|
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 - Perry
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 57
701
« on: April 27, 2011, 17:14 »
Do we want to contribute to the success of yet another 35 cent subscription site?
I'll rather have 35 cents for a M sized download than 25 cents for an XL download...
702
« on: April 25, 2011, 08:25 »
I have a really, REALLY bad month, I'm propably going to end up with about half (50%) of last month's earnings. The latest time my sales was as bad at IS was in the summer of 2009 
On a lighter note, SS is already almost BME and there is almost a week left... 
703
« on: April 25, 2011, 08:24 »
I have a really, REALLY bad month, I'm propably going to end up with about half (50%) of last month's earnings. The latest time my sales was as bad at IS was in the summer of 2009
704
« on: April 20, 2011, 15:19 »
What is the royalty percentage?
705
« on: April 20, 2011, 15:13 »
I guess I called it artsy because I have prints of it in several local art galleries where it sells well.
I really can't understand why you would like to degrade the image by selling the image on microstock sites (Why not sell it as RM?)
706
« on: April 17, 2011, 10:32 »
Still pending for me...
707
« on: April 14, 2011, 04:41 »
"By removingthe biggest dust spots (maybe a dozen) would be time well spent, it only takes a few seconds."
You mean the sensor dusts?
No, just white dust spots on the box. Look the image at 100% and clone out the spots (you can always find more by magnifying even more, but IMHO that's useless) There are only something between a dozen and 20 spots that bother most.
708
« on: April 14, 2011, 04:17 »
The Box:
You also need to focus to the correct distance: the photo with the box is focused in the closest corner. A much better focus would be in the bow knot. Now the knot is blurry and it bothers me, also you have depth of field in the front of the object that you don't use.
The ribbon is a bit loose.
There's also a lump of background colour bottom right.
There is a turquoise "halo" in the edges.
By removingthe biggest dust spots (maybe a dozen) would be time well spent, it only takes a few seconds.
The Money:
Why are almost all of the money upside down?
Lighting could be more interesting / better.
Some of the money are used and a bit dirty. In a shot like this I think a decision should be made: either new clean money or money that looks clearly used.
A shot of this kind should be really, really good because sites arealredy full of pictures of euros already.
710
« on: April 13, 2011, 03:26 »
I don't think this is good microstock. Very much effort to create images that aren't really that usable. Sure, they are nice to look at, but they don't quite fit in an ad or article. Looking at the sales figures confirms this, a lot of work for some average sales figures. And those that sell looks generally more "stocky" than the rest.
I don't think I am going this route in my microstock photography. RM perhaps, but not Micro.
711
« on: April 09, 2011, 03:50 »
Everything would be so simple if nobody was exclusive. We could just bash the site together. I was an IS exclusive about 2005 to 2006, then already I did some research about other sites and thought that I don't want to have my all eggs in one basket, because it's just not very wise.
712
« on: April 08, 2011, 15:38 »
iStock has a strong feel of a communist dictature.
714
« on: April 07, 2011, 13:03 »
There is a certain difference between bad-mouthing and telling the plain truth.
715
« on: April 07, 2011, 12:05 »
You want to bring down a company that paid you $25,000?
You seem to miss the point. If the customers had shopped the same videos elsewhere, he would have gotten $50,000 (or even more). I don't think the customers vanish even if iStock does. I have made about 25k at iStock too. iStock has made about 100k (yes I know it's not all profit, so don't bother to correct me) from my photos. Makes me very sad when I think about it. For the next 25k the figures are: 25k for me, 142k for iStock.
716
« on: March 31, 2011, 03:11 »
This is propably my BME at Shutterstock subscription sales. Overall the month didn't quite make to BME because there was fewer ELs than usual. There is however still time for someone to puchase a few ELs DT is a bit better than my february disaster. FT is weak. IS good solid month but not BME. If I got the old 20% royalty rate this month would propably be BME.
717
« on: March 28, 2011, 04:34 »
You will almost never get great lighting with a light table because it always looks like the object was lit from beneath. Also white/light and shiny objects are impossible to shoot on a light table without over-exposing some parts of the object.
I suggest you to get yourself a piece of glass and put the object on it. Then put a white background behind the glass as far as you can (at least 2 feet) and light the background separately. Also try to block out (for example with pieces of black cardboard) all the areas that doesn't show in the image to reduce spill light. Oh, and don't over-expose the background more than needed.
718
« on: March 28, 2011, 04:31 »
Bruce was in love with iStock, it was his baby. He still sold his baby... nevertheless, iStock was a great place in Ye Olde Times.
719
« on: March 21, 2011, 02:56 »
Don't forget: Canstockphoto doesn't have a high RPD, only its distributors (Fotosearch) has. So don't guide potential buyers directly to Canstockphoto....
720
« on: March 20, 2011, 16:54 »
Veer, RPD $4.26 (Thanks to many extended licences)
721
« on: March 18, 2011, 07:10 »
Well... it's just going to be a longer wait then...
It surprised me (positively) that these cameras are made in Japan (and not in China)
722
« on: March 18, 2011, 05:33 »
I just pre-ordered one Next time I'm travelling, I will travel light...
723
« on: March 18, 2011, 05:15 »
I'm propably getting one too...
I don't like the title "poor mans M9", because I think this baby produces better images...(?)
724
« on: March 17, 2011, 14:36 »
Perry, don't insult me with your 'brainwashing' crap.
Sorry, I sounded perhaps harsher than I meant. What I meant was that everyone are basically saying the same things that IS is saying, almost like they have forgotten that making contributors pay for their mistakes is wrong. Did anyone of you ask why they think it's the contributors that have to pay for their mistakes? Now when I think about it, it's propably impossible to criticize anything at IS forums without getting moderated.
725
« on: March 17, 2011, 14:10 »
They seem to have brainwashed the contributors.
I'm still angry at IS for the reductions. I can't understand where they manage to put the 83% of my image sales and yet not able to cover some frauds with the money. GRRRRRRRRRRRR
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
