|
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 - ComfortEagle2095
76
« on: May 07, 2013, 18:56 »
I was forced to upgrade from CS4 to CS6 when I got my new camera (5dmiii). I'll probably use
CS6 for a loooong time but I think maybe I should have subscribed to Photoshop on CC. I had to pay over $800 for CS6 in the box and that's over three years of subscription. If I buy a new camera during that time I'll probably have to throw CS6 away just like I did CS4.
The camera upgrade issue will probably become the thing that drives most photogs to the cloud.
77
« on: May 03, 2013, 09:07 »
My experience has been that white isolations sell just great but only if you find an underserved niche. I'd say from my top 10 selling photos of the last two years, six are white isolations but they have very little competition in the same subject. If your photo isn't in a unique niche, you can also get sells by doing something that looks different in terms of unique composition.
78
« on: January 15, 2013, 23:52 »
Since mr_erin's reply was about acknowledging they need to make sure copyrights are protected, I'll bet they "fess up" to mistakenly erasing the metadata and agree to re-instate it. Then they'll say, "see we care about you so everything's good now." Then they go back to pushing more images (all with the proper metadata of course) over to Google or whoever for unlimited free usage.
I suspect the legal issue of erasing copyrights in metadata is the only place they think they have a liability so they'll correct that. I think they believe they are on firm footing with the rest of the deal.
79
« on: December 21, 2012, 11:21 »
It's the end of the world, as we know it.
80
« on: November 08, 2012, 18:54 »
I use Smugmug and have been pretty happy with it. They do the hosting and you don't have to know anything about web design or HTML. You can customize it somewhat. They handle downloads, prints and products like mugs, mousepads, etc. Search capability is not good and the price is a little high (and going up, unfortunately). I don't make anywhere near the money back that it costs me but I use it for transferring images to my commercial and private clients so it's worth it for that alone. Anything extra I get from selling images is gravy. My images on Smugmug used to show up well on Google Images searches. Now they don't show up very high in the searches anymore. Not sure why but I suspect that will reduce my already low license sales. I imagine if you did any marketing (I don't do any) you could probably make money using Smugmug. http://azcaptured.smugmug.com
81
« on: October 24, 2012, 13:05 »
First impressions...
Telling us where the images are used so we know how and where: Cool
Re-licensed for each use: a win for both us and BS
No commission cuts: Fair treatment for contributers
Allowing op-out: Classy move
Seems like the first time in a long time when an announcement of a new service didn't make me feel cheated right off the bat. Sure wish I earned more at BS. Maybe this will help.
82
« on: October 09, 2012, 15:04 »
I've been tracking the same stats for years on all my sites and I have almost identical results as the OP for IS (since 2005), FT (since 2008), 123 (since 2008) and CS (since 2005). SS is almost flat on RPI while DT is down about 20% (since 2005). My income also peaked in 2006.
The portfolios are pretty much similar on all the sites. My portfolio went from about 200 images in 2005 to about 2000 images in 2009. The quality also improved considerably. Since 2009 I've only been uploading about 100 new images a year. Kind of hard to get excited about it when your uploads don't keep your sales from falling.
83
« on: August 28, 2012, 22:19 »
84
« on: August 23, 2012, 23:31 »
I have frequently shot photos at the Phoenix Marathon and at the Phoenix Ironman. They close down the streets in my neighborhood and the athletes come right by my house. The events are held entirely in public spaces. Neither organization has a way to request press credentials.
Some of the images have sold regularly on SS.
So am I just out of luck now?
There's always Alamy. 
I've read before about this Marathon thing in the US, I think it's been mentioned on iStock.
In the UK, even the Olympic marathons and cycle road races in London were fine for editorial stock, as they were out in the public roads.
Actually, I don't think they can keep you back from disasters in the UK unless they can clearly show that you're hampering the work of the emergency services, which would be the same for a pukka press photographer.
Yeah but I never seem to sell anything on Alamy. Guess I'll try SS next time I shoot one and see if the reviewers understand the distinction between the marathons and other events. I'm guessing "no".
85
« on: August 23, 2012, 20:06 »
I have frequently shot photos at the Phoenix Marathon and at the Phoenix Ironman. They close down the streets in my neighborhood and the athletes come right by my house. The events are held entirely in public spaces. Neither organization has a way to request press credentials.
Some of the images have sold regularly on SS.
So am I just out of luck now?
86
« on: July 15, 2012, 21:48 »
I'm still seeing this same weird ordering. My sales are still pretty typical in quantity but mostly older files selling.
87
« on: July 13, 2012, 00:04 »
Looked at my port (sorted by most popular) by clicking the "your image gallery" link and the last two days it's been all jumbled up. Other than the top 10, none of the pictures on the first page should be there. Some have never sold even after a couple of years. Results from yesterday and today are completely different but sill don't make sense.
My sales have been pretty typical but I noticed older files selling more than usual. Not sure if this is a general search order change or what. I don't like what I'm seeing--hope it's not permanent.
88
« on: June 29, 2012, 21:29 »
In the last couple of years, about 1 in 50 of my new images at SS "catches fire" and starts selling more than once per week. It seems like these files then go on to sell regularly for several months with most of them decaying away to almost nothing after about a year. About one in ten of the catch fire images keep steady or accelerate. All of those seem to be images that have niches more or less to themselves and climb to the top of the search very early.
It's funny that often one image from a series will catch fire and none of the rest will sell at all. Often the one that catches fire isn't the one I think of as the strongest image. Then again, sometimes it is.
89
« on: June 16, 2012, 00:44 »
Just got a whole bunch of these rejections...
"==> NON-STANDARD MODEL RELEASE
This image uses a non-standard form of model release. Although we accept valid model releases that are not in iStockphoto\'s standard form, the model release attached with this photograph does not comply with iStockphoto\'s current legal standards. In the future we recommend that you use the standard iStockphoto release. In the meantime, please use the iStockphoto release form as a guide to completing the model release pertinent to this particular file.
++Missing shoot location++"
------------------------
I never had this one before but I haven't uploaded model shots for almost a year. Has something changed? Anybody know do they just want shoot country and state as on the official IS release or do they want something more? Or is it just some rogue reviewer?
Some of the shots are from a series I did over a year ago and other images from the same series were accepted with this same release. It's annoying that it was fine before but now it's not good enough. Every time I get a release form that I like IS makes me change it. Arg!
Sorry if this has been previously discussed. I did a search and didn't come up with any other thread on the topic.
90
« on: May 18, 2012, 13:58 »
I had an adjustment too. Less than a dollar but kudos to Big Stock for being honest about it.
I have wondered off and on how often things like this go on and unreported. This just makes me think again about how much we actually trust the agencies without any kind of oversight.
There was a difference between what 2 of my 5 agencies reported on my 1099 form and what I actually received according to my pay pal statements. Then there's all the clawbacks from Istock that continue.
There must be a great temptation on the agencies part to under report royalties. Sooner or later there's going to be a scandal.
I wish there was some way to verify the agencies accounting. This is on good thing that may come out of the shutterstock IPO. They'll have certified audits and SEC oversight. That's no guarantee but it is more rigorous than the standards placed on the private agencies
Actually -- it occurs to me that maybe that's why this is happening. As a subsidiary of Shutterstock maybe BS had to go back and clean up their books as part of the IPO. I hope it was more genuine than that.
91
« on: April 26, 2012, 22:12 »
So one stripe: OK. Two stripes: OK. Three stripes and you're out!
Ridiculous.
Anyway thanks for the info -- had me stumped.
92
« on: April 26, 2012, 21:53 »
The photo here: http://www.azcaptured.com/temp/IMG_1139ed_watermarked.jpgWas rejected (twice!) by DT for: " - The image contains elements that might be protected by copyright/trademark (logos, brands, specific buildings etc.), can identify a property/product (letters, numbers), or could raise usage problems, therefore it doesn't qualify as a RF stock image. Analyze the photo closely and remove these elements if possible or try to obtain a property release. Read more: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_148" But for the life of me I can't figure out why. All the other sites I upload to took it. Can you spot the copyright/trademark?
93
« on: April 23, 2012, 19:36 »
I was dissatisfied with my website for a couple of years (I created it from a template but never liked the look and it seemed too much like everyone else's). So, not being a web developer in any fashion I bought a book called "Teach Yourself HTML in 21 Days". I got to "Day 9" and decided I'd take a shot at it. The result: www.azcaptured.comI've had the same basic design now for a couple of years and added a Smug Mug database to sell with. It doesn't make enough money to cover the cost of a Smug Mug pro account but it's getting close. Maybe someday I'll spend some time and set up a blog or do something else to drive in more traffic.
94
« on: February 25, 2012, 11:40 »
I want to make some very large prints (>40 inches/side) from ~20mp files (from my 5DII).
I know I'll lose a lot in upsizing but I'll live with it. I want to know what is the best way to do this for the best possible quality?
I use CS4. I shoot RAW which I've processed/edited and saved as .psd's. I'll order the prints from a local print lab that I've worked with a lot.
Any experiences to relate?
Cheers
95
« on: January 07, 2012, 12:37 »
I am curious if anyone has had any experience publishing photo ebooks (epublishing) for sale through Amazon or other such outlets.
I have a fine art project I've been working on just for fun. The photos aren't commercial and probably would never sell as microstock but I think the project is turning out well from an artistic perspective.
Also, I don't want to try to sell them individually. The images are intended to tell a kind of story and I'll combine them with prose and poetry to form a kind of story. If you ever saw the book "Cowboy Kate" by Sam Haskins, that's a good example of what I had in mind (although my photographs and narrative are in a completely different style).
Not having a famous name or reputation I doubt I can get a publishing house to print the book but I would like to get it out there. I thought perhaps I could epublish it as a photo ebook and sell it for some nominal amount, just to try to get some compensation for my time. If it turned out to be popular, maybe I could get some publishing house interested in it or another similar project.
Any stories, tips, etc.?
96
« on: December 30, 2011, 22:57 »
Me too -- just missed out by 4 images (I still have 27 pending). I didn't get a notice anywhere but here and I've been on vacation for the last couple of weeks so didn't see it here until yesterday  I've been with 123RF for over 2 years but just kept a small portfolio there because I didn't have time to devote to another site. In November I gradually started uploading my backlog (~2000 images -- including my top sellers) to bring my 123RF port into parity with my other sites. It'll be quite disappointing if I unknowingly miss out on keeping my current royalty by a day or two.
97
« on: July 23, 2011, 11:50 »
Suppose France (and maybe even Belgium) decide that the RF model is unfair. Suppose they then ban those kinds of licenses in their countries (a bit of a stretch I would say).
So what? The rest of the world goes on it's merry way looking for the lowest common denominator. France would accomplish nothing. Photographers won't benefit either.
I've heard economists say that cheap always drives out quality. It sucks but that's the world we live in.
98
« on: July 15, 2011, 19:04 »
Why cull anything? Storage is dirt cheap and getting cheaper all the time. It probably costs more to delete the file than it does to keep it indefinitely.
Processing power is likewise cheap and getting cheaper. Server costs to support complex searches of massive databases isn't really an issue any longer.
As someone said, search algorithms can be refined to provide reasonable returns that match very closely the desires of the searcher, even for very large databases. Of course that assumes agencies don't artificially skew algorithms to return results they want to sell rather returning what a customer is looking to buy (as we've seen one agency do to a rather ridiculous degree lately). I don't think that's going to turn out to be a "sustainable" business practice in the long run. People hate bait-and-switch.
So, I just don't see any real reason to cull images. As I said, I think the economics of the situation are rapidly approaching the point where it is too costly to cull images (if we haven't already reached that point).
The question worth asking is how contributors can generate significant incomes in an ever increasingly saturated market.
99
« on: April 24, 2011, 16:45 »
Proof?
Worst month in three years at IS so far this month. That following the second and third worst months in the previous two. Two BMEs at SS, one BME at DT and good showings at FT in the same period. Proof enough for me.
100
« on: April 23, 2011, 12:36 »
Same here -- small fish with hopefully something different to offer. Glad to be part of the experiment, thankful for the opportunity to be involved.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
