|
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 - OM
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 36
576
« on: September 09, 2012, 09:52 »
I wouldn't rule out that theory but am struggling to see how FT would benefit. It might be an impact of the sorting of keywords by relevance on submission - some might, some might not and some may do it better than others but impossible to compare because they are just displayed in alphabetic order.
Tested that too a while back. FT says, place the 6 most important keywords first and one contributor's image that came up repeatedly in the first 2 pages did that with 15 of their keywords (out of around 20) when a single keyword from that images' keywords was entered into default search. It's almost as if the search algorithm gets stuck at a certain point and just goes round in circles on a small number of contributors/images. I can't say that I would know how to construct an algorithm that is relatively fair to both established sellers whilst introducing new work on the early pages but to show more than half of the images on the first page (that are new and often without downloads) from a single contributor, I find unfair both to contributors as well as buyers.
577
« on: September 09, 2012, 06:11 »
The more I try out their search the more convinced I become that there is a 'club'. It's quite a big club, I am definitely not in it and I haven't a clue about how one gets in it. The algorithm or whatever seems programmed to promote certain contributors who are from very diverse levels and pricing but their images keep cropping up time and time again on the first pages of default search. Had another one yesterday where the last 10 or so shots on page 1 were a series, all by the same contributor, none had been downloaded and most had not even been viewed but they were on page 1 (that series was also not relevant to my search topic either and it continued on page 2).
When half of the first page is taken up by images from one contributor and you've waded through the gratuitously inserted 'infinity collection' images (in which I wouldn't be interested anyway because I came to FT for microstock pricing), then there's not a lot of space left for anyone else's images.
Unlike SS, for which I find the search quite good, FT takes no account of the title (description) of the image in its search placement. For those in the 'club' it takes almost every keyword and inserts that contributor's image(s) at every search opportunity on the first pages. And some images have longevity despite their lack of sales, they still appear high in search after even 2-3 weeks.
578
« on: September 07, 2012, 20:05 »
Just had an 'out of mind' experience with FT search. Searched 'bread' and got 26 shots on the first page all from the same contributor, just uploaded and all (except one) with zero views and one download ( the exception had one view and one dl)! Went to page two and there's another 3 there (at the top of P2) from the same contributor.
Looks to me like, get a mate to buy a sub and start downloading everything that the guy/gal submits!
A bit daft really cos the shots will probably never be bought by real buyers.......funny desaturated colour to all!
579
« on: September 07, 2012, 19:27 »
Uploaded some shots yesterday and once you reset the default parameters to 'nothing free' and 'non-exclusive', it stays that way for the rest of that submission. 'Tis a PITA that the EL resets to 10 credits on every shot and there is no way this is unintentional.........should have in small print at the bottom of the page, "Thanks for not noticing that you are giving away EL's for buttons. Come back soon with some more." 
580
« on: September 06, 2012, 20:21 »
It happens all the time with food stock shots. They appear on the menus and websites of restaurants, hotels, pubs, takeaway shops, etc, presumeably to illustrate the quality of food available.
In the UK it is not necessarily legal either (I guess depending on how the image is used) but I'm not going to complain about it as without such uses I wouldn't have much of a market for my work.
ROFL.
581
« on: September 06, 2012, 20:18 »
Here's a link to "A year of food photography setups":
http://www.randlkofer.com/microsites/food_photography_setups/index.html
...
Great link - thanks. I love behind the scenes setup shots. I was amused to see lots of mirrors used as I had done that back in the beginning when I didn't have much in the way of lighting gear. He uses it with lighting gear to get some wonderful shots.
Glad you liked it it. I was most impressed, only owning a couple of mirrors myself!  Somehow I found it looking for Graf Strato studio system (like Foba clamps system). He also has a few more sets of it than I do...........like bloody gold dust they are.
582
« on: September 06, 2012, 16:58 »
Of the two images I checked (now 2 days ago) the low number of views did not suggest that they had been in 'newest images' but it is possible that they were there a week ago. One image that I spotted (the 'unbusinesslike' model) is now gone from P#1 of 'business' but replaced by another shot of the same model by the same contributor and described as 'beautiful business woman'. The other shot of 'thinking young woman' is still on P#1 of 'business' and on P#1 of 'model' with 6 views and 3 downloads. Had that shot been in 'recent uploads' then I would have expected to have seen more views but I can't say for certain that the shots were not in 'recent uploads' at some time in the past week.
Best sellers of the day seem hand picked also. I recently had 9 sales of the same image in a day (obviously an error but that's another story) and it didn't appear but a number of images with 1 or 2 lifetime sales did.
Yep. 'Best sellers' of the day is just silly. Whether they're hand picked or the result of some algorithm, it makes little difference........it does not reflect the best seller of the day, I too have had an image sell 5 or 6 times in one day, only to find various 'best sellers of the day' have only sold once or twice in a lifetime! What bugs me most about FT is that suddenly my bests ellers just stopped selling. No tail-off to zero just a cliff face from hero to zero within a week or so. Although I was exclusive at the time and had kept my best seller at 1 credit even as 'silver', it didn't make a bit of difference. As I considered my then bestseller to still have potential, I went independent to SS and that same image has sold 20 times in the 2 months I've been there and is on P1 or P2 of the SS search. With 10% of my FT portfolio on SS, I've earned more on SS in the past month than on FT (OK we're not talking big bucks but nevertheless.........). Priority is now to upload to SS as much as possible.
583
« on: September 05, 2012, 04:01 »
I also upload regularly but not many images a month. Are you finding newer images sell better or you old best sellers? My sales are 70% newer images. Some of the few that have caught on in the last few months have more dls at Fot than they do at SS.
From my observations I sell mostly older stuff +1 year.
Oddly enough, one recently uploaded image now sells several times a day which I had never happen before at FT. It's not even a stellar image IMO.
I thought it was maybe featured in a lightbox or something but I couldn't find it anywhere. No idea how I get so many downloads on it.
This also leads me to believe that there is some random algorithm at work that pushes individual images regardless of my history or anything else. Just speculation.
This is what it looks like to me too. Yesterday, I did a little experiment and searched FT 'business'.
Immediately 2 images on page one stuck out like a sore thumb......one picture of a model in an 'unbusinesslike' pose and another was a simple portrait of a teenage girl. Both did have 'business' in their keywords. They also had 'model' in their keywords, so I searched 'model' and guess what...they both appeared on the first page of 'model' (out of 1 million images!). Both by separate contributors (I think one was emerald and the other gold), recently uploaded and few sales.
Often you can spot a very recently approved but 'incongruous' image. look at the keywords and type them in general search......the same images turn up in the first pages of every search. They're very recent and have few downloads but still in the first few pages of almost every search.
How the decision is made to 'push' certain images, I have no idea. Whether it's a random choice by algorithm or that somewhere a human finger on a key is in play, I know not. But it's a little like Dirty Harry with his, "Well do ya feel lucky today, well do ya punk?"......or words to that effect!
Did you check whether either image had appeared in the 'Newest Uploads' category? Being so featured can have a massive boost (in the sort order) for months afterwards.
Of the two images I checked (now 2 days ago) the low number of views did not suggest that they had been in 'newest images' but it is possible that they were there a week ago. One image that I spotted (the 'unbusinesslike' model) is now gone from P#1 of 'business' but replaced by another shot of the same model by the same contributor and described as 'beautiful business woman'. The other shot of 'thinking young woman' is still on P#1 of 'business' and on P#1 of 'model' with 6 views and 3 downloads. Had that shot been in 'recent uploads' then I would have expected to have seen more views but I can't say for certain that the shots were not in 'recent uploads' at some time in the past week.
584
« on: September 04, 2012, 19:15 »
I also upload regularly but not many images a month. Are you finding newer images sell better or you old best sellers? My sales are 70% newer images. Some of the few that have caught on in the last few months have more dls at Fot than they do at SS.
