|
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 - sharply_done
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 73
151
« on: March 29, 2010, 13:17 »
Yes __ by 'quality' I mean a combination of composition, usefulness, subject matter, etc (technical quality issues are filtered out via the inspection process and anyway are not much of a hurdle for anyone doing microstock for a living).
Yes, and by "what you know" I don't mean blogging, Facebook, or Twitter. Those are a complete waste of time in advancing your career in stock photography.
152
« on: March 29, 2010, 11:46 »
They use the accreditation-without-payment approach.
Go for it if you're into the "I'm stoked - my photo was published in a guidebook!" thing, don't go for it if you don't like giving your stuff away for free.
153
« on: March 29, 2010, 11:34 »
...
Microstock nowadays is almost entirely about quality and is most definitely not a numbers game anymore. ...
This is one of the few industries where success depends on what you know, and not who. I think that the scope of the what is evolving so that concentrating on quality while keeping an eye on quantity will return increasingly smaller rewards - many successful people are already seeing this. While it's true that quality is important, to get the most out of your efforts it's becoming more important to work smarter; staying on top of what you know may become the key to success.
154
« on: March 26, 2010, 14:13 »
Looking at your question from another point of view, I think most iStock exclusives started out uploading to a bunch of sites and then switched to iStock exclusivity once they got fed up with feeding/dealing with so many different agencies. There's also the money: some people - not all - earn more as an exclusive than as an independent.
155
« on: March 24, 2010, 21:24 »
Don't bother going to BestBuy - they won't have what you're looking for either.
Your best bet to try something on will be to visit a camera shop the local pros and serious hobbyists use, which isn't going to be a franchised national chain type of place. If you don't know what/where that is, a call to a local commercial photographer or contacting a camera club will get you pointed in the right direction. These types of stores aren't high volume, so be prepared to pay a bit more for the convenience of having a bunch of stuff in stock.
156
« on: March 23, 2010, 12:41 »
I've literally seen tons of your images ...
Literally? How much does one of Elena's images weigh then?
They're probably pretty heavy - especially at 100%!
157
« on: March 23, 2010, 10:56 »
I've had success opening truncated files by doing this: Open the file using GraphicConverter. Then you can save it however you wish.
You can also do it using MS Paint, believe it or not - an easy way to recover damaged files.
158
« on: March 23, 2010, 00:40 »
.nevermind.
159
« on: March 22, 2010, 00:22 »
An accident happened right in front of me the other day. I was yelling and gesturing for the driver not to turn, but he decided to go for it anyway, stepped on the gas, and WHAMMO ... classic T-bone collision. My teenage son was with me, and I think he learnt a valuable lesson in making left-hand turns.
160
« on: March 22, 2010, 00:17 »
Given that you keyword correctly and minimally ...
Why on earth would you keyword minimally? Proper and adequate keywording is one of the cornerstones in getting good exposure - you are literally selling yourself short by spending a trivial amount of time with keywords. Like a lot of things, there's more to this than meets the eye.
161
« on: March 21, 2010, 20:29 »
Umm ... I think you need to read what I wrote six postings up.
162
« on: March 21, 2010, 18:31 »
No, it's not a conspiracy - it's just one of the benefits of being exclusive: no more keyword rejections.
163
« on: March 20, 2010, 23:01 »
You'll get that kind of "friendliness" from iStock if you go exclusive with them.
Put another way, iStock exclusive don't get rejections for bad/inappropriate keywords - the offending keywords are removed for them.
164
« on: March 19, 2010, 19:24 »
Remember the Partner Program qualifications? I think it's sadder that someone has 4000+ images without a sale in 18 months!
165
« on: March 19, 2010, 19:00 »
Geez, people, don't be so knee-jerkish: They're not dissuading regular buyers from using iStock, they're merely pointing subscription buyers towards Thinkstock, which makes this largely irrelevant: the number of subscription sales at iStock is minimal at very best.
166
« on: March 19, 2010, 12:21 »
I know what you're saying... but unless an image looks dated, why should its age cause its decline? ...
Here's something to consider: All things being equal, the most important factor in how an image sells is its placement in search results. Images are given 'bonus points' for being new, and thus have a temporarily improved search placement. Perhaps it's only a matter of time before agencies begin to handicap older images, giving them an increasingly worsened placement based on their age. Unless an image is outstanding enough to overcome this effect, it will eventually be placed low enough in searches that income from it will effectively disappear.
167
« on: March 19, 2010, 11:00 »
That's about spot on, gostwyck.
168
« on: March 19, 2010, 10:58 »
... I've gone through and 'optimised' keywords in deepmeta and I am now very concerned that this had a negative impact. ...
I think you are correct in your suspicions: best match placement takes a hit after you edit keywords. I think you might be okay by adding/removing one or two keywords, but anything beyond that pushes your images downwards by a page or two.
169
« on: March 18, 2010, 16:37 »
Looking back at my records since Jan 07 shows that March has always been a good month: | Month | # BMEs | | Jan | 1/4 (Jan 07 was a BME, but it was my first month doing stock, so I didn't count it) | | Feb | 4/4 | | Mar | 4/4 (assuming this month will be a BME) | | Apr | 2/3 | | May | 1/3 | | Jun | 0/3 | | Jul | 0/3 | | Aug | 2/3 | | Sep | 1/3 | | Oct | 2/3 | | Nov | 0/3 | | Dec | 0/3 |
170
« on: March 12, 2010, 17:17 »
Just curious: How many iStock exclusives are participating in this?
171
« on: March 12, 2010, 17:03 »
I agree with your trends in general, but like Dook, Saturdays are consistently worse than Sundays for me.
I always guessed it's because late Sunday in North America is actually Monday in Asia and Europe, so I think my better Sunday sales are actually European Monday sales.
This would also explain why Fridays are so dismal.
Ditto. For forecasting/analysis purposes I lump Friday, Saturday and Sunday together to form the weekend. It's fairly typical for Avg(Mon:Thu) ~ Sum(Fri:Sun).
172
« on: March 12, 2010, 14:31 »
I wonder why some non-photographer people buy DSLRs camera. They really think all they have to do is pressing the shutter button and the camera will do the rest 
Having a DSLR camera doesn't make someone a photographer! So, we only have more people taking snap shots with DSRLs cameras. 
I'm always amazed by the number of people who use professional-grade equipment to mostly take snapshots to post on sites like Flickr. It must be a more-money-than-common-sense sort of thing.
173
« on: March 12, 2010, 04:04 »
I had (much) higher hopes for them than they delivered, and after doing a few extrapolations I deemed it not worth the time and effort, so I opted out. Too bad ...
174
« on: March 12, 2010, 04:02 »
It's an easy guess that they don't use PS to resize - maybe one of the fractal up/downsizers works better?
175
« on: March 12, 2010, 03:54 »
Who/what is "ce"?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 73
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
