|
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 - null
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 63
951
« on: January 25, 2009, 19:22 »
If you look at mine, be credible please, and show yours! Sharp has a large and beautiful port. As to the subject, I never fill in the stats at the right since I personally feel you have to have 100$/month per site at least to make statistically reliable statements. The meter at the left: very biased by recent uploads, for instance on DT. Somebody that uploads 100-200 per month will look bad since those uploads had too little time to sell yet. The most realistic estimate of sales evolution per site could be done by Lookstat, in an anonymous way, since they have all the real sales figures. Big 4: DT, SS - then [IS,BigStock,123] about the same but much lower.
952
« on: January 25, 2009, 18:34 »
the new poster here, Jay Reilly is a perfect example. The pics on his blog
http://www.mycameraisbiggerthanyours.com/
would make very good stock, and obviously do as he submits to all the big agencies (corbis, getty, etc) but I have a feeling lots of them would have a hard time getting past a typical microstock reviewer. Correct. I have loads like that, people in natural environments and just having fun and doing their thing. His shadows are quite hard so I mostly use fill-in flash or sunlight reflectors. Those shots hardly get accepted and don't sell that much on MS. Overwhites sell much better. Perhaps I should venture into RM. To the OP: studio people shots are very competitive since they are very easy and fast to (re)do by the industrial shooters. My best-sellers are in a niche of non-people shots that are difficult to repeat. For landscapes/architecure: take very generic or very recognizable landmark shots and do it better (viewpoint, light).
953
« on: January 25, 2009, 18:11 »
Does anyone ever wonder into a restaurant or business and ask to photograph food, staff, and/or customers? Telling the owner/manager that the photos are beneficial to their website and/or menus? Yes, that's the deal as part of a TFP agreement. It's a great deal and I think it happens a lot. 
954
« on: January 25, 2009, 18:05 »
In general, I don't have rejected pictures any more. Sure, not all get accepted on all sites, but over sites with a real inspection (not MP, not FP, not YAY) at least half accepts them (DT, SS, IS, BigStock, FT, StockXpert, 123RF).
If I have a picture that is crap enough to be rejected everywhere, I just don't like to put time in postprocessing, - and if I did, I would never degrade my "brand name" with bad shots, even for free.
955
« on: January 24, 2009, 15:50 »
It's an Iframe. Not really usable for a designer. It's more like a glorified product placement then. A designer wants to incorporate the shot. As to freebies: forget it that it will drive your sales. Freebies are downloaded like hell, and I do it too. I never look at who made the shot. I heard the same from others.
956
« on: January 24, 2009, 15:42 »
And dust removal. That's another one I just can't live without out. Don't change lenses too often in the Gobi desert 
957
« on: January 24, 2009, 15:36 »
The value of every good is in principle only related to what a buyer wants to give for it. In IP (unless RM), a good can be sold several times. You can't sell a pair of Nike shoes several times, so there is a lottery factor involved. Probably 80% of shots never makes what it did cost, but 20% yields a 10 or 100 fold. It's that lottery aspect that keeps people motivated since we are all gambling addicts basically, at least the small shooters.
But who says Microstock has to be full-time, cost efficient? If so, we would all be doing models over white in a studio. 3,000 per year at least, given the shelf life. How long does it take for a market to be oversaturated with business teams shaking hands in all possible poses and ethnic mixtures?
Stock photography started long ago with the unsalable left-overs of assignments. Then, the first mice like Yuri Arcurs got the cheese, but soon perhaps, we're back to the old days. For me, the past 9 months have been mostly assignments, band shoots, wealthy people's parties, fashion, glorifying fat ladies with pimples in photoshop, emo/goth for fun. No time for waterfalls and sunsets any more.
Although those are my best sellers, they don't make up for the travel and inn costs involved if you just do it for that. But if you have a studio, equipment and a workflow for assignments, making some extra creative shots for stock just requires a marginal cost.
