|
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 - Difydave
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 24
51
« on: June 07, 2016, 07:27 »
Just a couple of comments. "Sweet spot" on the RX100 is apparently F5.6 - F8 you are going to lose sharpness out of that zone.
FWIW, I find I nearly always need to use a tiny amount of sharpening with the RX100 (Mk1 in my case). As well as a touch of noise reduction.
If you are needing to apply large changes of any sort in LR or any other converter to get a good "normal" image, then your original image is not right. That goes for any camera.
Can't answer about the payments I'm afraid.
[size=78%] [/size]
52
« on: June 06, 2016, 06:33 »
I can't get that site to do anything. All the links on there seem to loop back around.
Looks to me that anyone thinking of selling prints might be better off selling on quality and exclusivity rather than price. Good local printer, and make a selling point out of that.
Think you are right....In the UK there are still people who sell via craft fairs and the like......there is some very good work. I'm not sure it works as a business model as there are big start up costs in having a decent number of prints on the other hand they tend also to offer photo tuition and the like which I suspect may be more lucrative. You can get "generic" low quality wall art for next to nothing.
I'm in the UK as well. I've never tried selling prints, but people I know who have, haven't had that much success. The type of craft fair disparagingly known as a "wooly knitted animal fair" seems to be a complete waste of time, as are craft shops of similar type. Putting prints out on consignment or "Sale or return" is a bad business model IMHO, unless (and it's a big unless) you can get work into a high quality gallery with prices and clientele to match. You are still carrying the price of stock though. I'm not going to try selling prints, but if I was there's no way I'd want to get involved in some sort of "race to the bottom" on price. We have seen too much of that already. . . I don't know the US market at all, but it seems to me that there is more of a market for prints there than there is here in the UK. It also seems to me that there are always people around who have money, and want something that is better quality, has some exclusivity and is more expensive.
53
« on: June 06, 2016, 06:00 »
I can't get that site to do anything. All the links on there seem to loop back around.
Looks to me that anyone thinking of selling prints might be better off selling on quality and exclusivity rather than price. Good local printer, and make a selling point out of that.
54
« on: May 20, 2016, 06:59 »
As MJF says, we really need to be able to see full sized images, preferably with intact exif data to make any meaningful comment. Watermark any images you do put online. Compression artifacts are caused by software compression used to make the file smaller in "lossy" file types like jpeg. The problem is cumulative if you are re-saving as jpeg during working on a file. You should save as the native format of the software you are using or a non lossy format like TIFF when working on files. Only save as jpeg once when you export the image at the end of your workflow. (which I've just seen has already been said!  ) Too much sharpening (Alamy don't like sharpening) and generally "pulling the image around" too much in conversion by adding too much contrast and saturation will also give artifacts. Interpolation artifacts are caused by upsizing. Again I'd agree with the others that you are choosing difficult light conditions for a first submission. They should be very different types of subject as well IMHO. As is often said, a landscape, a portrait of a person, a still life. . .
55
« on: May 10, 2016, 09:50 »
As soon as I get a bit of time to check it out I will. I hear their illustrator-like product is good (from someone else; I haven't looked at that either). It would do all of us a world of good if Adobe got a little nervous about their market status.
Again, a good vector drawing program at a decent price would be welcome. Inkscape is OK as a free option, but Illustrator has always been expensive. I don't like any of these big companies getting too comfortable with their market position. A bit of proper competition keeps things realistic for the users. Whatever the market.
56
« on: May 10, 2016, 08:27 »
Here's the link to get informed when the windows beta is out.
https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/windows/
I would think about an Adobe subscription if they made my portfolio on FT visible again
Signed up for the Beta. Thanks.
57
« on: May 10, 2016, 07:02 »
There's going to be a Windows version then?
Excellent! I'll happily pay 40 to buy a license to use something like this.
I'm still at "Only when it's a Cold day in Hell" for me to pay subs for software!
58
« on: May 06, 2016, 11:52 »
One things sure if it's never sold and you delete it, it never will sell. Loads of crap in my PF. (Some might say it's all crap! ) And I leave it there. Had a sale on an ancient "non-seller" only a month or two back.
59
« on: April 07, 2016, 11:38 »
Humm!! I guess someone read my book "How to make $1000 selling books teaching how to make money with stock photography" 
Can I volunteer to write the foreword concerning the inadvisability of turning a hobby into a profession? I'll only want 70% of the profits. . . . (Edited for spelling!  [size=78%])[/size]
60
« on: April 05, 2016, 09:20 »
If you want to do it as a living marketing, cash flow management, etc etc are all equally important.
Indeed.
Most people could spend $5000 and make $1000.
Turnover is vanity; profit is sanity.
Reminds me of the old joke about how to make a small fortune. "Start with a large one" I don't think I've ever read a "get rich quick" book. I'm not rich, and I don't think that reading a book would change that!
61
« on: March 17, 2016, 12:55 »
Client does not care about this. They see only "per hour". And often you can hear that "oh you want such money for a button click!" :-)
If it was $10 an hour they'd say the same. The hagglers, arguers, and "that muchers!" are rarely good clients in my experience. Sensible people realise that they're paying for a service that's a lot more than a click! Luxury services (and professional family photos have to come into that category these days surely?) are never going to be cheap.
62
« on: March 16, 2016, 07:04 »
An accountant I know who advises new business start ups points out to all new business people "it is easy to under price yourself but extremely difficult to raise prices once you set the bar too low".
I think that's some of the best advice that can be given to anyone starting up any business. To the OP, put your prices up! Don't apologise for charging a reasonable fee either. In fact never apologise for your prices. It makes it seem as if you think you are charging too much! You are worth your fee! Say your accountant told you you needed to raise your prices when offering a premium service if you feel the need to explain. (I wouldn't) As already said. Charge extra for extra work. Have a list of your charges ready. When I was making furniture (and all self employed business is basically the same), I used to occasionally get people who would try to haggle on price. I'd simply say that the price on bespoke work wasn't negotiable. I might have lost one or two jobs that way over 20 + years. People who want to haggle are often a PIA in other ways.
63
« on: February 29, 2016, 10:36 »
Everyone has their own favourite method. I use a blower, a sticky bud "stick" for picking off the odd speck, and as a last resort, or if there was anything oily etc. (never happened with the Pentax K5 I'm using) pads and eclipse fluid.
Be careful of cheap blowers too. I had one I bought a while back that was putting in more crepe than it was removing. The Giotto that replaced it has been fine.
64
« on: February 27, 2016, 12:31 »
Can you get the password sent from "Forgot password" on the login screen?
The other thing is, did you have the caps lock on when you typed the new password? If it's just a row of asterisks it's possible to type the confirmation incorrectly as well.
65
« on: February 23, 2016, 09:42 »
In the UK, we have to endure listening to George Osborne telling us 'We're all in this together' while cutting taxes for the richest and taking money away from the poorest. He is a multi millionaire, like lots of the present government, how can they possibly relate to people that have to use soup kitchens to feed their family? I wish we had a real democracy, a government that represented people from all society. We lurch from one extreme to the other.
I've always said that if our vote actually made any difference to the status quo, they'd find a way to take it off us! The whole system is run for the benefit of the few. Always has been, and always will be. Having said that for all it's faults, some of the alternatives to our present system are far worse.
66
« on: February 02, 2016, 07:50 »
If I wanted to become a millionaire, I wouldn't be doing microstock. You need to look for something that has a large potential for growth, and a good profit margin. Something that is protected in such a way to stop competition if possible. You don't want to be investing in your own labour. Watch "Dragon's Den" The problem is that 's exactly what every other "entrepreneur" is looking for. I'll guess that a few individuals became pretty wealthy in the boom period of microstock. I don't think you could do it now.
67
« on: February 01, 2016, 09:29 »
You're not really going to get a definitive answer. It's complicated. There are plenty of resources online that tell you which types of flags and emblems will or won't be copyrighted or trademarked.
Really you need to be clear about what copyright and trademark is, how the two differ, and how they effect what can or can't be shown in your work, depending on whether it is for commercial or editorial use. You also need some understanding of how the agencies view these things. They tend to be a lot more cautious than the word of the law allows, not least because they have little control over how RF is used, and it may be used in many different jurisdictions.
68
« on: January 29, 2016, 12:35 »
Could well be, I've got some RCs for this year, but I haven't got a clue if or when they are up until.
Suffice to say that assuming this is the new "normal" then I won't have enough to keep my level next year unless we are again "grandfathered" over.
69
« on: January 28, 2016, 14:52 »
FWIW, I'd say "protection" as applied to sunglasses is pretty marginal, they're more to do with fashion, and "looking cool" IMHO. You have to ask yourself why anyone searching for "Ultraviolet" would want to find sunglasses, they will want shots of UV light effects, or UV lighting equipment.
And that is why keys are subjective. I can think of many, many reasons for sunglasses to be protective and a good selling keyword. Health and safety, eye protection (outside) and the like are actually quite common in industrial settings and by extension, industrial customers. I once used to work building websites for mining companies and I have done searches for similar things when I used to buy image licenses.
They are indeed subjective. I'd say that tinted safety glasses, as would (or at least should) be used in industry for protection, are a different thing to "sunglasses" which I'd think of a fashion accessory, and wouldn't (or shouldn't) be relied on for protection. If you have "sunglasses" in an image with ordinary sunglasses in it then that's enough IMO.
70
« on: January 28, 2016, 14:13 »
I wouldn't call it spamming. Certain keywords will always be considered spam when taken out of context. Take for instance: Sunglasses. If you have "ultraviolet" and "protection" as keywords, both words would be considered 'spam' when taken out of context. And yet, they are relevant keywords to the image.
