|
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 - Seren
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14
76
« on: May 03, 2008, 14:11 »
You can upload one image at a time. Although by using multiple tabs in a browser you can upload several. As a new contributor you can only submit 15 files a week anyway, so FTP really wouldn't be worth it.
IPTC data is kept.
You don't have to keyword it there and then, but you DO have to keyword it before it goes into the review queue. The longer you leave a file pending without being in the queue will affect it's position in the search rankings, because it becomes an old file.
The files go into a queue with everyone elses. You don't get all your images reviewed at once.
77
« on: May 03, 2008, 01:34 »
The BBC world service round up. Yup. I'm sad. My partners in the RAF though, so I like to know what he could be going out to face!
78
« on: May 02, 2008, 12:23 »
Put another way, the smaller sensor effectively increases the focal length of the lenses. A faster shutter speed is required with a longer focal length lens to avoid camera shake.
No, that's not putting it another way. The original poster asked about digital cameras. My digital camera doesn't crop focal length, so therefore faster speed is not required. Had the original poster asked specifically if an identical lens on a 35mm film SLR and a 1.6x crop sensor would need different speeds, the answer would perhaps be as you wrote. Having said that though, not necessarily. Since you're not actually changing the way the image is recorded, you're just ignoring the data that comes round the outside of the lens, so I doubt you'd actually need a faster shutter speed. Don't make me get out my Langfords Advanced Photography!
79
« on: May 02, 2008, 09:08 »
I disagree with the 1 dollar per image per year figure.
IS paid out 21 million last year
Portfolio was on average about 2.5 million
which makes about $8.50 per image per year, slightly more for exclusives proabably about $10 and about $5 for non exclusives
Don't forget, Video has a MUCH higher average selling price. And Vectors on average sell many more times over than photos. I would hazard a guess that for anyone doing just photos for a living, 10,000 online would be a good mark to aim for. Perhaps it was 1 per image per year, which is about $2. And don't forget I'm talking about the traditional market, Microstock has not got figures like this yet, since it is still in it's infancy.
80
« on: May 02, 2008, 08:26 »
"From what I understand, each new image is given a high place int the best match search for the particular keyword, and given some time before it is moved down the search pages. It it performs in this time, it keeps moving up. Else, it keeps moving down. I think that the time given for an image to perform is around 2-3 weeks."
Each new image is not automatically given a high best match ranking for any particular keyword. It is not given time before it is moved up and down the search pages. If it performs, it will not automatically move up. The time given for an image to perform is not 2-3 weeks. The Best Match search is not known by anyone but those that developed it. It changes fairly frequently too. You cannot play the system by trying to make images suit it. People did this and they were banned.
81
« on: May 02, 2008, 08:14 »
Overall he looks like he went a bid mad with the hairspray or the hair-dye I can't decide which, but that's just my honest opinion for what it's worth. 
Plus, what exactly makes him a senior executive business man? Looks like a bloke in a cheap suit to me. And Senior Execs don't smile, they look permanently stressed. 
82
« on: May 02, 2008, 08:07 »
You have seven very similar pictures, all the same theme (Indian Men). You must diversity your portfolio and make it larger to see sales.
Stock is a numbers game. There is an often quoted figure, that is a little out of date now, than one image will make one dollar per year on average. Which means you need to have a portfolio of thousands to make a living in traditional stock (there are exceptions to the rule).
Basically, you have seven pretty dull images of Indian men, with faked smiles not doing anything. What exactly do you see your pictures being used for?
83
« on: May 02, 2008, 06:40 »
On the top bar of the page, click the little icon that looks like a list, or a notepad ("My uploads").
Sort the columns by "Last Download".
84
« on: May 02, 2008, 06:36 »
The reason is that the didgital sensor is far more accurate than film in recording light because the sensor is mage up of a grid that is set and can only record the light in the way it was designed to at a set angle, whereas film is made up of liquid crysal and therefore has bumps,lumps and dips that record the light at very slight angles, however as it was explained to us you need the type of microscope they use to perform sex changes on fleas to see the effect properly.
So to the naked human eye there is no effect... Never knew about the lenses. That's interesting.
85
« on: May 02, 2008, 05:37 »
Mine is www.serendigital.co.ukI set it up myself using a drop and drag program, iWeb for Mac. I'm sure if you are a PC user there is something similar? EDIT: Although I don't sell prints from that website, i do sell photos via email to clients, so it might not be exactly what you're after. Smugmug seemed very expensive to me personally.
86
« on: May 02, 2008, 05:28 »
I read somewhere recently that camera shake is more emphasised when using digital as compared to film.
A film camera is identical to a digital camera (SLR) in it's basic contruction. If you have the aperture open for too long, then you will get camera shake. I don't think there is anything in the sensor size theory. My handholding speed for medium format film is the same as for 35mm film, and the same as for 1.6x crop. Although I find my 350D and my Yashica TLR easier to hand hold at slow shutter speeds than my 5D, but that is down to the weight of the camera more than anything else.
87
« on: May 01, 2008, 13:18 »
Get a second hand copy of Photoshop.
Seriously. There is a reason it's the industry standard.
Elements has some of the functionality of Photoshop (layers etc - useful if you're already shooting on a white background) but it doesn't have the pen tool.