958
« on: January 24, 2009, 12:30 »
From Lee Torrens' MicroStockDiaries an anonymous comment of an " old school" guy a while ago on the entry Microstock Talking Points in 2009. As not everybody can read everything, a repeat here of that comment, as food for thought (paragraphs added for readability). Here are the facts!
Microstock does not pay enough for a real photographer with a studio and or professional equipment to submit images with the intent of earning a living and running a successful business. The photographers that submit to micro now and get good enough will find that they need to move to better sources of income to develop their hobby into a business. As well the pros that try to make a living at micro will find that it doesnt pay enough to survive. The only people making money with microstock are the agencies.
The two best examples of this are Yuri Arcurs and Ron Chapple. Yuri, the king of micro is now shooting RF for one of the top RF distributors in the world. He doesnt say much about this on his blog, but the facts are there. Just search for his last name on Getty.
Why is he shooting RF? Well lets put it this way. He shoots with the best equipment available he is renovating a new huge daylight studio in Denmark, and he has several full and part-time employees. He has to progress into a business model that will allow him to continue growing his business ideas. Not to mention that he is a seriously talented photographer and businessman.
Ron Chapple a long time RF shooter and founder of Thinkstock has been running his own Micro agency(Iofoto) for the past two years and in a recent article said this Overall, I am no longer bullish on the opportunity for individual photographers within the microstock licensing sector. The distributors will make money, but with the ever increasing supply, statistics do not favor the contributor. After two years of Micro he is just now predicting that he may be able to break even on his investments.
Im sorry if some of you microstock photographers are pissed off at us photographers that have the talent and business sense to make a successful living at photography, but thats just the way it is. If you want to be a serious photographer you need to step up to the plate and prove yourself. It takes a hell of a lot more than just a few pretty pictures to make you a pro photographer.
Now I dont usually participate in these forums because I honestly dont have the time to sit around chatting about this crap. But I was searching around for some info on Micro and saw this little discussion and thought Id drop a line to back-up Don and Saxon. Im not planning on sticking around to read half witted comebacks from some pissed off amateur that spends half their day blogging and chatting about the evils of RF and RM, Ive got better things to do.
But I will let you know this. The stock as well as photo industry needs a good washing-out. And when its over, the good photographers will still be here to produce quality work. And agencies dont choose photographers. Photographers find the best partners to distribute their work. If you are good enough no door is closed.
Oh! One more thing. Micro is the redistribution of wealth? Come on!
Even Obama aint that stupid!
959
« on: January 24, 2009, 12:11 »
Nice looking site.
- Don't ask people to register just to look.
- Don' ask a paypal address until it's time for payout.
- Where is the business info? Name, street address, phone.
960
« on: January 23, 2009, 20:58 »
Anyway - the main question is : Do you think subscription is a good idea? If so, what would be optimal amount per month (we can see 20 USD looks like too much for you :-) ? Looks like a great idea when you find a way to repay, let's say 95% of it, those people whose hard work of original keywording you're basically scavenging by this clever scheme and making money from it. 
961
« on: January 22, 2009, 17:54 »
Thanks Danicek - wise words! I'm really surprised about the tone in this forum - it is always nice to talk with open minded persons. I feel that the main feeling is just curiosity and amazement. Going thru the site (I did) we are amazed at the subpar quality of some shots, like on-cam flash hard shadow, shallow DOF and so on. One could argue this kind of shots has a special artistic value and there is a market for it, so no prejudice at all. Just sheer curiosity. Do this kind of shots actually sell in a niche market, or is it more a fun photoshare/rating site? Not everybody here is a standard stock shooter but many of us have special shots too we don't even bother to upload to traditional stock because we know they won't sell there. But they could try with an alternative site. Of course, most of us are concentrated on sales, even for "fun" shots. It would be helpful if you could give an idea of actual sales since I couldn't find that info on the site.
962
« on: January 22, 2009, 16:56 »
Although of course I didn't take it, here's the Worst Toilet in Scotland (from one of my favorite movies of all time): Trainspotting?
963
« on: January 22, 2009, 14:53 »
I'm glad people are starting to finally see this. This is why I don't do that many 3d renders anymore. Too easy to copy. For instance:
My image: Your example is obvious and according to the PACA rules, it would certainly be called a derivatory work (the kids in the car) since it's the same concept colors, and almost the same angle. It's also not a "faut faire", like the girl with headset. At SS certainly, it's becoming a method, a system and nobody wants to litigate for 33c x X. The only defense is to do concepts that are not that easy to copy. Renders are. My best sellers for over a year on SS still is a set of waterfalls deep in the jungle you need a motorbike for, and it's also not easy to find beautiful Nordic models for the Yuri Arcurs copiers. Ok here goes false tip #1: dirty toilets sell like hell!  
964
« on: January 22, 2009, 02:58 »
1 - Make sure you get a 64-bit OS with that (preferably XP - Vista is a memory-eater) since 32-bit OSs can't really address memory beyond 2-3 Gig.
2 - Resist the temptation to keep your images on the large system disk, since system disks can get corrupted easily. I had it twice in 3 years. The last time I was so wise to keep all my data on the second disk so it was easy to recover them after reformatting my system disk.
965
« on: January 22, 2009, 02:41 »
Having on mind that there are more and photographers, competition is extremely high, I am getting a little bit discouraged. May this business still be profitable? Not really unless you'll become a volume shooter repeating the best selling concepts of others. You won't see those people a lot on forums, since they are just lurking. The Alexa traffic of this site, the MSG, for instance is very high, much higher than you can expect from the number of posts. The participants that share their knowledge (here, but also on site forums) and ports are the very social and friendly tip of the iceberg. The vast majority is just leeching. When they appear now and then (here), they won't show any port links nor use the same nick as on the sites. The SS forum is a vast source of info too. " Show me your best seller", and yahoo, the friendly naive people put their bestsellers up there. Or they brag how much they get. It's very simple then to surf to their port, rank it by popularity, and see what can be reshot easily. Bragging makes you feel fine, but flying under the radar and leeching makes you rich. Those volume shooters/copycats take notes, download comps, make a storyboard for their next shoot, and there goes your original successful concept down the drains. Three months later, you will see your original concept drowned in similars, especially on SS. I had it 2-3 times that a very good selling original concept disappeared after a while, and when looking for my keywords, I found 20 even 50 similars done later. In a few cases even with almost exactly the same keywords. If they work hard and methodically, after 1-2 years, they have a port of over 5,000 with best selling concepts of others and an income that matches it. The individual photographer that just shoots for the love of photography and being creative and original once in a while could make it back in 2005 or 2006, but not any more. Especially SS is bad in that respect since your "populars" are heavily biased by the newest ones. Once a volume shooter tagged you, it's very easy to catch your recent best sellers and copy them early. That's much more difficult on DT since the most populars there are of all-time and take more time to find out. I had a post ready yesterday at SS, in which I wanted to include a very promising concept that I didn't find on DT and on SS, so it was new. But I canceled my post in time, or I'm sure the lurkers would be there with the same stuff in a few weeks, since it's so easy to do. Unless you see it as a fulfilling hobby that delivers some candies now and then, to be successful as a stocker businesswise, you'll have to go for volume fast and copy till you drop.
966
« on: January 21, 2009, 19:23 »
Thank you all for sharing your experience...One day I hope to reach a level to do the same for others. I basically do like Lisafx and I use the free FTP program FileZilla to upload to all sites except iStock. Integrated programs like Cushy Stock or whatever might give you a false sense of security and control, but it's better to be in control yourself, and to know what you're doing with mainstream proven software. Given time, I will write a short tutorial how to use Filezilla to upload very easily to different sites. The only third-party niche program I'm actually interested in is LookStat since it brings something totally new, like tracking the same image on different sites. It also helps that the developer of LookStat shows his presence here, his address, his business, as a trust-building measure. The guy of Cushy Stock never showed up here (as far as I know). There is no business info nor address on his site, no contact info, just how to pay. He is Russian, if you do a /whois on his site/IP. Yes SharpShot, I'm paranoid ;-) Deepmeta: I know the guy. He lives in Brussels too. He has his own company and DeepMeta is just a hobby. If he fools around with passwords, he gets busted easily. Honestly, I don't know how to reach somebody in Russia. They cut off the European gas in mid winter and they invaded Georgia. Fine with me, but no site passwords... never. Sorry.
