|
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 - JPSDK
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 74
101
« on: April 03, 2015, 06:44 »
Thanks. Semmick.
The macro season has started, and there are new butterflies in circulization. Global warming immigrants.
102
« on: April 03, 2015, 06:41 »
I wonder if Ansel Adams knew much about doing isolations?
No, he was cheap. Instead of isolating things in a troublesome way in photoshop, he went to isolated places in deserted continets and stood there and felt isolated all on his own, alone in the light.
103
« on: April 03, 2015, 06:38 »
Dodge tool, set to highlights... and 10-12%
Yes! That is the way.
104
« on: April 03, 2015, 06:29 »
105
« on: April 03, 2015, 06:22 »
I looked through my Marches on shutter for the last couple of years.
Downloads are the same but revenue shows an increasing tendency.
March 2014 is very much the same as March 2015. But the general picture shows stagnating sales and increased RPI.
106
« on: April 03, 2015, 06:08 »
many years ago, I cannot remember when.
107
« on: April 03, 2015, 06:03 »
So Shutter develops new business models to earn more profit, for both them and me. Thats fine. They adapt to the market.
I think this step is very elegant, compared to many steps on istock, when they began to prey on their contributors, and alianated them.
It might be a win win situation, or at least it sounds like one.
There is a mighty big difference in how the two companies address their contributors. It feels like Shutter is making business with us, contrary to iStock who used us for their business.
108
« on: March 04, 2015, 10:36 »
Feb 2015 compared to feb 2014
SS up 15%
Fot Status quo
DT Status quo
109
« on: February 01, 2015, 15:20 »
110
« on: February 01, 2015, 14:58 »
It would be interesting to know why?
111
« on: February 01, 2015, 14:16 »
I have been in the game for 7 years, and I hit the wall a long time ago.
The wall being defined as not being able to grow your income according to the work you put in.
But there is a garden behind the wall. Its kind of lush. It does not matter if I upload or not, nor if I innovate and produce better quality.
I still have the same monthly income, and it does not vary much and it does not fall.
So we could say that the wall works in both directions, it also shields you from the impact from the worlds competitors.
So a better definition of the wall would be that the quality and size of your port is at a point where it cannot be beaten.
112
« on: February 01, 2015, 09:25 »
Not at all!
Shutter 70%
Fot 20%
the rest is the rest.
That goes for January 2015 and in the past. Its very consistant.
(Contributer since 2007, 2-3000 files.)
113
« on: January 18, 2015, 12:15 »
Ja, goddag og velkommen.
115
« on: September 23, 2014, 16:08 »
volatile. No trend seen.
116
« on: September 23, 2014, 15:40 »
Its not better.
Its patching and it is a confusing patch since texts are situated underneath eachother and pop to the surface in unpredictable ways.
Can you not just get rid of the minus votes. They only cause witchhunting and other personal abusement.
?
also try and click and see that you cannot neutralize your vote, but only make it better or worse.
117
« on: September 23, 2014, 15:34 »
So that sounds like one of the businesses that you have to pay, so you can earn money.
That is heard of before.
118
« on: September 10, 2014, 08:09 »
. . .Thats the moment when you press the button to the "pep and pop for shutterstock" photoshop action.
Is that the action that guarantees hundreds of sales as well? I didn't trust the horns and cloven hooves on the salesman! 
There a no sales in any postprosessing, it is, as I said earlier all about coherent content *, and of course the impact of that coherent content. The action only takes care of the small part of an imagesimpact that comes from postprocessing. Then again, postprocessing is more important than equipment. * the coherent content, is the part the OPis missing. And people are still discussing histograms and lenses. Let us discuss coherent content instead, or maybe - better not?- because thats where the money and the competition is, and I should better keep my mouth shut, and let this obviously talented photographer waste a couple of years to find out by himself..
119
« on: September 10, 2014, 08:00 »
JPSDK, can you maybe share that action? I still didn't figure it out completely...
The very next moment when I start thinking that I got it finally, and got a few batches accepted, I get my next batch 100% rejected 
Im the kind of quy that lent out my things, fx my camera is away from home on a mission in another mans hands. But exactly that photoshop action, is a strong competitive tool, and I must admit that im a bit reluctant about feeding my competitors. But PM me, and convince me your are not competition and we shall see.
120
« on: September 09, 2014, 08:14 »
Doing highlights and shadows all the way is a trick I first heard from photographer Serge Ramelli. I just found out that it might be ok as a starting point, but it is too extreme for most of my photos. The philosophy is ok, I guess, but that is just the starting point.
