer.
I thought that the money would be paid to me at the end of 2010. But it has not arrived yet. I sent an email to Veer in January and no one has responded.
Is Veer going to keep the money?
You might want to step up the formality of their request. Send your request in writing to their head office. Send it certified (or whatever form of mail you would use to get a receipt for whoever signed for it). Reference the prior e-mail and restate your request to be paid under the terms of the contract in force when you left. If you have the other person's e-mail saying the money would be paid at the end of the year, or the date of the phone call with Ryan, reference that. There's no point in legal action over $40, but sometimes getting their attention when they're trying to ignore you may get the money taken care of.
6660
« on: March 04, 2011, 16:22 »
Working fine for me with Firefox 3.6.14 on a Mac
6661
« on: March 03, 2011, 20:30 »
They will be listed there even if there's the bug. If you shut Firefox down and restart it and the scripts are no longer listed in the Greasemonkey window, then that's the bug.
I'm on a Mac and I think you're both Windows, but here are the default locations for both should you need to look.
Mac
/Users/YOUR_USER/library/Application Support/Firefox/profiles/RANDOM_NAME/gm_scripts
in my case it's josnover and e0zhs87a.default
Windows
C:\Documents and Settings\user\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\RANDOM_NAME\gm_scripts
In the gm_scripts folder is a text file config.xml which will have an entry for each script installed. Each script will have its own folder and the .js file is in there - for example is_myuploads_fixes.user.js
If all the files are in place after an install and the install dialog has been dismissed, then it's not the problem I wrote about.
6662
« on: March 03, 2011, 18:57 »
Read my post here about a Greasemonkey problem and workaround. See if that might be what's wrong in your case too.
6663
« on: March 03, 2011, 12:31 »
Thank you all extremely helpful .
I had asked the question and the reply I had received via email is mentioned above. Since I wasn't sure so thought of asking it on MSG and turned out to be extremely helpful thank you all.
JSNOVER - I have a few images taken on the beach. I saw a wonderful house nearby which was included in the image but I did not enter their premises and the model is the main subject in the images. Do I still need a property release?
I was independent but now am exclusive with IS. I am 99% certain IS would be OK without a property release for a house in the background - not the Disney castle, but a regular house. I do recall some independents mentioning other agencies getting really picky about property releases, but for something in the background with a model as subject I think none of them will require a property release. @basti. The issue is always risk - how much risk are you and the agency willing to assume. No one wants to end up in court litigating issues - the goal is to avoid that - which means the agencies get cautious and big companies with aggressive laywers (cruise ships, for example) can get agencies nervous. Not sure how you define "real necessity", but arguably it's nuts for agencies to insist on a model release when the photographer is the model, especially where they insisted on photo id when the account was opened. Also arguably not necessary to include model releases for your own kids (although it might help to have one if a subsequent divorce means things that were once fine are now contentious). I could go on, but this isn't a black/white area. In general, much as I get miffed when something is off limits as RF stock, I don't want to crusade for photographer's rights, I just want to avoid litigation and paying a lawyer over some photo I sold, so I'm OK with agencies being risk averse.
6664
« on: March 03, 2011, 02:11 »
Then help me correct it. Since you are an expert you can share some point
The specific requirements vary from agency to agency - and they have changed from time to time, often requiring releases where in the past none were. Unless you can be a little more specific about what you really want to know, no one can give you anything useful
6666
« on: March 02, 2011, 23:02 »
wonderful - installed and works a treat. Last sale is where it should be on the right.
Some folks in Calgary should be drawing an object lesson from this (one can only hope).
Thank you, thank you thank you.....
6667
« on: March 02, 2011, 22:54 »
They broke the only really usable functionality on that page - Sean's script to show you your most recent sales (plural if there were more than one that day which is so helpful, and extended licenses instead of having to crawl under the porch to try and find out which image). They made the thumbnails tiny so they're even less useful than before (I liked pastorscott's term that they were now hangnails, not thumbnails  And they explained this was OK as these people were different from the ones trying to make search work. Tossers. And as far as the date goes, they should just have date format along with language and currency as preferences. That way everyone gets what is customary in their country.
6668
« on: March 01, 2011, 22:39 »
I'll add to the "stick with your current gear at first" chorus. Depending on what you plan to shoot - studio or outside, still life or people - I'd modify the advice on what sort of lighting gear to get. If you look at Lisa's portfolio - lots of studio shots of groups of people or full length isolated shots - the strobes are a no brainer. If you shoot still life or people outdoors, you might consider reflectors or light panels and one or two off-camera hotshoe lights. Much more portable - have a look at the strobist blog for lots of good information on that approach to lighting. You can see some good overall lighting tutorials here and here. There's also a lot of how-to stuff on equipment use, like this one on light panels for a beach portrait. When you consider all the things you have to learn about making good stock, I think you can do most of it with your current camera and a small amount of lighting gear. If you do well and like doing it, it'll then be pretty obvious to you what you need to do to upgrade your gear. And there's always more gear out there - check out the recent thread about Yuri Arcurs new studio - if you have 300K euros to spare
6669
« on: March 01, 2011, 19:05 »
... But then the price of pictures also comes down when he buys a large credit package? Seems like that's double savings... or at least we're bearing the brunt of the discount he gets?
I thought this was common practice at most agencies...
The only other practice is arguably worse - at FT they assign nominal values to a credit for the purposes of calculating royalties and those are based on which country you signed up in GBP, USD, EUR, etc. Regardless of what the buyer paid, the royalty is calculated on the assigned credit value. They trumpet how it could be that the buyer paid less and you get paid the same, but conveniently omit mention of all the currency conversion benefits they can reap as well as the small package purchases where they keep the extra. I don't have any problem with the discounts from large credit bundles being used in calculating contributor royalties. What I do object to is when marketing promotions or sorry-we-borked-the-site discounts come out the contributor's hide too. Part of the large portion the agencies keep is for marketing expenses and running the site. They shouldn't try to transfer those to contributors, although iStock routinely does (not sure about other sites and one-off discounts)
6670
« on: February 28, 2011, 23:12 »
I'm guessing that none of these will get you accepted - they're looking to see that you can draw and also to see a little variety in the type of work you submit. I don't know what the two accepted ones are, but that might be worth posting if you're looking for advice on a third.
If you submit work with simple geometrical shapes, especially for an application, it has to be really special. These are fine basic illustrations (and I'm guessing they do well at SS which is a good market in which to sell this type of work) but I don't think that'll be enough.
6671
« on: February 28, 2011, 23:00 »
anyone noticed all new uploaded photos do not have EL by default? it's such a pain selecting it one by one
Use DeepMeta and it will do it for you (it reads your preference and makes sure the box is checked).
6672
« on: February 28, 2011, 22:59 »
thanks Colette and Rob Sylvan for the tips.
I was hoping i can do a right click and direct to the collections i need..
anyway, i figured out the drag method.
I read some tutorial that suggest to put keywords so the images can be filtered and put in the same collection.
You can do this without dragging. You create the collection you want and then right click on the collection name in the left panel and select Set as Target Collection. Then, you may select images anywhere in your catalog and type B to add them to the target collection. Little bit more streamlined than drag and drop if there's one target at a time you want to put images into.
6673
« on: February 28, 2011, 13:52 »
It isn't law in Florida yet either. I have to believe that the sheer stupidity of it will mean it'll never actually become law. If the concern is undercover videos from people on the property posing as a farm worker, then deal with the deception involved with that - to the extent that existing laws don't already provide adequate relief.
The urge to be seen to be "doing something" that drives politicians to such actions is so damaging...
6674
« on: February 27, 2011, 18:32 »
A few pages back there was a riff about sometimes IS being cheaper than other sites. I was thinking about the ways that can be and thought an example might be interesting. I had looked at LisaFX's new personal site and noted that her large size images there were selling for $15 - this was the one I picked as it's sold like hotcakes at most sites. I thought $15 was pretty modest for the large size (although I think it's a quirk of ktools that it isn't the same large size as you get elsewhere; I think they have a uniform long side measurement for each size ... but I digress) At FT, that image is 16 credits for the XL size, at IS 10 credits for L and at DT 16 credits for XL (the largest real size). Buying the smallest credit packages I can, 16 credits at FT would cost $19.20, 10 credits at IS would be $15.40 and 16 credits at DT $16.00 (I'd have credits left over given package sizes; I'm just trying to get to a price per credit for small purchases). So buying from Lisa direct is the best deal But the next best deal (arguably better as I get all the original pixels, which I don't via her own store) is IS. I guess the other takeaway from this is that contributors have some leeway to undercut the agencies on price where their images are successful and prices are higher - obviously I'm guessing Lisa would rather buyers purchased from her at $15
6675
« on: February 27, 2011, 18:01 »
I had a comment removed on Friday - not from that thread - but as in part it made a snide reference to the banning of +1 in comments, it was deemed to be inappropriate.
Seemed petty and pointless so I didn't do much more than note it and move on.
Regarding this bug with the upload counter never decrementing, I think it isn't everybody affected as my upload counter has gone down as it should. Either that or it matters if you use the web site (I use DeepMeta to upload).
I agree they should fix it, but as there are so many very, very important bugs that have been outstanding for months, I'd rather they did the important stuff (search and paying us correctly and at the right time) first.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