967
« on: January 21, 2009, 19:12 »
Here are a couple quick ideas. For me it's the best till now since the concepts 'group' and 'camera' are on there. The other ones missed that. I hate orange for logos but in this case it's mostly white so the orange attracts attention and stresses it's not a corporate blue thing but a warm group of people. Can't change my vote now but I prefer whatalife's.
968
« on: January 21, 2009, 14:30 »
You're wanting to close your account with them altogether?? Are you going exclusive somewhere else, or just fed up with low sales? Rather fed up with their attitude. Well never mind, I'll just ignore them for half a year again and restrict our conversation to Paypal. If it wasn't for SS, yes, I would like to go exclusive on DT. I'm too emotional sometimes.
969
« on: January 21, 2009, 13:59 »
I didn't get a single sale in a week. The problem is they accepted my last batch totally last week. Does anybody know how long is the wait period of accepted pictures before you can close your account on iStock?
970
« on: January 21, 2009, 13:48 »
Do not come to Photocase.com, you will only waste your time and ours. Thanks for being clear.
971
« on: January 21, 2009, 09:20 »
If you upload the max or nearly the max do they review them all at once? I don't upload much - 2 or 3 a week at most - but it takes them a full week or more to get to them for review. They are by far my slowest reviewing site. Is it just that I don't uploade enough? No. Last week I uploaded a batch of 10 every day. I still have 40 in the queue, and they get reviewed in the same batches as uploaded. Very slow indeed. I don't like to upload large batches. If you run into the wrong reviewer, you're out. Dreamstime has very consistent reviewers but in Shutterstock this is a real danger. There are some wild card reviewers there lately.
972
« on: January 21, 2009, 08:48 »
Source?    About Alexa? SEO forums or SEO sites. About mostly hits by Google? Bryan of LO on the LO forum (now defunct). A buyer will never come by Google, but he has the RF site in his bookmarks of course. I run a few sites myself and looking into Google analytics, I observe the same (Google driven traffic). A knowledgeable IT person will never install the Alexa (or Yahoo or Google) toolbar on his browser. What's the profit for slowing down your surfing and enhance your bandwidth? Alexa toolbars are mostly installed accidentally by naive persons that get it in installing some "free" software. There is also the session question. I'm logged in eternally into Dreamstime and SS. I guess (subscription) buyers are too. Even if I had Alexa installed, my visits would never be counted.
973
« on: January 21, 2009, 08:12 »
I am not employed by Cushy Stock and had never even heard about their program before this past Sunday OK, in that case I stand corrected. It just sounded like a product-placement commercial, that's all. I tried it yes, but removed it quickly. I have been working in IT for a long time and I witnessed software disasters by small businesses using niche-software. My advise has always been to stick with mainstream software and certainly not to rely on a proprietary database that can be buggy or can be lost. Filezilla and Irfanview work fine and they are mainstream, and free. Data (in our case images) integrity is always the first priority. But whatever suits you...
974
« on: January 21, 2009, 07:58 »
are we going to get those business cards, via mail service, printed for free, and free shipping? Yes but only those under 6 feet and with a small shoe size
975
« on: January 21, 2009, 07:42 »
In the Philippines it's an industry. I have some acquaintances that do it. They spend some hours per day in a netcafe to start, later when their business takes off, they buy a laptop and do it from home. They call it "work".
Don't laugh, you would be surprised how much money they catch from gullible Westerners. When they "earn" a small fortune, once in a while, after their trip to Western Union, they treat all their friends and "colleagues" at a small party.
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 63
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
