|
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 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 47
801
« on: October 08, 2007, 08:07 »
Go to your member profile, then click on the "stats" tab.
Here's another question:
I tried to attach my own stats to a reply in this thread, but it wasn't possible. Do I have to host it somewhere to do that?
I use photobucket to host the photos.
Thanks, that worked, but what a horribly ugly website 
802
« on: October 08, 2007, 08:04 »
Here are my stats. Not a pretty sight  
803
« on: October 08, 2007, 06:59 »
17.0, and it has been hovering just below 20 since it was uploaded in February.
804
« on: October 08, 2007, 01:49 »
This is a dumb question I know, but how do I go into istock and do a chart like the one above, only I want to print out let's say, the last 12 months, or the last 15 months, etc?
Go to your member profile, then click on the "stats" tab. Here's another question: I tried to attach my own stats to a reply in this thread, but it wasn't possible. Do I have to host it somewhere to do that?
805
« on: October 07, 2007, 12:15 »
I'm not a fan of their forums though. It is amazing that every time they post about there outages and problems people actually congratulate an thank them. Especially the diamond exclusives that depend on iStock for a living.
What I find particularly annoying with some of the attitudes I see at the forums, particularly when questions about upload quotas come up, is the fact that most of those diamond members built their portfolios when upload limits were much higher. Sometimes I get a feeling that they are saying "since you didn't become a member when we started out, you are not one of us, and should be thankful that you are allowed in here at all." Many of them are great photographers, but there's no greatness in the way they treat newcomers. Oh, and btw: after first week of October, IS is 35% behind DT and 70% behind SS for me. If the sales continue at the same level, the result will be about the same level as September, but that's only because there are 3 or 4 more working days in October
806
« on: October 07, 2007, 11:54 »
I make images specifically for stock and submit them to all agencies simultaneously.
That's what I do as well.
807
« on: October 07, 2007, 11:52 »
The D300 is supposed to hit the stores in November. It has been in production since August, or at least that's what I've heard, so hopefully, there will be enough.
808
« on: October 06, 2007, 20:50 »
Are your images sRGB or Adobe RGB. With some viewers, colours will be much brighter with sRGB.
With thumbnails at the agencies, my experience is that it varies a lot, depending on their conversion routine. All my files for uploading are Adobe RGB, which gives a wider colour space, but I suspect that the thumbnails (and the sales) would be better if I convert to sRGB.
809
« on: October 05, 2007, 22:28 »
is it me or is there an irony here that the micros have long been critisiced for 'ripping off' the photographers compared to the traditional agencies, in particular, Istock's 20%, now a traditional agency offers 15% for exclusive, half of what istock pays a good stockist for exclusivity?
This was my first thought, and there are traditional stock photographers who will not be happy about this development. Even if this is an offer to a limited group of contributors, it reflects an attitude, and news spread very fast these days.
810
« on: October 04, 2007, 20:21 »
1. Ease of uploading:
Shutterstock - B
IstockPhoto - C
StockXpert - B
Fotolia - B
Dreamstime - C
BigstockPhoto - E
---
LuckyOliver - A
----------
2. Reviewing process:
Shutterstock - A
IstockPhoto - B
StockXpert - D
Fotolia - A
Dreamstime - B
BigstockPhoto - A
---
LuckyOliver - A
----------
3. Earnings:
Shutterstock - A
IstockPhoto - C
StockXpert - D
Fotolia - C
Dreamstime - B
BigstockPhoto - C
---
LuckyOliver - F
----------
4. Website Usability:
Shutterstock - B
IstockPhoto - A
StockXpert - C
Fotolia - B
Dreamstime - B
BigstockPhoto - C
---
LuckyOliver - B
----------
5. Customer Service:
Shutterstock - A
IstockPhoto - E
StockXpert - C
Fotolia - A
Dreamstime - B
BigstockPhoto - C
---
LuckyOliver - B
----------
6. Growth in Earnings/Customer Base/Sales:
Shutterstock - A
IstockPhoto - F
StockXpert - C
Fotolia - B
Dreamstime - B
BigstockPhoto - A
---
LuckyOliver - F
----------
7. Community:
Shutterstock - B
IstockPhoto - F
StockXpert - C
Fotolia - B
Dreamstime - B
BigstockPhoto - C
---
LuckyOliver - B
----------
8. Overall Grade:
Shutterstock - A
IstockPhoto - D
StockXpert - D
Fotolia - B
Dreamstime - B
BigstockPhoto - C
---
LuckyOliver - E
811
« on: October 04, 2007, 20:12 »
But aren't some of the microstock companies owned by larger companies? Seems to me there are multiple market segments and that they are diversifying to meet the demands of each.
That is correct, and the differences in image quality can go both ways, but while the technical quality is mostly very good at the micros, creativity is often lacking. I suspect one of the reasons for that is the reviewers. Most of them don't know the market well enough to understand the difference between "creative, but commercially interesting" and "strange photo with no potential". The result is that most of the micro portfolios consist of technically perfect, but rather uninspired mainstream photos. Images that won't insult anyone, but they won't spur any strong feelings either. Those who lose the battle are the macro-stock photographers who aren't creative enough to compete with the best, and not productive or technically skilled enough to compete at the micros. And no 48MP camera will change that. A bad photo is a bad photo, even if taken with a Hasselblad.
812
« on: October 04, 2007, 17:27 »
What is it with these agencies that just want to screw us? There is no justification for a 45 day wait - they just want to keep the money and earn interest on it.
In their view, earning interest on your money is justification enough  But actually, payment schedules are one of the areas where most micro agencies are better than most macros. Some of the latter pay 30 days after the end of each 3 month period.
