|
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 - Konstantin Sutyagin
126
« on: March 09, 2009, 20:42 »
November 2008
Overall rank 285
7 days rank 150
Selected files 1224
March 2009
Overall rank 243
7 days rank 112
Selected files 1369
127
« on: February 22, 2009, 07:10 »
Hi:
please endulge me for a minute and answer this question for me: in one sentence or less how would you define a successful life for yourself.
Thanks!
Living your dreams.
I like this answer.
128
« on: February 21, 2009, 17:12 »
I got it too
129
« on: February 21, 2009, 07:59 »
The past year or so there have been a number of changes at FOT and many of them appear to negatively impact the contributors. That is cause for concern.
But like Gostwyck, I have seen my income from them rise. If they can offset the lower % with better marketing then there should be a net gain.
It depends. For example if they manage to steal all the customers from Dreamstime and Stockxpert our RPI will drop due to worst commission at FT.
130
« on: February 21, 2009, 07:42 »
Pending since February 10th 
131
« on: February 18, 2009, 18:53 »
Somehow I'm not surprised  What's next? Image placement fees?
132
« on: February 17, 2009, 07:25 »
If I get specific individual requests I just email photos directly, accepting payment through Paypal or bank transfer. That way I can keep almost all the revenue.
133
« on: February 16, 2009, 07:31 »
Alamy for sure
134
« on: February 16, 2009, 07:03 »
Profoto ComPact 600:
* Maximum energy: 600 Ws
* Recycling: 0.25-0.8 s
* Flash duration (t 0.5): 1/850 s @ maximum power
* Full 5 f-stop range
* Frosted glass cover
* 100 W /250 W modeling lamp
Price - about $1000 - $1100
AlienBees B1600:
* Maximum energy: 640 Ws
* Recycling: 2 s
* Flash duration (t 0.5): 1/1800 sec at full power , 1/900 at 1/32 power
* Full 5 f-stop range
* 150 W modeling lamp
Price - $359.95
What I see is that Profoto light has faster recycling time (about 2 times faster) and.... mmmm... what else? is that worth extra 700 dollars? Of course I am pretty ignorant on this matter, maybe I am missing something or getting it all wrong - please feel free to correct me. But I would really like to know what these extra $700 per flash units will buy me.
AB1600 takes 2 seconds to recycle at FULL power. I bet you will be shooting at a fraction of that power most of the time. 1/2 power would take 1 second, 1/4 power 0.5 seconds, 1/8 power 0.25 seconds and so on down to 1/32 power. I have B1600 and in most cases recycle time is negligible. Bees are also smaller and lighter. I have a little video on how I fit B1600 in my photo backpack along with camera, lenses and a power pack. It's in Russian though, but the picture is pretty self-explanatory 
| <![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iouGjMMknT4&feature=channel_page" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iouGjMMknT4&feature=channel_page</a>]]> | 
135
« on: February 15, 2009, 20:33 »
I have no words. No good words.
136
« on: December 09, 2008, 16:45 »
Well, first - it's not me in the picture :-)
This sample has zero noise reduction.
After I run Noise Ninja on it the background is good enough for microstocks, so I am pretty sure I will be selling it without downsizing (except Shutterstock.
I did not post the noise edited version for the sake of fair representation of G10. Perhaps I should post it for comparison.
137
« on: December 08, 2008, 23:54 »
I've just got a G10 this Saturday and tested it yesterday. For it's size it takes pretty good pictures.  Here you can see a full res 7Mb file saved with quality 12: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cool-photos/3093655660/sizes/o/ISO 80, RAW -> JPG. Zero noise reduction, zero sharpening.
138
« on: December 05, 2008, 17:29 »
wait a minute. I'm at the UK site and I get 0.60 / credit which is $0.88 or 0.69
Do you mean others get $1 or 1 per credit ?
Yes, being in US I get $1 per credit.
139
« on: December 05, 2008, 17:04 »
Migrating to another zone doesn't solve the problem. All submitters must be paid a fair percentage of what their pictures were sold for. If a picture was sold for 1 Euro pay us 37% (or whatever the submitters percent is) of that amount, not 37 USA cents.
140
« on: December 05, 2008, 15:46 »
I am surprised that so few people are interested in this topic. The way the payments are handled now is really unfair! I live in US but most of my Fotolia sales come from European customers. They pay Fotolia Euros for credits. 1 Euro = 1.3 U.S. dollars. I get 37% as a silver level contributor. Why do I and many other silver contributors get 37c from European sales if Fotolia gets $1.30 for one credit? I think everyone should be paid a fair percent of earnings regardless of the currency. Here is the link to the thread at Fotolia: http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=14917&p=1
141
« on: November 29, 2008, 23:58 »
This is getting silly........... Again. you Honestly think 100,ooo photographers are going to do any of this stuff, ?? Please get real guys. Just a simple attach release to this image is suffient. your WAY Over thinking this if you want to succeed. Think of the lowest common issue. if I started asite tomorrow. my biggest concern would be ease of use. Not some stupid spreadsheet listing your Model releases. no one does that except geeks. and people with 50 releases. sorry.
+1
142
« on: November 29, 2008, 23:40 »
Interesting comment from Lobo about this whole issue, before he locked the thread on istock.
Yep, we are done here folks. Clearly there are differing opinions on what Exclusivity/Non-exclusivity means to a contributor bottom line. For all the perks we provide our Exclusives we appreciate that some would feel we are trying to push out non-exclusives. The reality is we are trying to provide more incentive to the people on the fence.
Ironically, this latest best match change does quite the opposite. Why in the world I would think of being exclusive to an agency that accounts for about 10% of my microstock income? On the other hand the better IS does for non-exclusives the more people would consider going exclusive.
143
« on: November 28, 2008, 02:01 »
Check out this and this and the rest of Marks portfolio. He's istock's 3D guru. Not many people there - yet.
Plain images done with great understanding of what sells. It is not the 3D medium that makes them popular.
144
« on: November 26, 2008, 16:41 »
I am going to change links for buyers from Fotolia to Dreamstime. I see no point in referring buyers to FT now.
145
« on: November 26, 2008, 05:09 »
It seems that Panasonic DMC-LX3 might be a better alternative.
147
« on: November 26, 2008, 02:30 »
..I think it would be fair that IS makes it clear what is their policy with non exclusives....
Jean
It is pretty clear when we look at the search results.
148
« on: November 25, 2008, 16:51 »
Right now sales mostly depend on wherever you are exclusive to IS or not.
Your sales depend mostly on the fact your images have a use to a buyer and has nothing to do if your exclusive or not.
Right. And how do I sell those useful images if they are buried under exclusive images in the search?
149
« on: November 25, 2008, 03:23 »
Great work!
150
« on: November 25, 2008, 02:21 »
Right now sales mostly depend on wherever you are exclusive to IS or not.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
