MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 73
951
Dreamstime.com / Re: DT going to 12-month minimum commitment??
« on: February 21, 2008, 14:33 »
...
I think of sites in 3 tiers - the ones who make the bulk of the money at the top, the middle tier who consistently do OK but make much less money each, and the bottom dwellers who just don't sell much ...
I think of my sites in this way, too: top tier sites earn 20%+ of my total income, middle tier 5-20%, and bottom tier under 5%. Managing my top and middle tier portfolios is always my top priority.

952
123RF / Re: 123... yawn
« on: February 21, 2008, 13:21 »
I'll give it a try, too.

953
Photo Critique / Re: Help with IS rejection
« on: February 20, 2008, 17:18 »
I guess the inspector wants to see more floral detail, even if it isn't there to begin with. Given that it's an IS Large image, you should downsize it to the minimum possible Large size (1820 x 2730 px) and resubmit.

... good luck!

954
Photo Critique / Re: Application photos
« on: February 20, 2008, 17:03 »
... You think shots like this one could get accepted if I'd put them into my application?
You need to use levels to make the backgrounds pure white. I can't see the images close enough and thus cannot make a technical judgment, so I'll make a few subjective comments:

The apple's shadow is green and will be rejected for "poor white balance and/or lighting". There is also too much whitespace around the apple - square framing better suits the subject (a "poor composition" rejection).

As it stands, the money shot won't be accepted. The out-of-focus foreground is too distracting and the coins are too "sideways". Both of these fall under the "poor composition" umbrella. The coins don't have to be perfectly vertical, but they definitely shouldn't be completely on their sides either. Try adding more out-of-focus coins and move them behind the subject of the shot, where they'll add extra interest and impact.

955
iStockPhoto.com / Gold!
« on: February 20, 2008, 16:44 »
Huzzah ... I made gold level at IS today with this sale:



It took me longer to get here than I anticipated, but things
should start to get better now that I can upload 30 images/wk!

956
Cameras / Lenses / Re: Canon 20D vs. Rebel XTI / 400D Body
« on: February 20, 2008, 16:35 »
Why don't you just check on eBay?

Place a watch on a dozen or so auctions (from individuals, not stores) and you'll have your "fair price" answer within a week.

957
Crestock.com / Re: Crestock sales
« on: February 20, 2008, 16:25 »
... We would be very appreciative as to any constructive suggestions for what we could do to dramatically change yours and our earning potential over the next few years. ...
Looking at things from the photographer's point of view, there are a lot of people who don't use Crestock because of your high subscription/credit sales ratio and low subscription royalty. Increasing your subscription royalty to 30-36 cents (currently the de facto industry standard) would boost contributor earnings by almost 20%, and possibly attract more contributors to your collection.

Another thing you may want to consider is implementing your own version of 123RF's "Fave" system, where photographers can elevate the search ranking of five percent of the images in their portfolios.

958
Crestock.com / Re: Crestock sales
« on: February 20, 2008, 14:52 »
... I feel our portfolio earns similarly sharply, and I am earning $70/month on crestock.. not too bad, even though it is not TOO good either.  It is still money to be had for easy uploading.
I'm not anywhere near $70 this month on Crestock - this will be my second missed payout since they lowered it. Not a positive situation. I was hoping things might go better at Crestock in 2008, but it appears (for me, at least) that this was a misguided sentiment. Yes, it's pretty easy to upload there, and they take most everything I give them, but these mean very little if I can't generate significant income.

959
Crestock.com / Re: Crestock sales
« on: February 20, 2008, 12:45 »
... but I actually made over 700 USD from them in the month of January 2008.
Although it's nice to hear that you're making significant money with them, I don't think you are painting an accurate picture of Crestock's earning potential. It's very safe to say that it will take several years for most people to earn $700 with Crestock, and I don't see any reason for that to dramatically change.

960
123RF / Re: 123 Missing 2007 earnings
« on: February 20, 2008, 12:31 »
No problems here - my 2007 earnings are still listed.

961
LuckyOliver.com / Re: Losing Patience Fast
« on: February 20, 2008, 10:15 »
My portfolio continues to fail miserably with Lucky Oliver.  ...

Given the bad sales experience that most people here have had with LO, I'm wondering why you bothered with them in the first place. I'd be very surprised if a significant percentage of "carnies" average more than $1 per day. Didn't you do any research before uploading there?

