|
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 - trek
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30]
726
« on: September 05, 2010, 07:45 »
Re the question: "Back to the first question. Is your RF Editorial really news, and why do you want to sell that as RF?"
I have editorial photos at SS, DT, BS and 123. Some are newsworthy but most are travel (with people and signage). I consider these agencies to be selling them as RF-editorial because of the pricing structure. I prefer Alamy's pricing structure but sales there are rare.
There does not seem to be a prohibition against selling editorial at both Alamy (RM-L) and the micros. Guess I'm trying to figure out what the rules are.
95% of my port is RF-commercial. I'm new to editorial and enjoy the creative freedom it brings. It provides an outlet for photos that would otherwise end up in the dust bin.
Thanks
727
« on: September 02, 2010, 21:53 »
I upload my commercial RF microstock files to Alamy as RF. However, Alamy does not have a RF category for editorial. Do you guys upload your editorial photos to microstock companies and Alamy (as non exclusive RM "L") or do you pick between the two?
Thanks
728
« on: August 28, 2010, 07:19 »
I sent an email to [email protected] asking that they add paypal. I encourage others to do the same. Thanks
729
« on: July 25, 2010, 15:05 »
I've never owned a desktop. The speed on my old 2.4 ghtz macbook pro is still good. An external monitor helps when I'm working at home. The calibration seemed fine right out of the box.
730
« on: July 12, 2010, 23:06 »
Re: Our new interface is no longer supporting forums.We've moved our forum to Facebook fanpage. You can use the "Discussion tab" on our Facebook to discuss all your issues!
Facebook is not a professional forum. It's a complete waste of time.
731
« on: June 18, 2010, 19:10 »
Dreamstock needs a better business plan. 10 royalty.... only a fool would participate.
732
« on: May 29, 2010, 06:31 »
Not to mention the OP is one of probably the top 25-30 sellers in the microstock business, so she already could reasonably claim to be one of the top stock photogs in the business...
It's true... the OP has a wonderful portfolio and a giant portfolio... I'm inspired by the artistry and work ethic of the full timers at this site. No one gets 10,000 images on line by being lazy.
733
« on: May 27, 2010, 17:42 »
"Pay for Placement" .... "Pay to Play" .... gotta say no... never... not in this lifetime or the next.
734
« on: May 22, 2010, 06:53 »
Correction... The Olympus 24-120 is actually a 11-60 with a 2X factor due to the four thirds system's chip size.. Thanks
735
« on: May 22, 2010, 06:47 »
I love my Olympus 24-120 2.8. But I got tired of waiting for a better camera body (with a bigger chip) so I bought a Mark II with the 24-70 last month. I found the 24-70 to be soft in the corners on the wide. I took it to the Canon service center yesterday. Hopefully they can fix it.
736
« on: May 16, 2010, 16:08 »
I stand corrected. Seems Getty let them live. Do they still allow submissions or are they a zombie (no new photos allowed) site like Jupiter's Stockexpert brand? Any one know?
737
« on: May 16, 2010, 06:49 »
Re: Also, you haven't mentioned Jupiter. Do they not figure in your work?
Jupiter aka Stockexpert was bought out by Getty last year. They were shut down.
738
« on: May 14, 2010, 07:23 »
Re: there are a number of photography 'contests' that run similar scams - not only do you have to pay an entry fee, but they get full rights to use your pix wherever they want.
About a year ago I noticed a USA Today Travel Photography contest. I thought "what do I have to lose". When I read the fine print it said that by submitting an image I was transferring my copyright... forever... It said I would need written permission from USA Today before exhibiting, reproducing or licensing my submitted photograph. It was nothing more than a massive sleazy copyright grab.
739
« on: April 13, 2010, 06:59 »
I believe all businesses need to replace at least 20% of their product line every year to maintain status Que.. It doesn't matter if it's cars, clothes, photos or widgets. Buyers expect newer, snazzier, more technically advanced products.
The difference with stock photography is the shelf space is endless. The argument that time spent deleting non sellers / destroying content is better spent creating content, is a valid one. Personally, I don't see the point in leaving non sellers online. I'm only in my second year but I've already begun weeding out some of my newbie mistakes. Eventually everyone hits a plateau. Hopefully it's a nice one. With a view.
740
« on: April 06, 2010, 10:34 »
I'm not so worried about equipment coverage but I may want to buy liability and e & o if I were to go full time and start working with models, stylists, locations and permits.
A past thread said TCP was a good company. Anyone here use them? What do you guys pay for liability and e & o? Are there additional fees for additional insures certs (for location rentals and permits)?
Thanks
741
« on: February 14, 2010, 13:26 »
I would like to see them consolidate the upload and review process for dual account contributors. A "Big Stock opt in" button at Shutterstock would improve everyones productivity.
742
« on: February 04, 2010, 23:09 »
I did not know the extended license prices drop over time. I wrote support asking for the prices to be raised back to 50 credits. I started adjusting them one at a time... it would of been quite time consuming. Glad I'm part of this forum. Thanks
743
« on: January 26, 2010, 08:57 »
They'll have ten million images on line next month. That's a nice marketing hook. Though, I think they would be wise to weed out the oldest non sellers as they move forward. If an image hasn't sold in four or five years... it probably never will.
744
« on: January 16, 2010, 12:14 »
Perhaps I should clarify. I shoot with an Olympus E3. I love my lenses but the Olympus can be a tad noisy in certain situations. That's why I process my photos a bit different for istock.
Also, I'm merely a eager newbie. I didn't mean my comments regarding shutterstock and istock to sound too factual. It's just the observations of someone who's learning.
Thanks
745
« on: January 16, 2010, 09:20 »
Istock likes submissions to be noise free and silky smooth. Shutterstock likes sharpness and bolder saturation. The nondescript technical rejections at Fotolia have be baffled. Does anyone know what Fotolia's technical preferences are?
746
« on: January 15, 2010, 18:29 »
I started with Dreamstime and Bigstock. Photos that were accepted by both became my audition shots for the tougher agencies. If I had to do it over... I would still start with those two.
Richard
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