813
« on: October 04, 2007, 17:24 »
With all the discussion at StockXpert over the possible introduction of subscription services, I thought I'd check out SV's offering.
Their terms are 30c commission per download.
Subscription rate is $199 monthly, 25 downloads per day, 750 per month. This pricing looks like a deliberate ploy to undercut Shutterstock (but of course SV doesn't have the customer base yet).
I'm opting out of the subscription scheme for most of my images there. The earnings would be so very small, and for each customer who buys a 10$ image instead, I'll gain a lot. Pure speculation at this stage, but looking at the figures at DT, it makes sense.
814
« on: October 03, 2007, 19:35 »
Seems the going rate has been decreasing
Seems the combination of micros plus Alamy may not be such a bad one 
815
« on: October 03, 2007, 18:16 »
I didn't even get the alien this time.
The alien got eaten by the octopus. Didn't they tell you
816
« on: October 03, 2007, 09:43 »
You will receive a 15% for every image downloaded. Images range from $79.95
for a low resolution file and up to 349$ for a high resolution file.
So ... have I got this right? The maximum you can earn for an image is 15% of $349 = $52.35
For a high-resolution exclusive image?
Hmmmmm ... I think I'll pass on that thanks, even if it is Jupiter.
That was exactly the question I asked, and had confirmed. My first thought was, that photos with the quality they require, will probably earn much more either at Alamy or at a combination of micros.
817
« on: October 03, 2007, 08:43 »
I've just received a response from Sbastien Poulin at Jupiter. In the response, there was an outline of the terms. I've taken out the technical part (55MB tiff etc., didn't say anything about up-rez), but here are the economic realities:
"We ask for up to 250 selected images for review and we should be able to get
back to you quickly with our intial feedback.
Payment will be issued quarterly and we have a number of payment options
including check and direct deposit.
You will receive a 15% for every image downloaded. Images range from $79.95
for a low resolution file and up to 349$ for a high resolution file.
How Does the Review Process Work?
Once we have reviewed your images and made a selection, we would send you an
Image License Agreement for you to sign. All agreements are a 2 year
exclusive to JupiterImages.com."
I asked for, and received, a confirmation that the figure 15% (one five percent) is correct. It is. Since I can't come up with a polite way to comment on that, I'll just pass it on to whoever are interested.
818
« on: October 03, 2007, 05:06 »
Makes even the rejects a pleasure to read
819
« on: October 03, 2007, 02:20 »
Ok, thanks
820
« on: October 03, 2007, 02:16 »
I have increased to $50 on mine lately as well, and consider increasing to the same on older photos. Is it possible to do that in one, global operation, or do I have to edit each photo?
821
« on: October 03, 2007, 02:06 »
Here's an interesting observation:
Last week, I uploaded and had approved a close-up of the eye of an Asian woman. When searching for the words Asian, woman, close-up, and eye (sort by best), I get 33 images up. Mine is the only one that is actually a close-up of an eye, while the others are mostly portraits. Still, it's only number 26 in the search.
I did similar searches with other images/parameters and got similar results.
In this case, all the images came up in the first page, but in many cases, recently uploaded images ended up at page one million or further back. This looks strange to me, and makes me think that either there's a lot of keyword spamming at LO, and/or there's something fundamentally wrong with the search engine.
822
« on: October 02, 2007, 23:09 »
One of my skepticisms about mircostock was actually centered around this:
What if somebody downloads a few hundred images from any of the agencies or a mix of them, pays the price, and releases a CD with the photos in the Asian market. I doubt that any microstock-agency would bother to trace it, and if they tried, they would have a very hard time finding the culprit out there in the city-jungle somewhere, or even in the real jungle. If they found him, it would be too late anyway, since the images would be copied again and again and again and again...
This has been a problem with macro-stock CD's as well, but the limitation has been the price. They had to find someone who had an original copy. Now they can download as many images as they want, for a very reasonable price.
If it will have an influence on our sales, is impossible to say. Most of those who buy the pirated CD's probably wouldn't buy the images in a legal manner anyway.
823
« on: October 02, 2007, 22:57 »
Leaf,
Thanks for the clarification. So it's more or less like Shutterpoint vs KeenImages.
Any experiences with the original (paying) site?
Regards,
Adelaide
The paying site is something similar to Smugmug, but more directed towards pro's. You can sell prints etc. through them. They are considered to be very professional, but also relatively expensive. Good solution for sports-photographers etc. who sell many prints.
824
« on: October 02, 2007, 21:43 »
BUT, I think if you know what you are doing and are very careful you can get great shots from a $20 tripod.
That depends entirely on outside circumstances that you can't always control. If it's windy, it's a problem, if the shutter speed is around one second, it's a problem (very long shutter speeds in calm conditions are not that much of a problem, since the camera/tripod will have time to "settle down" after vibrations caused by mirror, shutter and possibly shutter release), and the list goes on. In addition, a cheap, mostly light tripod will be very top-heavy when the camera is fitted on top. That means that it will tip over for nothing, possible causing the whole $1,200 investment to go down the drain, except the cheap tripod, which will usually survive
825
« on: October 02, 2007, 14:56 »
Some OK tripod: $100
One advice about tripods: never buy an OK tripod. Buy a good tripod, one that is very sturdy with a pan-head or ball-head. Tripods that are not sturdy enough, can in worst case be worse than not using one. Some of the Chinese brands (Benro among others), are good as well as cheap. Check them in the shop before you buy. Here's a link to a very good article about tripods: http://www.bythom.com/support.htm
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 47
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
