|
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 - epixx
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 47
726
« on: October 25, 2007, 19:44 »
Canon A640 10 MEG
The 640 was announced over a year ago, and is slightly older technology. As such, it does not offer IS (which is one of my requirements).
Thanks anyhow...
It has been replaced now by the 650 which has IS. A big advantage with that camera is the articulated LCD. It makes taking photos from very high or very low angles much easier. It also uses AA's, which is sometimes very convenient.
727
« on: October 25, 2007, 19:14 »
A very average month at StockXpert for me. No subscription sales so far. I'll probably opt out if they become more than 20% of my images sold. My BME was in May, and since then, I haven't even been close to that, in spite of a bigger portfolio.
728
« on: October 25, 2007, 19:05 »
After 5 months of diminishing sales at IS, it seems to be picking up again, and this month will be my SBME (Second-Best-Month-Ever  ), if not the best. Another change, is that my new photos have suddenly started to sell, while a few weeks ago, hardly any photos newer than 3 months were selling. I haven't decided yet if I'm going to believe that this is a coincidence or a result of their endless tweaking of search engine parameters. I tend towards the latter at the moment and will keep my smile up for the time being at least 
729
« on: October 21, 2007, 18:05 »
For macro-stock, exclusivity the way they define it suits me fine, particularly when it comes to RM.
Epixx,
In which way they "define it" that is different from anywhere else?
Regards,
Adelaide
Nothing sensational, but the fact that they require worldwide exclusivity for photos and similars, leaves no room for misunderstanding. The alternatives are those who require exclusivity for photos, but not similars, or only regional exclusivity, or the IS way, with exclusivity for the photographer, but only for RF.
730
« on: October 21, 2007, 08:34 »
Shooting a well lit white wall is even better. Over-expose 1 or 2 EV. Or buy an Olympus
731
« on: October 21, 2007, 08:28 »
Submitting minimum image sizes to agencies with subscription was a good idea. I might try that. s
I do that with illustrations. I don't upload a 36Mpix image to 123RF and CanStockPhoto.
I just never bothered downsizing photos.
Regards,
Adelaide
It's easy to do as a batch job in Photoshop. "Fit image" in the File/Automate menu.
732
« on: October 21, 2007, 08:23 »
If this trend continues, it may become a very good reason to go exclusive with IS.
With all of the goofy stuff and changes going on elsewhere this is looking more attractive. But what are chances of IS adding subscriptions at some point? They have the volume.
They are doing very well without it, and because of their large portion of exclusive photographers, they have a unique selling point. I would be surprised if they did it.
And they get a very large chuck of the sales...
Regards,
Adelaide
They have, and the more similar the other agencies become, the more important the exclusives will be for IS. One thing I've learned from running my own business for many years is: I can't make all customers happy all the time. Sometimes, it's better to let a customer go, or even send him to a competitor who has a higher competence within a certain area. If I'm best in what I do, he'll come back when my services are needed. Nothing is gained, if keeping all those customers means reducing the profit to a point where there's hardly anything left.
733
« on: October 21, 2007, 08:15 »
In DT, where subs haven't really affected me much, images cost US$2,...
I have vectors at DT. They sell for $4.00 as regular sales and $0.25 as subs. That's 16 times as much for the regular sale, or a discount of 93.75% for the subscription sale 
734
« on: October 21, 2007, 08:12 »
Submitting minimum image sizes to agencies with subscription was a good idea. I might try that.
735
« on: October 21, 2007, 08:11 »
If this trend continues, it may become a very good reason to go exclusive with IS.
With all of the goofy stuff and changes going on elsewhere this is looking more attractive. But what are chances of IS adding subscriptions at some point? They have the volume.
They are doing very well without it, and because of their large portion of exclusive photographers, they have a unique selling point. I would be surprised if they did it.
736
« on: October 21, 2007, 07:03 »
why all the fear about subscriptions. it is pretty well agreed that shutterstock gives the best return on our photos (if you haven't checked out the polls now might be a good time) ... so why when other sites decide to start offering subscriptions there is such strong negativity.
No, they don't give the best return on our photos, they give the best sales volume. If SS didn't exist, even as little as 50% of their sales, spread over "traditional" microstock agencies, would probably generate more income for all of us. Like most others, I have a portfolio at SS. "If you can't fight them, join them". But if subscriptions sales are going to be spread among all agencies, sales at SS will probably go down long term. Another result will be that there will be only one place to go for those who want to keep prices higher on a unique portfolio: IS I'm already considering pulling my best photos from subscription agencies (except Snapvillage, where I can opt out for individual images). My best selling photo has so far generated $0.36 per sale at SS and $0.62 per sale at IS. It has generated 39% more money at IS than at SS, but with far less copies downloaded. Obviously, I would like to have the income from both places. But if the image wasn't available at SS, a typical volume buyer, providing he was looking for that particular kind of image, would buy it from IS if he really needed it, and even if he had to pay a higher price. This is all theory of course, but when I look at how I buy photos myself, it makes sense. I mostly shop around, not to find the lowest price, but to find the best image. If I charge a customer $500 for a design job, it doesn't really matter if I pay $0.25 or $10 for the image. What matters is that I have a satisfied customer, who actually pays me to find the best photo available for his use. If I was a volume buyer, I would download as many photos as possible using a subscription, still charging my customer the same, but still, I would probably have to buy some photos for higher prices at places like IS. What StockXpert, and through them, the photographers, is now doing, is to ask more customers to become subscribers, and to pay lower prices. Not good for us, and long term, I don't think for StockXpert either. Have you heard about the guy who, on a cold winter day, peed in his pants to stay warm?
737
« on: October 21, 2007, 06:41 »
Oh dear Araminta. I share your concern. Steve has assured us that StockXpert sees subscription customers as a different category completely and will enhance sales and earnings overall.
They are correct about one thing: subscription customers is a different category of customers. They are the customers who buy in volume, maximizing the difference between subscriptions and regular sales. And who are these volume buyers? Advertising agencies, newspapers, magazines etc. Those who have traditionally bought images for much higher prices. They do not represent a new market for microstock photography, since they have always bought stock photos, and they are not where the growth potential is. They are traditional stock photo buyers who save a lot of money now, buying cheap. While there is a kind of logic, selling cheap to volume buyers, those volume buyers are the ones who would buy to whatever cost, since they need the images anyway. And up to 90+ percent discount on existing microstock prices is a bit much if you ask me (but nobody does  ). To me, the subscriptions represent discounts to the wrong customers
738
« on: October 21, 2007, 06:26 »
On a certain site that also introduced subsciptions this year :
October 2006 average income per picture : 1.02 $
October 2007 average income per picture : 0.66 $
I'm still confused as how this subscription plan benefits the photographers.
Patrick.
ps : forgot to add that october 2006 i had 155 downloads, october 2007 186, but earnings from this year october are still roughly about 30 $ less then income from october 2006.... hoera subscriptions (sarcastic)
This is what subscriptions are all about. For buyers: download more, pay less For photographers: deliver more, receive less With the numbers you mention, we need a market growth of between 50 and 100%, not to increase our income, but to protect status quo. If this trend continues, it may become a very good reason to go exclusive with IS.
739
« on: October 20, 2007, 14:33 »
Submitting your images
It's important to notice that they require exclusive images and the RAW files, or TIFF files when you're "being creative with your images".
We like to receive images taken with professional cameras that use a CCD (or CMOS) of at least 6 megapixels. The greater the number of megapixels your camera CCD (or CMOS) has, the more megabytes of information you will obtain. A professional 35-mm digital camera creates files that range between approximately 18 and 50 MB. We can interpolate these to between 26 and 100 MB, although we have interpolated digital images with limits up to 1.2 GB with commercially acceptable results. But, don't worry, we are not going to ask you to interpolate your images to these sizes. These are exceptional cases that we deal with every now and then under very special circumstances.
The high-resolution files we accept must be of images taken and sent to us in RAW format (never use JPEG format). If you are one of those photographers who goes for the glory and you want to play with your work and give it your personal touch, you should save your RAW files as 8-bit TIFF files when you are done being creative with your images. Never use compressed JPEG to send us your high-resolution files.
For macro-stock, exclusivity the way they define it suits me fine, particularly when it comes to RM.
740
« on: October 20, 2007, 14:30 »
Hi, I want tell everybody in microstockgroup here my first photo collection in age fotostock :
http://www.agefotostock.com/age/ingles/isphga01.asp?actual=1&querystr=wael+hamdan&id=24532310&vertf=0
Great! Congrats! What were their requirements with regards to camera/file-size?
Thanks epixx, it's only available this way
HI-RES
A8+ (2 MB - 300ppi RGB)
A5 (10 MB - 300ppi RGB)
A4 (25 MB - 300ppi RGB)
Other file sizes available upon request
Best of luck.
I was more thinking: what file size did they require you to deliver? Did they have any particular requirements with regards to camera equipment?
Well, I am using canon 350D i send as it is 3456 x 2305 not like alamy size. Some other require 12 MP like gettyimages .
Ok, thanks. I like their style and their attitudes, so I thought I should give it a try.
741
« on: October 20, 2007, 14:27 »
I have EOS 400D with its integrated cleaning system (ultrasonic), but I am new with it, so what are your expiriences with it? Does it really works?
So far, the Olympus cameras seem to have the only cleaning system that works properly. I've had an E-1 for a year now, and so far, not a single dust spec. My Fuji S3, on the other hand, needs a thorough cleaning 
742
« on: October 20, 2007, 05:44 »
Hi, I want tell everybody in microstockgroup here my first photo collection in age fotostock :
http://www.agefotostock.com/age/ingles/isphga01.asp?actual=1&querystr=wael+hamdan&id=24532310&vertf=0
Great! Congrats! What were their requirements with regards to camera/file-size?
Thanks epixx, it's only available this way
HI-RES
A8+ (2 MB - 300ppi RGB)
A5 (10 MB - 300ppi RGB)
A4 (25 MB - 300ppi RGB)
Other file sizes available upon request
Best of luck.
I was more thinking: what file size did they require you to deliver? Did they have any particular requirements with regards to camera equipment?
744
« on: October 19, 2007, 03:38 »
$3.00 per month
$1.35 per ATM withdrawal in US
$2.15 per ATM withdrawal outside US
It's ok for big earners, but for somebody who earns around $100 per month at IS, it's 5% (outside US) with one monthly withdrawal. It depends a bit on exchange rates though. They may be better or worse than the alternatives.
745
« on: October 18, 2007, 19:38 »
This is good new indeed. As a buyer, I know that I'm willing to pay more than the lowest prices if I can find the right image. As a photographer, I know I could use the extra money 
746
« on: October 18, 2007, 19:33 »
Not very busy for me. Haven't had a sale in days 
747
« on: October 18, 2007, 19:31 »
On another, I found it amusing how they termed the phrase "low budget Royalty Free" (LBRF) model, and avoided 'microstock' alltogether ... perhaps they thought microstock had too many 'social marketplace' connotaions. It isn't clear it's microstock, is it? It could be a midstock.
Regards,
Adelaide
I wouldn't be surprised if they will follow a similar pricing scheme to Snappvillage, being a combined micro/midstock alternative. In my view, that is very positive. I've been in touch with them, and they say that they're beta-testing. Apparently, as opposed to many other microstock agencies, they prefer to do the testing before they go online. Good thinking. They also said that priority will be given to existing contributors to agefotostock to start with. The quality of their images are really top notch, and from a creative point of view possibly the best out there, so they may place the bar a bit higher than the others. They promised to get back to me later.
748
« on: October 18, 2007, 19:25 »
The problem with a voting system is that there will be "vote spamming", like we see on other sites. On iStock, we know that it's organized, and no images get other than "5" nowadays. It's only a question of time before groups (like ourselves) start promoting each other's photos.
749
« on: October 18, 2007, 19:18 »
To be a part of this discussion, I guess I have to upload my own avatar then. Here it is, a few grains of rice. The basis of life for so many people. Simplicity and survival?
750
« on: October 18, 2007, 19:10 »
Uh-oh. The site doesn't work in NS7. I can't log in. I hate when I'm forced to use IE instead...
Regards,
Adelaide (strict HTML code fan)
Isn't it time to upgrade to Firefox?
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 47
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
