|
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 - Perry
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 57
826
« on: December 04, 2010, 19:22 »
BTW does Getty still have the "photographer's choice" program?
827
« on: December 04, 2010, 07:08 »
I just got a batch of old book illustrations rejected. Book printed in 1880 and is in public domain in every possibly way. Still they want to see "property release", they seem to have a hard time understanding that "public domain" means nobody isn't able to to sign a property release because it's not anybody's property anymore. Aaaargh!
828
« on: December 03, 2010, 19:17 »
Here is some "tough love"  http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16190936/wildanimalpark_247_wtm.jpg Soft, I can't find sharpness in the images (at least not in the important parts. It's too hard to tell what the cat is doing, I have no idea what concept this image could illustrate. Also you might need a property release from the zoo. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16190936/la%20costa%20pools_325_wtm.jpg It took me too long to understand what is going on here. The pose is awkward (especially the hand is in an awkward position), as is the expression (I can't tell if she's happy or terrified). Chromatic aberration in the highlights. The overall composition doesn't work http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16190936/kylie%20hall_wtm.jpg The text need to be removed in the "badge". An okay horse portrait, but nothing special, I wouldn't send this as my initial submission. Too tightly cropped top and bottom. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16190936/drivingmarathon_351_wtm.jpg This one is too cluttered, it's (again) too hard to see what is happening. The crowd in the background distracts. Lighting is harsh. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16190936/faith%20hat%2012_wtm.jpg This has a too flat and cool lighting. It also has lots of chromatic aberration. The bokeh looks bad in the feet. Top and bottom parts of the background are too cluttered. This in my opinion is the best photo of this batch. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16190936/fall_026_wtm.jpg This is soft. Huge amounts of chromatic aberration, for example in the top right branches against the sky. The building is unappealing, I have no idea what concept this image could illustrate / lack of commercial value. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16190936/wildanimalpark_099_wtm.jpg Too Noisy. The cat has some white stuff on his nose. Flat and dull lighting. The "platform" the cat is standing on says "zoo!". Property release needed from the zoo. The shape of the cat is too strange and unappealing. Would be much better if the cat looked in the camera. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16190936/foxes%20300%2014_wtm.jpg Okay it's a fox A boring composition Sorry if I sounded harsh, but it's important to hear these things from someone. I think your main weak points are: composition, post processing (the colors and tones need more OOOMPH!), chromatic aberration. You also need to focus to understanding that stock is not about taking pretty pictures, it's to shoot something that customers need. Either to shoot some subjects that are in need but there aren't too many of them already, or to shoot something in a different way or better. For example your fox image has to compete against these: http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&similar_photo_id=&searchterm=fox+animal&anyorall=all&search_group=photos&images_per_page=150 , if it's not better than the most of the images already there, it won't be sold. You need also always to think "in what kind of an article or advertisement could this image be used on?", If you don't know the answer it's often better to come up with some new ideas.
829
« on: December 02, 2010, 07:02 »
Oh what a stupid bunch of morons they are... the last "funny" thing was the "isolated" word, and now this...
830
« on: December 02, 2010, 04:39 »
Just realised how much I miss StockXpert  Those were the times...
831
« on: December 01, 2010, 11:24 »
I canceled my exclusive contract at IS I went ahead and applied at 3 other agencies that I wanted to start with. During the 30 day waiting period, at SS you simply opt-out of everything from your profile page. Then upload away and start filling your portfolio. Once your 30day waiting is up and your exclusivity canceled, you can opt-in at SS. I wonder if this will reduce "the new-image-boost" ?
832
« on: December 01, 2010, 09:43 »
Why would iStock/Getty buy StockXpert if it was making so much money and then promptly shut it down? I'm not sure why its so hard to think of the other side. I'm not saying that I'm 100% correct, but you're reasoning doesn't make sense
Wasn't StockXpert just a part of Jupiter Images (that Getty acquired) ?
833
« on: December 01, 2010, 09:40 »
Is anyone else missing the 30th at IS? It hasn't been reported in my stats, but I had sales. 
Yes, I'm missing that day too.
834
« on: December 01, 2010, 09:23 »
okay, estimate the cost of this: (and effort? - what is that?)
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPpONUfCOI/AAAAAAAAAF4/HEJvnGM81rY/_MG_7541.jpg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPo13gs9kI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hlDk1wl__PU/_MG_7540.jpg
"effort" is how much work, time, skill, patience, photoshop work is needed for creating the shot.
I'd say your images may be in the highest category (at least in the medium category); released model, outdoor location with lighting and a classic car. Requires scheduling, planning and time.
that's your cost estimate?
it's cost and effort. It may not have cost you $$$ if the model is your friend and the car is yours. But it clearly has taken you much more time and effort to create these images than shooting an isolated apple. It's also very much about perceived cost/effort. "How much money/work would be required if I shot a similar image myself?".
835
« on: December 01, 2010, 09:21 »
It's not that easy.
I travel many thousands of miles to shoot.
Maybe someone local can shoot the same pics, and has more time to wait for excellent light etc, but it costs them much less.
(However, in the specific example I'm thinking of, there don't seem to be locals supplying the market.)
How would an editor decide on 'cost of production'?
This is a bit tricky, I admit. But as I said, this would be only one factor in the starting price and if the starting price is wrong it will either climb up or fall down.
In travel photography there is still the "effort" factory that applies, this could be interpreted
3=hard (model-released travel images, places that are clearly hard to access like mountain tops, aerial photos, underwater etc.)
2=medium (places shot clearly with tripods, night shots)
1=easy (tourist snapshots of places that are already shot to death)
I really wouldn't trust a reviewer to have that sort of general knowledge in all specialisms. I've seen too many badly-labelled images on all sites, even macros.
Yes, but the main point is that it's just a part of the starting price calculation, and the price would change additionally according to the sales. Maybe the system would work with every image starting at a "medium" price point, who knows. The cost would be less when each image wouldn't have to be reviewed for pricing. But the main point is that prices of "hot" images would go up and price of "bomb" images would go down. Also images that were hot years ago would get cheaper when their downloads goes down due to their age. Now at DT many old images suffer for their high price.
837
« on: December 01, 2010, 09:03 »
It's not that easy.
I travel many thousands of miles to shoot.
Maybe someone local can shoot the same pics, and has more time to wait for excellent light etc, but it costs them much less.
(However, in the specific example I'm thinking of, there don't seem to be locals supplying the market.)
How would an editor decide on 'cost of production'? This is a bit tricky, I admit. But as I said, this would be only one factor in the starting price and if the starting price is wrong it will either climb up or fall down. In travel photography there is still the "effort" factory that applies, this could be interpreted 3=hard (model-released travel images, places that are clearly hard to access like mountain tops, aerial photos, underwater etc.) 2=medium (places shot clearly with tripods, night shots) 1=easy (tourist snapshots of places that are already shot to death)
838
« on: December 01, 2010, 08:44 »
how do you estimate cost / effort looking at an image?? artistic quality... there are probably a handful of people in any city who can judge that (or none)
It's easy. It doesn't have to be anything too exact, just for example three categories: 3=expensive/hard (a group of people in a location) 2=medium (decently lit objects, one person in studio etc.) 1=cheap/easy (brick wall in available light) Artistic quality is a bit more difficult... also the "needed images" factor is a bit difficult. Artistic quality could be as following: 3=high (a "stopper", an image that looks interesting, images with emotion, creative images) 2=medium (more elaborate object shots, good solid people shots) 1=low (isolated on white objects, basic people shots) But the main point was that the that's only the starting price, the price will go up or down depending on the demand. Of course the system could work without a special starting price, but it might take an unnecessary long time for the image to hit the "sweet spot" because the system would only allow relatively slow price movements. My fluctuating price system would be very rewarding for images that are in high demand and punish bad stuff. It would encourage people to submit quality instead of quantity. If you hit a jackpot with your image you could have an image that both sells well and sells at a high price. With current systems you can either upload some mediocre stuff that gets downloaded 10 times, or put 10 times more time and effort to it to make an image that gets downloaded 100 times. Neither of these options make it possible to make MORE money for your work.
839
« on: December 01, 2010, 08:26 »
How about letting the image price fluctuate inside certain borders? The image could have a certain start price that is set by an editor (not a pixel peeping reviewer) according to three factors: Cost/effort of creating the image, Subject matter, Artistic quality.
In addition to that the image would change it's price using a simple mathematical formula and sales statistics. If an image gets "hot" the price could go up, and when it's sold less the price gets down. And if the price gets too down the image is removed from the collection. If the start price has been wrong, the image price will start to rise or fall. This system would work a bit like a "stock market".
DT prices it's images according to sales, but that's an unfair system for the new images. It also "punishes" old images that have in many years slowly gathered downloads. Prices get too high for an old image that isn't up to modern standards.
840
« on: December 01, 2010, 08:11 »
Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera? If the image subject is what the customer wants and it's a small size image, even a gazillion pixels doesn't mean anything. It's really ironic that the megapixels keep going up but more and more images are used in smaller and smaller sizes.
841
« on: December 01, 2010, 07:57 »
And what? "The big sizes gets cheaper and the small sizes more expensive". Meaning XS is $10 and XXXL is $5? Why would anybody not buy the XXXL?
Sorry my bad english... I meant that the big sizes gets cheaper from what they are now and the small sizes gets more expensive from what they are now. Also a flat pricing somewhere in the middle. I would of course the prices to get much higher but that's just wishful thinking. I have very little big sales (XL-XXXL) at sites that charge the highest price (for example XXXL at istock costs 25 credits.). Most of my sales are between XS and L. If every sale would be 10 credits regardless of size I would me much better off. And at a price around $10 still everyone could afford to buy the image. One local small agency has only two prices: print and web, and they cost 100% and 25%. I think that's an easy solution and the price of large and small image are much closer than - let's say - the IS difference of 100% and 4% (XS vs XXXL) I really can't see why images for web/mobile etc. should be cheaper than for print. I'd rather have a tiered system based on the image quality or sales or something than size which makes no sense at all nowdays (It propably did in the 1990's)
842
« on: December 01, 2010, 07:38 »
Finally a new BME for my big four, been waiting for this since the spring... I have been uploading quite much in this fall, I finally seem to get some money for my work. IS BME, even without the Partner earnings. This love-hate relationship with IS is really hard: I hate them but they still seem to rake in some cash even for me... SS Okay month, not good, not bad. DT Better thant the last few horrible months, things seem to pick up a little FT Okay month, not good, not bad. edit: Been around from 2004 (not so seriously in the first years), now about 2000 images at micro sites. Earnings go slowly up, but RPI goes in the other direction Need to shoot and upload more...more....MORE!
843
« on: December 01, 2010, 07:31 »
I think the answer is fair pricing for better images (Vetta), fair commission for the contributors AND a better licensing model.
A national magazine (Time) should not be able to get away with running a cover image and only paying a few pennies + extended license. Neither should a national or multi- national be able to put a model's image on a multi- million dollar product (Shampoo for instance) and only have to pay a few dollars + extended license. That is just highway robbery.
A cheap image for a blog is fine. A cheap image for a website that will be changed out in a few weeks, also fine.
We need to have a better license set up for the use of our imagery.
The problem with the last chapter is that blog might get really popular and seen by millions of people. Web sites are essentially "worldwide" and yet web uses are the most cheap ones, you often need just a small size image and it can be used on site of a huge company without any extended licences. They can also be distributed as banner ads on thousands of web pages. My solution for the modern world where print is in decline: One price, one size (some sites are already trying this). Let's say $10 for a image, regardless of size. The big sizes gets cheaper and the small sizes more expensive. The current relation between size and price is just stupid. The sites should really give up the "cheap images from $1" thinking.
844
« on: December 01, 2010, 07:13 »
I say, "Apply". If you are accepted and images added to your port just remove them quickly. They may get sold a couple of time, but really, who cares? And if someone would care your excuse is that you sent only sample images and didn't know that they would appear for sale...
Just applying to get in to a site does not mean selling anything!
845
« on: December 01, 2010, 07:03 »
where i fall short is in understanding lighting.
Microstock sites tend to prefer light and colorful images over the dark desaturated murky ones. They also don't like dark/hard shadows or very much contrast in general. Send us some samples so we can discuss this further (?)
846
« on: December 01, 2010, 06:55 »
in my crits over at SS its been drawn to my attention that i tend to shoot with a shallow dof, which even though i do intentionally, isnt a great idea on gettin my 1st approval.
Most of the agencies tolerate shallow dof, but the focus have to be in the right place. I shoot sometimes with shallow dof and I sometimes get rejected for having the focus in the wrong place (even if I do disagree with the reviewer). You could always post some images here for us to criticize and to see if we think your shallow dof images are focused in the optimal distance. The lens performance is also crucial when shooting with large apertures, I many times downsize my images to get more sharpness in the sharp areas. Posting images here for critic (preferably in full resolution) is generally a good idea, without images we can only imagine what we are talking about.
847
« on: November 30, 2010, 18:19 »
To have Google Ad Sense advertisements on your page you just need to sign up, determine sizes for banners etc. and copy the code into your web page html code and soon you have ads on your page. And if the ads are viewed and/or clicked you get money.
Of course Google tells that their ads cannot be used on sites with illegal content or pornography, but some just don't care.
848
« on: November 30, 2010, 14:38 »
All the 50% commission sites have been taken over by other companies - SS with BigStock, iStock withi StockXpert. I also vaguely remember that a 20% site called iStockphoto was taken over by Getty. Why was that? And a 60% site called Alamy has not been taken over by anyone. What is your point? iStock's royalty cuts (for non-exclusives) suck and are based on greed. I cannot find any valid argument that tells me otherwise.
849
« on: November 26, 2010, 07:57 »
I think the subject of this thread should be "Zoonar images on ddp"
I just clicked trought my images to get them to ddp. Let's see if they sell some...
850
« on: November 25, 2010, 18:24 »
I want to see a model, with costs and cash flows - you know, the business side of things that include revenues, costs, financing, etc. I'd like to see that too. I also want to see similar calculation of a site that pays non-exclusives more, for example in the 35% area. I really would like to see where IS puts the extra 20% they take from their contributors.
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
