Congratulations! and thanks for the informative posts.

Good News to hear. I hope it's contagious. By the way what are images selling for in Geckostock? I know that there are different sizes but there was some talk of changing prices, so I'm not sure of the actual pricing.
Thanks
Jorge

Quote from: JerryL5 on February 09, 2008, 10:39

Quote from: FlemishDreams on February 08, 2008, 13:40

creationist moron from the bible-belt, I have no clue. I will reupload when I have time on 5 new free accounts. Flickr doesn't get a cent from me any more.

Is it really necessary to demean those who believe in God in order to get to your point?

He didn't demean those who believe in God, only creationists. Huge difference. I don't know what creationism had to do with lesbian marriage other than right-wing republicans have taken both up as causes (though creationism/intelligent design is falling out of favor, and rightfully so).

Maybe it wasn't a right wing rep but a gay loving liberal that just found the two lesbians Uglyyyy to the bone!

Is not the same thing. A 1500x1000 pixels image is not equal to a 3000x2000 px one. They save less than 1 $ when they download small images, but they do it. That�s means they are price-sensitive.

Idon't know how price sensitive they really are considering that the image
they bought for 3.00 could had been aquired for much less somewhere else, like SS. I think is like Pariseye suggest is the size they really need. If I had not placed the image to be resized would they have bought for 10.00?
I believe they would have. I just gave them more options and still earned from the sale. A similar image at SV sold for like .30 before I changed most of my images there to non subscription.  I believe  because of my more narrow portfolio (subjects) I need an agency like Featurepics to really see
a increase in earnings not just sales. Once again I repeat myself lowering the prices too much just makes it harder to earn in a site like FP. SS is great
because of volume but at .30 cents per week at FP it just becomes more work with less returns. Yes they are easy to upload to but why not take advantage of a situation where you have control of pricing?
Just my opinion,
Regards Jorge

I have about 300 images at featurepics (about a month there), and three sales. My price strategie is the next: the price is smaller than others microstock sites because the comission is bigger, so I obtain the same amount. I think this is fairy for buyer and for seller.

Excuse me my bad english.

But if there is less traffic on this site why would you just settle for the same
amount? would it not benefit you to obtain a bit more to justify the lack of
sales? that image that just sold for me would take more than eight sales at
SS! IMHO less than 5.00 before rezise would simply not cover the trouble of having another place to submitt.

I just checked SS and I have had that image there since July. Earned only
.65 cents more there.

I just got one image there and it got ranked -5.4 I don't understand that
system, and from what I just read it might be an unfair system. I guess
we should see what happens when I upload more images.

  had a few sales there. Getting 12.50 Euros per sale is nice, but they don't come often.
The non-review policy lets in sometimes some god awful stuff, but then it's my personal opinion, maybe someone is looking exactly for that:) I am definitely happy to have all of my work up there.  Also, with their ranking index - people do unsightly things, like original swedish photogs ranking down everything that is not swedish, or another example  - I had a few pics with dogs and they got ranked down severely by a person whos tiny portfolio is only dogs ... annoying really. I know you can block users if you thing they just want to get rid of competition, but hey I got other things to do than to track down these people.
I mean, if statistically there are more decent people out there than not, that kind of indexing would work... hard to tell:) I have tried ranking images there myself but then stopped because I realized that my criteria is too high. It's very subjective. So, maybe a better way to go would be to do something like Alamy, based on views/downloads, not on the fears of a person that worries that their dog pics won't sell...;-)

Man wait to you get into SS you really are going to be yelling. Congratulations. Oh by the way I didn't get a chance when you posted
your critique thread for SS but I would be careful with the blur people shot I guess at the airport, SS always shoots me down for focus image is not in focus or focus is not where we feel it works best Good
luck with your application.

Quote from: jorgeinthewater on January 18, 2008, 22:15

Quote from: Michael on January 18, 2008, 15:25

Quote from: ptlee on January 15, 2008, 08:32

zero sale, nothing. Ok, so I've got only like 60 images online, but am I doing something wrong?

 

This is normal in mid- and macrostock. microstockphotographers often have many problems when they put photos to theese agencys, cause they used to have many clicks and sellings every day. In mid- and macrostock sometimes you don`t sell something for months, but you can earn much more. my best selling at alamy has 1200.- $ and i got 65% percent from that. How much photos you must sell in microstock for that fee?

But... 60 Photos are a very small stock. The chance to get a better search-placement is relatively small, cause alamy has a click-rated search engine.

Could you elaborate a bit more on this click-rated search engine?

Uff, my english is not the best and it is a complicated mathematic formula. But... take a look here and you see it directly:

http://www.alamy.com/contributors/alamysearch/default.asp

The most important thing are the klick-rate (only by known customers!). Klicks from your friends and you don`t matters. So you need time to reach a better position in the search engine, when your photos are relative new at alamy...

Thanks Michael very informative reading.

I recently had my first sale on BigStock.

Here's the link for those who are interested:
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/photo/view/2332739

Ironically, I had what I considered better cropped versions of this photo, but it was this original version that was approved and sold.

Mark

Yeah I have a bunch of houses that are just plain yet sell well. Hey Mark are
you based in Miami or just came down to visit us?

Quote from: ptlee on January 15, 2008, 08:32

zero sale, nothing. Ok, so I've got only like 60 images online, but am I doing something wrong?

 

This is normal in mid- and macrostock. microstockphotographers often have many problems when they put photos to theese agencys, cause they used to have many clicks and sellings every day. In mid- and macrostock sometimes you don`t sell something for months, but you can earn much more. my best selling at alamy has 1200.- $ and i got 65% percent from that. How much photos you must sell in microstock for that fee?

But... 60 Photos are a very small stock. The chance to get a better search-placement is relatively small, cause alamy has a click-rated search engine.

Could you elaborate a bit more on this click-rated search engine?

Alamy asks for 48MB that is megabytes (48*1024*1024) which equals to 50,331,648 bytes. Considering that each pixel is 3 bytes in a 8-bit jpeg file that will mean 16,777,216 pixels.

They say that you might need to upscale using a bicubic algorithm.

So how do you determine the factor to upscale the image? Easy: divide 16,777,216 by the number of pixels of your image area. One more thing: make sure you do a sqrt of that number to determine what to use for each dimension.

Here is an example:
I have a 2000x3000 photo. What factor should I use for each dimension to meet the minimum Alamy size?

First, dividing 16,777,216 by 6,000,000 and we get 2.8 (rounded of course). Secondly, square root of 2.8 will give you a 1.68. This is the number to use to upscale each dimension. To verify: 3*(2000*1.68)*(3000*1.68) = 50,803,200 bytes.
In other words, in Photoshop I would use 3360x5040.

Some might find this hard to believe but I have a bunch of 6 megapixels shots on Alamy.

Hope it helps.

I have notice that when I open a raw image {nikon d50 6 mp} using ps cs2 there is a pull down menu on the bottom left hand area that gives you
different sizes I choose 5120 x 3404 which automatically gives me a file
size of 49 mb. I am not good at math but this seems easier, am I wrong or
those someone have an easier way to get from 6mp to 48+ mb?

  Just fine for me.

I have tried 4 times to be accepted and keep getting rejected. That is
4 months waiting!!  I mean come on I got into SS on my first try and they
are supposed to be the toughest!  I used my best sellers on SS and IS
DT and BigStock everything including the kitchen sink and they still say that
my images are not WORTHY of their great site.  If I ever try again and
get in they better guarantee 100 downloads a day for all this trouble.