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 - Perry

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57
1276
I logged in today, but I had to use password retrieval (the snapvillage password had changed into some gibberish). I also filled out the tax form (why can't this be as easy with shutterstock?)

Is there sales stats somewhere on the site?

1277
prices for macro images are rising.

That shows you don't have any clue. Troll-meter 92%.

1278
Shutter stock doesn't want anything too realistic looking, they like ultraclean images.

Fotolia doesn't seem to want background textures.

(There are of course a lot of exceptions)

1279
iStockPhoto.com / Re: what? third reject from istock
« on: June 02, 2009, 05:46 »
(I write this without reading other posters comments)

image1: I see no commercial potential here. I have no idea how this image could be used. Hilights are blown out. The image isn't as sharp as it could/should

image2: It's an okay dog photo. But the stock sites are already filled with better ones.

image3: Blown out highlights. Logo in the airplane. the composition is a bit awkward, this image would be hard to use: it doesn't look appealing as it is, neither does it have any copy space.

1280
General Stock Discussion / Re: Easiest submission system
« on: June 02, 2009, 03:19 »
I think StockXpert is the easiest one. Especially their web uploading system. No clicks needed after uploading, no categories etc.

1281
General Stock Discussion / Re: May 2009 earnings breakdown
« on: June 01, 2009, 04:40 »
May was a good solid month for me. I fact it was the second best month ever (after march '09)

-BME for Dreamstime
-StockXpert is almost back at its normal levels from february lows

Remarkable: I uploaded only a few images in may, still good earnings.
I wonder how much I would have made with more uploads...

1282
Veer / Re: Veer Marketplace Royalties
« on: May 29, 2009, 11:19 »
So, has anyone got any royalties from Veer yet? Where do they show?

1283
Yes I hate my images too, or at least about 90% of them.

After I complete all the post, I fall in love with two or three of the best ones.  I

The worst part is that it's not the images I love that sells most...

1284
There are so many photographers "waiting" for job charging 100$/h excluding everything.  If thats what they call good business. Feel free to continue. 

You propably have no clue about real life photography profession. $100/h (I charge more than that for studio work) isn't really that much if you pay for your equipment (real pros have even backup of almost everything), software, taxes, pension, marketing, rents, accounting. And only a part of work is billable hours. You might charge $100/h but get $25/h in average in your own pocket.

I think most of microstockers would earn less than $10 hour if they really did their maths.

I don't think microstock is sustainable form of photo business as it is. Something needs to happen. I'm seeing some form of transition going on.
I already see "happy snappers" complaining it's too difficult to get in some of the sites. It's not too hard to get in, they are just too bad photographers. I think soon the stock business is back to the pros. If RPI falls drastically from current level the images get too expensive to produce -> the prices have to go up or the amount of incoming images have to be decreased substantially.

1285
Yes, microstock photography DOES lower the value of photos and photography, that is just a plain fact. Even if the micros opened some new markets there's less money spent in photography than before, and the sum is divided with more photographers -> less money for each photographers, and that is a fact.

Many pro photographers have stopped photographing stock because it isn't worth it any more.

Also if a commissioned shoot would cost $500 and a microstock image (even if it isn't the perfect image for the purpose) costs $5, the customer may choose the latter, especially now when money is tight. I have seen many of my clients choose microstock images instead of my commissioned work. That makes me a bit sad (and broke) but I can't complain because I'm also selling microstock.

But it's also sure that money can be made from microstock (for how long? The market is saturating at a rapid pace) Microstock is a phenomenon that an't be stopped by just some individual photographers. Either you are in the micro business or you aren't.

Bottom line: I don't like people that shoot stock "just for fun" without thinking about their overheads or their time spent (you don't do other work "free" either, do you?). If someone is making good images but would earn more by flipping burgers, I recommend them to start flippin'. That would make microstock business-wise much better.

1286
In 2004 was searching for some free or cheap images to use in my graphic design projects. While googling I stumbled upon this site called iStockphoto.com "Designer's dirty secret - Images from $1" I got all excited.

And when I read more info on the site I understood that by uploading my own pics I could get some "credits" to download photos with... Soon I was earning more money than I spent... :)

1287
There is one more thing favoring downsizing. When an image gets downsized, its quality gets better - the image gets sharper and has less noise -> easier to get past the stupid inspector/reviewer

1288
I had about 1000 images on SV, and now I have about 250 on VMP.

What bothers me is that some of my images are small 3 to 4 MP, and they still seem to sell them in big (upsized?) sizes... they must look like crap... :o

They seem to have selected images that have a certain "Veer" look, too bad they excluded many bestsellers.

1289
I don't know anyone who can predict the future exchange rate with any accuracy. 

If someone knew how to predict exchange rates accurately he would be rich (and he wouldn't tell anybody how to do it :))

My solution has been to take my stock mone now and then, that makes the exchange rate "average".

The paypal percentage annoys me, I hope at least the european sites (fotolia?) would start using bank transfers.

1290
Interesting to see that there are so many "creative" contributors wanting to upload ancient prints...

Seems like people are running out of ideas or is it that the times make it necessary to get a hold of anything that sells as long as it is within the legal barriers...???

Not necessarily. Some just want to do a favor and make these old fabulous prints available and get a couple of bucks for the work.
Because there is no other way to obtain these prints (except searching and finding the old books and scanning yourself), it would be a shame if all these prints were buried forever (and that's what's going to happen if they weren't offered as stock)

1291
I saw this on IS:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=7273686

looks like their portfolio is full of this kind of stuff.

If they let you do that, I'm going to the library for some old books and firing up the scanner. I seem to recall DT removing some Da Vinci stuff someone had posted though.


Go on, fire your scanner! (If your books are old enough)

The book was published in 1879. That makes it certainly Public Domain. And Public Domain means nobody (NOBODY!) owns any copyright to the artwork. If nobody holds the copyright to the print, it's as fair game as photographing - let's say - a piece of wood.

I think iStock lets you upload anything that has been published before 1884.

I have a couple of scans from old books in my portfolio. I just thought the prints looked nice and someone might need them, it would have been a shame to hide the illustrations in my closet. And it was too much work giving them away from free.

1292
I agree with the BIG 4:

iStockphoto
Shutterstock
Dreamstime
Fotolia

Then two sites that give me some money:
StockXpert (was recently in BIG 5, but has dropped quite a bit)
Bigstockphoto

And then a few that I get payments from, but needs a lot of patience because of the low earnings
123rf (easy upload)
crestock (easy upload)

Waste of time:
Featurepics
Stockphotomedia
Scanstockphoto
Snapvillage
Mostphotos
Canstockphoto




1293
I enjoyed the "I Spy" too. Realistically those shots could very well be rejected at micros for composition  ::)

1294
Lighting / Re: Projector as a backdrop?
« on: May 02, 2009, 13:00 »
--

1295
Lighting / Re: Projector as a backdrop?
« on: May 02, 2009, 12:59 »
Obviously the light from a normal projector wouldnt be powerful enough, but couldnt you use your camera flash as the light source?

The idea seemed simple enough, but I havent had any luck. I have been playing around with just sticking slides in front of my flash but no luck. Im thinking i probably need some magnifying glass somewhere to make this work, but I cant even get the image from the slide projected on my wall.


I have been thinking about something similiar. But instead of a magnifying glass I would try to find an old/broken slide projector or enlarger to use it's lenses. The biggest problem could be aiming and focusing the thing without any light, that's of course not so big problem with digital camera when you can see the results immediately and make the needed corrections.

Here is how a projector works

1296
I think one of the most important things is to have very fast workflow: Good exposures with good light that need as little post processing as possible. In addition to that decent equipment, computing power, and fast photoshop skills are needed to produce images as fast as possible.

It's also important to figure out what will sell. There is just no point to put hours in some extremely good image that won't sell.

The rest is just hard work and long hours...

What is NOT as important as many thinks: The most expensive camera with the most megapixels, the best artistic eye, the best imagination, the most good looking models and the most exotic locations

1297
Here is my lack of composition: 




It's really not a good composition.

1298
iStockPhoto.com / Re: $0.15 Sale - a new low?
« on: April 20, 2009, 12:37 »
I calculated my earnings/dl for 2009 (so far) and it's 1.24$

All time (from 2005) is 0.83$

I have no people in my portfolio (except non-released body parts)

1299
And it is not even close to traditional stock rejections yet.

If the rejection rates are going up, I think the submitters shouldn't be asked to keyword and categorize images. That's something we should demand. I have a few "trad" agencies that allow you to keyword AFTER image is accepted, that's not as bad as on micro sites.

1300
iStockPhoto.com / $0.15 Sale - a new low?
« on: April 18, 2009, 05:29 »
I just got a $0.15 XSmall sale. I didn't know sales could be this low, is this old credits or what?

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle