|
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 - marcnim
Pages: [1]
1
« on: May 01, 2013, 05:17 »
The earnings for my monkey images ( 10+) not a single shot.
I am not sure if the individual website will work, especially at my low level, but the Symbiostock Networking idea (IMHO) is too full of promise and potential to not get on board.
i had never before heard of Symbiostock. I will take a look. It sure is promising. How long did it take you to set up your microsite?
2
« on: April 30, 2013, 08:04 »
Marc
About 50% of my small earning on SS are for my snow monkeys ( approx $30).
I don't know if this is food, or travel but my best selling image is "Fresh pineapples at Ecuadorian fresh fruit market"
My web site hasn't generated any sales...yet 
Glenn
Glenn, thanks for sharing. Thats not too bad with the Monkey (like that shot a lot), if it held a Dollar bill or a tool or a surgical mask, you'd be rich by now. I was wondering about websites, I have one for my regular photo business ( www.fischka.com ) but I thought I had to create so much traffic in order to get some sales. Speaking of that, on freelancer.com you find a good number of tech guys from the indian subcontinent that offer to boost your google ranking on any subject for 100 bucks.
3
« on: April 30, 2013, 07:49 »
Gillian, I like your spa photos...
4
« on: April 30, 2013, 06:56 »
food has fads and fashions, just like anything else, so there's always new stuff to shoot. cupcakes are over (aren't they?), macarons are still in, cakepops never really took off, what's next? quinoa is still going strong as a fad (800 images on iS), what'll be the next superfood? hopefully something that's local and plentiful in my part of the world (and not #@!! expensive). The sardine quiche I just uploaded to Stocksy is pretty niche: ZERO sardine quiche to be found at iS or SS! People you know where to go if you're desperate for such an image. 
good prose! Maybe your sardine quiche is just a dressed up zucchini tart :-)
why, how dare you! there is no mistaking the sardines! (I also have prawn quiche which is far less attractive.)
Sardines are just food porn for photographers, along with pears and artichokes. I can't quite think of a new way to shoot artichokes (and we don't get fresh ones easily where I live).
i don't know which fact makes me more jealous. the delicious foods you are capturing or that artichokes grow at your place. Do you have a link to your portfolio? I am hungry am promise not to copy. (just lobster quiche, or whale cake)
5
« on: April 30, 2013, 04:50 »
food has fads and fashions, just like anything else, so there's always new stuff to shoot. cupcakes are over (aren't they?), macarons are still in, cakepops never really took off, what's next? quinoa is still going strong as a fad (800 images on iS), what'll be the next superfood? hopefully something that's local and plentiful in my part of the world (and not #@!! expensive). The sardine quiche I just uploaded to Stocksy is pretty niche: ZERO sardine quiche to be found at iS or SS! People you know where to go if you're desperate for such an image.
good prose! Maybe your sardine quiche is just a dressed up zucchini tart :-) to the copy issue. For the contributer there is one benchmark: sales. In that area, a selling copy is better than an invention nobody wants marc www.fischka.com
6
« on: April 30, 2013, 04:00 »
an addition to the discussion about the originality of food photography. It's a dogma that one is always advised to be original. To browse existing material and then find an understocked niche. This can be quite frustrating since like most of the photographic continents have already been discovered. Niches get smaller.
I hear, in China it is an honorable thing to be a good copy cat. Maybe the niche can be to copy and just try to become as good as it gets. (Usually originality will come out anyway with professionalism)
7
« on: April 30, 2013, 02:37 »
to glen: I love your humor. Would you share how much you have earned with the snowmonkey? I have looked up your website. Would you share how much you earn in percentage vis-a-vis agencies? cheers marc www.fischka.com
8
« on: April 29, 2013, 04:38 »
i see that i can't sell so much what I usually shoot in the way i usually shoot. But despite me having some sort of style that I sell to my clients, in the end, the client tells me what to do. I figure that what sells well at the moment is high end studio shots, both people and objects. For Objects, the isolated white single object is no bestseller. But for instance high level food shots can still earn good. But you need a full setting, middle- and background included. Beautiful light and a little extra.
So I personally have a vision on where to go and I advance to that position with every week in the studio and maybe I can sell some of the stuff I do on the road.
btw: thanks for all the posts. Good insights there!
9
« on: April 26, 2013, 09:19 »
Define "reasonable" - twice. What I've read from stock photographers from the 90's it was quite common for them to have 10,000+ images in their stock portfolios. And many of them did that on the side of their regular business.
Haven't been around that long but I get the impression that agencies are getting tighter and tighter with copyrights and property. When I weeded my 120.000 archived images, I took out the bad ones, the private ones, the copyrighted ones, the ones for clients only, most of the analog ones, ones with property issues, with model issues, I had roughly 400 left. But then again, I never thought of going into Stock.
10
« on: April 26, 2013, 09:12 »
on a different note, but similar subject. I am amazed by the technical quality of the average professional stock photographer. Way higher than in my original field (events, people, design). competition drives quality. But since it was mentioned before, I sense a lack of humanity and authenticity. (compared with the level of technical quality). Images that really grab the viewer emotionally. Is that just my perception or a result of business logic?
11
« on: April 26, 2013, 09:06 »
It's not about loyalty, it's about business sense. Once reviewed, an image doesn't cause much cost. Why would an agency put up effort to clean up which would cause at least some manual work. And there might still be a chance that an image gets bought by a client.
The same goes for proven bestsellers: For the agency it's not about "who" produced the image, it's about images having a proven sales record. Those images are more likely to attract new clients, so they will be placed on top of new images without a record. It's a challenge for each agency to come up with a good mix of "fresh" and "proven" stuff but in case of doubt I guess they will always tend to "proven".
i can think of a reason why to purge older not-so-high sellers. you don't want to browse through 1000 children blowing their dandelions . 100 is enough. purging what failed in the past increases the quality more than just restricting new stuff to come in.
12
« on: April 26, 2013, 03:40 »
It's certainly possible but a lot more difficult than it was when I started 8 years ago. Those of us that have been uploading for a long while have already earnt our position in the ranks, are bookmarked by a lot of buyers etc but newcomers have to work their way up. Saying that, it is becoming increasingly more difficult for those of us that have been doing this for a long while. It isn't the gold mine that it used to be unless you are willing to put in a LOT of work.
it appears to me as such a weird market. I am sure that the demand of stock photography is rising all the time. It's weird that supply obviously outweighs demand so much. In traditional photo business (at least in my home country Austria) the demand is sinking every year (more stock, lesser budgets, economic crisis) and there are more people running around with a camera and dumping prices. Therefor my newly found interest in stock.
13
« on: April 26, 2013, 03:32 »
dear community, i do have an experience that I am sure most of us occasionally have: * it becomes increasingly difficult to produce original content * in my research I find a good number of images that share my topics, that have often enough a similar or lesser quality than my products, images that have sold hundreds and thousands of copies * I earn a living as a professional photographer so I know not to glorify my own work * I have the feeling that a majority of existing stock images wouldn't pass review nowadays * I am aware that superior content always finds its way so my question is: given these (perceived) facts * are stock sites just protecting their old and loyal clientele? * do newcomers still have chances to earn a living with a reasonable portfolio and reasonable effort? * whats your experience? do your rely more on your back catalog or new productions? * are there discussions with the agencies to purge material that has a certain age and is not top seller? thanks for your shared experiences marc www.fischka.com
14
« on: April 21, 2013, 15:43 »
What I shoot:
I shoot single object in frame and later isolate that on white. It is the safest bet. I choose my subjects differently than what others commonly do. I go to small towns and carnivals there, I get very cheap objects there to shoot. I buy many of them and what ever can come under $1 or $2. What I do with those objects and things after shooting. I give away those objects to children and sometimes I send those things to non-profit organizations who can send those things to children who need them most.
Thats a nice idea. Are you satisfied with your sales? By now I have just uploaded my back archive, mostly travel and architecture and a little design. I wanted to see if I can sell at all before investing in studio gear. So my numbers are bad but are getting better. If you shoot a batch of 50 pictures of five objects, do you upload all? All at once?
15
« on: April 21, 2013, 15:39 »
My rules are simple. I do not shoot:
Humans (difficult to get release from unknown people) and besides that I still do not know how to handle the editing of human skin in image.
Art scene like Vendors, something happening on the road. Editorials are no fun for stock photographer.
Conceptual images: I am not there yet. I did some but came back to my own ideas of not doing them until I get the people to be in concept.
Tree, flowers, vegetables spikes, cactus etc. I learnt it hard-way when my entire shoot of flower-show was rejected completely. So, it is another no-go area.
I guess you shoot in jpg. If your camera can do raw and you can get hold of a free raw converter, the simplest way to edit skin tone is by adjusting the color temperature. I do two steps, first I set the temperature to neutral (by pointing the temperature picking tool to a white area in the photo) and then I make the image a little warmer (higher temperature). That usually makes the skin nices. You can also look at the number values of skin tone. For the average caucasian skin ie, you hould usually have the numbers of yellow and magenta close together with magenta a little higher. On the other hand my old photography mentor would have said: if you have your lights right, then no need for editing. do you work with studio lights? Or with available? Fotolia brings the most money to me considering the number of images accepted. Shutterstock as usual the highest at all.
16
« on: April 20, 2013, 14:36 »
to shady sue: I guess the bird photo is an example of the human factor. The reviewer found it not worthy to be included and pressed just one button. I wished the agencies would purge older photos that wouldn't be accepted nowadays..
to cascoly: thanks a lot for sharing the article!
17
« on: April 20, 2013, 11:08 »
thanks for the advice and may you live long and prosper :-)
18
« on: April 20, 2013, 10:27 »
to shady sue: exactly my experience. what are you going to do? repost? to Michael Jay: like your blog. will read. like your photo editing. have been to the same spots in connemara when still doing analog... i myself come from a different business end. ( www.fischka.com ) Being a professional photographer is surely not the same as a professional stock photographer...
19
« on: April 20, 2013, 09:46 »
to MJF: for me there is no question of fault. I have a natural objective to get as many images accepted as possible. And for good reasons. I have received sales from images I have thought of the least likely to be sold in my portfolio. And then photos I thought of valuable have not been downloaded at all. So until I have the exact knowledge what works, I go with statistics. The more you post, the more you earn. Except if I hear that there are (real) penalties for low acceptance rate. I don't want to spam the agencies but then again, this is my point of sale and thus I should do whatever it takes to succeed without breaking the laws.
while my first 123RF batch was in process I had uploaded a second batch with the same topic/scenery. That batch went through with not a single rejection for property release reasons. So yes, it is inconsistent. And if I get the feeling that one day it's no and another day it's yes, I wonder if I shall try again after a no.
Which raises the question if people have experience re-posting rejected images after a while. Do agencies recognize a second upload? Experiences of consequences? Red flag? Asking this kind of question helps everybody. Because I am happy not to find out by trying it. That saves reviewers manpower and speeds up the workflow.
20
« on: April 20, 2013, 09:31 »
to Beppe: thats exactly what I meant. You learn what to submit in which fashion to which portal. And the idea of my post was to have a short cut to the experience by a couple people sharing their experiences. I am aware that we all are competitors around the same cake. But if 20 people share one piece of valuable experience each (like beware of irrelevant keywords with IS and always use different titles and desc to avoid reject for similar), then we have invested 1 piece of knowledge and gained 20. (and if you knew all that then you know how good you are)
21
« on: April 20, 2013, 06:45 »
to MichaelJayFoto:
well it strikes me as weird if 123RF rejects 25 out of 25 building photos for the reason of property release while dreamstime or fotolia has no problem whatsoever. Fotolia takes grafitti pictures if they are on public ground while most others reject for copyright reasons. (and there can hardly be copyright protection for illegally applied art in public space).
i often enough get technical reasons as rejection. sometimes I understand it. Sometimes it's silly. I do photoshop for a living so I know if an image is in focus or not.
Basic line is that I hardly see consistency throughout the sites when it comes to rejections. Therefor I wonder how to submit to each site the best way. Obviously I think that there might be a buyer somewhere for each photo I submit.
22
« on: April 19, 2013, 13:53 »
to tab62:
i am about to fry my bacon in my new studio basement going for food. But nevertheless, I have seen landscape photos that are really good but not among the best photos ever sell 2000 times on SS. There should be a way to make money out of every subject :(minus the red roses)
23
« on: April 19, 2013, 13:38 »
to sjocke: do we know that reviewers look at the portfolio as a whole when accepting or rejecting?
If so the suggestion is to have one profile for the good shots under my own name and a profile for the everday overdone skyscraper shots under the name of my sister....
24
« on: April 19, 2013, 13:35 »
to rimglow: thats sound advice! thanks.
25
« on: April 19, 2013, 13:05 »
I have by now submitted roughly 300 photos to the 12 highest ranked sites. Obviously there is some randomness in being accepted or rejected. (Like having the same photo being rejected at one site for over sharpening, on another site for softness and accepted at a third site)
I have the worst acceptance rate with fotolia at about 12 percent, shutterstock is about 50 percent, 123RF at about 80 and Pond5, envato and canstock at about 95 percent.
the questions are:
1. do you have strategies how to submit to the various sites?
2. Like: Last weekend I shot skyscrapers, details, building site of skyscrapers. I have edited 25 photos. Is it better to submit all 25 at once or to stretch in three different upload settings over a month or so? When is the acceptance rate higher?
3. different experiences with different sites to this?
4. does it matter for acceptance if your acceptance rate is low? Are you red flagged or is it just the photo that matters?
5. does it make sense to ask to reconsider rejections? Like a rejection of a skyscraper window detail with the rejection reason of property release (can't distinguish the building)
6. I never quite saw the use of the categories. Is there a reason to think more about that when uploading?
lots of questions, lots of sites
I would really appreciate your experiences
cheers
Marcell from Vienna
Pages: [1]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
