You can have mine of course, but I think there are better ones around, like illustrators' stuff. I really envy those illustrators, real artists. I just push the button of my cam ;-)

Thanks, but I actually DO use the filezilla...  Maybe it's my lack of understanding for this program, but I don't how to process the same upload que for several sites automatically..... Automatically meaning selecting several sites from the site manager up front - and then staring the upload for all selected sites....

SmartFTP was better at it, but then it went paying. It could handle concurrent threads. Probably FileZilla can do it too, but I had no time to check it out yet. This year I already uploaded 12 batches to a number of sites and how I do it is to start several instances of FileZilla. The next instance always starts with the folder you're working in, so it's quite easy. One might think that it adds memory overhead but it's not true watching the processes in the Vista process monitor. Each new instance just adds little overhead. Probably most is handled in the DLL's that are only loaded once.

You can set your remote directory too in FileZilla, like is needed with some sites. With ShutterStock and Bigstock, you have to limit your concurrent uploads to one only, in the "Transfer settings" tab.

You could argue that it still takes some clicks more than an integrated automatic uploader, but in the workflow, those extra 2 minutes (maximum) don't really count compared to the work it takes on the sites itself to submit (categorize, mrf attach, agree ad nauseum with their terms, etc...). I don't want to undercut Prostockmaster but as an ex IT pro I prefer transparent solutions with proven mainstream software over a proprietary database that can get corrupted, lost, or be buggy. I just like to be in control and to see what's happening, having witnessed some software disasters in the past (with customers) that relied too much on niche-software.

But for the time being it is the agency who beats down the prices, not the market.

Acencies are competing against each other too, especially for customer loyalty since most microstock agencies carry the same type of images now. Price competition is - as you state - probably much less important than convenience. The large agencies clearly have an advantage here, since with millions of shots they can cater for many customers' demands. Dreamstime and Istock have never been competing on the price level, as smaller agencies tend to do.

Ultimately, it's the photographer's responsability not to upload to sites that undersell.

With such a large database of pictures to work with already, I was overwhelmed.  Until yesterday.
I was on Yuri Acurs site reading about his keywording program and I saw someone had mentioned Cushy Stock.  Not knowing what it was, I looked it up.  It's a program that does it all!  Organizes, keywords, and does FTP!  ...   For once, I can't wait to get home tonight and start working on my stock stuff.

Are you employed by Cushy Stock? I'm writing commercials myself. I know one when I see one.

You can easily upload to multiple sites for free by Filezilla. Just use the site manager.
You can easily tag your pictures in batch by the free Irfanview.
To keep track of what you've uploaded or not, just work in small batches, one by one. There is a great organizer for that. It's called the Windows file manager.

If you are not happy with the pricing at Microstock (nobody is), you'd better not join them. If you count on ditching your substandard shots on Microstock, you might be in for a surprise since the standards have become very high and many photographers send their best. (Very) talented photographers are an endless supply, like sand in the Sahara. Buyers are not.

in the microstockdiaries post they said alpha launch in Feb.  I guess that still doesn't tell us when the full site is going online......

Their main USP is, as they say, the warranty they give to their corporate customers. I don't grab this, to be honest. A warranty is only worth what the photographer, his honesty and his model/property releases are worth. It's a warranty by proxy. Dreamstime for instance is only worth what its photographers are worth and in case of litigation, Dreamstime has deeper pockets than Vivo.

Two payouts till now, one dollar next to payout.
My shots are 6-9$ resizable.
Used to have 3 sales per month but now dead since Nov 17.
Dead easy to upload, I got 100x more at FP than at YAY.

My point is that no matter how good your images are, there will be somebody that can produce similar images, and can produce them in bulk. That �once in a lifetime� image (or so you think) that you are so proud of may not be so unique and valuable after all. A commodity that is common will have a low value, while a scarce commodity will increase in value.  No matter how good you are, your images individually are worth less today than they were a few years ago.
...
The only thing that will drive the price of Microstock images up again is when the submission of new images started to slow because people feel it is not worth the effort and cost anymore.

Correct. I had a great concept 1.5 years ago and the shot sold well, also on SS, for half a year. Then nothing any more. I did a search last week on SS with the relevant keywords and lo and behold, there were 50 with the exactly the same concept. When I let them sort according to upload date, mine was the oldest. I conclude that stock is more and more populated by industrial volume shooters and lurking accountants that spend a lot of time snooping into the most popular images, putting the popular stuff on their checklist, and reshoot it in volume. Not much you can do about it, except do the same.

For non-industrial shooters in Western high-cost countries, stock isn't really worth the effort any more. If they are honest and they count their time and equipment, they actually lose money. They will be the first to go. For East-Europeans and Asians (to come), stock is still very viable as the cost of living there is much lower. I warned for this phenomenon 2 or 3 years ago on another forum and I was greeted with mockery. Now look, all the beginners are Serbians, Russians, Croatians, etc... In the West, you can better go flip hamurgers than shoot for stock. The flipping makes you 8x8 = 64 euro per day and you don't have to buy Photoshop for 1000$ and a noise-free cam every 2-3 years.

except me, because I came up with an idea. lol.

Sure. Shutterstock will listen very carefully to you.

76,066 new stock photos added this week
138,519 photographers

70,000 x 50 weeks = 3,500,000 more by the end of the year. Not much more buyers. In 10 years from now, the whole world will be shooting, photoshopping and keywording for the last 5 buyers left.

 

About DPI, Zymmetrical has that requirement too, although it doesn't change anything to image quality/size. I downloaded the new (free!) Irfanview yesterday and I noticed that there is a lossless plugin to change the DPI. That means your image isn't touched, just the number in the EXIF and in the JPG headers. Make sure to download all the plugins.

Menu: Options | JPG Lossless Rotation... (Plugin) > Window opens:

None (can be used for optimizing and clearing)
Set DPI X: 300 Y: 300 (JPG header + EXIF)
Keep all APP markers (default)

Press Start.



As usual, you can do this in batch mode for all files in a folder.
Press T and the Thumbnail window opens. CTRL-click all thumbs you want to change, then follow these instructions:

Menu | File | JPG Lossless Operations | Lossless rotation with selected files... > same window opens; set as before; press Start.

Quote from: litifeta on January 15, 2009, 23:36

I need a tutorial to put hair on my head.

Haha! Me too

Whenever I'll cut mine, I'll FTP you some. 



On topic: I duplicate the layer, desaturate it slightly, in levels I cut off dark and light ends (to keep some structure) and make it lighter in general. Then I go to the top layer and selectively erase 40% at 500% zoom. I do the same with the eyes, but less. After flattening remove the addened noise with the blur tool but avoid the teeth edges.

LOL, I have to be the most prejudice one here because my first thought was "Anyone who is that good looking HAS to be gay anyway."

Of course he is. Or he is a very good impersonator. Or both. The vast majority of my models is gay. Michelangelo was gay. Gays are just very good impersonators and actors. Why not tap into that resource? At least they are not heterophobes and they don't mind to figure in straight ads.