|
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 - wordplanet
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 46
901
« on: February 04, 2014, 00:34 »
Got my email Monday (Feb 3). As the others have noted, payment arrives in your account well before the 15th. Could be there by the end of the week.
902
« on: February 04, 2014, 00:14 »
The first year I was on Fotolia I think I earned $16 and called their accounting department to find out why they sent me a 1099 for money I might never see. They said they did this because you can always convert the amount you've earned to credits and to their way of thinking, this meant the funds were available. I didn't like the answer, because I don't buy stock photos, but it wasn't worth stressing over, so I've paid taxes for two years on money I finally received this year, when I finally made payout (I had a tiny tiny poorly performing port there).
The problem with this is that if you accept payment via Paypal, and you have enough money or transfers from Paypal to warrant their issuance of a 1099-k that won't reconcile to the income you are reporting as being taxable.
It's really an issue that they did it wrong, and I didn't mean to ignore that in my earlier answer. I know it should be on a cash and not an accrual basis - but the amount of tax owed was so small that I just paid it - though it is certainly wrong to be placed in a position where you're paying tax on money you didn't receive. My time was better spent doing other things than making endless efforts to get them to correct it. I quit Fotolia after I finally made a payout but then accrued more "earnings" that I'll never see. Not a company I want to deal with anymore either.
903
« on: February 03, 2014, 19:09 »
I've even had photos that had over 100 comments & likes and sales show up way back several pages in the search just days after the image was sold. Sales were moving along nicely for me and my stuff was showing up, then around October/November it seemed like the search algorithms changed. I tweet about my work, blog, use g+, but it's not paying off at the moment. Then again, out of the blue I'll make a $200 sale, so it's worth keeping the stuff I have on there as I easily make back the $30 each year.
I've heard that soon comments, likes and favorites will no longer boost image placement. Can't confirm if it's true.
Had a couple hundred on Amazon. Seems like they are now all gone.
904
« on: February 03, 2014, 18:54 »
The first year I was on Fotolia I think I earned $16 and called their accounting department to find out why they sent me a 1099 for money I might never see. They said they did this because you can always convert the amount you've earned to credits and to their way of thinking, this meant the funds were available. I didn't like the answer, because I don't buy stock photos, but it wasn't worth stressing over, so I've paid taxes for two years on money I finally received this year, when I finally made payout (I had a tiny tiny poorly performing port there).
905
« on: February 03, 2014, 18:40 »
Micro earnings are higher than last January overall, though SS my best earner, is down a bit from last January which is worrying. Still, SS earnings are generally showing an upward trend & new files are starting to sell more. RPI across my big three micros averages out to roughly the same as it was last January, so with RPI pretty steady, I'm still seeing a decent increase overall as I upload more files.
Responding to the RM discussions below, I licensed 7 RM images this month, one on my own, two through Alamy, and four through a German site I was invited to join last year. The single largest of those earned me more than I made from all the micros combined. Also just had a photo shortlisted at ImageBrief last week, so I'm inclined to keep holding back certain types of images as RM.
February sales have been brisk even over Superbowl weekend, which is a nice way to start this month. I can't predict the future so I'll just keep chugging along and keeping my eggs in many baskets.
906
« on: February 02, 2014, 19:07 »
My best-seller in terms of number of downloads is an abstract background texture that has sold over 300 times, and for which I had an EL for the first time this month on shutterstock. It has only earned me about $150, so RPD is about $.50.
My best-seller in terms of RF earnings is a lighthouse in Maine that has earned me just under $500. I stopped off there for a couple of hours on the way home from a class at Maine Media College and all told the handful of shots that I've taken of that lighthouse have earned me about $800 in stock photo royalties. Several other photos I took while in Maine (of other locations) have also been high earners as RM stock. Next runner up in terms of most $ earned is a lighthouse from Cape Cod. As with the one from Maine, I have a few different versions of the lighthouse, but one particular shot out-earns all the others by a mile. (I have only included sums earned for stock photo licenses of these images, which have earned me additional sums as cards, iPhone cases and fine art prints). Much higher RPD for these images than for the background.
907
« on: January 31, 2014, 00:58 »
PP in December was significantly higher than usual for me, though less than October's reported PP earnings. Depending on the amount of the clawback, it could be my BME for the PP.
Regular earnings this January are slightly above average.
908
« on: January 30, 2014, 00:57 »
Will share it via twitter etc again. Looking forward to seeing the results.