962
Cameras / Lenses / Re: Canon 400D / Rebel XTI
« on: February 19, 2008, 14:53 »
The Canon 400D/Rebel XTi cannot be used in the same manner as a point-and-shoot camera. The LCD screen on this camera cannot be used as a viewfinder. You can view the images you shot using the screen, but you have to look through the viewfinder in order to take them.

If you want to use the LCD screen as a viewfinder, you will have to purchase a newer model camera such as the Canon Rebel Xsi or 40D.

963
General Stock Discussion / Re: Decision on Next Agency
« on: February 19, 2008, 14:42 »
IS is the premier site for microstock photography, and you should definitely go there before anywhere else.

964
Crestock.com / Re: What is your acceptance rate at Crestock ?
« on: February 18, 2008, 19:53 »
deleted

965
Adobe Stock / Re: FT EL prices
« on: February 18, 2008, 19:33 »
I can edit my EL prices without a problem.

966
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Crazy ... or what?
« on: February 18, 2008, 19:28 »
Heh ... looks like my old car.

967
Crestock.com / Re: What is your acceptance rate at Crestock ?
« on: February 18, 2008, 12:10 »
My acceptance rate at Crestock is a little low - 1205 accepted, 252 rejected = 83%.

Most of my rejections come from Crestock's early months, when they were far too picky about the images they wanted. Although things are much better now in that respect, my impression is that they have a bit of a rogue reviewer problem - there is one reviewer who seems to be more critical than his colleagues. I'm not really concerned about it, though, as Crestock's ability to attract buyers seems to be waning.

968
Cameras / Lenses / Re: The Mother of All Lenses
« on: February 14, 2008, 13:21 »
Sadly enough, the only market for lenses like this are the most unscrupulous of the paparazzi. It must be brutal to be a celebrity ...

969
iStockPhoto.com / Re: More evidence that IS favors Exclusives
« on: February 11, 2008, 18:25 »
Sorry, Yuri, but your complaint about poor exposure is completely unwarranted. As the 'top gun' in this industry you come off looking quite unprofessional by making such statements.

970
General Stock Discussion / Re: 2B or not 2B, exclusive
« on: February 11, 2008, 18:11 »
...I am beginning to wonder if that is really the best road to hoe. ...
I think you mean "row to hoe". "Road to hoe" can be interpreted as something else entirely different!

As far as being exculsive goes, I don't think it would be optimal to go this route until you are at least at gold level (10k DLs), or even higher. I'll be strongly considering exclusivity at IS when I hit diamond level in a year-and-a-bit.

971
Shutterstock.com / Re: $1000 images on shutterstock
« on: February 11, 2008, 16:42 »
Wow, leaf, your IS portfolio is vastly underperforming - you should strongly consider reloading your best images now that you've got the keywording all figured out.

972
Shutterstock.com / Re: $1000 images on shutterstock
« on: February 11, 2008, 16:20 »
I thought that you might be getting close, fotografer - I was a bit surprised not to see anything of yours in the 'Top 50' list when I checked it before making my post. You must occupy numbers 51 and 52!

973
Shutterstock.com / Re: $1000 images on shutterstock
« on: February 11, 2008, 15:53 »
$1000 on SS alone? That's a very tall order - I think you're doing very well if you can manage $100 for a single image. I was going to say that the only regular member I think might have a shot at it is freezingpics, but even he isn't close.

My best on SS is only 1/4 of the way there - I'm doing much better at IS in this regard.

974
General Stock Discussion / Re: Microstockhelp.com
« on: February 11, 2008, 13:34 »
Time out.

sjlocke relies on his istock portfolio to earn a living - making negative comments on his work may adversely affect his ability to put food on the table.

rjmiz enjoys enriching this community by openly sharing his photoshop knowledge - making pointed remarks about his efforts cannot serve a positive purpose.


Although each of you obviously have strong feelings, it might be best to ignore each other from now on, and to put everything that's happened so far in the past.

975
Photoshop Discussion / Re: Old fashioned editing
« on: February 11, 2008, 12:31 »
On a semi-related note, I'm always amused by self-proclaimed 'purists' who proudly show off their photos while proclaiming they've been made using slide film and haven't been photoshopped/enhanced/altered. Why is it they can't realize that ship sailed long ago, and they've completely missed the boat?

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 73

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors