|
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 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 57
426
« on: April 02, 2012, 18:08 »
IS - Best month of this year. Not good, but not very bad either.
SS - A new record in download numbers. Too bad I had only 2 EL's, hence no BME. Solid month.
DT - Same as usual, DT is very steady for me.
FT - Very weak
Veer - Bad month, no ELs
427
« on: April 02, 2012, 14:47 »
I have some images that I put a lot of work and effort to, and had a very good feeling about the images "These will sell, I'm sure!". Some of them sells well, a couple of them are bestsellers. These couple of images are the bestsellers I like the most. Too bad some of these images has very low sales, makes me wonder If the effort was worth it. I have a couple of bestsellers that was just goofing around with camera and props. I'm glad that these creative shots sell, but in the same time I'm a bit sad that the "serious" shots I did during the same shoot have not sold as many times. Some of these "goofy" shots almost didn't get uploaded because I thought they were too weird. I'm glad I uploaded them  I have also a couple of "boring" textures that keep on selling. I think I have much better textures in my portfolio, but these keep on selling, they must possess some magical quality over the competition... I have a couple of bestsellers that cover a niche. I'm glad I have those images. I have one image that is a photoshopped combination of several images. I did it already in 2006. I think the work quality is a bit sub-par measured in today's standards, and the image is resized to only 4 mpix. Yet it sells, sells, sells, sells... I could easily fix the image and re-upload a bigger version, but I'm sure sales would be disasterous. I like the money this image brings, but I get a nasty feeling in my stomach every time I someone has downloaded this image (It happens daily...)
428
« on: April 02, 2012, 10:15 »
Of course we all like images that sells well. But do you sometimes feel that the bestsellers are junk and you have much better images that doesn't sell that well in your portfolio?
Or are you lucky and the images you think are your best also sells?
429
« on: April 01, 2012, 17:01 »
I hope IS/Getty doesn't read this and think this would be a great idea.
430
« on: March 30, 2012, 17:39 »
well big-port people like you often claim to be off-put by after-the-upload photo tasks, like categorizing, etc.
let me just say that I have discovered this to be the worst, even worse than alamy
I always use the "use the old version" option, that makes things much easier. I don't know if that affects my sales tho. One positive thing is also that you only need to do these things AFTER your image has beem accepted.
431
« on: March 29, 2012, 04:43 »
I have had a strange moth so far. My total number of sales are indicating that this could be a BME, but the lack of ELs makes this month quite mediocre. (I have had only 1 EL this month, last month I had 9 which is more normal). So this month isn't that great, but because my regular sales are making new records I'm optimistic about the future (at SS, not microstock generally  ) Now I'm hoping that someone would purchase some ELs from me in the next couple of days so this month would turn out to be a BME.
432
« on: March 28, 2012, 17:00 »
Did you have Photolibrary as a partner? Getty acquired them a while back. I remember getting a note about that from Zoonar, at which point I removed all my content from that particular partner. Then a couple of weeks ago I got notice of a sale from Getty that dated back to December. I assume it was a Photolibrary sale that only took three months to report.
Yes I had Photolibrary as a partner... I never noticed that it had changed to Getty. I hate thode Getty guys, they are everywhere!
433
« on: March 28, 2012, 15:53 »
Hmm... I have received some money from Getty via Zoonar. But I have never accepted Getty as a partner and I submit to Veer...
434
« on: March 21, 2012, 08:38 »
Let's not forget: It's not about resolving details, it's also about resolving color! A 12mpix (bayer) sensor has 3mpix red pixels, 3mpix blue pixels and 6mpix green pixels. You might not get much more details with 36mpix vs. 21mpix, but you will get more exact colors on pixel level. If quality optics resolve detail suitable for a 21mpix sensor, we would need 84mpix to get more exact color for each pixel. (does anyone understand what I'm trying to say here? 
435
« on: March 21, 2012, 08:20 »
Its called the entertainment industry for a reason. Its purpose is to make money, not accurate historical documentaries.
Yes, Americans like to feel good about themselves and will pay money to watch films where the Americans are the good guys and always win.
Don't go around using movies made for entertainment purposes as true of how the film makers or the Americans see themselves. Take it for what it is. Entertainment.
Yes, you can call it entertainment or whatever, but movies will affect the viewer in a subtle way even if the viewer knows it's only fiction and entertainment. PS. The best war movies: Das Boot http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082096/ Der Untergang http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/ Yes movies like Saving Private Ryan looks good and has great battle scenes, but it's still stupid heroic action crap.
436
« on: March 21, 2012, 03:54 »
I want to comment on the topic. I think that year 1923 is correct only for works printed in USA and made by US citizens. If I remember correctly, IS allows only works printed in 1884 and earlier, they should be totally "safe". The Berne convention was in 1886 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_WorksMany european laws extend the copyright 70 years after the creator's death, and in many cases 1923 would not be enough.
437
« on: March 20, 2012, 07:37 »
lagereek: Are you saying that the canon zoom L's (for example) aren't good enough for modern high MP cameras ? I'm not lagereek but I'll still answer Zooms are always zooms, they are compromized. I have a couple of zooms, but almost never use them because I get better quality (and larger apertures) with primes. Sure, if you shoot with medium apertures and use shutter speeds that are borderline (regarding to camera shake), and with a low megapixel camera there might not be any real difference. But with 20+ Mp and strobes you really need primes to get every detail resolved as good as possible.
438
« on: March 20, 2012, 07:25 »
I'm still sad that the US got into WW II when apparently we weren't needed at all. Could have saved many lives and huge amounts money just by staying at home. Yup, looks like the Russians had the entire situation under control and the allies didn't need the USA in their battle.
I'm sad they didn't get into WW II earlier. And yes, they saved many lives and huge amounts of money by staying at home so long. They just spent time picking the right side (US was very pro-n-a-z-i before the war) and then waited, waited and waited for the red army and brits and others to wear out the german army. US help was significant, but not as big as they seem to teach in the schools in the US. If you want to compare "effort" measured in casualties here is a quick comparison: US Casualties 418,500 people, 0.32% of the population ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties ). Even in just the battle of Stalingrad died more russians (478,741 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad ). US help was a death blow, but a much needed one, because n-a-z-i-s did't seem to be good at surrendering. The problem with the current US politics is that they haven't had a real total war on their own territory in ages (I don't count the civil war here because it was their "internal problem"). US people don't generally have any clue how an invasion by a foreign nation feels (or a real threat of invasion), because they don't have any grandpas telling about it. Already many countries are faced at the same direction and the history will repeat itself.
439
« on: March 16, 2012, 15:44 »
Who buys these images?
I have been contacted by some buyers and they have shown what my images are used for. Some have even asked my mail adress and then sent me some printed stuff with my images (So far I have gotten magazines, one calendar and a couple of novels (books)) Photocase makes some nice additional earnings for me, but the most important thing is to get some really oddball images for sale (and selling them too!), those images would never have beem able to get through the typical microstock inspectors
440
« on: March 16, 2012, 15:18 »
Microstock editorial is never going to be about news, it's all about feature articles which need photos that show reality.
Why does the microstock sites have such a hard time understanding this...
441
« on: March 16, 2012, 15:15 »
You just need to submit images that evoke a "feeling", instead of a concept.
442
« on: March 16, 2012, 14:48 »
They are looking for artsy photos. Don't bother to send images that look like they are shot in studio. The images should have some sort of a "snapshot" feeling.
They are looking for a specific kind of images, I suggest you to keep trying because:
-You need to keyword etc. only afterwards, you can try with some "strange" images that you haven't keyworded. Too bad they don't want batches.
-RPI is very good for accepted images. I have earned around 0.50...1.00 eur per accepted image / month.
When I get images accepted, I keyword them using the "old version", it's much leaner system.
I like Photocase, because they are trying to do something different.
443
« on: March 15, 2012, 17:35 »
im more worried about the harm to to planet and future of humanity. not necessarily what i can get by breathing bad air. nuclear waste lasts way too long for any good. im thinking long term
Do you believe in global warming?
444
« on: March 15, 2012, 17:00 »
Sorry, i think thats just a bad comparison... How many coal plants are in the US during that time period? 50? 100? 1000? i dont even know. During 1982 means all the coal plants combined output for a whole year in comparison to that one event that was how long?
No it's not a bad comparison. It was just to illustrate that even a serious meltdown cannot be compared to the radiation of coal power. (and that's just the radiation, not the other bad pollution coal causes).  (source: http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/ )I don't like nuclear power but at the moment it's the best choice. I wish we could satisfy our needs with solar/wind etc., but it's just not enough.
445
« on: March 15, 2012, 15:56 »
ummm from all the people who prefer nuclear over coal. would you be willing to have a nuclear plant in your neighborhood and all the excess buried near by? Lets be realistic... who would be willing to have a nuclear plant in their neighborhood if that was the only way???
If I had to choose between a nuclear plant or a coal power plant in my neighborhood, I would choose the nuclear alternative. I'll rather live with the risk of complete meltdown than almost certain health problems caused by the coal plant. And did you know that coal power also emits radiation? From Wikipedia: It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements
446
« on: March 15, 2012, 05:41 »
I don't understand the property release part? Property release for a PD image, from whom?
I'm not sure what they mean, but I can think of examples where you need property release for a PD image: You get access to shoot an extremely rare book at a museum. The book is in public domain, but it can still be property of the museum.
447
« on: March 10, 2012, 08:30 »
Hey last Evanto's Bundlers!
Have you received a payment from the last bundle in February?
I think so, I got a healthy amount of "Other adjustments earnings" on the 9th March.
448
« on: March 10, 2012, 07:29 »
And this image has been floating around in the internets at least since 2010 http://1funny.com/finger-hugs/I don't know if this image has some connection (same photographer?) to the images in the original post, but it seems both might have copied this one instead of copying eachother. If photographer that is blamed in the original post is punished, so should the other one be too. I think they/you should quit chasing copycats, almost every image in the world has already been done already. I myself have a few images that someone could blame for copying. It's just bad luck my images looks like someone else's (I have noticed the similarity only afterwards) Another finger hug from february 2010: http://supermondi.deviantart.com/art/Hug-154959456?q=boost%3Apopular%20finger%20hug&qo=15
449
« on: March 07, 2012, 15:56 »
Now I just need to get the result turned the other way (so that others see MY images when searching
450
« on: March 06, 2012, 17:12 »
n
All existing contributors shall continue to enjoy the current 50% nett commission share ONLY IF they fulfill ALL of the following criteria.:
Have registered with 123RF.com before February 1, 2012.
Have at least 150 accepted images in their respective portfolios by January 9, 2012.
Have had a minimum of 10 paid downloads by January 27, 2012.
Awww....those were the days...
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
