|
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 - Eyedesign
126
« on: July 07, 2010, 06:21 »
#1 looks quite soft. I bet in the other images there is some focal point somewhere - hard to tell.
I really don't want to judge the images themselves. Good for the photographers to find a buyer who needs them.
It just shows that more could sell than what we get approved at most agencies.
And why even bother shooting "beautiful business woman on headset" if all it takes is snap-shot style pics to sell them for a much higher price?
I think this seriously undermines the entire stock image concept.
Fine, if there are buyers that need a business team shot with 5 pro-models and the whole shebang. But then the agencies should also realize that true-life shots should have their place as well.
It's ridiculous to see the approval standards at IS, SS and some other nit picking agencies as long as P&S images sell at X times the price at Getty.
I don't get it.
I think everyone agree that microstock approval system bar is too high for the money they give .
Also, based on what you put here, or from others and my own experience too, the point and shoot pictures
sell more than the "dog" type (studio setting, many thoughtful time , composition, lighting,etc) .
But also, most will not go past the reviewer for "poor composition", "no focus point", "snapshot".etc..
all subjective.
Then we see this example and we shake our head. You are right, maybe so, buyers maybe want snapshots.
Only but first how we can get the snapshots point and shoot stuff pass the reviewers 
Buyers aren't looking for P&S images they want images that have some emotions . Images with real impact are hard to find on the microstock sites. I know of at less four heavy buyers that don't buy microstock images anymore, the reason being all the images look the same. As for the Hot Shots I find them all ok, Better then another Businesswoman with headset image, or Apple on white.
127
« on: July 06, 2010, 10:09 »
128
« on: July 05, 2010, 09:47 »
Alt + Shift + Right click then drag left or right to change brush size CS5
Really . . you are kidding me. I am Jealous now. CS3 is so yesterday!
If that makes you jealous how about this. Same shortcut and drag up or down will change the brush hardness 
129
« on: July 05, 2010, 09:27 »
Alt + Shift + Right click then drag left or right to change brush size CS5
130
« on: July 04, 2010, 01:40 »
Here is a link for anyone interested in earnings for U.S. Photographers http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos264.htm .
Those are stats on salaried photographers ... in other words the people who work at places like Wal-Mart, JC Penny, Sears, Target, and all the other franchises that place ads which read "photographers needed .. must be 18 years old .. no experience necessary .. will train."
Professional photographers are not included in those surveys.
Taken from the report, "Salaried photographersmost of whom work full timetend to earn more than those who are self-employed. ". Here another part of the report "Self-employed, or freelance, photographers usually specialize in one of the above fields. In addition to carrying out assignments under direct contract with clients, they may license the use of their photographs through stock-photo agencies or market their work directly to the public. Stock-photo agencies sell magazines and other customers the right to use photographs, and pay the photographer a commission. These agencies require an application from the photographer and a sizable portfolio of pictures. Once accepted, photographers usually are required to submit a large number of new photographs each year. Self-employed photographers must also have a thorough understanding of copyright laws in order to protect their work." looks like the report covers the full range of photographers.
132
« on: June 24, 2010, 07:12 »
RPI (tracked monthly) is the best measure for all our performances....
With that measure is easy to predict quantity and quality in the future...
Utter nonsense. RPI 'measures' nothing and is just a meaningless snapshot of a given point in time. Most definitely you cannot extrapolate any predictions of 'quantity and quality in the future' __ whatever that is supposed to mean.
If my RPI is 4.1 (or any other number) what will be my 'quality and quantity' next March please?
Agree 100% just another silly number to track. Bottomline are your download and end of month money up or down.
133
« on: June 22, 2010, 07:40 »
Go take a look at the IS forum...plenty is changing already.
Like what?
134
« on: June 21, 2010, 09:37 »
We can keep it up, but sometime it feel like we're just pissing up a rope.
135
« on: June 21, 2010, 06:53 »
Its pathetic to read the boast and bragging of an agency, proclaiming 10million shots, 100K contributors, etc. who in . wants all that?
I guess it means a lot to people who can't read the subtext, 10 million images = less then million quality images. 100K contributors = less than 1000 producting anything of quality. 
136
« on: June 16, 2010, 07:17 »
Depends on content.
137
« on: June 10, 2010, 05:31 »
The answer to that sjlocke is more then 0.25$ but not over 0.36$. Also offer 0.15$ to upload your best shots and you'll have people here killing each other to upload to his site.
138
« on: June 10, 2010, 05:17 »
What if...
If you put your best seller in Exclusive +, then the customers will buy a non Exclusive + that look similar to yours. Is this true or not?
Maybe, maybe not, depends if the files is better then the non-exclusive + image.
139
« on: June 07, 2010, 04:53 »
Agree with you 100% lagereek on both your points.
140
« on: June 07, 2010, 01:39 »
Show of hands .. how many people have ever forked over the $25 for a yearly copy of the photographers market ... and actually used it 
Don't like $0.25 sales then take business into your own hands .. you don't have to belong to a single agency micro or macro or whatever to pull in bigger sales ... but it takes motivation and you have to treat it as a career. Treat photography as a hobby and you'll bring in a hobby income which is nobodys fault but your own.
Face it people, no matter how many "pro shooters" become contributors microstock will always be at the bottom of the barrel in the overall photography industry .. that's where it was designed to be and that's where it belongs .. take it for what it is.
Quite right Randy. Didn't RF stock used to be the dumping ground of shoot leftovers?
No! not just RF, all of stock photography was the dumping ground. Microstock is here to stay but that doesn't mean you should be happy with 0.36$ or 0.25$.
141
« on: May 18, 2010, 10:42 »
...Let's say I design a website that uses 6 images. Do I need to provide proof now to 6 photographers?
So some of us are contributing to 10, 15 or more agencies. So if we have reason to believe that a company is reproducing/reselling our images we are supposed to write an email to all agencies trying to figure out who sold it to that company (sometimes the agencies don't even know because they sold it to the designer and not the actual company) or me contacting the company directly, verifying if they acquired the appropriate license for it.
Here my suggestion if you're really worried about defending your copyrights, stop uploading to 10 or more agencies.
142
« on: May 18, 2010, 08:11 »
...I think if I was contacted by a photographer after licensing an image and proof was demanded I'd immediately contact the agency and file a complaint. Who needs that hassle. If you "exposed me" because I refused to give you proof, you'd be talking to my llawyer. What if every RF photographer did this? Obviously you have a problem with the RF model.
Fullvalue, would you mind explaining this a little more? I seem to have a problem understanding what you are trying to say.
From what you wrote above I understand that you won't tell or show proof to any photographer that contacts you asking where you purchased the image?
So even though you are a paying image user you will not tell the copyright holder of the image that you chose to use, where you purchased the image?
Sorry for repeating myself, I just thought I might have misunderstood you there for a moment.
I think I'd have to agree with fullvalue. If I started getting calls from photographers asking for this info I'd tell them to go piss up a rope.
143
« on: May 12, 2010, 15:28 »
I say everyone should quit their jobs and just do what they love. You get more time with your kids and spouse. Times will be tough, but you'll be stronger, happier. Just don't get cancer because the doctors are all on the golf course. Be careful not to set your house on fire because the firemen are now fly fishermen. And learn how to hunt for your food and knit your clothing from pelts, because there will be no stores... why would clerks and shelf-stockers toil away in a soul-crushing store when they could be making jewelry or finger-painting?
But then... who will be left to buy your photos? Hmmm... maybe we need capitalism to still function after all.
I don't think thats what the other two posters are saying. If it was up to me all you people with good paying jobs would stick to them and stop sell your images cheap for pocket money. Then we Photographers who do this for a living could go back to making the big bucks, but thats not going to happen. 
144
« on: May 12, 2010, 11:59 »
I think most of you people need a reality check: 75% of working people in the USA earn less than $50k, and 88% earn less than $75k (USA Census Bureau, 2008). Referring to $50k as "residual income" or mentioning it in the same breath as a McDonald's or student wage is way, way, way, out of touch with reality, as is regarding it as an insufficient salary to provide a good quality of life. The voice of reason, agree!
145
« on: May 12, 2010, 05:10 »
I don't know if you'll get much useful info here on this forum. The question you need to ask yourself is are your monthly expenses more or less then you make. If the answer is more then your expenses go for it! If not then...
146
« on: May 10, 2010, 11:57 »
My studio mate shoots school photos. He says " I have more images hanging in more home than any artist on the planet", you know he's right.
147
« on: May 09, 2010, 03:18 »
If a buyer types in "jet-engine" ( which Ive actually have had buyers do) they need the engine itself or the turbine, power or whatever NOT just another airplane shot. So this is what will happen, the average buyer will give 2-3 minutes of search, if he cant find it he will move on, simple as that. In todays stock-files he will then have to wade through tons of irrelevant material, so much so that he move on anyway.
Wetting appetite?? your way is exactly whats been clogging up all files with spamming and what nots and as it happens since I belong to the Getty-RM, Im hearing rumors that they are working on their search-engine, trying to gear it more or less in the direction Ive just explained.
Agree 100%.
148
« on: May 05, 2010, 09:57 »
149
« on: April 26, 2010, 16:17 »
Numbers have gone up for me
150
« on: April 24, 2010, 12:12 »
Nope!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
