|
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 - Striker77s
76
« on: July 17, 2006, 18:32 »
I agree, I enjoy the atmosphere of this forum. When rjmiz began posting I was worried it might change I would never suggest that he should be banned in any way as his statements where far from out of hand. But as he said in his own posts you either love him or hate him and I have no desire for someone to cause any polarization of this forum. As everyone here seems to be on the same page. Great job leaf.
Mark
77
« on: July 14, 2006, 11:14 »
Lustre is very similar to their matte paper. It has a little more sheen to it. I'm not sure how they print it to be honest but it has done very well for me as far as fading goes. Here is a quote from their website.
"We print on Fujicolor Crystal Archive professional photographic paper, processed through professional Fuji Hunt Chemicals. The archival qualities of this process is 50+ years, before fading may occur. This is the same process that you would find at your better pro-labs."
Mark
78
« on: July 14, 2006, 09:48 »
I have used www.ezprints.com for a few of my large print outs with great success. My prints still look great after two years. A 20X30 on lustre paper will run about US $22. Just remember to use their professional service, because the other one tries to auto correct your exposure and saturation. Similar to what Wal-mart does. Mark
79
« on: July 13, 2006, 09:56 »
From Bryan's reponse it basically sounds like he has had success in the past building companies. He is relying on his team's superior marketing and business skills to become successful. I agree that many of the failed stock sites, failed because of their lack of marketing skills. They probably started with a team that had a lot of experience as designers and photographers and figured they would extend it to a microstock site. But their lack of marketing skills killed them. So I agree with Bryan that those skills are needed. But unlike most companies where you control the product design and production and focus, in the stock business you are at the mercy of the photographers. Right now you don't have a product to market. No matter how good your business or marketing skills are, your product is horrible. Meaning you have almost no selection. So instead of focusing on marketing your company that focus needs to be towards photographers and getting your product where it needs to be. Offering referal programs, giving initial photographers a bigger % if they sign up first. Whatever you think will bring in photographers. Offering a payout like fotolia did for every photo for a month worked extremely well for them. Your focus need to be on your product (photograhers) before you can go out and sell it. Having said that we have been a little impatient with you and your company. Like you said you have only been out there for a month. I for one have no intention of uploading my pictures until the upload process is painless and you raise our % from 30% to at least 40%. Maybe you can find others who are willing to take a risk with you, but I'm going to sit back and wait 6-12 months before I jump.
Mark
80
« on: July 12, 2006, 18:25 »
I'm not sure what camera you are using. But they will reject a DSLR image at 200 ISO if you aren't careful. I've even had a few at 100 ISO be rejected. So if you are using a point n shoot there is a good chance even in good light they will reject it for noise. Like you said you need to use noise ninja.
A 1000 images sound like a lot but if you shoot 20 images a week, it will take less than a year to get there. Even at 20 images a month it is worth my time. I don't know how you are doing keywording but you need to use the IPTC within the jpg image. That way once you keyword your image you can submit it to any website and your images are ready to go. There is still some work involved but it is minimal for most sites.
ImageVortex is a very low seller. So with 17 images it doesn't surprise me you haven't sold anything. The tops sites are
Shutterstock
IstockPhoto
after that
Fotolio
Dreamstime
Bigstock
StockXpert
Featurepics (maybe)
The rest are very low sellers and hardly worth your time.
Mark
81
« on: July 12, 2006, 17:48 »
Many of us here have had issues with getting accepted to shutterstock. Inlcuding myself. Shutterstock is extremely picky about noise so running them through noise nija should be done for all images except for the cleanest of images. Avoid flowers and to many landscapes, they have lots of those and they want to see more variety of work. I don't know how you can tell which ones were rejected if it has been a long time and they have deleted the images. If it is some what recent you can find out on their website.
As far as Fotolia goes I wouldn't say they have lower standards, just different standards. Most microstock sites aren't as picky with noise as SS. But Fotolia will still reject bad composition and other images the same as shutterstock.
