|
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 - PaulieWalnuts
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 120
851
« on: July 09, 2013, 06:40 »
A Canon zoom lens that is easy to walk around? Is there such a beast?
Well there are different levels of nuisance. I've tried walking around with the 70-200, but it's just too heavy after a few hours. Plus I like to look slightly discreet when out with my family, rather than like I am Joe Pro Photographer.
I find the 5D2 attracts attention everywhere, even with a relatively short lens. Maybe because I'm a 'woman of a certain age' and would be 'expected' (by most of the general public) to have one of these credit-card sized cameras. Or maybe the camera would always attract attention.
I think it's the lens more than anything. When I had my 70-200mm on I actually had a guy walk up to me and ask if I was Paparazzi. It's a big screaming white lens that you can't miss. With a regular lens nobody seems to care. But that's me. Maybe it depends on the person and area. But it brings up a good point. Dan, you may want to consider something like an EOS M for travel. Plus Canon seems to be having a fire sale on them right now for $299 including a 22mm f/2 lens.
852
« on: July 08, 2013, 19:28 »
And in addition to the price changes they seem to have done a massive best match change that favors older highly download files. Good times.
This has been the case for a few months now. In fact, new files have been doa since September.
Also remember that you're not always actually being shown the Best Match sort even if you wanted it and it says Best Match as the sort at the top of the page.
I monitor my files pretty closely and I haven't seen any significant change in months. Today when I checked it was completely different. I haven't seen this big of a change in probably over a year. Before it seemed to give preference to performance. Now it's downloads.
853
« on: July 08, 2013, 19:07 »
And in addition to the price changes they seem to have done a massive best match change that favors older highly download files. Good times.
854
« on: July 07, 2013, 19:04 »
Well, then your options are probably 24-70 or 24-105. I've had both and either are fine for the 5D line and shooting stock. If you already have the excellent 70-200 I'd say go with the 24-70.
855
« on: July 07, 2013, 17:15 »
Depends on the camera.
I have a 5DMII. I had a 24-105mm and it was decent but I now have a 24-70mm which I like better and is a nice compliment to the 70-200mm. I've read reviews on the 28-300mm and it's supposed to be sharp overall but it looks like a beast for weight and size. Canon really could use a more compact 28-300mm for general usage like Nikon's.
If you have a crop camera then maybe an 18-200mm. I think some of the independent lens makers are offering 18-250mm or 18-300mm's too.
856
« on: July 06, 2013, 05:35 »
number of images is irrelevant, you can have 1k and do 5k $ but the opposite is available also, you can delete everything that never sold or only 1 time and have a sweet RPI, I have 236 pictures (editorial) from a single event that made 10$ (SS) in over 1 year, OTOH my best pictures do over 50$ per month
like I have said it is impossible to determine what you will earn, anyway just to be sure I would go for Tom's numbers unless you are already a top photographer and know very well the demand or own a niche, I am saying that because I haven't sold 33% of my SS portfolio which is pulling my RPI down
Of course you're right Luis. Facts and statistics are totally irrelevant.
857
« on: July 06, 2013, 05:31 »
That formula is no where near reality!
It's nowhere near your reality. As I said, it's an average. And it's from a survey, which if people here answered accurately, is based on fact. It sounds like you may be on the low end of that average.
858
« on: July 05, 2013, 10:45 »
I'd look at RPI. I think the last time Leaf did an RPI survey it was .75 cents for indies submitting across multiple sites. Not sure how much this has changed. And it depends on the saleability of your work.
So to be safe, if you multiply your portfolio x .50 that should give you a rough guestimate of what you should expect as an indy. In other words, you would need to have at least 200 images to do better than the $100 per month you're at now.
How many images are in your portfolio?
859
« on: June 29, 2013, 10:31 »
I guess watching someone else make a lot of money from my photos is the next best thing to doing it myself. I know that every coffee grower in Guatamala has a framed photo of Howard Shultz hanging in his home. So why am I not excited...
Probably because he used your images to make himself a billionaire and you're most likely still working hard to barely get by. The only things that prevent any of us from being another Jon Oringer are ability and willingness.
860
« on: June 15, 2013, 20:45 »
What is next for contributors? How about not using agencies and going totally independent now that we hace a choice?
+1
They rely on us to supply material if we dont supply they will fall before we do.
True, but the only way contributors will stop contributing on a large enough scale for larger agencies to fail is when it's no longer worth it for contributors. Meaning the money has dried up and we've reached rock bottom. This seems to already be happening somewhat at Istock. They started taking benefits away in 2009 and four years later they are now just starting to ease up on the taking.
861
« on: June 15, 2013, 11:10 »
Interesting that Thinkstock is the main promotion and you get free credits at Istock as a side benefit. Doesn't look like a good sign for Istock that it's the free appetizer for the main meal. Subscription seems to be their future and must be where the highest profits are for them.
