|
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 - TheSmilingAssassin
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 17
126
« on: July 22, 2011, 09:59 »
Thanks for putting this together Sadstock, awesome effort.
I don't know if you're already aware of this but I just emailed Stockfresh asking if they had a third party program and they said "no". Don't know if you're interested, but you might want to add that info on the first post for other contributors to read.
Cheers.
127
« on: July 22, 2011, 00:26 »
Wow, just buyers. Now I have a new found respect for Sean. Prior to this moment I was holding him almost solely responsible for the rate of increased competition and our diminishing returns.
EDIT: Okay I'm still confused... lack of sleap.
So does a referral automatically appear on the referring contributor's list when they sign up (whether they're a buyer or contributor), or do they appear on that list only once the contributor is paid $10 after a buyer makes a purchase?
128
« on: July 22, 2011, 00:06 »
^
I'm not with IS so I have no idea really but I'm sure there was a discussion on this a year ago that made me believe it was a mix of both. Or maybe they just assumed like I did. If it's just buyers, that's a pretty impressive list.
129
« on: July 21, 2011, 23:13 »
I decided long ago not to try and "convert" anyone. Who needs the additional competition?
Was that after you got sick and tired of scrolling through pages and pages of referred photogrpahers in your profile? 
130
« on: July 21, 2011, 23:11 »
How can you be doing micro at a loss  only cost involved is equipment and I presume most serious photographers have the equipment anyway. Operating micro at a loss is impossible.
The only place you pay for uploading is the photographers-choice and everyone knows thats a scam anyway.
It would have to depend on the type of photographer. A wildlife photographer would be spending heaps on travel expenses and they probably wouldn't sell as much on micro.
131
« on: July 21, 2011, 23:07 »
I would guess the number of people who have microstock as their primary income is in the 100's not 1000's but it could be close to 1000. There are quite a few hard numbers from the microstock surveys
http://blog.microstockgroup.com/category/microstock-survey/
It's impossible to put a figure on it, even an estimate. There are too many who don't report their earnings. Photographers in China or some third world country could easily live off their stock earnings while the same amount wouldn't pay for our meals alone. Someday, when I'm old and useless, I possibly will be an expat living on my pitiful microstock sales in Bali or Thailand. Also, to go the other way, there'd be a lot of contributors reporting earning a living off microstock but they possibly are doing something else on the side... macro, PODs, the odd custom job, etc.
132
« on: July 20, 2011, 19:51 »
The other thing I'm finding difficult to swallow is Peter's reasong that JPEGs use up more space than vectors. How does that work when we have to upload a high resolution JPEG along with the EPS anyway.
Even if that were true and they were trying to limit storage space, they should lift the vector price to encourage more EPS uploads to save them storage.
Yeah, I don't understand his reasoning at all.
Peter, if you're looking in and you have the time, do you mind popping in to discuss it further?
133
« on: July 20, 2011, 19:44 »
Think of it as the XXL rasters being overpriced for the lazy as opposed to the vectors being underpriced below them.
Now, if you disagree with the vector price, that is a valid reason to not upload there, but I wouldn't not upload vectors just because some other format and size is more expensive.
I don't think of XXL rasters being downloaded by the lazy. Quite the opposite. Usually it takes a lot more work to isolate a jpeg. If we were talking PNGs then that would hold true but jpegs can be a pain to work with. I aslo believe that you're doing yourself out of pocket if you upload vectors at SF, unless of course they price your vector at the highest level. If I have a vector at SF selling for 5 credits and it sells for 20 credits elsewhere, the buyer, who probably has an account elsewhere since Stockfresh in new, is more likely to buy the vector at SF and not at the dearer price elsewhere.... putting me out of pocket. If I don't upload the vector at SF and they really want a vector, they're likely going to look at their other agencies and buy from there.
134
« on: July 20, 2011, 18:59 »
Look what you've all done! When tempus comes back, he/she will be mean like me 
135
« on: July 20, 2011, 18:44 »
I got the same reply:
"We have two different price lists for rasterized and vector files. One is based on size, the other one is based on complexity, they are consistent all over the site, so therefore it is possible that a huge rasterized file can cost more than the vector file itself. This is completely normal, XXL JPG's are a courtesy for those who don't want to bother or can't work with vectors and they will have to pay more for the convenience.
Best regards,
Peter Hamza"
LOL, what. In my opinion vectors are worth more because they are editable and scalable.
So I'm going to delete my vectors. Is there any way to do that without deleting the JPG's?
I can't undertand his logic. He is pricing the vectors taking only his cost into account and not the actual market value of vectors. I don't have many of them so it won't effect me much but I want them to succeed. Without vectors, they're holding themselves back. Some buyers only buy vectors. Did you tell him you're about to delete your vectors because of the cheap price?
136
« on: July 20, 2011, 18:38 »
I'm disappointed. I was hoping to one day ignore this thread
137
« on: July 20, 2011, 05:58 »
cidepix,
it's a shame you deleted them. I reckon Peter's pretty reasonable and will come around (eventually) if he gets more feedback from the vector veterens.... I don't have that many so my opinion probably didn't carry much weight when I emailed him.
138
« on: July 20, 2011, 03:28 »
Yeah the pricing is not right. I noticed it up front and avoided uploading vectors. I sent Peter an email. I'll share it... On May 24, 2011, at 10:46 AM, sunnymars wrote: Hello Peter, > > I don't really understand your vector pricing and have been holding off from uploading vectors because of this (as have others). Can you please explain to me how you come to the different prices. What is the difference between "low" "medium" "high" and "super"? Actually size in MPs? Scaleable vectors can be scaled to any size so I cannot understand this pricing structure at all. Are you referring to complexity? Actual file size in MBs perhaps? I've just done a search for "red carpet" where I normally get heaps of vectors at other agencies but here, there aren't many at all and I fear that others like me are not uploading vectors because they are usually sold for less than the XXL size jpeg. This doesn't make sense as the EPS or AI file or whatever, can be expanded to larger than the XXL size. > > Look forward to hearing a response from you. > > Thanks and regards, Peter's response... Stockfresh Support [email protected] to me show details May 25 Hi, Everything is explained in the upload guide: Vector prices are based on the complexity of the file. Simple vectors cost 1 credit, while exceptionally high detail files can cost up to 20 credits. Vector price categories are assigned by our administrator team. We used to have the exact same system on Stockxpert. Low detail 1 credit Medium detail 5 credits High detail 10 credits Super high detail 20 credits It doesn't matter that rasterized versions of vector files can cost more than the vector version. It might be strange at first but that's only because we have a completely different set of rules for vector and raster prices. Most agencies don't offer rasterized vector files, that's why you haven't noticed this before. By the way our vector prices are in line with industry standards so there's no reason for anyone not to upload. You can also look at it this way: for those who don't know how to use Illustrator, the JPG version is very helpful. Those files are more convenient for them but they take up a lot more space on our hard drive, so they should pay more. The reason why there aren't that many vectors yet is that we have around 780.000 pics while others have 10 million. We have a very small selection compared to most agencies. Best regards, Peter I didn't bother replying back and arguing but it still doesn't make sense that the jpeg is sold for more than the vector. It's nuts. They're missing out on money as much as we are.
139
« on: July 19, 2011, 20:43 »
Come on all, have you seriously become that lazy that you can't skip over a thread or a post?
No, I'm very busy and like most things in my business life I want to reduce wasted time as much as possible.
Have you all become this intollerant, ignorant and basically up yourselves that not only do you want to ignore posts and individuals but now entire threads?
Yes that's why I'm asking for this feature in the first place
You are aware that you too will be ignored right?
Geez no I hadn't thought of that, thanks for pointing it out 
Ignoring is the most idiotic feature in a forum because you end up with half-arsed conversations and people talking to themselves. It causes more b.itch fights than it reduces them. It will devalue the site and look stupid to new people who look in.
In your opinion, in mine it wouldn't which is why I was asking if others feel the same way, sorry this isn't a dictatorship.
Have you seriously become that self-involved that you think this website/forum was built just for you only?
No I've never said that, my request no way effects the way anybody else chooses to use this forum, in fact my intention is that it could enhance the way the forum could be used.
A forum exists so a group of people can get together and discuss their opinions on a matter. You're never going to like everyone and everyone's opinion. Can't you accept that and live with it? If you're so bothered about it, the forum doesn't need changing, you do... you need thicker skin and the ability to not let things bother you so much. This isn't your living room, it's a forum that's open to the public. Get over yourselves, it makes you look... I'm not even going to say the words... but grow up! It's hard to believe you're all adults sometimes!
Thank you for the lecture, you're entitled to your opinion, personally I don't need, want or value your opinion and I'm asking for a way to deal with that whereby I don't feel the need to converse with you.
Another thing.. what you're asking is a lot of work for leaf and you should pay him to do it if you really want it.
I don't know if it's a lot of work, I'll take your word that you do, but if you read my initial post you'll see I asked if it was possible, I have no doubt Tyler would let me know if it involved a lot of work. As for paying him, this is his site and he earns revenue through it from advertising and the like, I've already stopped the renewal of my premium membership (yes I know he gives that to Kiva) because I felt the site has slipped from what it used to be, by the very nature of the fact I've made this request and others have pointed out they feel the same way would, I imagine, indicate to him that people who have been coming here for years are frustrated by the way the site has changed and that may be an indication to future loss of some readers.
As I pointed out in my reply to Cobalt above my request for a thread ignore button would in no way effect how you or anyone else uses the site, so if you feel the need to reply please bear this in mind and resist the urge to insult others over things you haven't understood.
Right here is the difference between you and I. I already know you're opinion on this matter. I didn't need to read your post. I read the first couple of lines, just because I'm scrolling and see my ID standing out, I've thought to myself "CRAP", then "SKIP" done, no real time wasted at all on your post  You should learn to have some self control. Honestly, I have to say, I really have not noticed you much in this forum. Usually I skip what you say probably because you've said something along the lines that I probably found to be rubbish and I now skip you often... not on purpose. I'm not going to put you on ignore because somewhere down the road, you may have someting interesting to say. In general... If someone ignores a thread that initially looks like crap, what happens if midpoint the thread turns and ends up with 100 posts and includes some really useful, relevant information that will effect them and they've missed it... all because some stupid emotion drove them to initially discard the thread. I don't think many of you have run forums before but isn't the point of them for them to be read? They need clicks... it helps the forum's SEO. Another thing, forums tend to fill up with crap when there's nothing going on externally that needs to be discussed. That's all it is. There is nothing major going on in the microstock world right now, so threads are mostly about rubbish. The rubbish at least is keeping the forum from dropping down in google. To me, if I scroll down the first page and there's nothing that interests me, and I'm busy, great, it means there's nothing going on and I can get back to work rather than wasting time discussing rubbish. Anyway, to me it makes no difference whatsoever if you people ignore threads. But I believe, in the interest of the forum itself, it's no good for it. That's just my opinion. Ignore it if you want, ignore my post if you want, ignore any thread I'm in, if you want.... makes no difference to me personally.
140
« on: July 19, 2011, 08:23 »
Perhaps there should be a "psychic pre-ignore" button, so you don't have to read the threads you don't want to read in order to find out that you don't want to read them.
Otherwise you will have fallen into the trap of having to read threads in order to ignore them, which seems counter-productive.
I've been known not to bother opening a thread because the topic sounds uninteresting, it's so much more effective than having to check out a thread to find out that you didn't want to.
141
« on: July 19, 2011, 04:39 »
.......aside from all this microstock is the King, Queen, Royal Duchess and Archchancellor of the Internet.
Actually, I think those positions are probably occupied by porn
142
« on: July 19, 2011, 04:37 »
I don't know any personally and I don't even think I know any professionals that contribute to microstock sites with images either. Some probably do make a living from microstock, even I have heard of one guy from Scandinavia, Yuri ? - but a Getty colleague said he believes even he is jumping soon and will sell his pictures through his own website. No doubt he will make some serious income doing that.
This little bit makes me think Roxx is not quite who he proclaims to be. The statement is a bit "I know nothing, but oh, by the way, I heard this...", made with full knowledge of the topic.
It would have been a bit more convincing if you misspelled his name .
I have to agree, I thought this post was a little 'try hard' but at the same time, I'm not so sure that Yuri is as popular outside of the microstock world. I've put up a poll in my facebook page asking if people know him..
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sunny-Mars-Designs/150453311638512
No one's answered yet, they're probably googling him, don't give a stuff about him or sick of seeing his name... we'll see tomorrow.
I live in one of the top ten paradises of the world, so there are a lot of togs here on assignment from the telegraph, or thomas cook or other splashy magazine things.
I'm kind of like a dog that when it sees another dog will instantly run over and try and sniff its camera - so I meet a lot of them. All of them instantly become alert (possibly the same way you become alert if someone deposits a giant dog poo on your lawn, but still alert) when I mention microstock and all of them, bar none, have heard of Yuri, or more accurately 'some guy from denmark with a funny name, Yorgi or something, built his own kitchen in his studio...'
LOL Wisconsin is one of the top ten paradises of the world? I live in Australia so I think my paradise dog poo's all over your paradise Back to Yuri, I thought he was supposed to be a legend the way everyone follows his every move. His celebrity status aside, I don't think he's any better than a lot of other decent photographers in micro... he's a marketing genius though.
143
« on: July 18, 2011, 21:06 »
Thanks heywoody, I was going to say the same thing. Cobalt, you're a long time exclusive. For non-exclusives (where Will will start), commissions have come down. There are threads here discussing downloads for just $0.08. That's insulting, even Will's mobile phone pics are worth more than $0.08 ... to someone On a side note though, that poll I created on my facebook page is bringing in some interesting results about Yuri. So far 10 have voted and only one knows him. I find that surprising as 95% of my 'fans' are either artist, designers, photographers or customers. The ones who replied are not customers. Hmmmm.
144
« on: July 18, 2011, 20:29 »
Come on all, have you seriously become that lazy that you can't skip over a thread or a post? Have you all become this intollerant, ignorant and basically up yourselves that not only do you want to ignore posts and individuals but now entire threads? You are aware that you too will be ignored right? Ignoring is the most idiotic feature in a forum because you end up with half-arsed conversations and people talking to themselves. It causes more b.itch fights than it reduces them. It will devalue the site and look stupid to new people who look in. Have you seriously become that self-involved that you think this website/forum was built just for you only? A forum exists so a group of people can get together and discuss their opinions on a matter. You're never going to like everyone and everyone's opinion. Can't you accept that and live with it? If you're so bothered about it, the forum doesn't need changing, you do... you need thicker skin and the ability to not let things bother you so much. This isn't your living room, it's a forum that's open to the public. Get over yourselves, it makes you look... I'm not even going to say the words... but grow up! It's hard to believe you're all adults sometimes!
Another thing.. what you're asking is a lot of work for leaf and you should pay him to do it if you really want it.
145
« on: July 18, 2011, 20:12 »
"I've been exposed to the most beautiful photography and when I'm staring at photographic artwork in a gallery, whether it's out loud or in my head, I can pick the image apart in detail without having any indepth knowledge of photography. "
That makes you a great Image Editor. Anybody can be an editor, just like anybody can be a food critic or reviewer for books. If a company will pay you for it is a different matter. Chosing designers as editors would be a very good idea.
No that 'skill'... I wouldn't even call it a skill it's so basic, is a requirement that's needed in a lot of various roles in this industry... including a photographer, artist, designer, editor, reviewer, inspector, human being with eyes
146
« on: July 18, 2011, 20:06 »
any agency that allows other stock photographers to be reviewers needs to have at least 2 rules:
1. no reviewer can review subjects they also shoot themselves - have studi photogs review travel, and vice versa.
2. no photographetr/ reviewer should be able to reject for non-technical reasons
as far as the comment about supervisors knowing if bias occurs, there's no way, unless they are checking every batch of reviews
lol I don't know what these two rules will achieve. 1. How messy will this get? Most photographers portfolios is a mixed bag of lollies. Doing this is a time waster as it's just another decision they have to make about the image and who will review it. Images could end up sitting in a "too hard basket" for weeks because it's unclear who's allowed to review it. 2. How would this work? Every image needs to be reviewed for both technical and non-technical reasons. It's simple, you either trust your employees or you don't hire them. You put in place procedures like random audits checking reviewers work. The boss sits down with a reviewer quarterly or something and discusses random rejections. A reviewer who's a photographer also has a vested interest in the company and doesn't want it to go down the tubes.
147
« on: July 18, 2011, 08:09 »
I don't think $132 is going to send you to Africa where you will take some awesome wildlife photography that will earn you a few more pitiful sales.
And even if it did, the sort of stuff people want to buy is oversaturated, and the more niche stuff (unusual species, unusual behaviour) may get you one, two or no sales on micro. Trust me, there's no value in having the only example of something on a micro site if precious few buyers are interested in that subject.
Wow Sue, I'm impressed that you read my neverending post. I personally would have skipped it
148
« on: July 18, 2011, 08:07 »
I don't know any personally and I don't even think I know any professionals that contribute to microstock sites with images either. Some probably do make a living from microstock, even I have heard of one guy from Scandinavia, Yuri ? - but a Getty colleague said he believes even he is jumping soon and will sell his pictures through his own website. No doubt he will make some serious income doing that.
This little bit makes me think Roxx is not quite who he proclaims to be. The statement is a bit "I know nothing, but oh, by the way, I heard this...", made with full knowledge of the topic.
It would have been a bit more convincing if you misspelled his name .
I have to agree, I thought this post was a little 'try hard' but at the same time, I'm not so sure that Yuri is as popular outside of the microstock world. I've put up a poll in my facebook page asking if people know him.. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sunny-Mars-Designs/150453311638512No one's answered yet, they're probably googling him, don't give a stuff about him or sick of seeing his name... we'll see tomorrow.
149
« on: July 18, 2011, 07:37 »
I hate to sound rude after you gave me a great reply and a all round good post to read. However, I am fed up of people going "Stock isn't for you", "Why do you want to do stock" and "To develop a proper career in photography the last place you should look is towards stock sites".
But Will, you've come here seeking advice about what's "stocky". People have suggested you take more people shots and other "stocky" type photos but as you've said, you prefer to keep taking photos of landscapes, flowers, animals etc... subjects that are well covered and will be rejected. If you want to photograph what you want to photograph then to be successful, you're better off looking at alternatives to microstock. This is why people (including myself) are saying Microstock is not for you since you really don't want to produce the typical microstock images. Microstock is on a downward spiral and really, it's not for anyone starting out anymore... only the hobbyist that doesn't give a rat's arse about selling their images next to nothing. I've seen so many contributors talking themselves up here and rubbishing people but when I find out who they are and look at their portfolios, they sell like 10 images a month lol. Many have made a living from microstock but they started in the game when competition was low and commissions were higher. They have thousands of images in their ports and you're just starting out. By the time you build a decent size port, they'll have doubled theirs because with their experience they will produce images much faster than you. Your images will be lost and hardly ever seen. You're also forgetting (or are unaware) that these established microstockers are feeling the squeeze themselves... even Yuri. They're having to work much harder for much less than they did when they first started and even a lot of them are thinking about alternatives. iStock, which you have your heart set on for some reason, pays the lowest commissions in the industry. Recently they cut contributors cut from the crap 20% commission to 15%. Why on earth would you want that? A lot of non-exclusives have left the agency and a lot of exclusives have become independents so they can eventually leave the company or build portfolios elsewhere. If you want to make a living in microstock, you have to be as good as these high earners just to get noticed. You will be new so your images will be placed at the bottom of the millions of other images. A lot will never sell, even if they're top notch images. Why would you want your images going stale on a microstock site when you can do something else with them and have money coming in? If you really want to do micrstock fine, but my advice is to not lock yourself with one agent... spread your images around, sell some prints, sell directly to customers, do some freelance work. Don't just do stock because realistically, although microstock agents are booming and making money, the sad truth is, the contributor is seeing the opposite effect. The bigger the companies grow, the smaller the piece of the pie we all get. If I had to rely on microstock for a living, I'd be dead lol. I do some custom design work, I sell on microstock and I sell on PODs. I'm not a photographer, I'm an artist/designer/illustrator. My earnings have grown each month... except for microstock which has dropped despite my port growing. This is my breakdown of my earnings in June: Microstock: $132 Zazzle: $225 (I had a bad month) 99designs: $642 Custom work: $680 (customers gained from Zazzle and 99 designs) I've been doing this for only a year. I'm a management accountant and have been an artist since I was about 8. I've only just begun doing graphic illustrations... I sort of discovered it by accident. I had no clue about graphic art over a year ago. I don't produce for microstock... that would be bloody boring. I produce artwork and break it up into pieces and sell them here (like scrap) or I add my leftovers to stock. My portfolio at microstock since I've started has grown but my earnings have reduced. Do you understand now? I don't think $132 is going to send you to Africa where you will take some awesome wildlife photography that will earn you a few more pitiful sales. Stop listening to those people that puff out their chest and brag about how good they are... they're not that good and they don't make that much money. The ones that do are still feeling the pinch but they're here bragging hoping someone like you will see their post and will click on their referral links and you will then earn them more money. You will continue struggling, feeling disappointed the entire time until you eventually quit or find some other way of making money. I'm just trying to spare you the disappointment so you can look outside of microstock and either follow another path... one you love or follow a few different ones. As I said earlier, I like your enthusiam but you should take some of Roxx's advice and think about using that enthusiasm to better yourself as a photographer... you can still contribute to micro but you should spread your wings a little and not lock yourself into something that's obviously dying. The micro companies won't die but our passion and our earnings will. Roxxs post was a little over the top and extremely entertaining (for me). I dont necessarily agree with her because I have seen some talent here. Sure microstock is considered low end. As a designer I see that all time from customers... no microstock please. It's almost considered rude to provide them with stock. A lot of microstock contributors upload the cheesy stock but who cares... if they sell then they sell and if theyre able to make a living out of it, good luck to them. But selling cheesy stock is getting a lot harder as time goes on. A lot of the microstock contributors have put in years of time and effort into this. They're feeling the hard times but this industry has sucked the life out of them and a lot of them are too worn out to even think about alternatives... they're too tired to start over. If they were starting out in the business now, knowing what they know, I'm sure they would branch out into other areas. Bloody hell, that was a long post!
150
« on: July 18, 2011, 05:55 »
Will
I only came across this website today and have been browsing out of curiosity at the forums and discovered your threads. Although having been a professional photographer for over thirty years I am fairly new to the 'micro' stock image market albeit having been aware of it's growing existence for a number of years, PS Don't be fooled by my user name I have never sold stock images I just made the name up - my cat's called Roxx! Amongst many of my fellow professional and accredited press photographers stock photography seems to have a reputation of being a bit low end - the sort of place you go to when your either retire or don't have any commissions. Basically, if you're looking for a picture of a kettle isolated on a white background or a toothy cheesy model smiling at the camera you go to a microstock site. The growth in these sites is mainly due to non-too-fussy companies looking to buy cheaper images for ad campaigns and equally non-too-fussy advertising agencies looking to buy cheap images and upscale their charges to their client basically ripping them off.
Photography is a profession and one that can give you a great deal of satisfaction and money too. If your looking to develop a proper career in photography the last place you should look is toward stock sites. I say this for one reason, these places are where budding amateur snappers aspire to go with their cheap low/mid end DSLR's, where they can make a few dollars each month. Will, you must have a higher ambition than that. I guess from your posts your a youngster just getting into this area, take the advise of a seasoned pro - don't set your sights too low. Photography is not about a perfectly lit, sanitized pretty picture. It's about capturing a moment in time that stands the test and marks a record of that time. Photography is not about taking pictures of kettles, keyboards, staged business meetings with cheesy models for a few bucks.
In regard to equipment, keep your mobile phone to make telephone calls and buy a decent camera. It is not going to be cheap to get started but you can always grow your 'kit' over time. I started out with good cameras over thirty years ago and believe me, it makes a big difference. In those days we used film SLR's, and I had an Olympus OM1 and an Olympus OM2N - still have them and even use them sometimes now and again when teaching. When the world went digital most professionals were wary until the resolutions could match our beloved Kodachrome 25. When they did (and in some cases exceed) many pro's switched. Today I use Nikons for nearly everything, D3, D3X, 700 and an older D40 (for teaching and snaps). If you can, get one of the newish Nikon's - their 7000 it's nearly as good as the 700 and less than half the price. Check out a useful website www.kenrockwell.com he does very useful comparisons and generally supports the Nikon brand. Personally, I would stay well clear of anything from Canon, Sony, Olympus - the quality is low end and don't be tempted just because their cheap - their aimed at the amateur market, at least with Nikon, even the mid price ones, you're getting into a stable of professional kit which you can grow. Bear in mind also, as you are starting out, switching brands later when you realise you made a mistake is going to be very expensive. Painful as it might be, start out on the right foot now if you can. Don't skimp on lenses either, generally, stay clear of the compatible lenses like Sigma and Tamron - their never as good (I am generalising a bit) as a branded lens - Nikon make really good lenses but so do Canon, albeit the Canon camera bodies are poor and therefore, for me, a non-starter.
I noticed you mention a particular stock site, iStockphoto. Even with my limited experience in the microstock market even I have heard about these folks. In the pro world their called iFlop - as they are rapidly diminishing their market share and treat both customers and I also believe contributors very badly. I was sent a link to one of their forums recently by a pal and I have to say it was laughable how the 'admins' (which they are called) treat people on the discussion boards. I work with Getty images (who own iflop) and I have heard some horror stories from the guy's there! One stock site that I understand does have good reputation is called Shutterstock.com - they are the biggest stock site and I understand act very professionally.
Get your feet wet by getting in touch with some local professional photographers and ask if you can spend some time with them watching, observing and helping. Most pro's will probably allow you a few days. I have guy's and girls regularly helping me out and it actually is quite fun, particularly during semesters and holidays. Or approach your local paper and volunteer to supply pictures to them, if your pictures are good enough maybe they'll use them and probably pay you for them as well.
Forgive the irony, but I would not take too much notice of what you read on forums either - even after a day of reading a few posts a lot of it (albeit basically good advice) is the blind leading the blind. Amateurs, even gifted ones, are amateurs and pro's are pro's. There is a difference and you need to mix with real photographers which means getting out there and seeing how they work, I doubt you'll derive much wisdom here, again forgive the irony.
Finally, Good luck in your ambitions, I wish you well and remember one thing, it isn't about taking a picture that sells something else - it about a picture that sells itself.
ROFL! iFlop, that's even better than iSuck. Your post by far is the best I've read in here so far Thank you!!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 17
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
