pancakes

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 - gostwyck

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 210
76
iStockPhoto.com / Re: First Month of the New Improved IS
« on: October 19, 2014, 13:53 »
Somehow it was attributed to Shelma.  The rest of the quote, attributed to you, is Baldricks reply to what you posted.  It gets confusing when there are too many quoted strings of talk.  I doubt it was on purpose.

It's trivial enough to edit a mistake and get it right. I doubt any of us wants to be quoted saying things we did not write. It's a basic courtesy surely, if using the quote function, to ensure that you do not misrepresent peoples' opinions.

^ I did not write the stuff which Shelma Baldrick has attributed to me previously. Just to be clear again.

.... See .... Easy to edit :)

Keep your knickers on. If anyone had been reading the thread then they'd have known, from previous postings, who had said what and when. It was perfectly obvious that BT had made a minor error in his editing but the point he was making was clear. At no point did I even begin to attribute BT's excellent sentence structure and arguments to your good self __ obviously.

77
I've been favoring the pen tool. What process do you guys use?
http://drpgraphicdesign.com/isolating-photos-right-way/


The best process is to do it in camera.  The pen tool will give a result that needs to be modified because any good isolation will have variable softness across all edges.  That's why clipping paths aren't a solve all answer.


Exactly. What is this 'pen tool' of which you speak? Duh!

78
Lighting / Re: Elinchrom 500BXRI misfires randomly, in series.
« on: October 17, 2014, 15:32 »
I'd phone Technical Support about it. Here in the UK I've found them very helpful.

I'd be concerned if I were 'hearing sparks' that some serious damage might be happening internally. Those capacitors hold a lot of power and they can discharge it very quickly.

79

Sorry to say this but- Istock is dying....

We all know this ... AFTO.

80
Adobe Stock / Re: Guess I'll reupload to Fotolia
« on: October 13, 2014, 19:38 »
Dallas, the only thing that counts is whether u make money there . if u do, what others say is not important. also, if everyone hates fotolia...means less ppl submit their work to them. if that means u earn more there, who cares?
In virtual world of anonimity on forums- yes, you are right. But, in real world, in your town, in your neighborhood, among your friends and people you live with - do you really live this way? Not caring about anybody, just going for money?
I know you don't. It's just that these internet world made us tell stupidities.

I'm not going to give up income just because my neighbor says it would br good for him. And I'm not anonymous. I would tell you the same thing to your face.

Nobody's asked you, or anyone, to give up income only because it's good for them. We've boycotted DPC because it's good for everyone. You included.

It's not good for me. I'm an adult, and I know what's best for me. FT accounts for about 10 percent of my monthly stock income.

Hmmph. Just the sort of contributor that DPC hoped, but probably never believed, it could really find. Enjoy your 3% earnings from them! They'll certainly be appreciating the 97% they take from your sales.

admin edit: insult removed

81
Absolutely no market whatsoever for stock images of architecture, real estate or interiors. I've tried it. It doesn't work. Forget it and save your time for productive work __ that's my advice.

82
Adobe Stock / Re: Guess I'll reupload to Fotolia
« on: October 13, 2014, 14:53 »
Dallas, the only thing that counts is whether u make money there . if u do, what others say is not important. also, if everyone hates fotolia...means less ppl submit their work to them. if that means u earn more there, who cares?
In virtual world of anonimity on forums- yes, you are right. But, in real world, in your town, in your neighborhood, among your friends and people you live with - do you really live this way? Not caring about anybody, just going for money?
I know you don't. It's just that these internet world made us tell stupidities.

I'm not going to give up income just because my neighbor says it would br good for him. And I'm not anonymous. I would tell you the same thing to your face.

How much does DPC add to your microstock income, as a percentage of the total?

Do you even know how much you gain from DPC as I'm not aware that you can separate out DPC earnings from ordinary FT sales?

You appear to be quite keen on microstock and working quite hard to build your income. Do you not realise that in trying to chase an extra percent or two from DPC then you are endangering the other 98-99%?

DPC was started by FT only when they realised they had lost the 'microstock war' to SS. When they proudly describe DPC as a 'disruptive model' then they mean exactly that. They want to disrupt or destroy microstock itself. Having lost the microstock war they are keen to be first to the party for the 'nanostock war'.

If DPC is successful then the agency has almost cut the contributor out of the equation. A good proportion of their revenue will be coming from the $10 per month or $99 per year subscriptions ... of which the contributor gets absolutely nothing.

I'm surprised Rob that, in supporting DPC, you can't see you are cutting your own throat for a few $'s per month. Unfortunately you are also cutting our throats at the same time.

83
Canon / Re: G1X Mark II for shooting stock
« on: October 12, 2014, 15:09 »
The g1x mark 2 has a focus ring which can help to achieve the depth of field effect.

Why do you ask for advice when you are so clearly determined not to be swayed by any of it? Go ahead & buy your G1X. You'll find out soon enough why you should have spent less money and bought a cheap DLSR instead.

84
Adobe Stock / Re: Guess I'll reupload to Fotolia
« on: October 12, 2014, 12:07 »
I'm not opted.in to DPC, but my earnings at Fotolia continue to grow month after month.

So I don't think there's necessarily a causation between being opted in or out and your normal fotolia sales. If there is, I'm not aware of it.

Realistically I don't see how those who have opted-out of DPC can be deliberately 'punished' with fewer sales at FT. It could only be achieved via modifications to the default sort-order and I can't see FT investing money to achieve that end. Let's face it, FT have the least sophisticated sort-order of any of the main agencies which indicates how little they do invest in such things. For example they seem to be the only agency that don't even give any weighting whatsoever to keywords. The likelihood that FT have actually spent money just to make their search even worse for buyers is highly improbable.

Apart from anything else they appear to already have 80-90% of the content at FT mirrored at DPC. Try a search on any particular subject on each site and there's not much difference in the quantity.

85
Canon / Re: G1X Mark II for shooting stock
« on: October 12, 2014, 08:53 »
I am not a professional photographer. I admit that I won't be in the elite range of microstockers with super expensive equipment but as I read on many sites,this camera is advertised as dsrl like quality of image.

Every iteration of the G-series camera is heralded as "DSLR-like quality" by the review sites. Unfortunately it is never even remotely true (unless you only use it for 6x4" prints).

A cheap, basic DSLR with kit lens will outperform an expensive P&S all day long. Barely used second-hand DSLRs are plentiful in supply and even cheaper on places like eBay.

A single good stock image can recuperate the cost of the camera within one year.  Unfortunately however, if said image is rejected for 'technical quality' then it won't make any money at all.

86
Canon / Re: G1X Mark II for shooting stock
« on: October 12, 2014, 07:50 »
I've not tried the G1X personally but I have yet to find a P&S camera that is 'suitable' for stock photography.

In my opinion virtually any DSLR vastly outperforms any P&S camera for shooting stock. The D1200 for example is half the price of the G1X and yet has 50% more pixels. Pixels matter for stock.

You can shoot stock with a P&S camera ... but you are making the job much harder for yourself if you attempt to do so. Microstock is difficult and competitive enough already. No point in paying a lot of money to disadvantage yourself.

87
Photography Equipment / Re: Battery Life
« on: October 12, 2014, 05:46 »
I have two LP-E4 batteries dating from Feb 2008 which I rotate in use on the camera. Both still work fine (although lately seem to require more frequent 'calibration' charges) and have clocked up about 300K shutter operations between them. The battery currently on the camera has 1484 'shutter counts' since being charged and still has 58% remaining.

89

i do not see a connection between increase in sales at ss with IS change... because ss images by tradition have always been rejected by IStock reviewers, and vice versa...esp in terms of over-saturation and over post-processing. IStock have always preferred little or no post-processing. for this reason, i cannot see clients suddenly wanting ss images which are more post-processed.

What utter nonsense. Rejections are a relatively rare event for any half-decent independent contributor at either IS or SS and have been for years. There's precious little difference in what sells at each agency too.

It's a fact that until a few years ago IS were the market-leader, by a country mile, in microstock. Since then sales and revenue have collapsed. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, growth at SS has been explosive and now they are now market-leader. But you don't see any likelihood of a connection between those events for the reasons you have given. Really.

90
I have to say that both downloads and revenue have absolutely plummeted at Istock for me since the changes. I'm seeing the fewest sales numbers on weekdays that I have for nearly 10 years (since I first began uploading). So far this month I have yet to make double figures on any day. A few years ago, even as an independent, I was selling 50-60 licenses per weekday.

On the other hand sales at SS have gone ballistic and if it keeps up then I'm on target for a massive BME. In particular sales of On-Demand-Downloads have increased hugely.

Can I be alone in wondering whether the two events could possibly be connected?

I think that almost everyone (apart from Tickstock obviously) will now agree that you were right all along with respect to that thing about eggs and baskets.

Oh well.

:-)

I think you've just invented a new acronym ... AFTO. It's much quicker than having to write "apart from Tickstock obviously" all the time.

91
I have to say that both downloads and revenue have absolutely plummeted at Istock for me since the changes. I'm seeing the fewest sales numbers on weekdays that I have for nearly 10 years (since I first began uploading). So far this month I have yet to make double figures on any day. A few years ago, even as an independent, I was selling 50-60 licenses per weekday.

On the other hand sales at SS have gone ballistic and if it keeps up then I'm on target for a massive BME. In particular sales of On-Demand-Downloads have increased hugely.

Can I be alone in wondering whether the two events could possibly be connected?

92
Shutterstock.com / Re: RPI for photographers at Shutterstock
« on: October 07, 2014, 16:14 »
A high RPI -- in relation to the masses -- is absolutely a sign that you're doing things right.

probably true, but the logical  implied converse and inverse statements are not necessarily   true

ie, you can't assume these 2 statements:
if you're doing things right then you have a high RPI
if you don't have a high RPI you're not doing things right

a low rpi, eg, may indicate you're supplying a low demand area, possibly with less competition.