It will be an interesting next couple of years. If everything goes subscription there are only so many buyers and downloads to go around. Like macro, and now micro, everything hits a wall eventually. What happens when subscription hits the wall? What's next for contributors? Free?
862
« on: June 09, 2013, 07:03 »
I'd like to know how it worked out for them five years later.
863
« on: June 08, 2013, 17:30 »
<snip> but to be honest I'm hoping this could be a great place to learn new skills and get to know people into photography.
That's what Flickr is for. The goal of stock photography agencies is to make money from your photos. If you're sending them stuff that they don't see as sellable, or don't see you're getting the idea, you're most likely going to have a difficult time getting accepted.
864
« on: May 27, 2013, 13:12 »
I'd love to see some stats on what percentage of freebie hunters that are lured by free images actually end up buying something.
As long as free usable images are available why would anyone buy an image?
865
« on: May 26, 2013, 07:24 »
What does it take to make a living from selling stock?
A day job
866
« on: May 26, 2013, 07:18 »
Old thread alert. But as an update I still have my 5DMII and now have a D800.
867
« on: May 24, 2013, 09:21 »
Flickr is for socializing, vultures and thieves.
It's called a photo sharing site, and doesn't pretend to be anything else, so yes: it's for socialising, and we can use the means at our disposal to avoid the vultures and thieves - and there are more means at our disposal in Flickr than on any image legitimately purchased and published on the web.
And if you don't want to socialise, that's fine, you don't need Flickr.
Right, it's a photo sharing site only. They're just making pretend money with Getty and so are those Getty Flickr contributors. My point is, again, there doesn't seem to be a reason for pro photographers to be on Flickr. Which I think is what Melissa Mayer may have been trying to say. They're not targeting pros. I received a few sporadic social comments but mostly was contacted by vultures looking for freebies. Not much "social" stuff going from what I could tell but that's my experience. Maybe others have had a different experience.
868
« on: May 23, 2013, 18:32 »
I yanked all of my photos off Flickr a few months ago.
I think the CEO may actually have a point. I have no idea what value Flickr provides for professional photographers. The only people that contacted me on Flickr wanted free photos. Actually demanded them... "Hey send me a high-res of this one". Or told me I should be honored they were offering to use my pic and give me credit in their publication. Or when I would say no they would respond "but so-and-so Flickr user gave me their images for free". Or they just would steal by taking screenshots.
Then I realized on Google search and Google images that my Flickr images were displacing the images on my personal website where I actually make money. So I deleted them from Flickr.
Flickr is for socializing, vultures and thieves.
870
« on: May 20, 2013, 19:11 »
I think that there are small signs that the balance between agency and the contributor may be edging towards the latter. Istock notably have started to relax rules that they once held dear. Vector artists are actually getting a royalty increase. The emergence of Stocksy is a move in the right direction and Istock are certainly worried about it. Then there's Yuri's 'sweetheart deal' with Getty. There may well be more in the pipeline.
Yep. It's a pretty basic strategy. Keep wringing contributors dry until it negatively affects the agency. Then slowly start backing off a little bit. Seems like this is where we're at now.
871
« on: May 13, 2013, 18:06 »
I think the idea is right. Simplify collections. Base price on perceived value. Got it. Pretty much how it's done at Gettyimages.com.
But... this seems to further blur and dilute the benefits of exclusivity. Almost seems like the independents have the most to gain from this. No more upload limits. Access to Getty. And now GI is in complete control over our sales and in essence our Redeemed Credits. Not sure if that's good or bad.
Money makes my decisions for me. So I'll hang in there and see how it goes.
872
« on: May 10, 2013, 21:23 »
I did a five image trial and wasn't impressed. They are somehow tied to JaincoTech and I've used JT for a couple hundred images. The problem is you need to review their work. And when you find stuff they missed, like not removing company logos, you need to send an email back explaining all the stuff they missed. Then re-review the images, send some back again, and on and on. I then still needed to do work on the images to make them the way I wanted them. It probably depends on what you shoot but in the end it wasn't worth it for me.
873
« on: May 10, 2013, 18:35 »
A 50D is a crop camera so something like a 10-22mm EF-S lens would be super wide
A 17-40mm is an EF lens and I have one for my full frame 5DMII so it's super wide on a full frame camera.
However, a 17-40 EF lens on your 50D would really be much wider than a standard 18-55mm or 18-200mm EF-S zoom.
Probably kind of confusing but do some research on EF-S vs EF lenses and full frame vs crop.
If I were you I'd go with something like the 10-22mm for your 50D.
Regarding a general statement like Canon zooms being soft, no. Some are sharper than others. My 24-70mm is awesome sharp. Every manufacturer has some sharp and not-so-sharp lenses.
874
« on: May 09, 2013, 05:53 »
Images waiting approval used to be around 50,000. It's currently at 222,995.
875
« on: April 16, 2013, 04:55 »
I have a Photoshelter account too and Google analytics seems inconsistent. It has weird jumps and dips. And when I look at Google webmaster traffic the stats are totally different for the same site.
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 120
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
