|
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 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 57
851
« on: November 24, 2010, 10:08 »
I guess more and more pictures are being used on the web - where 320x240 is often enough - instead of press, so the new limit doesn't make a lot of sense in my opinion
+1 I think a better move would to establish a crappystock category where the minimum size would be something like 640*400 (I have lots of great shots that are too soft for stock but are very artistic and look good and would be good enough for web size images. And web size images seem to cover 80% of the uses nowdays...) Remember, this isn't just a question of numbers, 8mpix enables reviewers to nitpick your images even more for artefacts and sharpess. This is a difficult dilemma; cameras aren't good enought for micros: I sometimes get rejections with my 5DmkII (100ISO, histogram to the right) for noise) if I submit a full size image. And now they are telling not even downsample much. Micro world is crazy... They are really trying to ban "real world" photography (ISO 400, large apertures etc.) and make photographers to jump trough the hoops to make their images as bland as possible (but hey - no noise!) I didn't think 123rf's problem were too small image sizes... It's their sales/marketing departments who suck. I'm going to ignore this stupid question of minumum size and continue to do things my way (my minimum size is 4mpix that is enought for most micros), I'll just dump all my image batches to 123rf, and it's up to them to sort them by the size.
852
« on: November 23, 2010, 09:00 »
Now, where are my sales? (I wish this 100% thing would have been yesterday when I had some good sales...  )
853
« on: November 22, 2010, 09:26 »
Online images: 9,990,597
edit: Oh I was too slow...
854
« on: November 22, 2010, 05:54 »
This one http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14783063/cow6.jpg was turned down at crestock for Artifacts and/or Compression flaws. I can't for the life of me see what they mean!
I can't see those flaws either. I would have cloned out the dung tho. I wouldn't give too much attention to CS, I just dump my portfolio there and they accept/reject what they want and I don't even bother to see if my images went trough...
855
« on: November 19, 2010, 13:03 »
I submit to the Big4 and the other ones that have an easy upload. On most of the low earners I have a payment once a year. It can be $50 or $500. It might not be much, but put together it's around 20% of my microstock income. And that is almost without any trouble at all because I only submit to the sites that have easiest uploading procedures (for example 123rf, Veer, Canstock, Scanstock, Crestock, Zoonar, Cutcaster and lately Graphicleftovers). My micro portfolio does not contain any recognizable people so I don't have any hassle with releases.
If low earners really would like people to upload more pics, they should skip the categories and other extra work! (nobody needs categories anyways)
856
« on: November 17, 2010, 18:03 »
I agree that your shots are better than most people who come in asking for a critique.
So do I. You're a good photographer and you just need to spend time learning about stock and uploading more. You have the potential to do well.
+1 (If you need help deciding which files to send to SS we may be able to help)
857
« on: November 17, 2010, 15:13 »
I'm not going to get into another argument like this. There's plenty of them around. if you want to see how this plays out, there's plenty of threads here to read
You have chosen your path, and you have the right to do so. But don't try to make me quiet if I want to tell about my philosophy (NOT putting all eggs in one basket). I know it's hard to be an exclusive and not being able to do anything but listen.
858
« on: November 17, 2010, 15:07 »
-- Moderator may remove this --
859
« on: November 17, 2010, 14:59 »
Oh, one more thing about street cred. It isn't the new and shiny stuff that makes you a credible pro, it's the old, worn and beaten stuff that gives you street cred 
OMG, thanks for that. I must look like a total pro. I have been saving for a new body for about 4 years now but something essential always comes up. My speedlights are falling apart. The springs are gone in my backdrop stands and the bar slowly sinks down on one corner. Husband finally gone back to work though so that is about to change. I really only long for a new body though (I DESERVE ONE IT!) Maybe a couple new Einstein lights.
Oh I didn't mean the camera and lenses... only the stands and such are cool in worn condition (not broken!) (Hope you get new gear soon 
860
« on: November 17, 2010, 14:46 »
Call me whatever you want, you're the one that doesn't get it. Yes they are blatantly cutting your commission, but the SS commission you get has been hypothesized to cap out at 20% total, but most of the time you make a lot less commission-wise. I've seen people complain that commissions are below 20% at Fotolia, so why are you so upset at IS. And by the way, I thank you very much for having your commission cut, because without you, it wouldn't be possible for me to get my 35%
I don't like many of the sites that I send my work to, but they pay me so I'm hanging with them. But I certainly know that I wouldn't want to be "married" to any of them like the exclusives at IS. The problem is that most of the exclusives doesn't know how life is outside their exclusive bubble. I'm pretty sure many of them would even be surprised that there are sites where you don't need to click any buttons when uploading your stuff, just sending files via FTP BTW SS percentage can be low (we cannot be sure), but they have always treated contributors fairly well and offering them raises (hmm... it's been a while since they last time gave us a raise... ). I also sell some of my images as macro RF, even that wouldn't be possible as an IS exclusive. IS seems really to hold its exclusives by the balls.
861
« on: November 17, 2010, 13:56 »
good to know you know their business better than they do - I'll be sure to shoot them over an e-mail and let them know they aren't hiring the right people
I'm most likely not the only one that can't really understand what IS has been doing for the last months (except making themselves more money). I know you are a die hard IS fanboy so criticizing IS is useless. Those that adapt to it will most gain more likely than not, those that remain here and complain about every single move will not.
I can't for example see what I possibly could GAIN by the fact that my royalty rate is dropping from 20% to 17% just to feed some fat greedy corporate pigs. Luckily IS only is a part of my income. There are lots of websites, there's lots of ways to make money. Yes.
862
« on: November 17, 2010, 09:34 »
Nobody can know for sure, but it is a safe assumption that you would AT LEAST double your income. don't forget picure prices increase as well as royalty.
And next year they can find another new way of screwing the contributor. Or what if IS starts to lose its market share? I would never ever put my eggs in one basket in this unstable business. (And yes, I have been an IS exclusive a long time ago, but when I had invested much time and effort in my portfolio I thought being exclusive was too risky. I have never really looked back) A Smart move for IS would be to have the possibility to submit some exclusive images and get a better percentage somewhere between what an independent and exclusive contributors make.
863
« on: November 16, 2010, 15:33 »
My motivation: bills that keep appearing in my mailbox.
864
« on: November 16, 2010, 09:06 »
Here is a short list of items that most of the serious hobby photographers doesn't have (even if they boast with their cameras, lenses and studio flashes): Big and heavy light stands (used where lighweight stands just aren't enough) C-Stands or other leveling leg stands Long and sturdy boom arms Big Scrims, silks Light gels (extensive collection of colors and sizes for both color correction and effects) Aluminum step ladder Clamps, super clamps, magic arms, goosenecks, adapters etc. Duct tape, fishing line, steel wire, blu tack, styrofoam etc. Things I need to shop someday: (this is the real pro stuff Portable power generator (you know the kind that works with gas, for lights and stuff) Portable flash systems (Elinchrom Quadra or such) Haze machine Wind machine Megaphone Walkie talkies These are better rented when needed: Small skylift Scaffolds Oh, one more thing about street cred. It isn't the new and shiny stuff that makes you a credible pro, it's the old, worn and beaten stuff that gives you street cred
865
« on: November 12, 2010, 06:01 »
No rocking here...
866
« on: November 12, 2010, 02:40 »
Instead of "downloads this month" I'd rather see "Account balance" (Yes, I know where to find my "account balance", but I find it much more interesting than "downloads this month", the amount of dowloads just reminds me how little money we get for a download )
The month's balance is in the upper right hand corner next to the amount of this month's downloads.
What exactly do you want to see when you say "account balance"? Your all time total?
No, I would like to see how much money is on my account currently, I think the corrext SS term is "Gross Earnings" on the Dowload Stats page. I have set a high payout limit to get a payment once every three months, so I would like to see how much my next payment will be. I don't say it's important, just more important than the "Downloads this month".
867
« on: November 11, 2010, 16:39 »
I still wish they had the following features (or maybe I just can't find them?): There is no easy way of searching for a particular image and see how much income that image has generated. I'd also like to find out my top earners on the site without having to add up sales from different pages (25-a-day + On demand + EL) Instead of "downloads this month" I'd rather see "Account balance" (Yes, I know where to find my "account balance", but I find it much more interesting than "downloads this month", the amount of dowloads just reminds me how little money we get for a download )
868
« on: November 11, 2010, 06:35 »
I agree with Patrick. .. and from the manual
the stabilizer is equally effective for hand-helf photography and photography with a monopod Oh, the manual, who reads it?  Okay I'll shoot with the stabilizer on
869
« on: November 11, 2010, 06:22 »
One vote for "ON", does anyone disagree?
870
« on: November 11, 2010, 05:38 »
I need an answer quickly. This is the first time I'm using the combination Stabilizer lens + Monopod, and I don't have time to run tests.
I know that I should set the stabilizer switch off on my 100/2.8L when shooting on a tripod. But what should I do when using a monopod? I will be mostly shooting between 1/30 and 1/125 seconds. Is it better to have the stabilizer on to get rid of some sideways movement when using monopod or does it cause more blur?
871
« on: November 02, 2010, 04:39 »
Pretty weak month. In fact this month was weaker than October 2009 And it's the only month this year that isn't growth from previous year. Now I'm hoping to have some massive Thinkstock earnings reported to turn those ugly red numbers into green again...
872
« on: November 02, 2010, 04:35 »
Agencies that Paid in EURO and not holding tax for US sales:
Zoonar: EURO Paypal (Tax-No)
Yaymicro.com: EURO Paypal (Tax-No)
Panthermedia: EURO Paypal (Tax-No)
I'll add to this category: Scanstockphoto (Tax-No) Stockphotomedia (Tax-No) Photocase (Tax-No)
873
« on: October 31, 2010, 15:23 »
I have no idea why you chose to bash some individuals portfolio just because you got a rejection. And you are not even showing YOUR rejected image.
BTW I can't see anything special (either way) in the portfolio you linked. I think there are many saleable images there.
Now I know more than enough about your quality standards .
This is not about my quality standards, it's about the customers' quality standards. I'm pretty sure the person with the portfolio has sold some images.
Why don't you show us your magnificent amazing wonderful portfolio?
how about you btw
No. I'm not the one bashing other peoples' portfolios publicly. Neither am I the one nagging about agencies rejecting some very special credit card shot that I think is good but the reviewers don't (and the others cannot tell their opinion because the OP don't show the image). eggshell = molka?
874
« on: October 29, 2010, 09:21 »
So it's something to consider if you want "thier" "relevan" services before uploading to the "agencines" after having spent much "effots" and long "workign" hours behind the camera, it will sure make things "easire"
LOL!
875
« on: October 29, 2010, 06:30 »
The image lacks some "punch", it needs some tweaks on the curves.
The image also has an awkward composition and has some distracting elements like the back rest of the chair(?) and the colorful piece of clothing on the shoulder that draws the attention too much.
edit: oh I didn't notice this was such an old thread...
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
