|
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 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 57
526
« on: November 18, 2011, 11:22 »
Oh, I should propably consider myself lucky, I'm down only 50% from my best month. 
527
« on: November 17, 2011, 09:45 »
I hope that SS will notice how the sites screwing the contributors most have plummeted.
528
« on: November 16, 2011, 16:39 »
I posted the link from above on the IS site - within ten minutes my forum privileges have been suspended!
iStock acts like a communist state. "Everything is going fine, don't believe the rumors about the sinking sales, it's capitalist propaganda. Remember, it's not money that is going to make you happy, only work and production is going to make us happy. P.S. If you disagree you will put in jail and tortured."
529
« on: November 15, 2011, 16:36 »
I find it amusing that they have the hubris to raise already inflated prices during a recession.
They are the top site measured in hubris.
530
« on: November 15, 2011, 07:35 »
*Update*
Istock gone to "coma" state.... 0 Sales. Was expecting a bump from PP... but 0 sales too...
I don't see anywhere in the PP forum that October's PP sales are 'in' yet.
And if they were - what they aren't - they aren't "november" sales.
531
« on: November 15, 2011, 06:26 »
- low depth of field
No. A pro photographer's photo has the depth-of-field most suitable for the subject. Both extremities look "professional": unlimited sharpness by using camera lens movements or extremely short depth of field by using large aperture and bigger-than-35mm sensor/film. f/5.6 looks amateurish  - Color processing that made them stand apart (low saturation/high color contrast)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but good photos have good color. Especially when the color is critical, for example food photography. Here are some additions: -Great lighting. What is great lighting depends on the subject, but I know it when I see it  -Production value: good looking people, good locations, good props, good styling... -Unique ideas, "thinking outside the box" -Huge objects (for example cars or horses) shot in studio I don't think the photos in your link are special in any way. Good solid stock work, but nothing extremely special.
532
« on: November 14, 2011, 08:37 »
Things are looking a bit better. SS is picking up, if I get a few extended licences it might even be a BME. If not, still a decent month. DT is also speeding up. IS and FT still very weak, this is propably the first month SS makes me more money than IS (IS has always been better since 2006, except the "new contributor boost" at SS in 2006)
123RF is also very strong. If the month continues in the same way, 123rf might earn me more than FT, and that has never happened before! (Bubbling under: with some luck, even Veer might get ahead of FT)
I hope people at IS and FT are learning something from this.
533
« on: November 14, 2011, 07:54 »
Wow, beautiful! That would sell as stock footage, I just need to get my rocket ready!
534
« on: November 13, 2011, 04:35 »
It's most about quality and quantity. But with 13 images it's also much about luck. When you have more images it's less about luck and more about quality and quantity. And time.
535
« on: November 12, 2011, 18:01 »
You know, 13 images of over 11 million images isn't very much. You might sell something today, or never sell anything. Your guess is as good as anybody's.
My best advice is to start shooting and uploading, the sales will come eventually, this is a time and numbers game!
536
« on: November 09, 2011, 07:54 »
Will this system punish photographers with "universal" portfolios that live in a small country with small markets? At least I'm feeling that's the case here...
537
« on: November 09, 2011, 07:32 »
Am I the only one with an absolutely horrible start of the month? Everything is weak. Especially iStock and Fotolia are down. The month has started so badly that it's almost ridiculous. Except I'm not laughing.
edit: DT seems to be "okay".
538
« on: November 08, 2011, 17:01 »
I generally have two kinds of shoots. First are model shoots, where the expense is high, the sales per image are low, and I can get a lot of images accepted due to changes of outfit and expression. I can get a hundred photos from a single session with a single model, and although my RPI/RPU will be low, my return on the shoot is potentially very high.
The second type of shoot is everything else: scenics, isolated objects, road signs, whatever. My expense for the shoot may be low, but the number of images I generate is equally low. RPI for these images will likely be higher than my model images when taken individually, but lower when compared to the model images taken in aggregate.
My RPI has been dropping like a rock since I started shooting models in 2008. On the other hand, my revenue from stock has been increasing nicely. My portfolio size has grown faster than revenue, which only matters if I consider a (to me) false measure like RPI. Fortunately, I don't.
Seems like you have been using RPI to analyze your sales, haven't you?
539
« on: November 08, 2011, 05:10 »
I'm proud of the work I've done there, the way I've been supported by colleagues and admins, and the educational opportunities there for the taking that I continue to take advantage of. I'm proud of being associated with iStock as the agency they have been at their core (as much as I realize that the core is getting smaller, more and more impotent as the years go on). I realize saying that out loud will be met with cynicism here, but it's how I feel. I don't agree with a lot of the decisions they've made, and I don't agree with every direction they're going in of late. But yeah, I'm proud of being a part of iStock.
Is there a parallel universe or something similiar? Or is there another iStock that I'm not aware of? bizarro-istock.com? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro )
540
« on: November 04, 2011, 18:58 »
Apple may have invented the smartphone but already they only have 14.5% market share against Samsung's 20%;
(Off-topic). Apple didn't invent the smartphone. But I would not call their 14.5% "only". 14.5% is pretty impressive considering they have only one model. I don't know how many smartphones for example Nokia has, maybe twenty?
541
« on: November 02, 2011, 14:20 »
I was IS exclusive between 2005 and 2006. I did some research and found out there was many other sites like IS. I thought I didn't want to have all my eggs in one basket so I quit my exclusivity. Never really looked back. Now my IS earnings are 30% of my stock income, I don't think I would make more as an exclusive, and I'm enjoying having my risk spread over many sites. I would not like to have sleepless nights every time my one-and-only site tweaks their search algorithms.
542
« on: November 02, 2011, 05:10 »
It's really strange that some people have difficulties passing Alamy's QC. It's much easier than most of the micros. I have had trouble with Alamy only a couple of times (one time uploading a too small image and a couple of times data was corrupted).
Just look at your images; are they sharp (not sharpened!) when you look at them at 100%? You could post your images here, or at least 100% crops so we can have a look at them.
543
« on: November 01, 2011, 14:09 »
SS A New Best Month Ever! (The second one in row, also september was BME) IS the lows continue... not the worst month of the year tho. DT second worst month this year FT weak weak weak... Low earners: Veer Okay month, Veer starts to be very close to DT and FT 123rf Best month ever! Almost as good as Veer. canstockphoto Very weak, are they dying? Bigstockphoto Business as usual. Some sales, but not much Alamy a few nice sales (and a few not-so-nice sales), overall a very good month.
544
« on: October 28, 2011, 17:28 »
but basically anything that is at the top of the best match older than 1 month old would be a good target.
Okay, then let's get rid of the upload date too!
545
« on: October 28, 2011, 08:40 »
So if images can still be sorted by popularity, and copycats want to copy, which they are going to do, what difference does the exact number or fuzzy number make?
For example: you search for "apples" and get results sorted by popularoty. Then you search "oranges" and get results and sort them by popularity. If you have numbers visible you know what sells better, apples or oranges. If numbers aren't visible, you can only guess.
546
« on: October 28, 2011, 06:16 »
So what do you think?
I agree!
547
« on: October 27, 2011, 02:37 »
Wow really? I can copy anyone's work, change it one pixel in any direction, and now it's my derivative? Sounds a little risky to me and kind of unethical?
But in this case, if you are going to draw a small arrow with pixels and it needs to look like a computer arrow, there isn't an endless amount of ways doing it.
548
« on: October 26, 2011, 16:00 »
BTW I had shot some old brass letters on a building, isolated them and uploaded them. DT rejected them and wrote that I should submit the whole alphabet as a collage. Yes, a very bright idea considering I only had 7 or 8 different letters.
549
« on: October 26, 2011, 15:52 »
I think some of you are getting carried away by using the "ten images" template for a collage. It can be as simple as two images.
As far as clients not wanting to spend $40 for a hi-res image, you've got to be kidding. Most of these clients are high dollar ad agencies.
Yes, but if you don't get even a full resolution image with the $40, they might choose the "non-collage" image at $10. Perhaps I need to explain my point once more. Two photographers, Photographer A and Photographer B shoot an object with similar 24 mpix camera with 6000*4000 pixels resolution. Photographer A resizes the image smaller to 1500*1000 pixels and put it in a collage with 11 other files. Photographer B submits the image as a separate image at 6000*4000 pixels. Customer needs an image to fill out a whole spread in a magazine. Which image is he going to buy?
550
« on: October 26, 2011, 15:25 »
I can see Dreamstime's idea, that it is a nice attraction to bring in buyers, but it is a rotten idea for artists.
But how about a client that need a high resolution image of a certain object? Why would they like to pay a XXL price for a size S image?
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