From my observations I sell mostly older stuff +1 year.
Oddly enough, one recently uploaded image now sells several times a day which I had never happen before at FT. It's not even a stellar image IMO.
I thought it was maybe featured in a lightbox or something but I couldn't find it anywhere. No idea how I get so many downloads on it.
This also leads me to believe that there is some random algorithm at work that pushes individual images regardless of my history or anything else. Just speculation.
This is what it looks like to me too. Yesterday, I did a little experiment and searched FT 'business'. Immediately 2 images on page one stuck out like a sore thumb......one picture of a model in an 'unbusinesslike' pose and another was a simple portrait of a teenage girl. Both did have 'business' in their keywords. They also had 'model' in their keywords, so I searched 'model' and guess what...they both appeared on the first page of 'model' (out of 1 million images!). Both by separate contributors (I think one was emerald and the other gold), recently uploaded and few sales. Often you can spot a very recently approved but 'incongruous' image. look at the keywords and type them in general search......the same images turn up in the first pages of every search. They're very recent and have few downloads but still in the first few pages of almost every search. How the decision is made to 'push' certain images, I have no idea. Whether it's a random choice by algorithm or that somewhere a human finger on a key is in play, I know not. But it's a little like Dirty Harry with his, "Well do ya feel lucky today, well do ya punk?"......or words to that effect!
585
« on: September 02, 2012, 17:05 »
So is there a separate review process for phone pics?
Phone pics 100% crops are iffy at best in even thinking about getting past a reviewer for the focus being good!
And if there are two standards then that is unfair to all!
Has to be a different selection procedure. Found a food photo. Google Pizza Surrana and I think you'll catch my drift.
586
« on: September 01, 2012, 05:13 »
Thanks for that. I refuse to have a FB account so I miss out on some stuff. Of all the links on that page, I found the DeviantArt collection most interesting: http://www.fotolia.com/p/202869477?order=nb_downloadsI reckon that could be a competitor to Vetta or iStock's new mobilestock call but with high res work. The collection is only 3K images and appears to be all available on subscription, so for 200 bucks you could download a quarter of that collection in highest resolution within one month. Not great for the artists but a good deal for anyone looking for some 'less-stocky'/edgy pics and a lot cheaper than mobilestock from iStock.
588
« on: August 13, 2012, 19:45 »
Craigslist Ad:
We are a small & casual restaurant in downtown Vancouver and we are looking for solo musicians to play in our restaurant to promote their work and sell their CD. This is not a daily job, but only for special events which will eventually turn into a nightly event if we get positive response. More Jazz, Rock, & smooth type music, around the world and mixed cultural music. Are you interested to promote your work? Please reply back ASAP.
A Musician's Reply:
Happy new year! I am a musician with a big house looking for a restauranteur to come to my house to promote his/her restaurant by making dinner for me and my friends. This is not a daily job, but only for special events which will eventually turn into a nightly event if we get a positive response. More fine dining & exotic meals and mixed Ethnic Fusion cuisine. Are you interested to promote your restaurant? Please reply back ASAP.
+1 In a similar vein I noticed an ad on a Dutch site for artists and photographers asking for a 'student of photography' to come and get experience photographing bespoke wedding and special occasion cakes for use on their site! The cakes were not cheap but no mention of payment. 'Course, someone will do it for their portfolio. Even asking for $1 payment sometimes doesn't work......this is the 'everything for nothing generation'. Mobile developer Madfinger Games said piracy issues in the Android store had forced it to make its title, Dead Trigger, free to download.
"At first we intended to make this game available for as many people as possible - that's why it was for as little as buck," the company wrote.
"Even for one buck, the piracy rate is soooo giant, that we finally decided to provide Dead Trigger for free." http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19100613
589
« on: August 11, 2012, 19:26 »
thats so subjective
1 - you can do very well with a D80 (yes a D80) and a 50mm lens, I know a few doing so and thats so cheap
2 - you dont need a gitzo 600$ tripod or the coolest bag ever if you carry only one or two lens
3 - software myself I use GIMP
4 - computer  who doesnt have a computer or internet connection these days?
you can work on pictures with 2k $ expenses or even less and that is for sure paid on a few weeks/months
(i am not talking about top contributors but those can get there too...)
