|
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 - corepics
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9
51
« on: August 30, 2012, 19:19 »
Overall, the targets have dropped. In some segments, significantluy so, in others, they've stayed the same. A useful telltale of how iStock's business is evolving.
Comparison chart:
They have not changed from the revised 2011 targets
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338873
In that case, they never adjusted their RC charts on http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1090. The revisement didn't affect us last time, so I didn't pay notice to it.
They haven't fixed a lot of things on the site. 
Now thats a solid point. Impossible to argue that one, you win, sir!
53
« on: August 30, 2012, 19:02 »
Overall, the targets have dropped. In some segments, significantluy so, in others, they've stayed the same. A useful telltale of how iStock's business is evolving. Comparison chart:  / download
54
« on: August 30, 2012, 16:57 »
I sent a message to support 12 hrs ago. No answer, yet.
55
« on: August 30, 2012, 16:56 »
It sure is a relief, but that of course still doesn't justify these rediculously low royalty percentages. At least it seems we're moving up a tier. A whopping 1% increase.
The threshold actually went down. we used to be under 40.000 RC, netting 17%, now the threshold for 18% is 35.000 RC
56
« on: August 30, 2012, 16:53 »
The 100 on the right doesn't mean average royaties in $$. It's the benchmark for the agency which generates the most income for the photographers, on average. I read the values as percentage, ie: istock currently makes the average MSG poll taker 55,6% from what SS does.
57
« on: August 30, 2012, 05:50 »
It seems 123RF has a new licence type: Limited Extended Licence, or LEL. Has anyone heard anything about this? I don't suppose 123RF has issued a statement about this? I wonder how much discount they're going to offer to promote this
58
« on: August 22, 2012, 09:16 »
No, No, No... The Invisible man has long since been copyrighted. If not by H.G. Wells, then by Queen's Roger Taylor. In the latter case, you will most likely also need a talent release from Freddy Mercury and Roger Taylor, John Deacon and Brian May.
59
« on: August 04, 2012, 15:20 »
my portfolio on Thinkstock has shrunk.
Rejoyce!
60
« on: August 01, 2012, 08:30 »
Compared to June 2012 (Revenue - DLs)
Overall: -3% -1%
SS: 0% -5%
IS: -1% +10%
DT: -18% -2%
FT: -15% -7%
123RF: +24% +29%
In prosa: Shutterstock is holding up fine, RPD slightly higher than June '12. Istock: Despite an increase in downloads, a slight decline in revenues. It seems DT recent changes to their subscription system turned out beautifully for them. The declining sales have somewhat stabilised, and we're down a whopping 18% compared to June, due to a massive increase of higher level subscription sales. 123RF exceeds expectations, and limits the downfall in July compared to June.
The smaller sites went off to a poor start, but sales improved towards the end of the month. Overall, a slight decline compared to June 2012, but much less than expected.
61
« on: July 13, 2012, 14:46 »
I've received two similar refund notices with no royalties being removed as well. (earlier this year, concerning downloads, which happened this year as well),
Perhaps a client demanded a refund on a sale which istock never reported to me in the first place?
62
« on: June 23, 2012, 16:56 »
I've tried to pin (my own) images from flickr, but as I've disabled 3rd party sharing in my flickr settings, pinning images from my flickr account has been effectively disabled. Both from the share option on flickr, as well as through the firefox pin it plug in. It also prevents me pinning images from other flickr users who have disabled sharing. That's an improvement, I believe.
63
« on: June 06, 2012, 15:14 »
For us, they perform better than Crestock, StockFresh and Cutcaster. Veer, PD, DP, and CanStockPhoto perform (much) better for us. I'm sure they'll provide us with "regular" payouts, but that is also a matter of definition. At the current rate, I'd say once every two to three months for us. But as we're only on our way to the second pay-out, it's probably too early to tell, as all files we have online at Pressfoto can still be considered "new".
64
« on: June 05, 2012, 18:18 »
Everything in Russian on the website?
The submit area is also available in English. And via Chrome, pressfoto.ru makes a lot more sense. But yes, it is an inconvenience.
65
« on: June 05, 2012, 12:52 »
We've got our images at Pressfoto, and sales are better than many of the low earners. Uploading images is quite easy, reviews are fairly quick and the people at Pressfoto have been very helpful in our experience.
66
« on: March 23, 2012, 08:02 »
How do you think the D800 compares to the D700 for noise and dynamic range?
Our D700 died a year ago, so I haven't taken a close look at those unprocessed images in a while. Comparing them from memory, I think the D800 has improved, but not significantly.
67
« on: March 22, 2012, 19:47 »
Thanks for the great review Corepics! The sample shot are quite useful too and confirm my first impression of excellent image quality. What glass would you recommend for the D800? Is there any decent wideangle of 11mm or below for such a excellent camera?
These shots were taken with a 24-70 f/2.8. Haven't tried out any other lenses, yet. Tomorrow, I want to give my older DX lenses a go, especially my 10.5mm, haven't used that one in a while. Although FX lenses should provide the optimal performance, I figure with 36MP, the 1.6 crop factor should still provide a useful file size. I'll have a go with some pre-digital primes as well. Perhaps this would be useful? http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/compatibility02.htm
68
« on: March 22, 2012, 19:10 »
I just took the first few shots with our D800, and so far, I'm extremely satisfied with the image quality. Straight out of the box (no custom settings, yet). I'm impressed with the low noise levels at higher ISO, and it's dynamic range. Image sharpness is fine, but I can't wait to compare it with the D800E we also ordered. (It'll be a long month waiting) Zooming in to 100% on a 36MP image is awesome, although I think that thrill will wear off soon. Despite its Magnesium alloy body, it does feel a bit cheaper than the D700. The buttons and dials feel less sturdy than those on the D3x and D700, but it handles identical (which is no surprise). As Expected, you'll need to update the Camera Raw. Standard issue PS CS5.1 can't read D800 RAW files, nor can Lightroom 3. However, Adobe issued a pre release ACR 6.7, which does the job, and so does Lightroom 4. Apparently, so does the latest version / update of Aperture, but I can't verify that. Two high res snaps (Each ~19MB JPEG): 800 ISO: http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0016.jpg100 ISO: http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0018.jpgI didn't buy it solely for stock. In my commissioned work, I notice an increase of image size with quite a few of my clients for various reasons. Covering large office walls with a photo is one of them, ability for clients to crop themselves and still make a decent sized print is another. I bought two, because I work in camera unfriendly environments, where switching lenses can be challenging, and my other bodies are wearing / have worn out. I thought of getting one D4 as substitute for one of the D800's, but decided against it, because I expect the difference of a future D4x to a D4 to be similar to the difference between the D3 and D3x. I much prefer the D3x, and not to mention the additional costs. Now it's time to take this puppy out for a real spin and let it earn it's money back 
69
« on: March 15, 2012, 18:45 »
I don't think it really matters, sales wise. If you consider the half-lifespan of an image being ~2 years (depending on the subject, of course, a difference of weeks between review times hardly makes a significant difference.
For our workflow, it's the easiest to upload a single batch to all sites simultaneously. In order to increase the shelf life of the images, I do tend to spread out uploading images from a single shoot over several months, if not a year.
FWIW: Canstock's review isn't that fast in my experience. Uploading a batch everywhere at roughtly the same time, Stockfresh is usually the quickest in reviewing files, followed by a day or two by Shutterstock and Photodune. iStock isn't far behind, either. Only then, I usually see Canstock has approved the images.
70
« on: March 08, 2012, 18:14 »
At the same time, they disabled the hyperlinks in the profile, which allowed us to link to collections of images. I do like this new feature, better, though. Seems like a smart and novel move by DT.
71
« on: March 08, 2012, 17:50 »
Perhaps I should refine my previous post a bit. we do sell stiched images, using 2 to 5 images as well. Most commonly, we shoot such images on location, when the intended composition is wider than the lens used allows. Those images, however, take little time in post production. In my previous post, I was referring to stitches of 50 to 200+ images (usingPTGui as well). Good fun to create, if you don't need to use the computer for a day or two. Race - if you happen to remember the site that sells extremely large panoramic images, please let me know, will you? Etien - those are some impressive examples! FWIW: I made the pano on the wall of the restaurant, and this one
72
« on: March 08, 2012, 15:40 »
We have a few, some of which sell OK to pretty well. But the - generally huge file size, the time involved to stitch and edit, makes it too costly to be worth the effort for microstock, IMO.
I've created several panoramas on a commission base for clients (for quicktime interactive movies, or to be printed on wall paper for large walls, including a few 360 x 180 degrees 2 Terapixel interiors) which I found to be much more profitable. Recently, the requests for extremely large panoramic images - even product shots - seems to be increasing, so I do believe there is a market for it.
73
« on: February 16, 2012, 04:46 »
Alex,
If implementing such a change, it is absolutely essential, to make the earned RC's to date easily visible and accessible, preferably with an extrapolated prognosis, without us having to rely on our own Excel estimates. I think this should've been made available to us as soon as you publicised this structure.
Despite the spin that "competition is good for us", and "we've got 10.5 months to build a strong portfolio", which are not only patronising but also rather insulting, the lack of providing the specific data and the instruments to assess what conseqences this has for each of us, makes it impossible for us to plan ahead and take the necessary strategic decisions.
Eventhough you say the growth prognosis of 123RF looks swell, you just took away part of your incentive to realise that growth. If you fail to achieve growth, we sell less, earn less RC's, and you end up with a bigger cut, making up for the lack of growth. To me, that sounds like an undesired and unhealthy situation. It effecively places the risk of your marketing and sales performance with us. I find that rather dodgy.
I'm sure you expected the heat that would follow these changes. So please reduce the spin based on guestimates, and provides us with some arguments based on facts. I'm not looking for yet another cool lens cap. Got one forced down the throat with the first RC introductory spin.
74
« on: January 17, 2012, 13:25 »
It seems they pushed through another "fix". Still not correct, but this time, the error is in our favour. Previous subscriptions which were affected by the withholding tax error now net me $0,43 after taxes (should be $0,30)
75
« on: January 16, 2012, 14:15 »
And again a sale on deposit photos where tax is being withheld, just now.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
