|
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 - Perry
Pages: 1 ... 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57
1326
« on: January 29, 2009, 04:48 »
I agree. You must be rather desperate for either:
a) To get more competition and lower your income
or
b) Publicity
or c) To get referral money
1327
« on: January 29, 2009, 03:52 »
It's the 28th. Has the new algorithm kicked in? Was it supposed to happen in January?
I had a real terrible day at IS yesterday, so I'm guessing "yes" 
1328
« on: January 27, 2009, 08:27 »
I think that the percentage of El's on the micros should be higher. Perhaps this is a good argument for putting the same images on alamy, at least we know then that the buyer hasn't paid less than they should.
I have a gut feeling that many of our images are used in a way that would require an EL (that was never bought). Most people are too lazy to read through EULA:s and thinks RF automatically means "Use in any way". Especially if the buyer has been used to macro RF images.
1329
« on: January 27, 2009, 08:01 »
I have old ZX Spectrum from my childhood...
A want to keep logo on picture,because "no concept" without name of computer...
Is it for editorial or something else!?
Editorial.
1330
« on: January 27, 2009, 07:53 »
I would assume the percentage of licenses sold are the percentage that actually need it. So, if you buy the exact same image on Alamy, and don't need what the license offers, you're overpaying for services you don't need.
Sounds almost like you are more into RM 
1331
« on: January 27, 2009, 07:46 »
You still most likely get LESS money from a micro EL sale than from a regular sale at Alamy.
And what percentage of sold licences are EL? Under 1%? I think the whole question EL vs. Alamy RF is so mariginal it's almost irrelevant.
1332
« on: January 27, 2009, 07:23 »
I don't sell same images with different price tags, I just don't think that it's fair for the customers and it also dilutes the macro market. The photographers "fishing" for some bigger buck RF sales with micro images are shooting themselves in their foot and hurting the whole business. Thank god we still have RM... Micro prices are rising and macro prices are declining.
This is the thing that is really bad for the photographers. The total sum of money spent on stock photos is declining and the number of photographers is increasing. That's less money for all of us.
1333
« on: January 20, 2009, 19:41 »
Oh, I was not the only one? Now I feel dirty...  I hope that poor lonely Shian finds someone soon on StockXXXpert.com!
1334
« on: January 17, 2009, 09:26 »
I have almost earned as much this month as I did in whole december, so it looks good (not great) for me too.
1335
« on: January 16, 2009, 10:42 »
The final image on that tutorial looks horrible, nobody has THAT white teeth.
Much easier and better is just to select the teeth and then tinker with the Hue/Saturation
(Edit: Yellows Saturation: Less Lightness: More)
And the same for reddish eyeballs but with Edit: Red
1336
« on: January 16, 2009, 08:56 »
The DPI has some significance for the end user: when the end user opens the file in layout program (for example Adobe Indesign) the size of the image on the page is calculated from the dpi and pixels of the image. 72dpi files tend to open up at annoyingly big sizes and have to be scaled down.
Using 300dpi also reduces the chance for errors; of course every professional layout person will check every images real dpi before printing, but still...
Why isn't every piece of cameras and software set by default 300dpi? Who needs 72dpi or such anyway, the web doesn't use the dpi info to anything!
1337
« on: January 16, 2009, 03:02 »
huuh, nowhere any shadow... 
Why does everyone hate shadows? Many times it's the shadows that are interesting and makes the image... Without shadows, there is no form and everything looks flat and dull. The light in these doesn't look "soft morning light" to me at all, more like "a large bank of fluorescent light in the ceiling in a white room" I guess these could be shot in a room painted white and the light bounced off walls/ceiling. Or using large/many softboxes.
1338
« on: January 14, 2009, 07:49 »
Oh I really like the "different" concept behind this site. It's good to know that there are at least one microstock site that has banned handshakes on white background  I just wish these rejection crazy sites would have FTP and that you could keyword afterwards if your images are accepted. I think I'll give this one a go, I'll upload some of my weirdest microstock images to them plus some weird ones that I have never even dared to consider uploading to the regular microstock sites. edit: wow they even have a queue number for uploaded photos! edit2: does their logo have to look THAT crappy? edit3: As a designer I have use for those free credits, but has anyone got any REAL money from this site?
1340
« on: January 05, 2009, 05:32 »
I knew that the design life of a CD is 20-100years but the actual 2-3 years is dangerously low.
CD-R:s are NOT CD:s. "Real" CD:s are made with a totally different process than CD-R:s you burn at home. The main physical difference between CD-R:s and the standard prerecorded CD is that the latter has no recording layer; the information is permanently stamped in the aluminium reflecting layer. I backup my files on two external drives (they are so cheap nowdays). If one drive breaks down, I still have two that most likely still works. I wouldn't have the time or energy to mess around with discs. And remember: REAL backups are always stored in a separate location in case of burglary or fire or such.
1341
« on: January 05, 2009, 05:09 »
I just compared my RPI for 2007 and 2008. 2007 RPI (Return per image per year) $14,88 2008 RPI (Return per image per year) $10,40 And this trend propably continues...
1342
« on: December 29, 2008, 14:10 »
as tubed said... I think we well see bigger difference in quality (and production value) between micro and macro, and I think it's macrostock imagery that will set the bar higher. There is lots of old junk in macro agencies that isn't quite up to date, but the new stuff will be innovative and great in all ways.
1343
« on: December 29, 2008, 13:51 »
I think we have gone a full circle in a sense. Because RPI is dropping, most serious and talented microstock photographers are moving towards macro. That's because producing great stock images cost a lot and take time, and with low RPI it makes it an impossible equation.
I think soon the newcomers will also realize that microstock isn't a goldmine (anymore).
1344
« on: December 29, 2008, 13:06 »
Which stock site do you believe returns the most relevant results when you search for images?
Not a microstock, but i find Alamy's algorithms (AlamyRank) working very nicely, much better than any microstock. Keyword spammers and people who upload too many similiars do sink to the bottom of their search.
1345
« on: December 22, 2008, 09:37 »
The reviewers have to get themselves out of that tunnel they think photos should be like and start looking for something commercially viable outside that.
I couldn't agree more. I really hate when I feel that only accepted lighting style is something like a softbox from camera direction. If i try to create some cool looking artistic lighting my images are rejected at SS: too uneven lighting, wrong color temperature or some other nonsense reason.
1346
« on: December 20, 2008, 10:15 »
I like Dreamstime... :
* Good sales
* Reasonable 50%/50% split
* FTP
* Prices that increase by popularity, Extended licence buyout (haven't sold any of those tho...)
* Totally random rejection reasons occur seldom
* Only minor nags about the site, everything is mostly ok.
1347
« on: December 20, 2008, 10:10 »
I can't understand these price rejections at all... If they don't want more expensive images, why don't they just put a max price.
1348
« on: December 05, 2008, 08:55 »
BTW how does one know which images has been sold? I have only been able to find the total amount of sold images...
EDIT: Found it... it's under PHOTOGRAPHERS -> UPLOADLIST -> RECENT DOWNLOADS
1349
« on: November 27, 2008, 12:20 »
Do you see that black dots that shouldn't be there? How can a bad lens "come up" with those?
Colored fringes around light objects can make bayer interpolation fail in many ways. (Still waiting for that foveon-type megapixel beast.. ) We should also remember we are peeping pixels here, some black dots in difficult conditions doesn't worry me a bit.
1350
« on: November 27, 2008, 12:13 »
This doesn't look so good:
http://glubsch.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/_mg_0162.jpg
Why is that bad? Thats very typical for a bayer-interpolated image and/or a less-than-perfect (zoom) lens. Using zooms instead of primes on the 5D mark II is propably a waste of a good camera IMHO. And that crop is NOT from the linked full size 200 ISO image! (yes, I have ordered mine when the camera was first announced, can't stand the wait!)
Pages: 1 ... 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