Just a minute..........I like my D80 and 50mm. In fact I prefer it to my D90 which cost two-thirds what the D80 cost new! Anyway leaving the gear overhead aside and discounting the software cost (even buying the latest CS6 for $600, there's no need to update for 5 or more years so that's $2/week), you can't be a stock photographer without an internet connection and that's around $400/year. How much do you think you deserve to pay yourself an hour? You have a skill which not everyone has, you are self-employed, you may have bought your gear for buttons but it will need replacing in future, you have to eat/feed a family, pay health insurance etc, heat your home and keep a roof over your head. Can you do all these things on say $10/hour or do you need $15/hour (40hours/week = $1,600 or$2,400/month). So, if you spend 40 hours/week on stock (arranging, shooting (no model or props costs), pp and keywording + uploading) will you make your $1,600-$2,400 back with sales within, lets say, 3 to 5 years? If not, you're subsidising your stock photography with some other form of 'enterprise'/work! Our stock distributors (I used to think they were agents but they're nothing of the sort........they're out for No. 1, themselves and to hell with us) profit from the fact that there are more than sufficient 'stock photographers' prepared to work for pennies an hour (for some just being able to say, "My work has been bought and published" is sufficient) that there is little room for the full-time pro photographer to earn a living from stock alone. Your work may be superior and you may have learned that the best 'will rise to the top' and be rewarded accordingly but the mountain of crap is now so all engulfing that this old adage is probably no longer valid. I'm only in it with the intention of supplementing my sub-par old age pension in a couple of years time. Presently, it's a little pocket money but I'm dependent on real, decent-paying studio work to keep me ticking over until the State kicks in with its free money for life! Edit: Oh yeah, 'Consistency'....future predictability....something that every business person tries to achieve! But it's completely out of your hands when your distributors mess with the search for purposes unknown to you.
590
« on: August 10, 2012, 18:40 »
I thought the last/first comment at the link said a lot: "That's awesome, there's so many stock sites out there, and half of them are absolute junk and the "good" stock images listed are royalty-pay only." Letter from Gurgle to photographer: Dear Sir/Madam, Your blindingly superb photo of ....... has been chosen by hundreds of our customers to go into the recently set up Gurglebank. As our customers expect to pay for nothing, would you mind terribly, donating it to us free of charge......we'll send you some AddSenz vouchers you can dish out to friends and so become the most loved photographer in your area. Thanks awfully.
591
« on: August 09, 2012, 20:05 »
That was yesterday! Tonight (01.45 Amsterdam) when I go to Shutterstock (no private browsing and no goog anonymiser) I get popular as the default search! Anyone else care to have a go?
Yep. Me too. Defaults to popular using Firefox 8:10pm EST. Hopefully they learned what they needed to with their experiment and we can go back to stable searches and restored sales.
Thank goodness. I thought the missus might have put summat in me tea!
593
« on: August 09, 2012, 18:52 »
Four scenarios:
I go to SS search using the normal Firefox browser direct via Google (by entering Shutterstock in the Google search) and I get the default 'relevance' for whatever keyword I enter.
I go to SS search using the normal Firefox browser but via a Google anonymiser (StartpageHTTPS-AU) and I get the default 'relevance' for whatever keyword I enter.
I go to SS search using Firefox private browsing direct via Google (by entering Shuuterstock in the Google search) and I get the default 'relevance' for whatever keyword I enter.
Now I go to SS search again in Firefox private browsing but this time via a Google anonymiser (StartpageHTTPS-AU) and the search default is then 'popular'.
My conclusion would have to be that all previous users of Shutterstock automatically get 'relevant' as the default search whereas only first time users get 'popular'.
That was yesterday! Tonight (01.45 Amsterdam) when I go to Shutterstock (no private browsing and no goog anonymiser) I get popular as the default search! Anyone else care to have a go?
594
« on: August 08, 2012, 17:49 »
They might also be testing different things in specific locations possibly based on their data of users' preferences or alternatively to collect data.
I'd be much more concerned if SS weren't actively refining the users' experience based on the vast amount of data such a system must generate.
Whatever is happening does not appear to be affecting my sales, either negatively or positively, in any noticeable way.
Maybe I should add that the use of any anonymiser (StartpageHTTPS Au or UK or DuckDuckGo) used in combination with Firefox Private Browsing always gave 'popular' as the default search. Any search direct via Google gave 'relevant' as default. I'm too new and too small at SS to know whether it will make a difference.
595
« on: August 08, 2012, 15:28 »
Four scenarios:
I go to SS search using the normal Firefox browser direct via Google (by entering Shutterstock in the Google search) and I get the default 'relevance' for whatever keyword I enter.
I go to SS search using the normal Firefox browser but via a Google anonymiser (StartpageHTTPS-AU) and I get the default 'relevance' for whatever keyword I enter.
I go to SS search using Firefox private browsing direct via Google (by entering Shuuterstock in the Google search) and I get the default 'relevance' for whatever keyword I enter.
Now I go to SS search again in Firefox private browsing but this time via a Google anonymiser (StartpageHTTPS-AU) and the search default is then 'popular'.
My conclusion would have to be that all previous users of Shutterstock automatically get 'relevant' as the default search whereas only first time users get 'popular'.
597
« on: August 07, 2012, 18:32 »
Interestingly, if I go to SS where I'm a contributor via Google, it gives me 'relevance' as the default search. No stripping out of cookies or history involved.
If, however, I use Firefox private browsing and search via an anonymiser for Google search, I get into SS search with 'popular' as default. I assume this to mean that as a first timer at SS, I get the 'popular' default but as soon as I enter as a 'SS cookie-bearing' computer, I get directed to 'relevance' as default.
599
« on: August 05, 2012, 08:00 »
FWIW. Here's a compatibility chart for Innovatronix (Tronix) converters. http://www.innovatronix.com/compatib.aspI've seen some models advertised here (in NL) and they cost 400 to 500 but perhaps the larger power models with extra features are more expensive. Personally, I have no experience with these or battery powered (studio) flash units.
600
« on: July 31, 2012, 12:46 »
...
If you want an anecdote, I turned down a job a few months ago. They wanted me to meet them at their office. It was about a 30 minute drive to the north side of town where their office was. In the time it would have taken me to get ready, drive there, have the meeting and drive back, I probably could have finished the job. I turned the job down. It just didn't make any sense to spend all that time to meet for such a small job.
Now you can hear someone say: You never know, if you met them it might have led to many more lucrative jobs on an ongoing basis...
Thats why you qualify it and ask for enough detail to determine if there's a bigger opportunity or just a one hour job that will be unprofitable.
I wonder what percentage of photographers do any job that pays even if it loses them money.
Some clients are clever in that they say they have a small job and little budget bbbbutttttt in the future they expect to need more shots for which they'll have a normal budget. 'Course the big job in the future never materialises! I got roped into something earlier this year by a client who sells golf equipment. He was opening a new store at a city 9-hole course/driving range and the management of the course needed some shots for posters at an expo. They got my name via the client and, of course, the shots were needed yesterday. Budget was too low but to have not done it would have meant that the expo at which my client was also present, would have been a little bare. I realised that these were cheapskates when I enquired about the haste involved for the shots.....the expo was 10 days away after all. That was because their printer in Poland needed at least 7 days from order to delivery of mounted prints on board! I didn't make a loss but thought that whilst I was there, I might as well do some shots for stock, one of which has already sold a couple of times. Still waiting for their BIG job with budget to match though. Dunno if I would be tempted to do similar again. If the location offered a fairly unique opportunity to do stock that I ordinarily wouldn't be able to do, I would consider it. Actually working at a loss......not so sure about that though.
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 36
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