And you know you can't just find a 'niche' if you want to be hugely successful. I'm perfectly OK with competing in certain popular categories if I believe I can do better.
If the keywords are stretching what is actually there in the image, then most people consider it to be spam. What you do is of course up to you and the agencies you submit to. FWIW, I'd say "protection" as applied to sunglasses is pretty marginal, they're more to do with fashion, and "looking cool" IMHO. You have to ask yourself why anyone searching for "Ultraviolet" would want to find sunglasses, they will want shots of UV light effects, or UV lighting equipment. Good luck with being "hugely successful", and I sincerely mean that. It's a hard path to tread with so many people who are already successful already there at the top. I think you will find that quality of images, models and concepts, and time spent working hard at getting the largest PF possible will far outweigh the dubious benefits of applying every conceivable keyword to every image.
71
« on: January 28, 2016, 11:57 »
I've updated the metadata for 60% of my images at least TWICE now, some 3 times. When I have free time, I update the metadata for images that are not selling. That's what true SEO is about. You find out what doesn't work and fix those mistakes.
That just means you didn't do it right the first time. You don't suddenly say "Oh, this image is a dog wearing a hat - why didn't I keyword it with dog?". That's not SEO, that's just doing it right.
Nobody does it right the first time, not even the best. That's the fallacy of many people, to think that we can do it right the first time. What we can do is improve on our first try, like add the words "food" and "gathering" to a turkey image so it becomes even more visible.
But (arguably) not "food" if it a live turkey, and not "gathering" if the turkey isn't part of a gathering. . .
Or Christmas, Thanksgiving etc. unless the turkey is part of that celebration in the image.
Most of the folks here who have been doing this for years, do get it right first time. Not every time, but most of the time, because they don't want to spend the time going back over images. After all's said and done the main "what you see" keywords are what gets you most of the sales.
Well, the image I was referring to did had a family gathering and a cooked turkey. The obvious keywords are incredibly hard to compete for. If you started early and got placed well with an obvious keyword, you don't have to do anything. If you're uploading an image today, and you're placed at the bottom of a 100,000 image heap, what do you do? You absolutely include the obvious keywords, but it must be accompanied by other longtail and unconventional keywords to help it climb up the ranks.
No argument there. The "obvious" keywords are going to be hard to compete with. Unfortunately getting too creative with keywords can just end with spamming, which does nobody any good in the long run. At the end of the day it's better to try to find less obvious "niche" subjects if you can.
72
« on: January 28, 2016, 11:29 »
I've updated the metadata for 60% of my images at least TWICE now, some 3 times. When I have free time, I update the metadata for images that are not selling. That's what true SEO is about. You find out what doesn't work and fix those mistakes.
That just means you didn't do it right the first time. You don't suddenly say "Oh, this image is a dog wearing a hat - why didn't I keyword it with dog?". That's not SEO, that's just doing it right.
Nobody does it right the first time, not even the best. That's the fallacy of many people, to think that we can do it right the first time. What we can do is improve on our first try, like add the words "food" and "gathering" to a turkey image so it becomes even more visible.
But (arguably) not "food" if it a live turkey, and not "gathering" if the turkey isn't part of a gathering. . . Or Christmas, Thanksgiving etc. unless the turkey is part of that celebration in the image. Most of the folks here who have been doing this for years, do get it right first time. Not every time, but most of the time, because they don't want to spend the time going back over images. After all's said and done the main "what you see" keywords are what gets you most of the sales.
73
« on: January 28, 2016, 08:25 »
There are ways to optimize metadata for the SS search engine. Proper titles, proper keywording, long tail keywords. Off the top of my head, there are another 3 more ways to improve the visibility of images even more. On top of that, good optimization will lead to higher image results on Bing and Google, which will lead to more sales and overall better search ranking on SS.
OK, Mr Specialist Subject: The Bleedin' Obvious.
Once you've done that, what do you change when "Search algorithms change all the time. Google change their search algorithm all the time."
The only thing I can think of that would make a difference to placement aside from the obvious is downloading your own images via your work account. Which will of course get you banned quicker than anything else. I am guessing this could be one of the mysterious other methods alluded to. Especially given the knowledge of how many downloads it takes to move work onto whatever page.
At the end of the day the subject and quality of content and the keywords and title are the only things we contributors really have any real control over. I've got a feeling that apart from those methods, any way of getting better placement with any of the agencies is either against the rules, or has minimal or no effect.ETA, I thought I'd modified the text to get it back to the right size. Anyone know why it does the tiny text thing when you backspace?
74
« on: January 15, 2016, 12:58 »
Yup, it's all wonderfully easy as long as you fully understand the business, and what drives it.
There is a slight snag in that nobody actually does fully understand that, or at least if they do they are keeping it very much to themselves.
Anyone got the lottery numbers for tonight?
75
« on: January 15, 2016, 11:16 »
You would probably be better off asking on the iStock forum than on here.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