909
« on: January 30, 2014, 00:53 »
I was culling my portfolio on Alamy at one point - I'd printed out a bunch of "contact sheets" of sorts from the site and was making notes of those I planned to remove I'd culled some but then fortunately got caught up in something else because the next thing I knew they licensed one of the photos on my delete list for $290, back when I got a 60% commission. Since then, I've deleted very few files there, and a handful from DT that hadn't sold in the requisite number of years. I was kinda of bummed about the DT deletes since some of them have sold elsewhere. I wouldn't have deleted them except I had no choice. In fact, one of the files I deleted from DT last year has made nearly $200 elsewhere, the rest pennies, so no biggie. You just never know.
Sometimes time is on your side too. For the past two years I've been working with a client who requests yearly portfolios of stock photos for various calendars and similar items, licensing them for various amounts, depending upon region and usage. They also keep past images on file for potential later use, and yesterday I got a contract for $100 to license one image for a small regional calendar for 2015. The photo was in the batch I sent them back in August 2012, not the batch I sent in 2013, so you never know how things will pan out. It's similar to a couple of images they licensed last year, and was taken in 2009. They probably earmarked it for the future when they received it last year, since they send out the bulk of their contracts in April, May and June, so this was an early surprise.
That's the thing too, a buyer may have your image in a private lightbox, and plan to use it in the future.
So, I heartily agree, unless the image is truly awful, don't remove it.
910
« on: January 28, 2014, 14:03 »
As I said earlier, I love my 50mm f/1.8 - though I have an old one without AF, getting the inexpensive one with AF is a great buy. Some people here seem obsessed with whether any expense is worthwhile if you're only shooting for the micros, but as someone who obviously loves photography, or he wouldn't be doing it in addition to his day job to begin with, I don't imagine the only time the OP picks up his camera is to shoot microstock. IMHO it's better to build up your equipment by purchasing the best you can afford so you have more options as time goes on, and starting with an inexpensive but excellent prime like the 50mm is sound advice. I agree that a 6MP camera with a kit lens is more than adequate for microstock and even some traditional stock - I've sold many photos taken in 2006-2009 with my old 6 MP D70 & 18-70 kit lens on both the micros and on Alamy - and they passed Alamy QC back when you had to uprez them to 48MB (as opposed to the current 24MB) - but I don't think that's a reason to go for the cheapest equipment. In my experience, once I bought the D700 and the Nikon 24-70mm, I found most kit/inexpensive lenses to be less than satisfying to use. For example, though I usually opt for the Nikon 70-300mm VR zoom as a lightweight alternative to my Sigma 50-500mm when traveling, I always feel a bit disappointed in those photos and constantly have to remind myself that I don't want to push it beyond 200mm. That's why the more expensive Sigma "Bigma" 50-500mm is far more satisfying to use. It's a fantastic lens. It is incredibly sharp throughout nearly its entire range & even quite sharp at 500mm. I've licensed photos taken at 500mm to calendar companies and magazines such as Coastal Living - nice high end RM work. Having good equipment gives you lots of options. And the Sigma cost me $900 (I got it refurbished in 2009) - I think the regular price was around $1,000. It has paid for itself. Personally, having equipment that delivers throughout its range is preferable to me over equipment, such as the 70-300 VR that was really a compromise - There are many times I've used it where I wish I'd brought along the Sigma instead, and only opted for the 70-300 to save my back. That's the kind of decision the OP needs to make when considering equipment - and his desire to move beyond the kit lens tells me that he's looking for lenses that are reasonably priced but that even someone not on such a tight budget would buy. Thus, the 50mm is a good choice for him because he won't feel like it's a compromise every time he uses it. And on a DX camera the 50mm is long enough for portraits and leaves you with great bokeh. I'd also recommend the 35mm f/1.8 - inexpensive but incredibly sharp and focuses really close. As someone whose camera/lens of choice is the D700/Nikon Nikor 24-70mm, I'm never disappointed with the shots I get using my D5100/35mm f/1.8 Though this photo was obviously post processed, it was not cropped nor was the composition changed - nearly a macro taken with the 35mm: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/butterfly-fantasy-marianne-campolongo.html
911
« on: January 26, 2014, 23:57 »
Unless it's a worldwide exclusive use, you don't have to take a photo down after an RM license, and even then it will be time limited, so you'd restrict the use until it's available again. You do need to keep careful track of how it's used so that there are no conflicts. I often license RM photos on my own, and to date all the licensees have requested a non-exclusive right to use photos in whatever country they are in or worldwide, during a fixed period of time, from one month to 18 months, at a set size, for a certain use, calendar, magazine, newspaper, sometimes limited/ sometimes unlimited print run. I have a calculator built into my site, which is hosted by Photoshelter and I have also negotiated pricing directly with clients.