If $4 is worth it to you or not, only you can decide. Obviously everyone here has decided it is. If you have a 1000 images that equates to $4,000 a year, and the money will keep coming in even if you stop shooting. Also the average $/pic/year will vary from $1 to $15 depending upon your skill and subject matter. $4/pic/year is just a ballpark figure.
Good luck,
Mark
82
« on: July 11, 2006, 16:48 »
Striker77 - is that the same for adobe RGB?
Yes and no. The transistion between shades won't be as smooth if you switch to aRGB and stay in 8 bit, but it is probably still good enough. So there is no huge issue with 8 bit aRGB. But going to a huge color space like Pro Photo RGB you should definitely stay in 16 bit space. Personally I mainly use 8 bit sRGB and hardly ever deviate from it. I always shoot in RAW and keep the original RAW file for all my images. So if I have a special need I can convert it to my desired color space in 16 bit and process it properly. But most of my work is for family, friends and stock sites. Taking special care to process everything in 16 bit with a large color gamut just isn't worth it. It only slows things down with no real benefit. Mark
83
« on: July 11, 2006, 14:16 »
Pro Photo RGB and other large color spaces are great but only if you use 16 bit. If you plan on using 8 bit stay with sRGB. Basically your shades won't transistion very smoothly because you are increasing your step size between shades of color. When you go to 16bit that isn't a problem.
Mark
84
« on: July 11, 2006, 09:43 »
As your images get older and older the less they make. This is due to our current topic, the search order. If you are currently submitting at the same rate then that would be odd. I'm getting a little less then usuall, but I'm assuming it is because I haven't submitted for a while. I've been a little busy, selling my home, building a home and my wife just delivered our new kid.
Mark
85
« on: July 11, 2006, 09:39 »
Oh, she is absolutely beautiiful!!!
Thank you, I think so to.  Mark
86
« on: July 10, 2006, 16:57 »
This is horrible. I'm a new player to Shutterstock and this will effect my sales dramatically. Displaying the newest images first encourages uploads by photographers. Maybe now that they have enough images and new images aren't a priority they are switching to displaying their proven best images to buyers.
Mark
87
« on: July 10, 2006, 13:49 »
Well I have a new addition to the family. My wife gave birth to our 3rd girl.  Mark
88
« on: July 02, 2006, 08:29 »
BigStockPhoto 7%
Dreamstime 12%
Featurepics 6%
Fotolia 11%
iStockPhoto 15%
StockXpert 8%
Shutterstock 42%
I added my portfolio to shutterstock this month and it was amazing. Of course they usually sort by newest images first so I assume my sales will die down quickly. But I'm impressed with Shutterstock, they almost doubled my income.
Mark
89
« on: June 29, 2006, 16:20 »
Amy thanks for the reply. I was actually expecting a longer reply. I don't mind jumping on the bandwagon and investing time into a new site if I like their business model. One example would be featurepics. They allow photags to price their own photos they offer extremely high royalties to photags and they are extremely responsive to suggestions on their site. Make a good suggestion and within a couple of weeks the changes are up and going. I felt they were somewhat unique so I gave them a go. I hope they succeed. You are offering royalties on the lower side and are probably the lowest of all new sites your pricing per picture is similar to other sites (there is nothing wrong with that) and you will allow production to tweak our images. I guess I'm still skeptical and don't see how you stand out from anyone else. But maybe you will, I feel the more competition the better.
Mark
90
« on: June 29, 2006, 14:32 »
OK Amy I have a few questions for you. Submitting images can take hours and hours for us. I haven't submitting any so I don't know how effecient your submital process is. Before we invest a lot of time into your site we want to know that there is good chance of getting something back. There are a lot of microstock sites out there and several new ones. Lets just say it isn't an easy industry to make money in as a new comer. Several of us have invested time into these new sites and have gotten little in return. I don't mean to be rude but please give a quick run down of why you think you are going to suceed where many others are failing. Your payout is OK but nothing special. Featurepics is a new site and they offer 70% payout in order to attract photographers, and they are still struggling to attrack enough photags.
Mark
91
« on: June 28, 2006, 18:10 »
I think we all understand the concepts well enough, we are just trying to out explain each other.  But the link Ichiro provided explains it visiually for anyone not familiar with the consequences of DSLRs using smaller sensors than a 35mm film frame. Mark
92
« on: June 28, 2006, 08:14 »
I've used their FTP. It is strange that they will only let you use it for a few months but it works well. I stopped contributing to them as I have only made one sale in over 4 months. Not exactly stellar.
Mark
93
« on: June 27, 2006, 21:45 »
Thats why I said an 80mm equivalent and not a 80mm lens. But in many instances you actually get a better lens because usually the distortion on a lens is on the edges. So when you are only using the center part of the lens you tend to minimize the distortion. Of course that is just getting nick picky, the key is to buy good glass in the first place.  It depends what you are shooting if the crop factor is beneficial. It isn't a bad thing in all cases. For example if you are shooting interior architecture the crop factor hurts because you usually want a wide angle shot. If you are shooting sports or wildlife the crop factor is great because now you can get a greater reach. Mark
94
« on: June 27, 2006, 20:00 »
It depends different cameras have different multiplying factors. A canon 30D, 350D has a 1.6 factor, Nikon's have a 1.5x factor. A canon 1Ds is full frame and the 1D has a 1.3x factor. So for a 350D a 50mm lens will be a 80mm equivalent as you suggested. Many of us are so used to zooms or have never used a prime lens so the ideas seems crazy. But prime lens aren't so bad, they require a little more work but they are usually a lot faster and have higher quality optics. Having said that I don't have any primes anymore but they aren't as bad to work with as you would think.
Mark
95
« on: June 27, 2006, 14:59 »
I think you have an excellant plan. I would also recommend getting the 350D and then spending the rest on glass. The 70-200 f/4L is a great choice to get started. The 18-55 isn't a great lens but it will get you by until you make tons on money on microstocks and can buy the 10-22 or the 24-70 L.
Mark
96
« on: June 27, 2006, 10:13 »
I agree with Ichiro for the most part. Just don't get discouraged. If you are coming from a point and shoot then the kit lens will probably be fine. It is slow but the optical quality is acceptable from what I hear. But Ichiro is right when he said most of your money is spent on glass not the body. I bought a Canon 10D several years ago and I have been slowly increasing my lens stockpile with all pro glass. I use all Sigma EX series and they work well enough for me as and for many others. If you can afford it get the 350D and then spend your time and money on obtaining glass. You will get there soon enough. Good luck. Mark
97
« on: June 26, 2006, 17:46 »
I only track monthly sales for each site. I only have a few hundred images, but I can't imagine it being worth the time to track every sales on every site. Will having all that information really have a significant impact on your shooting and uploading?
Mark
98
« on: June 21, 2006, 08:32 »
Using a laser isn't a problem. Despite what a lot of people think, there are plenty of lasers that could be used that are low enough in power that couldn't damage the human eye. In fact most pointers can't damage the human eye unless you leave it shining in someones eye for a long period of time. I still seriously doubt whether it could be used against a SLR.
Mark
99
« on: June 20, 2006, 23:53 »
I would agree, the explanation was brief and non-technical. But I doubt it could detect and direct a light source under 1/250 of a second. Which is why it specifically mentioned digital cameras and not film cameras. If it could do it under 1/250 of a second, then it would work for all cameras (including film).
Mark
100
« on: June 20, 2006, 08:06 »
Setting up a bank account is very easy the US. All it requires is around $20 for a first deposit and an ID card. They usually give out a bunch of free stuff when you sign up. I had no idea it was more difficult in other places since banks are dying to take your money. I once had a friend from New Zealand and when he found out banks in the US have drive up service he was completely shocked. He couldn't believe that a bank would be run like a McDonalds and called us lazy. Which we probably are. Mark
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