Concerning SS - that's the queston of what kind of photos will sale - I had a lots of photos with completely good light, soft shadows, everything ok, even though I got rejections with light problems. Then I've found out it is not really light, but the colors.
For example, the cloudy sky should give the perfect light - but that is not good enough for SS. If the histogram is a bit on the dark side - and there are lack of colors on the photo - not good.
Thats the moment when you press the button to the "pep and pop for shutterstock" photoshop action.
121
« on: September 07, 2014, 15:18 »
all three photos are fine, especially the last.
But look at the rejection reasons, that basically say:
not relevant for stock, there could be trademarks, and lighting is strange.
all is true.
They don't say that, really. But that's what I took away from it too.
Am I twice as likely to be rejected if there is a colorful sunset in the photo? I was wondering all night if that was the red flag that got me.
the point is your are not in a photoclub where you try to impress other photographers.
I resent that a little. I'm just trying to portray the scene at it's best and most beautiful. I think that's what most travel photographers do.
Instead you are on a marketplace where you want to make customers pay for your images. So you need to think about the customers needs and that is not interesting light, or interesting compositions.
I saw a photo from istock on facebook a few months ago of this scene. It was clearly a purchased stock image and shutterstock didn't have the same version. The one it had was weak, IMO, so I started shooting it.
I'm also wondering if they're rejecting me because I have three different photos of the same scene at this point, ignoring the fact that this one is technically the best.
However, none of the photos on shutterstock are at sunset with a colorful sunset, so I thought the time of day would be useful for some advertisers. Was I wrong? If that's the case, I can always reshoot, waiting for a colorless sunset with clouds, like this:
Ross's Landing with Fluffy White Clouds by Trevarthan, on Flickr
I just need to know if sunset colors are something to avoid.
If you put a woman with a shopping bag on the bridge it will be much more stockworthy, but still the bridge and buildings are distracting, unles you aim for a special modernistic urban impression. And are there customers for that?
Not a bad idea at all. It's just a different kind of photo from what I see mostly for travel photos. Usually I'll have to shoot with higher shutter speeds and use f2 instead of f8, or else keep the model extremely still. I'm not opposed. This was just the low hanging fruit.
Thanks for the feedback, btw. I appreciate it.
Icons and essense, my friend. meaning.. Our photos are meant to make people buy things, so there are more sales in a photo of a shopping bag than a bridge. So photograph shopping bags, not the wonders of the world. But since all shopping bags have already been photographed, and also all kinds of women with shopping bags, there are only women on bridges with shopping bags left. Thats a nische market, untill someone (like you? ( come up with a new icon. If you have a picture of a bridge with no women with shopping bags, then you will find that the image is hard to sell and the agencies know that, which is why they reject. Dont take it personally. Its about business, not about photography. Repeat. Its business NOT photography. I cant say it much clearer, and if you now think about lenses, light and dof, and what you have done right or wrong you are still on the wrong track and still stuck in the mud of the photo clubs.
122
« on: September 06, 2014, 00:33 »
For crying out loud. You accept this crap from me:
And this even crappier image:
But then I get a clue and take a 6 shot focus stacked, HDR masterpiece like this:
And your door goons reject it for ...
Trademark--Image / Metadata potentially infringes on intellectual property rights.
Composition--Image is poorly composed and/or poorly cropped.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.
Honestly... I'm starting to wonder why I'm even trying. 
all three photos are fine, especially the last. But look at the rejection reasons, that basically say: not relevant for stock, there could be trademarks, and lighting is strange. all is true. the point is your are not in a photoclub where you try to impress other photographers. Instead you are on a marketplace where you want to make customers pay for your images. So you need to think about the customers needs and that is not interesting light, or interesting compositions. If you put a woman with a shopping bag on the bridge it will be much more stockworthy, but still the bridge and buildings are distracting, unles you aim for a special modernistic urban impression. And are there customers for that?
123
« on: September 03, 2014, 16:09 »
DT,
Ill soon be leaving DT due to low performance.
That means i have dropped-
iS,
can
dp lately,
and a lot of low earners before.
124
« on: September 03, 2014, 16:03 »
shutterstock sometimes is curious to me.
mostly i get 9/10 rejected . most times with the poor lighting reason.
one day in a week i get 9/10 accepted.
every week. really every week in one day is there a golden day for me.
is there a "perfect time" for uploading ?
anyone else with that experience ?
Now is the right time to look closely at your pictures. Meaning... dont look at shutterstock, look at you. What changed?
125
« on: September 03, 2014, 16:01 »
Before noon, GMT it was kinda slow, but it picked up later.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