To be clear, I don't have a symbio site (am thinking about it for micro RF). However, from the experience I do have, it's been easy to license RM images on my own, but I can see that if the volume grew substantially and you didn't stay on top of it, you would potentially need some sort of software in place to prevent duplicate licenses in the event of a request for exclusivity.
I would imagine, however, that when a licensee is seeking an exclusive license, they are going to check first to be sure it's available and negotiate with you directly.
I have RM many of the same images with agencies in Germany and Wales as well as with Alamy, all on a non-exclusive basis, so they need to clear exclusive deals with me before agreeing to them. Bottom line, I don't think it's a click and download kind of thing. At least not in my experience. Sending them to Alamy or another site to license RM kind of defeats the purpose of having your own site so an agency isn't cutting into your profit.
You can always note that for an exclusive license they need to contact you directly.
912
« on: January 26, 2014, 15:40 »
Thanks so much for all the input - I appreciate your all taking the time to share your thoughts and experiences. The only micros I upload to regularly now are SS, DT and iS, which are all fairly steady for me. Since I have a lot of travel that sells regularly on all 3 of the micros I'm with, and I also have some older travel work shot with my D70 back in 2006-2007 but of timeless places such as Venice, the Roman Forum, the old town in Edinburgh, some of which have sat around on Alamy doing nothing and others still on backup hard drives, I figure I can upload a substantial number of them both to the micros I'm with now and 123rf and see how it goes. I do a lot of textures/backgrounds and these seem to sell quite well on the micros, so I figure adding to a couple more sites probably won't bring down the sales on other sites, since, given the low prices on all the micros I doubt people waste their time shopping around and probably just purchase photos from whichever site they have a credit pack with. I've spent the better part of the last few months (still an ongoing effort) reorganizing all of my photos from 2006-2014 into one huge Lightroom catalog with all the photos stored on a 4TB hard drive (and backed up redundantly elsewhere), so uploading to new sites should be painless via FTP. I'm not uploading anything else to DP til I get an answer from them as to why my FTP login isn't working - it won't let me put in my password & I've emailed them about it). I'll probably apply to 123rf in February once I complete my re-organization. Despite my small port at DT, for example, I do much better than the poll results here show, so I figure it's worth trying out a couple new sites to see if my work is a good fit. Fotolia, on the other hand, despite its high rank here, was always a poor seller for me, so while the ranking is helpful, I figure I need to experiment a little for myself and your advice has helped me decide where to experiment. Thanks again for all the advice. I want to make the most of my catalog while microstock is still viable and figure adding a couple of midddle tier sites to the mix could be worthwhile. Even if it just pays for a few new lenses or a trip to shoot more stock, it's worth a shot. 
913
« on: January 24, 2014, 14:38 »
Like you, I have an old 50mm f1.4 Nikon lens I bought on ebay years ago - not AF - so getting an AF is something I've thought about myself - I don't think a small prime like a 50mm AF is very expensive, though if you already have a 50mm you might want to consider the 35mm f 1.8 (more on that below).
Don't know whether you have a full frame Nikon or a DX - I have both and if you have a DX, I'd highly recommend the Nikon 35mm f 1.8 - it is super sharp, lets you focus really close (I think within 11 inches - check this I'm working from memory here) and is roughly equivalent to a 50mm. It only works on DX cameras.
I bought a D5100 as a lighter backup camera a few years ago, and there are many times I just use it with the 35mm and don't bother taking anything else along. It's great in low light and lets me take almost macro like images because it focuses so closely. I've sold a lot of the images I've taken with it - even of things like butterflies. And it works well for walking around the city. A good practical lens and not very expensive.
914
« on: January 24, 2014, 14:12 »
Re: Depositphotos
I joined depositphotos in December as it seemed like a worthwhile place to add my micro portfolio, since they said I could upload it all at once via FTP and I thought they said they'd take care of categories.
The FTP isn't working, so I have uploaded about 40 files so far the slow way. I looked today when I added another 5 images (the max I can add at once) and see that I have one photo with two views and one sale, one photo with no views and one sale, and one other photo with one view, all the rest have 0 views - worse even than what I see on iS ( I uploaded most of these in late December and was waiting for the FTP issue to be resolved so they've been online for nearly a month)
Wondering your thoughts on whether I should bother - just put up my photos and hope for some pocket change eventually - or not? The upload process seems pretty easy, but seeing no views on my photos and reading about things like $200 refunds isn't encouraging.
Re: 123rf
123RF invited me to join them years ago via twitter and I didn't bother at the time. Would that be a better choice if I want to expand to another micro now that I've dropped Fotolia?
Or should I just stick with SS, DT and iS?
My port is mostly travel, some concepts, and a lot of abstract backgrounds.
915
« on: January 24, 2014, 13:17 »
I've had more serious trouble with my MACs than I ever had with PCs - in 2012 both my iMac and my Macbook crashed within 2 days of each other! My antivirus software finds the occasional virus and cleans it.
Yet, despite the higher cost and their track record, I wouldn't go back to a PC. I've used my husband's and friend's PCs from time to time over the past 6-7 years since I switched and find them far less user-friendly than MACs.
As a photographer, when I print the colors match, even from my uncalibrated laptop prints look much as they do on my screen. Personally, I find it worth the difference. And the convenience of the MAC stores and their online help beats any of the PC manufacturers I've dealt with (I had trouble with my Dell and HP PCs/laptops too - and getting help was always a trial).
Just one woman's opinion.
Once you get the hang of the MAC again, I think you'll be happy. Apple Care is a necessity. Good choice.
916
« on: January 24, 2014, 13:01 »
If you've registered your copyright, they have to pay your legal fees, so it could very well be worth pursuing.
917
« on: January 24, 2014, 13:00 »
I do a combination of searches, using both google images and tineye. Sometimes one picks up something that the other doesn't. You can get plugs-ins for both for your browser.
I've also found my stuff just reading magazines I get and even once someone posted an article on facebook and as I read it, I came upon one of my photos. But tineye and google images are the best way to find them. Good luck finding yours.
918
« on: January 24, 2014, 12:54 »
I had to share this! I joked around a few days ago that based on my statistics, I was due for another EL, and I just got one this morning. The power of positive thinking, huh? $28 isn't usually cause for celebration but the timing was so perfect - just a couple of days later and a few sales later than "predicted" by my stats. Still well behind last January which was my BME at shutterstock but an EL is always a positive sign.
919
« on: January 24, 2014, 12:47 »
A couple of sales on Alamy for me this month so things there aren't dead even for those with ports <1000 images. Micro sites are more consistent but I've had months at Alamy where one sales earns me more than 100s of sales on the micros. And months where a couple of RM sales just earns me peanuts. Not that I'm tooting their horn, sales there for me are far fewer and for less $ than they were a couple of years ago. It's not for everyone. Your rank is a combination of your zooms and sales there, so, just as with the micros, searches favor photos and portfolios that sell more often. I'm not on Getty but I know some people in the Getty Flikr deal who are making high 5 figures part time from just Getty Flikr (i.e. people with a full time job outside of photography). Stock photo income for nearly everyone - macro and micro - is down these days. (I mean photographers, not their agencies). I think this blog on DT that Steve Allen, who's been shooting stock for 20+ years, wrote last year, has a good analysis of where things stand in both markets. The comments and his replies are instructive too. http://blog.dreamstime.com/2013/06/04/my-view-on-shooting-for-stock_art39079Competition is fierce, the global economy is iffy, and supply is outpacing demand. That's a problem for both micro and macrostock. We all have to adapt and find our niche.
920
« on: January 24, 2014, 12:25 »
Strange blurry fruit with a second photo behind - too weird!
I need my 3D glasses LOL
921
« on: January 22, 2014, 18:41 »
That's interesting. EL volume must be subject related. I've only had two in the last 2500 to 3000 sales.
Makes sense. The vast majority of my ELs have been of scenic travel images - more likely to be used in calendars, books and magazines in print volumes sufficient to require an EL. No EL yet today though, but I'm due soon
922
« on: January 22, 2014, 01:32 »
Quote from: zeamonkey on Yesterday at 12:30 <quote> http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014 " Like any of these photos would ever get accepted.....riteeeee"<quote/> I have a fair number of manipulated mixed media retro vintage filtered images on shutterstock - natural backgrounds and some travel scenes where I've uploaded both the straight shot and the highly filtered one and both kinds seem to sell nicely - so they do take them - even some where the white balance came from my imagination. Here are some I sold in the past two weeks - most of these have sold multiple times this month: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=151115285http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=139227917http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=142493347http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=85973638http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=143983312All is not rosy though, I had Valentine's candies rejected for trademark, meanwhile the same pix have been selling on the other micros for two years - & even SELLING as greeting cards on FAA, so no real worries. I thought I'd neglected to upload them and was berating myself for being so late, but I guess they were probably rejected 2 years ago - meanwhile 2 photos rejected for purported trademark issues on buildings in a city skyline shot by iS and DT are happily on SS having been accepted the same day I uploaded them. The great thing about being an indie is that someplace will always take my rejects - and they usually end up selling quite well.  Meanwhile I cloned them out for DT and hit resubmit. Of all the sites, I actually think SS is the most consistent, they take most of my stuff and usually have a reasonable explanation when they don't. Though I do get the occasional flaky reason from time to time. DT seems to take 20 and then reject the next 18. If I'm having a good run I expect to get rejections because "it's already well covered in the catalog" - one I've gotten from them a couple times this today, so I finally switched tactics and uploaded a bunch of stuff to redbubble and FAA where they "take" everything. Just sold one of those highly filtered photos as an iPod case on redbubble too. I love playing with images that way and am really happy that they are currently in vogue. I know the trend will fade but I'm having fun while it lasts. There's a former painter in me yearning to get out I guess.
923
« on: January 21, 2014, 23:45 »
I think I know what is happening. They seem to prioritising the search by matching the region the searcher is in to the region the supplier is from. As I upload from the Middle East I get Asian and European sales but I no longer seem to get them from the Americas (I'm not sure about Australia/New Zealand). In the last 24 hours I have had one customer from the Americas, who picked up four similar, very specialised files which might well have been on a search with all the results on a single page.
I hope this is just experimental as it is a heavy blow to me. As with all these swings and roundabouts changes there will be others doing very nicely, if they happen to be zoned in the main selling regions.
I hope very much that you are wrong. My map shows sales in the past couple of days to North America (where I'm from), South America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa - just missing Australia/NZ and Greenland or I'd be covering the entire map. One each to Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Europe, 2 to S. America and 4 to N. America (I often have maps where the bulk of sales are concentrated in Europe and Africa and I often have a map that looks like this one with a nice spread across the world). My payment history shows more non-US source sales than US-source sales, and much of what I sell overseas are US travel images, so I certainly hope this is not the case. If someone is searching for a photo from a location in the US, a supplier from their region is no more likely to provide a photo more to their liking than I am. Similarly, it would be silly if my European photos got higher billing that someone from Europe because the buyer was American. Of my editorial images, my best seller to Africa is a photo of an NYPD officer running in the New York marathon - in fact, my marathon photos from several years ago often sell right before the marathon and at other times as well to buyers from Africa and S. America. It just makes no sense for them to skew all search results that way. Maybe for lifestyle and concept images, but even then the world has become a much smaller place so I can't imagine any bump from more regional images would help mediate the downside in searches for many other kinds of content. Hope Scott will jump in on this one and say it ain't so. Meanwhile, I did the calculations folks were discussing in another thread. I've averaged one EL for every 137.4 sales, so I'm 4.4 away from the next one - could be tomorrow. Fingers crossed -  wouldn't it be nice if things really worked like that?
924
« on: January 21, 2014, 23:19 »
Best of luck Sean!
925
« on: January 21, 2014, 05:48 »
Redbubble prints them beautifully with your user name on the back too - and there's the benefit of being able to sell any you upload there from the site too. You get a discount if you order 16 or more - any combination not just of one print. Great quality and much less expensive than Fine Art America. You can also order those nice glassine envelopes to put them in with the envelopes. I've sold some cards through them and have purchased some samples of my own. Several printers also print greeting cards but the cost are generally higher and you need to order in quantities of at least 25-50 per image. Just made me realize I hadn't put up any Valentine's Day cards on redbubble - a tad late now but glad you made me think of it! http://www.redbubble.com/people/campyphotos/works/11415899-true-love-valentines-day-heart-card?c=262454-valentines-day-cards-and-gifts
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 46
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
