|
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 - sharply_done
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 ... 73
776
« on: June 01, 2008, 00:24 »
I find it funny that you should post something like this - just the other day I was investigating Dorothea Lange's iconic shot. Of the six images she made that day, only one 'turned out', so to speak.
777
« on: June 01, 2008, 00:13 »
IS- 55% (BME 1953 downloads on 448 images  )
... Outstanding!
778
« on: May 31, 2008, 14:46 »
My IS sales have been in decline for the past two months, but they've really plummeted lately. On the bright side, this sales drought can't last forever!
779
« on: May 30, 2008, 04:01 »
23 cents Sharply? Are you seriously ok with this? Suppose they come out and say the lower end will be 18 cents instead. You still ok with it? Where do you draw the line? 10 cents? 1 cent?
I don't draw a line at all. 1c per DL is infinitely better than not getting the DL by opting out. Sure, I want to get as much as I can, but I'm not going to refuse to sell just because they aren't paying me as much as I'd like. If I had that attitude, I'd have abandoned microstock and returned to the more traditional client-driven photography biz or joined a more traditional agency if I wanted to do speculation-based shooting. On the downside, and now that everyone's offering subscriptions, it's only going to be a matter of time before the market readjusts so that the agency offering the best deal gets the biggest share of the pie. Looking at things this way, IS has an ace in the hole in the form of their large exclusive library.
780
« on: May 30, 2008, 03:29 »
Seriously, if this is true, we need to gather up as many of us as possible and simply attack their forum with a fury. This is an insult.
C'mon, now. It isn't like this is coming out of nowhere, is it? With the exception of FT, every major agency now offers subscriptions. This is the way the market is going. You're not going to get anywhere by refusing to particpate in it or by complaining/ranting/attacking/throwing a tantrum. I've said it before, and I'll say it one last time: Wouldn't you be further ahead by adopting strategies to take advantage of subscription models instead of ignoring them in the hope that they're a temporary trend that will soon go away? The correct choice, to me, is pretty obvious.
781
« on: May 30, 2008, 02:00 »
...
The point he was trying to make was that you should not be uploading images to sell on Macro's that are selling for much less on the micro's, as it is a bad practice, and the buyer would not be happy and look for a refund if they found the image for a couple of dollars, which are fair comments.
David
I don't think that argument is valid, and for two distinct reasons. 1. Why would a buyer look on PSC if he/she was also looking on microstock agencies? In my mind it's an either/or market. Those that use microstocks do not use traditional stock agencies, and vice versa. They are mutually exclusive markets. 2. Why would someone buy an image, then continue looking around for the same or similar images? Satisficing theory explains why not: After a satisfactory solution is reached, (i.e. the buyer found and purchased an image) people do not continue acting as though the problem still exists (i.e. continue searching for images). If PSC is so convinced that their business model is superior to that of microstock agencies, they should put their money where their mouth is, and welcome the competition. Barring images that are 'good enough' to be in their library just because they can be licensed at a cheaper price elsewhere does not make good business sense. They'd be further ahead by patterning themselves after IS. As in, yes, we have images that can be had elsewhere, but we also have stuff that you can't get anywhere else. Curious? Come on in and have a look around ... you'll like what you see.
782
« on: May 29, 2008, 16:47 »
I am confused ... as I submitter I cannot see the lighboxes, do you have to be a buyer?
You have to go to the buying part of the site - not the submitting part - to see the front page image and lightboxes (which are located at the bottom of the page). Go here: http://www.shutterstock.com
783
« on: May 29, 2008, 11:52 »
My experience on PSC is mostly 'ungood'.
Although they accept almost everything thrown their way, this is more than offset by their bulky keywording system - the CV at IS is leaps and bounds ahead of PSC. There are a lot of amateurs there, and their collection has a wealth of mediocre imagery. They seem to have plenty of lookers, but few buyers - I did not make a sale at PSC. This announcement was my tipping point, and I cancelled my account. This is the first agency I've abandoned.
784
« on: May 28, 2008, 11:11 »
Of course you've got a point, but then again, I haven't had a $40 dollar business day in over six months (that's about a 50% drop from my average) so I'm just saying that I'm a little concerned. If things don't start picking up by the end of next week I'll be very concerned.
You're not alone in feeling this significant drop - I'm in almost the same boat. Haven't you read this thread?
785
« on: May 27, 2008, 23:49 »
What do you mean 'no reason at all'? Rejected - [Thank you but we are not interested in this subject matter or situation] sure sounds like a reason to me. All that aside, you can PM Steve-Oh by clicking here.
786
« on: May 27, 2008, 18:55 »
... It is "take it if you like it" game for me.
Your sales will show, and indeed are showing, the results of your attitude towards commercial stock photography. As others have said, unless you change your mindset you will not be successful in this endeavor.
787
« on: May 27, 2008, 18:50 »
Yep, I'm in slump-a-roo-ville there.
Big time.
788
« on: May 27, 2008, 18:49 »
The general rule of thumb with night shooting is that stars will begin to show obvious blur after a 15s exposure. Aperture plays a huge role in determining how many stars will show - shooting wide open generally gives the best effect.
With 700mm the only thing you'll be able to shoot is the moon, which gets very boring very quickly. I've shot it using 900mm, and you have to anticipate its movement into the frame before pressing the shutter. At that magnification even slightly touching the camera results in severe shake.
... good luck!
789
« on: May 25, 2008, 22:11 »
Monday is also a holiday in the USA, so I wouldn't expect anything too drastic to happen.
790
« on: May 25, 2008, 16:53 »
Hmm, isn't a one way conversation actually a lecture?
I'm curious, too, rjmiz. What did you learn about artifacts as seen from the point of view of this reviewer?
791
« on: May 25, 2008, 16:48 »
... I never use ftp at FT for the same reason and the flash uploader works good.
Same here - FT's Flash Uploader is a cinch. The system I like best is 123's Windows XP Publish Tool, which works from within the folder on your computer. I wish every site had this.
792
« on: May 25, 2008, 15:49 »
Their FTP has been down for a while now. I've been using their http uploader, which is a bit painful in that images have to be uploaded one-at-a-time. It sure would be nice if they allowed multiple images to uploaded this way!
793
« on: May 25, 2008, 12:08 »
Email them and explain what happened. They are very approachable and helpful.
Yes, you should definitely do this. BigStock is almost a true "mom and pop" operation, and they'll be pretty quick in correcting the situation.
794
« on: May 22, 2008, 15:27 »
Given that they've set themselves up to be more subjective than their competition, I think they'd fare better if they charged more. Significantly more. Their low sales volume combined with low prices mean that it doesn't pay to upload to Crestock unless you have a library of at least several hundred proven images - those of you just starting out should steer clear of Crestock until you have your 'sea legs', so to speak.
Also, and I have no idea if it's just me, there seems to be very few credit sales lately: every single DL for me this month has been a 25c subscription!
795
« on: May 22, 2008, 13:14 »
Google could really be of help if I would remember that his last name is acurus
anyway, thanks for the link!
Geez, entering "yuri stock photography" on any search engine will get you there.
796
« on: May 22, 2008, 13:01 »
Clicking on the member's name takes you to his/her profile, where you can send an email, and PM - this makes the profile, email, and PM avatars redundant. Not that I've ever visited anyone's site, but the website avatar might be better placed amongst the agency avatars.
And yeah, I'd like to see some sort of background info about the poster - that would be a better use of the space. I'm tired of reading stuff like "wow, my sales are up 50% this month!" only to find that he/she has only sold a few hundred images across all sites.
797
« on: May 20, 2008, 22:29 »
Yes, you should do that - I received mine on the 14th.
798
« on: May 19, 2008, 00:09 »
The 100mm on a full frame didn't provide enough reach, so I sold it.
Lesson learnt: there's a reason the Canon pro model is 180mm.
799
« on: May 18, 2008, 00:47 »
...
I'm probably missing something important here...
Yes, you are. madelaide disagrees with the philosophy of subscription models, and thus refuses to use SS. As far as I am aware, she stands alone in putting her money where her mouth is, so to speak. There are many others on this forum who, though they also disagree with subscriptions, continue to license their imagery on SS.
800
« on: May 17, 2008, 23:13 »
...
I found DT, FT and SX to be embarrassingly easy.
With the exception of IS, I think they're all embarassingly easy. I think IS plays favorites in this respect, and that it's much easier to get an "over filtered" image accepted there if you're an exclusive.
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 ... 73
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
