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 - sharply_done
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 73
926
« on: March 03, 2008, 17:18 »
... but I tend to take better pictures when I don't force things (taking pictures for someone else that I don't necessarily like myself, instead of "wow, love it" shots).
This is good thinking - you should concentrate on shooting subjects that matter to you. It should be your ultimate goal to become proficient enough at making these images that you become somewhat renowned for them. Success will be yours when you can align this passion with the commercial marketplace.
927
« on: March 03, 2008, 17:08 »
For SS I downsize from 17MP to 4MP using the Bicubic Smoother option. Given the general sharpness of the originals and massive amount of downsizing, I find the results more pleasing to the eye using this method.
928
« on: March 03, 2008, 16:58 »
Some slight probs here - 3 zero days in the past 100.
929
« on: March 03, 2008, 16:48 »
I think you're getting too involved with the technical aspects of your photography.
Sure, images have to be technically good in order to be accepted, but in order to sell they need to convey some sort of message and/or have emotional impact. If an image is strong enough in these areas it will be accepted and sell (almost) regardless of technical merit. Conversely, it's not uncommon for technically excellent images to be rejected or reside in the huge pile of accepted but ignored images - this is not where you want to be.
If you want to be successful in this industry, you're going to have to abandon your inverted meterstick tests (whatever they are), corner sharpness measurements, and red channel noise analysis in favor of thinking up concepts/marketable ideas and using your photography skills to illustrate them. Once you get the hang of this, getting images accepted will no longer a problem. Once you get good at it, selling images won't be either.
PS - I rarely sharpen, and shoot at f/8 most of the time.
930
« on: March 02, 2008, 15:21 »
I sure have - my IS DLs dropped by 15%+ last week, with a 20%+ drop in earnings ... Ack!
931
« on: March 02, 2008, 15:16 »
blind loyalty of iStock exclusive photographers disgusts me even more than Xsize prices.
You're calling thesentinel blindly loyal to IS? Hardly! If you think IS is unfair, why do you continue to sell your images there?
932
« on: March 02, 2008, 14:03 »
... I'm sure there is way more we don't even know about.
Undoubtedly there is. There's a semi-related article in this month's Wired Magazine about NetFlick's $1M search/match/suggestion algorithm competition, and how difficult it is to accurately determine what people are looking for. Go here to read it.
933
« on: March 01, 2008, 00:43 »
You can't know that you would be losing 10% of your StockXpert earnings.
You don't know if you would have made those sales as credit sales on StockXpert, or even if you would have made more sales on other subscription sites, if StockXpert hadn't decided to compete.
Yes I can. Steve-Oh once commented that credit buyers and subscription buyers represent two separate markets on StockXpert. If this is true, and subscription buyers license images solely by subscription, then I will never make a credit sale from a subscription buyer. I also doubt that the subscription buyer would purchase the same image from another suscription site - that would mean he/she would have concurrent subscriptions at competing sites, which doesn't make sense. I stand by my conclusion: if I opted out of subscriptions my income from StockXpert would drop by 10%.
934
« on: March 01, 2008, 00:30 »
So ... I gather that the overwhelming consensus here is initial exposure of an image plays at best such a minimal role in its long-term performance that I'm wasting my time by trying to maximize and/or control it. True?
935
« on: February 29, 2008, 21:01 »
Subscription sales are currently making up 10% of my StockXpert earnings, but over 25% of my sales volume. In terms of subscription sales, November and December were about the same, but I saw an increase in January and a 'holding pattern' in February. A lot of my subscription sales are XXL size, but almost none of my regular sales are. Here are my numbers: Month | % Sub DLs | % Sub $ | Nov 07 | 18% | 6% | Dec 07 | 17% | 6% | Jan 08 | 25% | 10% | Feb 08 | 27% | 10% |
The bottom line, according to my experience, is that if I opted out of subscription sales on StockXpert I would be cutting my earnings there by 10%. This might only be a few dollars for some, but if I did it I'd be losing more than my monthly sales on lesser sites!
936
« on: February 28, 2008, 17:25 »
I agree with madelaide: Instead of selling the alphabet blocks one letter at a time, why not try strategically combining shots to make XXL+ images of, say 5 or 6 blocks?
937
« on: February 28, 2008, 17:16 »
... Also, IMHO, advice to 'improve' your photography skills is not helping either, as I think everybody here is a pretty good photographer, and the overwhelming consensus seems to be that yes, there ARE specific things that you can shoot/edit/do that will increase your acceptance specifically at SS. ...
No, not everyone here is a 'pretty good photographer'. Some of the work I've seen is commercially quite poor, and the advice to 'improve' your photography skills should not be lightly dismissed. If you are experiencing weak sales you would do very well to take an objective look at what it is you are doing. The fault for poor performance in this market does not lie with unreasonable reviewers, unfair search engine protocols, or uneducated buyers ... it lies with the photographer and his/her failure to understand and/or produce commercially viable microstock images. Furthermore, concerning yourself with getting images accepted is pointless - the only thing that matters is producing images that sell. My ultimate goal is to thoroughly enjoy myself while producing images that I like to make. That I can be paid well for doing something I would gladly do for free is serendipity found.
938
« on: February 28, 2008, 14:22 »
I've been thinking lately about uploading strategy. The initial exposure an image gets can play a large role in its long-term performance, and I'm curious about the uploading strategies people use in an attempt to maximize this.
I typically upload in batches of 10 images. For fast turnaround sites (FT, StockXpert, 123) I upload on Saturday through Wednesday so that images will be entered into the database on weekdays. For sites that hold images in a queue (DT, BigStock, CS) I upload on weekdays. For SS I upload as soon as my current batch is approved on Friday through Wednesday so that images are entered into the database on Monday through Friday. It was pretty fast to get images on SS when they approved batches daily, but it's taking longer to build my portfolio now that inspection time has increased. For IS I upload in batches of 5 as soon as a window opens.
Am I overthinking things? What is your approach?
939
« on: February 28, 2008, 12:46 »
... But, having more means more work in a way. Does BigStock still only take 10mb files? I have no idea how big are most 16mp files are? You will presumably downsample for them for BS and more for the subscription agencies... You will fill up a 4gb memory card in half the time. The huge raw files demand huge memory on your computer. ...
I shoot with a Canon 1Ds Mk II, a 17MP camera. JPG files are typically in the 5-8MB range. Although BS takes only 10MB files, 98% of my images are under this size. Instead of downsizing 10MB+ images, I save them at JPG quality level 10 or 11. Although filling up a 4GB card might be a concern for a client-driven location shoot, it is not a concern when shooting microstock. I shoot mostly in JPG mode, and use RAW only for the situations that require it (e.g. landscape shots with far-off mountainsides of evergreen trees). XXL sales don't occur in enough volume to solely justify the extra cost of this camera. As I see it, the raison d'etre of this camera is to remove all technical barriers in making a shot. The white balance, focus ability, focus speed, noise level, and battery life are outstanding with this camera, and it's fairly obvious after using it that the manufacturer could easily provide this same performance in their lesser models. The advantage of using this camera in the microstock market is the ability to downsize marginal images - shots that might be unacceptable due to noise, artifacts, or blur can be downsized to XL or L size and be accepted. The extra image room also allows for freedom in cropping - XL size square and panoramic images can be made. Although the Canon 5D is nice in that it provides 12MP full frame images, and it appears that most people think this is the camera to get for microstock photography, it doesn't quite have the ability of a professional camera. You should get an advanced prosumer camera if you are on a budget and/or don't intend to take your photography past the part-time/amateur/extra income level. Get a pro camera if you intend to make your living doing this, and need to squeeze the most money out of every photographic opportunity.
940
« on: February 27, 2008, 22:59 »
I've noticed this, too.
941
« on: February 27, 2008, 17:10 »
Yeehawwww ... way to go!
942
« on: February 27, 2008, 15:26 »
Minus 29C? Ack ... get away from there and head out to Vancouver!!!
943
« on: February 27, 2008, 15:24 »
My record low XS price is 10 cents. I had to look twice just to be sure.
944
« on: February 27, 2008, 12:25 »
... There is another factor that influences the placing in the search; it isn't best match but the faster approval times. Let me explain: the main component of best match is dl/month. This is calculated not from the approval date but from the upload date. ...
This also illustrates why you should avoid using Scout to appeal a rejection. Scout takes such a long time that if your rejection is reversed, the file will have had zero DLs in the 4-6 weeks since you uploaded it. The intial best match placement of the image will be too low for the image to get the initial exposure it needs to become a healthy seller. Rather than using Scout, you are better off to upload the file again.
945
« on: February 26, 2008, 11:45 »
Same here. The site is intermittently there, but I can't log in.
946
« on: February 25, 2008, 11:51 »
Everything at FT is normal for me.
947
« on: February 25, 2008, 11:49 »
My review times have been averaging 2.1/2 days lately. I only managed to get 3 batches in last week. Slower than usual, but still pretty easy to live with.
948
« on: February 24, 2008, 16:42 »
I agree with hatman. The dark slice in the lower right should be removed, too.
949
« on: February 21, 2008, 23:26 »
Wow, talk about low standards. If they accepted those shots they'll pretty much take anything.
950
« on: February 21, 2008, 22:55 »
Way to go! (feels pretty good, huh?)
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 73
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|