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 - paperboy

Pages: [1]
General Stock Discussion / Re: Nikon or Canon?
« on: August 21, 2007, 09:39 »
With 21MP, that selection will grow even smaller, except for those who use third party glass from Leica or Zess.

It's true but I havent noticed that it is problem with traditional analog photography. Film resolution is about 200 lines per milimeter [lpmm]. New Canon's resolution is 156 lpmm. There is still quite big distance to the resolution of analog film and the lenses are the same.


In my opinion Richard the most important thing is HOW MANY TIME photos adding takes.
To create new successfull stock you'll need:
1) lot of photos - without them you won't have enough clients
2) lot of clients (money) to keep contributions

I'm ready to invest my time and give my photos to the new agency. The problem is that I really don't have much time!

At the beginning new agency will not be as profitable as the "top 5" - that's sure. The only way to push me to uplad to the new agency is EXTREME easy and fast way to do it. I think it is possible only if you won't expect:
1)  Adding Model Releases (as Alamy).  It's taking most of all uploading time.
2) Categories
3) Clicking, clicking, never ending clicking

I think that whole www/http solution to adding photos is absolutely wrong. It's depends too much on connection speed, time of the day etc. I think that better way is to prepair program-client which will make whole the process simpler and faster.

Good luck!

Microstock Monitor / Re: Introducing Microstock Monitor
« on: February 15, 2007, 09:20 »
Hi Michael!

Thank you for sharing this program with us. I've just downloaded and tested.
I've got 2 notices. It would be very useful to have:
1) autorefresh option
2) more than 1 account on the same stock

Thank you!
All the best,

New Sites - General / Re: Question about Stockxpert
« on: December 28, 2006, 08:25 »
As an artist I personally believe imperfections are what give objects realism, especially old items.

As a designer I personally prefer dirt or scratch free objects. The same rules apply to human faces and bodies. It is better to remove even moles if they might look like spots. The same rule I have found on Alamy. I think that it is more popular opinion among other designers and stock owners/admins. It is a very simple thing to put some of scratches or dirt on the photo if design need it. Removing is much more time-consuming.

New Sites - General / Re: Question about Stockxpert
« on: December 28, 2006, 05:01 »
Here it is.

Thanks! I wouldn't call it "lack of detail" but it doesn't have to be a real rejection reason. I can see other problem - I'm sure if you fix it (making another photos) there wan't be any problems with StockXpert admins.

ISOLATION. I strongly recommend to you plan photos like this one and do it different way. The best way is to use 4 lapmp like on the scheme below:

There is 4 lamps with softbox. Two of them illuminate white cardboar background. The rest illuminate photo object. It is possible to make it with less quantity of lamps (I think at least two). I have seen scheme of "home made" softboxes on the one of the stocks. It is possible to do it very cheap. But I'm absolutely convinced that it is profitable to invest and buy all this stuff. Higher quality of photos let you pay it off very quick. I have payed off all my equipment in first 2 months (really busy months).

About better quality and isolation - look at the picture below. Doing it this way I have pure isolation without time-consuming cutting off. Look at he needles - there are sharp and unsharp ones. It is almost impossible to cut it off correctly. With iluminated withe background you don't have problems like this.

New Sites - General / Re: Question about Stockxpert
« on: December 27, 2006, 10:13 »

On this small thumb everything looks fine. Maybe the problem is on 100% view. Could you crop microphone's strainer with a little of white background and paste it here on 100%?

New Sites - General / Re: Question about Stockxpert
« on: December 27, 2006, 09:37 »
Stockxpert is currently the hardest site for me at getting photos approved. 

Strange because it is the easiest stock for me. I've over 1000 photos there and the only ONE photo they didn't accepted was photo of angry man showing middle finger :) It is a very profitable stock for me too - even more then DT is. Maybe the matter is what kind of photos we are uploading there. I prefer working in the studio with models (popular topicks like business, medicine etc.). I'm using quite cheap DSLR but with good lenses (there's better cameras with much lower noise level).

iStockPhoto.com / Image Of The Week - not Exclusive!
« on: December 25, 2006, 15:43 »
Wow! I've just noticed that Image Of the Week wasn't made by Exclusive! It's regular bronze member with less then one hundred of very beauty pro photos.  Is this Christmas mood - what do you think? ;)

iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStockphoto Upload Limit
« on: December 04, 2006, 05:29 »
15 upload limit...  ;D

123RF / Re: What's wrong with 123rf?
« on: October 09, 2006, 08:19 »
I have passed 100 USD in the middle of September but nothing happened yet.
I think there is no reason to include "123rf" to the "Big 5". StockXpert works MUCH better for me (almost as good as Dreamstime) and it shoud take it's place. Leaf - my vote for StockXpert!

123RF / What's wrong with 123rf?
« on: October 09, 2006, 07:51 »
It's really strange stock for me. I submit to the whole "Big 5" and the rule is (more or less) that when I add photos sell increases. I can even foresee how much it will be. Growth is almost constants to the number of photos. It's work for all of the "Big 5" stocks except 123rf. I'm adding the same photos there but sell remains in the same level (almost). Do you have the same?

Oh, and one more thing. What is their pay period? I can't find answer on their site.

iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istockphoto in now cost uneffective for me
« on: September 21, 2006, 16:59 »
Phil is not exclusive. Sorry.

Yes, I know. I read his posts here. It's misunderstanding cause my English. I'm sorry.

iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istockphoto in now cost uneffective for me
« on: September 21, 2006, 16:41 »
So, the bottom line is that it will be much harder for the non-exclusive photographers to make a living or to get a decent income with IS.

One thing doesn't fit me in this theory. Their exclusives has as hard time as we now. Just imagine - Phil Date is Exclusive. He may upload 150 photos per week (not 50).
150 x 7 minutes = 17,5 hours weekly! Sitting and watching computers screen!  Can you imagine that?

iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istockphoto in now cost uneffective for me
« on: September 21, 2006, 16:14 »
I think that you have right Fred. Their Exclusives are our only hope for the change. I'm affraid another thing. My entire Istock experience tells me - change on Istockphoto is ALWAYS on worse. Even if we expect something good.

iStockPhoto.com / Istockphoto in now cost uneffective for me
« on: September 21, 2006, 13:38 »
I have uploaded several dozen photos and made some measures during that.
The result is:
Average upload speed (via WWW) is 15,14 kB/s. (My internet link has 0,5 MB uploading speed).
Upload of 4 MB (not much) jpg takes 4 minutes 24 sec. This time is too short to go anywere and do something else so I'm sitting and watching screen.
When jpg is uploaded I check 4 checkbox + accept + wait to see another screen (+4 sec)
Choosing categories and adding MR takes 47 sec. I have to do it at every new photo because there is no possibility to copy this form last photo. I choose only 4-5 categories.
Then keywords - my favorite! I use EXIF so all names and keywords are in the right places but adding them (I have to carefully examine whole the list) takes me whole 1 minute 43 sec.
I'm clicking "Proceed" and it begins uploading MR (+19 sec) and new page.
That's all. One photo less. I'm in the place I have started.
Whole operation takes me... 6 minutes and 50 seconds - for one photo!

25 photos x 7 minutes (I'm not machine + 10 sec/photo) = 175 minutes. Almost 3 hours during I cannot do anything else!

New system cause that contribution with Istockphoto is unprofitable for me. I've about 500 photos there which earns about 250 USD/month. I's quite a lot but uploading new has no sense any more. It's too much pain even if they accept 85-90% of them. If they would give us chance to use FTP it would make big difference but without it's too hard for me.
What's your experience with new system?

iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock Announcement
« on: September 18, 2006, 15:26 »
If you think that nonsensical keywords is a new Istockphoto problem you should upload something there. New keywords categories is real HORROR! Even if they give us old uploading limits we won't be able to use them cause of it.

Pages: [1]


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle