MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - sharply_done

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 73
101
I don't mean to offend anyone but, some people will just never make the jump to be independent. They just don't have the spirit to go that way.  They have been educated to have a boss and need to feel they are "safe".

On the contrary, I need to feel that my family is "safe."  
...

Or it may be that, like a few others here, you're risk averse; you value financial security more than a healthier family lifestyle. I'm at the opposite end of the scale: As a single father with a college-bound teenager, the freedom I have now when taken together with the time I've been able to spend with my son far outweigh the benefits I had when pursuing a traditional career. Like you, I truly enjoyed my well-paying job, but it's absurd to compare where I would still be to where I am now if I hadn't accepted the risk. And I'm not alone in this - there are many who tell a similar tale. Like they say: no pain, no gain.

102
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. From his grammar, I'm guessing that the OP doesn't live in the USA, which may make $50k USD even more significant. As whitechild said, if he was making that much he'd "be awfully rich".

To answer the question, I started doing this full time in Jan 2007 - with zero images and zero microstock income - and haven't ever looked back or regretted it. I'm fortunate to live in Canada, where healthcare is taken care of. For what it's worth, I agree with Microbius:

I would certainly go full time. Not because it is a lot of money-- what we are forgetting is that money isn't everything.
For me there is no better way to make a living, no boss, no awkward clients and flexible hours, need I say more

103
Shutterstock.com / Re: How to delete shots from SS ?
« on: May 11, 2010, 15:37 »
SS is the easiest site to disappear from - just click all the 'Opt Out' options on the 'Your Account' page, then email support to have them delete your images and close your account. It'll take less than 24 hours for your image thumbnails to disappear.

104
General Stock Discussion / Re: Finding a partner
« on: May 08, 2010, 17:07 »
...
 200 photos from a months travel work.  Are you sure those are the correct numbers, they seem a bit low to me.
...

That sounds about right from my experience, although his payback is perhaps a little longer than it might be. He's talking about taking advantage of "found" images, not doing pre-arranged (model) shoots - a pretty a good plan for a working vacation that suits the microstock marketplace quite well.

105
General Photography Discussion / Re: Quick Release Strap
« on: May 07, 2010, 00:38 »
I've been using this OP/TECH strap for years without a problem. I very rarely use the shoulder/neck attachment - I prefer it with the short camera loop connectors attached to each other to make a strap short enough to not easily get tangled but still allow for easy handling.

106
General Stock Discussion / Re: Time to spend cash
« on: May 05, 2010, 20:58 »
The thread started two years ago, so I wonder what ichiro got.   ;D

Yeah, really. Someone (and I mean you, Albert Martin) has a thing or two to learn about forum etiquette, that's for sure.

107
General Stock Discussion / Re: Finding a partner
« on: April 28, 2010, 00:15 »
Exactly.  Vacation snaps. 
Just because they are photos taken in a vacation trip, do they deserve the "snap" classification?

Unless he went there to shoot specific things for the commercial marketplace, yes, they're just vacation shots, and income expectations should be adjusted accordingly.

108
What a jaded view to think that optimism = luck.  I'm optimistic becuase I've worked hard, reached my goals, and all the evidence I've collected so far points to more work equaling more results.  Luck doesn't enter into it.
...


I can't agree more powerdroid. ...


You might want to pick up Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers, where he postulates that in the end it is perhaps nothing but else but luck that propels the overwhelmingly successful and separates them from the also-rans.

109
It is indeed a marvelously quick and efficient way to make a transaction in which the photographer nets 19 cents before taxes.

And no, you don't have to talk to anybody. Is that a good thing?

There are ways to make a lot more than 19c per transaction in microstock, stockastic. If you're unhappy with how little you are getting paid, you should do something about it - something other than constantly complaining, that is.
The same goes for all you other malcontents, too.

110
General Stock Discussion / Re: Northern Ireland Poster Row
« on: April 17, 2010, 22:56 »
That was a brilliant heads-up play by the Concervative & Unionists party - I like how they even kept the same look and feel of the original ad.

111
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia exclusives opted out of subs?
« on: April 17, 2010, 20:57 »
Exclusive on Fotolia? Really? Wow, I'm surprised you'd ever entertain something like that.

No serious plans to go exclusive at the moment, but I am interested in the experiences of the ones who have tried it :)

Sorry you are surprised.  I certainly don't think I said anything at all surprising.  Feel free to take my remarks at face value and try not to read too much into them....  :)

I did read your words at face value: I was just surprised you'd entertain that notion, that's all.

112
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia exclusives opted out of subs?
« on: April 17, 2010, 20:55 »
They are the fastest growing agency for most independent contributors __ and by a huge margin too. They pay much higher commissions than Istock and let the contributor choose the prices they sell images, within certain limits.

The microstock market is not set in stone and Istock are by no means guaranteed the position of market leader into the future. IMHO the next 5 years will see a huge struggle for supremacy between Istock and Fotolia.

Yes, I know all that - but we're talking Fotolia here, not a very above-board agency.
As for the impending struggle, I've already placed my bet: May the best agency win!

113
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia exclusives opted out of subs?
« on: April 17, 2010, 17:01 »
Exclusive on Fotolia? Really? Wow, I'm surprised you'd ever entertain something like that.

114
iStockPhoto.com / Re: after server problems more picky?
« on: April 16, 2010, 19:52 »
Well, yes and no.

What I mean to say is that as an exclusive I don't get images rejected solely for "bad" keywords, but I think that if the inspector sees the image as borderline and is looking for that little something else to make it a reject, one or two "bad" keywords just might fit that bill. Then it's reject for such-and-such reason, and oh - you've got bad keywords, too. If the image wasn't "good enough", why would the inspector even bother to look at the keywords?

As far as wasting upload slots goes, I guess I'm in the minority in that once I got to gold level as an independent at iStock, I rarely bumped into them. Uploading 25 or 30 images a week is enough to keep me busy and build up enough in reserve so I can take some time off from shooting/processing and still have fresh stuff to upload. Some days I'd rather just hang out or go to the beach or ski rather than work - it's a lifestyle thing.

115
iStockPhoto.com / Re: More istock server problems
« on: April 16, 2010, 09:50 »
It's frustrating, that's for sure - I can imagine there's a pretty hectic atmosphere right now at iStock HQ.
Hopefully they'll learn something from it so that problems like this don't happen again.

116
iStockPhoto.com / Re: after server problems more picky?
« on: April 16, 2010, 09:43 »
The only bad keyword I see is "chinese ethnicity", but that's a judgement call - I'll bet you've got a few Thai models who sell well with the "chinese" keyword. The rest look okay to me.

On a related note, I put effort into keeping on top of my keywords, and it irks me when the inspector/reviewer takes issue with some of them: I put them in there because buyers are actually using them to find my images. I wish I could say that as an exclusive I don't get images rejected because an inspector objects to a few keywords, but I suspect that on a borderline image, "bad" keywords tip the scale enough to have the image rejected.

117
Dreamstime.com / Re: Stock "factories" slowing uploads?
« on: April 15, 2010, 01:19 »
Strange thing, this month big "guns" (Yuri, Iofoto, Monkeybusiness) have not any uploads at Dreamstime. Usually they upload hundreds/thousands files. Are they preparing something? (boycotting new uploads limits or going exclusive)

Interesting, good observation

Yes, it looks like the what-will-yuri-do six month clock has started ticking ... September will be an interesting month. That he has cohorts will make it doubly so - heads up all you lifestyle shooters!

118
Dreamstime.com / Re: Stock "factories" slowing uploads?
« on: April 15, 2010, 00:48 »
Saying you claimed a deduction of five times more than you spent is probably not a good thing to say on a public forum. Neither is saying you charge your clients 200-500 times more than your cost. That kind of stuff can come back to haunt you ...

119
...
What's the deal with these guys, they aren't even listed in the low earners.  Is anyone with them?


Ironically, leaf is.

120
I'll let sjlocke chime in on good exposure techniques on iStock. <insert winky face here>

121
.nevermind.

122
...  I'm sure that it will help many people.

Not really - I've written stuff like this before, only to have most people say doing things like these are a waste of time. The prevailing attitude here seems to be that time spent not planning, shooting, or processing is time ill-spent. The prevailing RPI here is also around $1 per image per month ...

123
One of the downsides to using multiple agencies is that you have to develop a unique strategy for each one. Although there are techniques they have in common, in order to maximize your exposure at any given agency you'll need to do things that are specific to it. I'm not an independent anymore, so I don't mind sharing a few pointers for some of the agencies I used to contribute to.

Shutterstock: Timing your submissions to get a high rank in the "New" search is critical. A good habit to get into is to monitor how long it takes (in hours) from the time you submit an image to the time it takes for it to appear in the search results. Adjust your submission times accordingly. Ideally you'll want your images to "go live" on Sunday through Wednesday nights (EST). Also, Shutterstock reviews images in batches based on the oldest image you have in the queue: by submitting just one image at the most opportune time you will ensure that all your images in that batch will be reviewed with it.

Dreamstime: I found this agency's search to be the most confounding - I think they want to be seen as "the good guys", and arrange things to spread sales across as many contributors as possible. Their search engine uses titles and descriptions together with keywords, so you need adjust these to suit. A common mistake is to use the same title and description for similar images - by doing this you're tying your images to the same search terms, which may not be optimal for images that have more than one readily-identifiable use. A good technique is to mix-and-match varying (but pertinent) conceptual keywords in your titles and descriptions, thereby increasing your exposure across multiple search terms.

Fotolia: Keyword order is of primary importance here - their search engine places extra weight on the first seven keywords, so you need to put the same kind of some thought into keyword order here as you do with titles and descriptions on Dreamstime.

Image Exclusivity: If you've "won the lottery" on an image at Dreamstime or Fotolia, check to see how it's doing at other agencies - it may be more profitable for you to list it exclusively at one agency than to have it listed across multiple ones.

124
General Stock Discussion / Re: Aerial Photography
« on: April 12, 2010, 17:58 »
I've uploaded a few. Usually accepted but disappointingly few sales. I'd imagine that major capital cities could sell well __ but then you'd probably have a 'mare trying to clone out the logos.

I'm not planning on hiring any more helicopters or planes for the foreseeable future. Generally speaking I think it's a subject that needs macro pricing or a corporate commission to make it worthwhile.

I think you can look at aerials as a specialized kind of landscape photography - you might be able to do well with them, but they'll need to be hit-the-buyer-over-the-head-with-the-concept type of shots. Generic stuff that looks like "Wow, I was in a plane and made these shots!" won't sell; planned images showing something specific from that unusual vantage point will.

Hiring a plane to do it would probably be foolish; having a friend who's a pilot and willing to fly where you want if you pay for fuel probably wouldn't be.

125
iStockPhoto.com / Re: More istock server problems
« on: April 12, 2010, 16:43 »
It was good I got mine in earlier today. Sometimes you get lucky, I guess.

Or unlucky - they undoubtedly had a very good reason for turning it back off!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 73

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors