|
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 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 57
351
« on: July 01, 2012, 13:57 »
Sorry to say this, but these images are way too weak. Subject-wise, artistically and technically. You need to improve on every level.
352
« on: July 01, 2012, 05:17 »
IS: Business as usual SS: BME! DT: Up, just a bit from BME (my last BME was in 2010 if I remember correctly, so this seems like a nice rebound) FT: Weaker and weaker (FT has always been a steady number 3 or 4 on my list, but now it's behind 123rf and even Veer.) Veer: pretty weak month, lacking in extended licences. A Good month, and a very good month for a June, no summer slowdown here! 
353
« on: June 27, 2012, 12:24 »
In order to maintain priority placement in the database you do need to consistently upload and submit images. The more you submit the better your chances of visibility.
So they want just quantity, not quality? They seem to get more stupid every minute.
354
« on: June 26, 2012, 14:39 »
yes there is something odd about this place, partners or not, nobody seem to know anybody who is ever selling anything there. Yet their interface, uploading, etc, is first class. Weird.
I'm selling at Zoonar, I've had a few payouts. Mainly through partner sites, If you don't have images on partner sites the chances are slim.
355
« on: June 18, 2012, 19:16 »
why don't they call it what it is: the digital negative. That's a very easy concept to grasp: photographers don't give away their negs.
Your analogue is faulty. If you give the negative away, then you don't have the negative any more. If you give away a raw-file, you still have the file.
356
« on: June 06, 2012, 10:21 »
No it wouldn't.
FYI nor does an Internet cafe need to buy a licence when people who have paid to use its services browse Flickr.
Totally irrelevant, they could even browse GettyImages.
Your comment just proves the point bhr is trying to make...
357
« on: June 06, 2012, 08:06 »
a virtual presentation would have been much more effective and to the point.
So, do it then!
358
« on: June 06, 2012, 08:05 »
Am I the only here that thinks this is fair use because it's artistic commentary on a subject.
No, Sean said the same above.
He used words like "hiding" and "loophole".
359
« on: June 06, 2012, 07:13 »
Am I the only here that thinks this is fair use because it's artistic commentary on a subject.
Are you saying works like this should't be done at all?
360
« on: June 05, 2012, 14:51 »
Best movies I have watched in movie theatre for the past year or so: The Artist, The Descendants, Carnage, Drive, A Separation... I watch a lot of movies, mostly old ones. I have a soft spot for film noir movies
361
« on: June 05, 2012, 06:13 »
There is only one kind of LCV. Images that haven't sold in 5 years. If you want to weed out content, then it would be hard to argue against removing those, to make way for fresh material.
+1
362
« on: June 05, 2012, 04:13 »
It would be very nice to have an exact year how old images should be to be considered as public domain. At least at some point the limit at IS was 1884, which sounds quite reasonable. 150 years (=1862) is a long shot.
363
« on: June 04, 2012, 06:23 »
I know! But I don't see the point of downloading a public domain picture and putting it for sale on a micro/macrostock website.
Are buyers really interested in paying for images that they can find for free somewhere else?
I think we are talking about scanning old books etc. and retouching and keywording images. Images that aren't necessarily available anywhere yet. Not just uploading some "ready" stuff.
364
« on: June 03, 2012, 17:37 »
Yes, and while you are at it, also study what "editorial" really means. It's not necessary for an image to be "newsworthy" to be a good (selling) editorial image. In fact, images that aren't "newsworthy" have a longer selling period. I have a street scene from a particular city that is shot in 2006 and it keeps selling (most likely because similar newer shots would not be accepted any more  . And the image could never be commercial RF, because there's a lot of people, signs and logos. You really should think about the "editorial" in a broader context to give the buyers more options. I just searched for some travel images to be used on an editorial website. It's almost eerie how almost none of the photos have any people in them.
365
« on: June 03, 2012, 06:47 »
Hi all. I'm looking for tips or a site that explains how to create this type of effect (image 959858 on ft, and in particular 5547354 on IS) Its the temperature (gells?) and precision (gobo?) of the light that has me. I just brought 2 studio lights and want to move away from the "sterile" & typical isolated on white look.
Cheers
gobo/cuckoloris/cookie. 1) Just cut holes into some cardboard and put it between the light and the subject. Use some stand to hold the cardboard to easily fine-tune the light. 2) Put some gels on the flash, or warm up in RAW converter or photoshop. 3) Get images rejected because of "uneven lighting" or "wrong color temperature" 
366
« on: June 03, 2012, 05:26 »
I have too much time and work invested in uploading to a big amount of other sites, so I'm not goint to stick exclusive with any agency.
But it SS would introduce exclusive image-option (with better search placement and bigger royalties) I might try with some images.
367
« on: June 01, 2012, 05:30 »
Sorry, not by a mile. Everything on LR is better than either DPP or NX. I don't want to get too technical in details, but I know very well my way around all these softwares. Take for example the sharpening method (unsharp mask) of DPP against the sophisticated deconvolution method from LR. Not in the same league. Not even getting to local adjustments, lens support for everything and other stuff.
I have to disagree, but: - I don't do any sharpening at RAW stage (I always never even sharpen anything, that's the way stock sites and pre-press places wants them), I always have my sharpness set at "3" (on a scale from 1 to 10) just to correct the anti-alias-filter. - I don't use lenses by other manufacturers than Canon - All my files goes as 16bit tiffs trough Photoshop, I don't need all the local adjustments stuff BTW. If I understand correctly, the latest version of DPP can sharpen according to "lens profile" and sharpens the corners more compared to the center. I have yet to learn more about this (I think the 5D mk III does it even in-camera when shooting JPG) And yes, as I wrote, I have Lightroom. It's just too compicated, too much adjustments and menus, importing images etc. I like the simplicity of DPP, even if I would like some more features.
368
« on: June 01, 2012, 04:26 »
Canon's DPP is a piece of cr@p, honestly.
Yes, it definitely has its shortcomings, it can be a pain to use and does not have all the bells and whistles. But I have not yet seen a better image quality come out of any other RAW-converter. I have lightroom but rarely use it (mostly for my Fuji X100), I just don't seem to get good results with it (Comparing Canon images). And on a pixel-peeping level DPP delivers IMHO the best details. BTW when (which year?) did you last time seriously try to do something with DPP? (It may have developed since then...) AF is not critical for my work, it's not my first manual focus lens. Quality uber alles, yes? 
I don't know if I have poor vision, but I can't seem to focus 35/1.4 correcly using MF and large apertures (1.4...2). But maybe you shoot at f/11
369
« on: June 01, 2012, 04:00 »
I have a Canon 35/1.4. I can't imagine how the zeiss would be much better. And I have AF Canon DPP also corrects the CA very well (and if you shoot JPG's camera does it also quite nicely, I believe?) Of course the Canon design is very old (from the 1990s?), I think it has some potential to be upgraded to a "mark II" version in the near future (?)
370
« on: May 31, 2012, 15:09 »
Business as usual. Maybe a slight dissappointment. IS - As usual SS - A good but not spectacular. 2nd best month ever. DT - Best month of the year so far. Still less than my old BME from a few years ago Veer - Weak month, okay normal and subscription downloads, but lacking in extended licences. FT - Weak as usual. BigStock - Weak 123RF - Okay Shutterstock is still crazy in the lead for me, earning 3x what either Fotolia or iStock earn for me.
Shutterstock earns me 8x Fotolia, 3.5x Dreamstime, 1.3x iStock
371
« on: May 31, 2012, 06:10 »
It should be pretty easy to tell us how much we get paid for sales on Alamy from our veer portfolio.
+1
372
« on: May 31, 2012, 03:07 »
same old problems To me, they often surprise with new, almost unbelievable problems that leave us gasping for air. But otherwise, yes. You are not alone. I'm feeling bored. I can't get my earnings higher without uploading a large amount of new images. I'm running out of "easy" and "cheap" shooting ideas, I have shot every object in my house and my friend's houses A While a go I had fantasies about living on microstock alone, so I could (almost) stop doing commissioned shoots and get rid of all the annoying clients etc., but now it feels it's the microstock shoots and uploading that annoy me more  Sometimes I have had a months break from microstock, that has helped a bit (6 months in Hawaii would be better But still, stock generates me half of my income, and I use only one week of the month doing it, so it's a very good income. But it's almost impossible to shoot more microstock because of the uploading limits. I have tried to do more elaborate images that require much more work, but I haven't yet been convinced by the sales.
373
« on: May 30, 2012, 00:16 »
just out of curiosity, who will you be left with? Seems to me the only ethical company out there is Alamy...
I'm still left with Alamy, SS and DT (DT is very borderline here, I hope they don't try some stupid radical stunt!)
374
« on: May 29, 2012, 14:43 »
Hi Everyone,
Great news!
Yeah, really great Sounds like: Great news! You have cancer! The bin in my avatar is almost full, I need to fit Veer and 123rf there too...
375
« on: May 25, 2012, 04:15 »
I put my images on many small sites, as long they have an easy upload process. Even a $10 more per month is welcome if it just takes a minute to get.
I really can't understand why there are new sites popping up that doesn't have an easy upload process. Do they really think bigger contributors will upload their stuff to a site with no track record but still have a upload process that is a pain in the *ss.
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