88
« on: May 01, 2008, 12:13 »
Roughly (and rounded):
SS: 35% v
IS: 53% ^
FT: 9% ^
DT: 4% ^
SX: 2% ^
123: 1% ^
89
« on: May 01, 2008, 08:38 »
I've spoken to half a dozen iStock exclusives about the jump in sales after going exclusive and their responses ranged from double to quadruple the quantity of sales. The average was around triple. Obviously earnings would jump even more due to the commission bonus, which depends on your canister level. My sales didn't dramatically increase when I went exclusive. Sure, new files sold a little better due to them being approved quicker so heading to the front of the best match quicker, and of course I had my extra 5% earnings. I went unexclusive in Jan, had my portfolio offline for half of jan and feb (naughty me). My search rankings obviously sunk because of my portfolio being offline, but this month I've actually made more than I did the last whole month I was exclusive (except for a rather large extended licence in Jan). I'm making more with other sites than my extra 5% + exclusive search bonus. Plus I've only got 1/5 of my portfolio on DT, and FT, so I'm hoping that'll make a big difference when I find the time to upload it.
90
« on: May 01, 2008, 08:31 »
i dont like them. I have uploaded 205 pics and the write me.... yeah thats the kind of images we like good quality...
than i logg in... and all my images where deleted because they are not typical british style.... i really dont know what british style is. They only take 2 pics of my son... and i really pray that he is not british style :-)
I doubt that someone from Germany would have much success taking and submitting typically British pictures. It's not that they're bad, it's that you don't have British style!
91
« on: April 30, 2008, 01:20 »
Umm... you might want to look into the OSA before putting these up for sale, specifically the part about photography,making notes, sketches or anything related to the recording of government or military bases in the UK.
Because you can't !!
Actually.... you can. You just have to be careful what you sell. Anyway, this is irrelevant to the discussion, continue by PM if you want. And it seems that Photographers Direct DO care, but only if someone points out to them that you're submitting to micro, they're too bloody lazy to investigate themselves! Ah well, good job fotolibra is looking up, plus they're a Welsh site, they actually know what a pixel means (I always wondered why PD measured everything in inches). Plus I don't think I'll miss their impossibly designed site. Has anyone noticed too, that fotolibra tends to put the picture calls out first, then PD puts the same calls out often? It's been happening more recently.
92
« on: April 29, 2008, 15:07 »
Serene,
Make sure you get your CO's permission/clearance in writing concerning Military equipment. Som planes are classified top secret. When I was in the AF, I guarded U-2's. At that time it was a court martial offense for anyone who even looked uner the tarp covering the cockpit if they were caught. Wven the guards were not classified to see anything.
BTW - if you are in Iraq, thanks for serving! And take good care of yourself!!!
Name is Seren. I'm not in the RAF yet, but my partner is hence the cool shots. All the top secret stuff is done in Nevada, USA at the moment, which I'm hoping to go out to one day to photograph the predators for PR work. I almost applied as a pilot last year, but decided that photographer was far more fun and far less stress! Just got to wait for the job applications to open...
93
« on: April 29, 2008, 13:50 »
I've always made more on RM sites than Micro, traditional sites offer better long term prospects whereas micro have that instant sale appeal, it's just finding the balance, I'd suggest however you keep your identities seperate.
I just explain that I have different bodies of work for different types of sales. Royalty free on microstock is for stuff that people won't pay alot of money for. An isolated shot of an apple is not worth $200. But it might be worth 200 people paying $1 each. Rights Managed is for rarer work. For instance I'm starting to get a small collection of images of RAF bases and so forth. These are sold Rights Managed so I can protect the images and where they are displayed. In the future I expect to go down this route far more, since I'm hoping to get into the RAF myself soon as a photographer, so my "off duty" shots will hopefully include such interesting things as Iraq and perhaps even some shots from planes. They've already told me I'm going to be able to continue with my stock shooting, but I'll need to clear anything remotely military with my CO before selling it.
94
« on: April 29, 2008, 10:46 »
cshack - photographersdirect doesn't ask for any image exclusivity.
RT - I can find my own images there in a search, so yes I'm still there. You won't find me by searching for my name though, because I haven't paid to have that feature.
I've made a few sales there from their image request feature, more than most of the microstock sites with far fewer images! I've been making alot more direct RM sales overall though.
95
« on: April 29, 2008, 06:39 »
They haven't stopped me selling there and I submit to micro. As long as they're making money I don't think they really care.
Yes they DO really care.
Yes, I know, I've read all that. But I still sell there. As I said before, if they're making money I don't think they really care. I even have the same username.
96
« on: April 29, 2008, 01:02 »
They haven't stopped me selling there and I submit to micro. As long as they're making money I don't think they really care.
97
« on: April 23, 2008, 02:06 »
They're not microstock...
98
« on: April 18, 2008, 12:17 »
My friend is using his old camera for that. One good selling time lapse video payed for the repair.
True, although when you can pick up a second hand P&S for under 100 - some of which will take a time lapse set of shots without needing a laptop or remote timer - doesn't seem much point! Most P&S's will produce good enough quality for HD apparently.
99
« on: April 18, 2008, 10:01 »
Never mind, I mustn't be able to see it because I haven't been accepted for footage yet. I'm ammending my business plan, and wanted to justify the purchase of a HD Cam with some figures.
100
« on: April 18, 2008, 09:34 »
For time lapse stuff your DSLR would do fine
Except you'd quickly come up against the fact that the shutter will break after X amount of shots.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