I'd also expect RPI to start reducing once you've been doing microstock for more than 5-6 years. The effect will be similar to the 'hitting the wall' phenomena when growth in revenue stalls.

Over 70% of my portfolio at SS is more than 4 years old. My earliest stuff is nearly 10 years old. What were once regular selling images are now rarely seen because they've been superseded by better images, newer images (SS promotes newness in the sort-order) and 100x more competition.

93
Shutterstock.com / Re: RPI for photographers at Shutterstock
« on: October 07, 2014, 00:21 »
54 cents. Last month was kinda crappy until the last week.

You're telling me that last month your portfolio of 2157 images actually generated $1165 at SS alone? Really? And that was "kinda crappy"?

94
Shutterstock.com / Re: RPI for photographers at Shutterstock
« on: October 06, 2014, 14:29 »
There's something seriously wrong with the results when nearly 50% of voters are claiming more than 40c per image/month ... which itself is nearly 50% higher than Shutterstock's declared average.

Even Sean said he's only generating about 60c per image/month (in a previous thread) so we must have some absolute stock geniuses voting in the poll.

95
I wish I could become 'addicted' to microstock. I'd be making much more money. My problem is 'motivation' rather than addiction.

96
Newbie Discussion / Re: Finding a Mentor
« on: October 03, 2014, 06:10 »
There are good books on microstock by Ellen Boughn, Rob Sylvan and Douglas Freer for example. Just search 'microstock' within Books on Amazon.

97
Compared to previous September:

2013: DL -35%  $ -38%

2012: DL -43%  $ -43%

2011: DL -71%  $ -62%

2010: DL -85%  $ -72%

2009: DL -87%  $ -54%

2008: DL -92%  $ -57%

iStock Exclusive. Standard downloads.

Even if you included Getty sales (presuming around 20-30% of your port goes to Getty) I would say you now are at parity to indy earnings.

iS are at a pivotal moment now, they need to turn this around with some urgency before they make SS a runaway train that will eat into not just iS but Getty as well.

If they are not careful Yuri will be the only exclusive they have left.

IS can't "turn this around". No chance whatsoever. With their latest move all they've achieved is to alienate most of their blog-post buyers. This is the internet age and to win you absolutely have to have momentum and be leading from the front.

All Istock appear to be doing is to try and turn themselves into a piss-poor version of SS. No vision there at all.

SS is run by a full-on, highly-skilled entrepreneur, with his own money at stake. In contrast IS is being run by various staff managers who get drafted in and then sacked or moved on every 18 months or so.

It is utterly laughable that Istock, from the position they have put themselves in, could even tread water from this point let alone actually grow the business. Almost every USP they once had has been abandoned in favour of trying, very badly, to copy SS. It isn't going to work.

There is one potential thing that they could do to right the ship ... and that is to restore the original canister-based royalty rates. That, more than anything else, would actually help their bottom-line. Unfortunately TPTB are not bright enough to understand that and how vital the relationship with the contributor actually was to the success of their business. It was the RC debacle that destroyed IS and it is only the restoration of the original royalty structure that will help them.

98
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock has got so bad I now owe THEM money
« on: September 30, 2014, 18:03 »
There is no easy answer for exclusives looking for a life raft.

But as a rule of thumb I'd say if your earnings dip to 50c per image per month, you'd be better off as an indy. That's with a commercial portfolio thats had some investment poured into it.

Yep __ I'd say you're assessment is spot-on for most better-than-average contributors.

99
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another case of faux-exclusivity?
« on: September 30, 2014, 17:01 »
...and very quick they have changed the name  ::)

http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/tuned_in


Well spotted! Of course that can only be done with Istock's assistance ....

100
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock has got so bad I now owe THEM money
« on: September 30, 2014, 16:58 »
If he's making nothing at iS he's bound to earn more at SS, and probably in the multiples of thousands of $, so what's there to lose by dropping the crown?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that since he thinks he can make about $6,000 per month on SS alone but he's still exclusive at iStock then he's doing better than that.  Just a guess.

I think the 60c per image/month expectation, at SS alone, is wildly optimistic for a portfolio composed mainly of travel images. Try 30c instead.

Also, moving to become an independent contributor is not an instantaneous process. It represents a huge amount of work, considerable risk (a leap of faith into the dark) and several months with a massively reduced income. Thousands of images have to be uploaded, key-worded differently and reviewed to several different agencies most of whom the ex-exclusive contributor has little or no previous experience of. Then the images have to be noticed by buyers and slowly move up the default sort-orders and/or the various contributor or image levels.

With a portfolio of 10K images it probably represents 6-12 months of hard graft, reduced income and uncertainty before any sort of stability is attained. When you have a family to support as well, as I know the OP does, then it is no easy decision to make.

By the sound of it though, the time has probably come. Good luck.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 210

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors