|
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 - chellyar
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16
226
« on: April 26, 2007, 14:40 »
Thans for your comments Sharply.... My keywording process is quite ad-hoc, and your process might help with some of my non-sellers.. I'll re-keyword a couple and see if they sell.. 
227
« on: April 26, 2007, 04:05 »
But then again....
These stats could be a complete load of coblers due to the way that istock renders it's site..
A lot of the content on istocks site is delivered vi AJAX type interfaces tricks, so that any one page view might actually be 2x or 3x the number of object hits for another site of the same content type.
Also the exiry of static content in transproxies for ISP's will have a huge effect, although without a bit of piddling around I can't check that.
It also could be that people do more 'next' clicks on IS, due to the different search structure from the other sites..
lastly is the huge variable around how Alexa collect their stats via their toolbar, and some 'partner' businesses also collect stats for them. So this tells us that the average IS user is more likely to install a stats collecting software on their PC, or that IS advertised it at some stage as being a 'great tool for finding stock images. (Just speculating on that last one).
ie: Take Alexa stats with a _HUGE_ grain of salt.
228
« on: April 24, 2007, 02:27 »
I am very happy with my 5 cent increase (20%, and 33% more than IS pays, is great).
But if SS is going to stratify, then how about 35 cents for people who have made over $1000, and 40 cents for those with more than $2000 in sales?
I obviously don't have the stats to be sure, but with a subscription model this may not be economic for SS to do. Their income per image/month is not as simple to calculate as a non-subscription model, and as per Jon's post on SS said a while ago, they had to wait to see what effect the price rise at their end had before they could transfer that to a payrise for us... I think it would be nice to have incremental payments for more succesful members, but it shouldn't be at the expense of the site going broke. If you've got a large, high quality portfolio on SS you would be doing OK at $0.25, a 20% payrise is pretty good if you compare it to the CPI in most countries... Cheers, Me.
229
« on: April 22, 2007, 15:14 »
Don't worry Miz, historically many great artists were misunderstood in their own time... The down side being that it may be 100 or so years after you die before everyone 'gets' you jokes.. 
230
« on: April 21, 2007, 03:14 »
Hi Jon... Just a second 'thanks' for dropping in, I imagine you're quite a busy fella... Also, I find this interesting, as I thought it was the DT thread that triggered this, I completely missed Rob's comment about SS/Jon in the other thread, even though I read it end to end.. Just goes to show you, we all read things through our own set of rose coloured glasses.  Now we're done with that, let's move along now, nothing left to see here... edit: Typo
231
« on: April 19, 2007, 15:58 »
Bummer.... I'm far less 'serious' about microstock than many, but this even makes me a little nervous. I belong to a 'closed' forum for similar reasons, where a group of freelancers to a large media company want the ability to talk about the company policies etc away from their prying eyes. It shouldn't be necessary though, and companies should be paying attention to, not avoiding, comentary on their policies and actions from suppliers.. Without happy suppliers they don't exist. I'm not sure how a stock site thinks comments made on here will negatively effect them either? Other members on this site can say all they like in a negative sense about any given site and it wont stop me, or most other people, submitting if their making money from them. What makes that difference is ease of submission, rejection rates and payout rates, or am I unique in that? On the flip side, I can't imagine many stock site customers read these forums before selecting which stock site to visit? I've never seen any real bad-mouthing of any of the sites on here though. Not that I've read all the messages of course, but I try to keep up. I'd have thought that the level of 'back chat' directed at the sites here was healthy, rather than negative. Given that rep's from most of the sites are probably reading this, any one of them want to chime in with a responce to this thread? What is the perceived threat to your microstock business model of conversations being held in a public forum? So, KiwiRob, did you wind you taking down your portfolio from the site in question? Oh, and Leaf, can you change all our visible names to be random 8 digit numbers. . Cheers, Me. (looking over my shoulder)
232
« on: April 15, 2007, 00:13 »
7 day - 2103 Overall - 1105
Only 5 sales in the last week.
I have 238 images on there, and its not what I'd call 'strong' stock stuff.
233
« on: April 09, 2007, 14:40 »
Cor a debate on colour cast no less.... For what it's worth, it was shot auto-WB on a 20D, so very likely that an all yellow subject (that is full frame) would have a yellow cast, the Auto-wb on the 20D seems to sway to the warmer colours under natural light. Hope you folks all had a good easter. 
234
« on: April 09, 2007, 14:35 »
Gee, I don't think its that spectacular myself, but congratulations on finally getting a flower approved.
It wasn't so much 'finally getting' one approved.. I had never submitted one as it's the classic silly stock photo, and thought it was odd that it would be approved on all sites after reading the doom and gloom about them from sites and some reviewers... Took the image while chasing a big praying mantis, I think it's the only flower shot I've taken in about 18 months, I normally avoid them, unless it's daffodil catalogue shots, but that's a whole other cup of coffee!!!
235
« on: April 07, 2007, 19:05 »
FYI. this just got approved on DT, making it a clean sweep with all the sites I'm on... Only about 30% of my images get a clean-sweep approval, so I might have to submit more flowers... Sorry to all the reviewers out there.
236
« on: March 30, 2007, 05:38 »
:-). maybe I should do more flower shots... I don't know the latin name for this one though, its from our garden, shot inside under a softbox. I was actually trying to get a photo of a praying matis I'd 'chilled' and stuck on the flower, but it recovered quicker than I thought it would, and did a runner.... So I went with the flower by itself. 
237
« on: March 29, 2007, 04:26 »
I know it's a reviewers worst nightmare, the flower shot, and I've resisted the temptation to upload any for the last couple of years since I started doing microstock, but I finally broke down and uploaded a macro flower shot. Got approved on stockxpert so far, so it can't be that bad, given they have my highest rejection ratio by a long shot... 
238
« on: March 25, 2007, 14:50 »
Definately saleable....
For what it's worth, I don't shoot people for stock, but if I did I think I'd be hunting out interesting faces rather than teens....
Lauren has a good one as the image of the week on istock home page at the mo as well.
239
« on: March 13, 2007, 08:05 »
 Some bits of pvc plumbing, and white nylon... It's about 36"x20x20". Works OK, don't use it as much as I could do... Some images using this setup: (Although probably with different lights, can't remember, but don't use the portable brollies all that often.)  
240
« on: March 13, 2007, 07:56 »
I'll second the comments protecting the lens. You don't even have to drop a camera to appreciate that. When you're moving around in a crowded room, or at a sports event I'd always rather bump the plastic lens hood than the filter/front element on something!
That asside, I think on the longer lenses the hood definately makes a difference to contrast/haze etc, but on wide lenses I'm not so sure.. The hood on my 17-40 just plain looks silly, but I always use it if I'm out and about to help protect the expensive shiny bits.. :-)
Cheers, Me.
241
« on: March 08, 2007, 15:22 »
All I can say is 'Tee Hee Hee!'
242
« on: March 05, 2007, 13:50 »
Someone from SS must be watching this site They got approved overnight, after I posted this thread... I just thought it was odd that I didn't get the notification email after the first of the eight was approved, and the others had sat for a while.
243
« on: March 05, 2007, 04:55 »
Hi-ho,
Since the problems last week with SS, is anyone seeing any approvals go through?
I had 8 in the queue before it happened, and one got approved just before, the other 7 have been sitting in the waiting approval since... Seems like a long wait for SS...
Cheers, Me.
244
« on: February 26, 2007, 12:57 »
Can't be too bad, they accepted this four days ago:  And I'd have to say it's not that flash as travel/scenic photography goes... Maybe they are looking for unique rather than best when it comes to travel/scenic stuff? Just my 2c worth.
245
« on: February 26, 2007, 12:52 »
I've only got 62 images approved on StockXpert so far, and have the highest rejection ratio of any site.. (My total port is only about 300 images)
Grand total of $6 sales so far..
Because they approve before keywording it's a fairly 'soft' option for uploading, so I'll continue to upload my back-catalog, so to speak, for the moment... Just a few every now and then as I micro is a spare time thing for me, and I don't seem to have much of it! :-).
YMMV of course..
246
« on: February 22, 2007, 02:39 »
*, another camera to lust after. 10fps @ 10m pixel.. *, that's a lot of data! And for up to 110 frames... At least the waiting is over, and I can decide if I finance myself up to the hilt to get a couple of them in my bag for sports work.... Oh wait, I can't even make the deposit, ahh well.
247
« on: February 21, 2007, 13:39 »
That'd be odd...
My best selling and worst selling micro joined together... Hmmmmmm, not sure what that means.
248
« on: February 18, 2007, 12:23 »
He may have some outdated experience but in general he is just a bigmouth IMHO.
Urrr, since when did experience become outdated? Particularly in photography...
249
« on: February 11, 2007, 14:44 »
62.8% Although from the stats page my acceptance ratio for January was only 14% which I'm sure dosn't help the average! I did a 'catch up' in January, and uploaded some stuff I'd been sitting on because I wasn't sure it'd get accepted... got really low acceptances on all of the sites.
250
« on: February 04, 2007, 18:30 »
I'm not sure I'd want to buy some microstock to sell as microstock, although legal under the LO license, It just dosn't sound right to me..
Having said that, I'm in the process of negotiating the purchase of a large film stock collection from a local photographer. He has never had them with a stock agency, and as of last year is very retired, and is not interested in the indexing/keywording that would be required to get them online.
This would be for macro stock sale though, as they are drum-scanned MF velia and provia travel scenic shots, not really the stuff Micros are good for, and given the cost of the collection I'll be looking for a top dollar return with good proven rights protection. Alamy here we come.
Cheers, Me.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
