|
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 - LesPalenik
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 20
176
« on: September 04, 2014, 04:09 »
How about deleting all those spam threads?
177
« on: September 03, 2014, 00:10 »
Shutterstock ROCKS! You mean, sinking like a rock?
178
« on: August 18, 2014, 06:11 »
Many would feel very comfortable making 3K/month. But not so many are chosen.
179
« on: August 14, 2014, 00:01 »
Topaz Adjust 5 Topaz Labs is running this month another promotion for one of their flagship products - this time for Topaz Adjust that can make your images really pop. This plugin is ideal for HDR effects, dramatic contrasts, and deep color saturations. You can make very subtle changes to your images or drastic "Over-The-Top HDR" effects. For now, this is just a short announcement about the new Adjust 5 at the discounted price, but I will try to post some examples to my blog. The current promotion ($24.99 instead of regular $49.99) runs till Aug 31, 2014. For more information, to see some Before and After examples, or to purchase it at the reduced rate, use the link below: Topaz Adjustand enter "augadjust" for the 50% discount code You can download a 30 days trail version for free.
If you already own an older version of Topaz Adjust, you can still use the same link above, and download the latest version for free.
180
« on: August 13, 2014, 10:34 »
You can see by your own figures theres not much money in it, SS 2-3 sales a day with 250 photos if you add 2500 images what are you going to get? $10 to $30 per day, you have to ask yourself how is your time best spent. That (linear) calculation might work if 2500 images of similar quality were added immediately. Realistically, by the time those 2500 images are added to the port, the linear projection due to competition and similar images won't apply, and the daily income would be (based on today's figures) only in the $5-$10 range.
181
« on: August 13, 2014, 07:22 »
any ideas how to generate more income? Selling the photo gear is usually the quickest method.
182
« on: August 11, 2014, 07:42 »
OK, enough said. You have a ton of new folks that will replace us in 3 months and take 25 cents and go whoHoo. Who Cares......Right?. why pay us more when you don't have to but, Thats not you call anyway. That's true, Laurin, but there is some evidence that more and more contributors are starting to withhold their better images from the subscription outfits and send them instead to some RM agencies or put them on their own site. And since many contributors report significant decrease in their SS sales, maybe some buyers have noticed it too, and look elsewhere for their images now.
183
« on: August 09, 2014, 16:34 »
30% dl increase, 42% collection growth = 9% fewer sales per image, therefore you need to grow your portfolio 9% per quarter (about 40% per year) just to stand still, if my arithmetic is any good.
imho your arithmetic is meaningless, since about 70% of uploads is basically useless junk, that never gets any download. Also on the other and of the spectrum many shots that kinda "nailed it", often keep getting more and more downloads as time goes on.
In the past, it used to work that way. Nowadays, it seems that the older shots with many downloads are penalized and pushed down.
184
« on: August 08, 2014, 22:55 »
the largest and freshest library of its kind.
I wonder how many of those "fresh" images are 10 year-old pictures from ex-IS exclusives.
185
« on: August 05, 2014, 18:36 »
I would recommend disabling the sound.
186
« on: August 04, 2014, 07:14 »
what kind of team?
just a small team we make photo.
Small team is a good idea. With such a team you could do all kinds of things, many of them more profitable than stock photos.
187
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:43 »
what kind of team?
188
« on: August 01, 2014, 09:22 »
got it, too
189
« on: July 30, 2014, 06:26 »
We'll see (and cringe) when they announce the specifics.
One thing is the sheer volume of Flickr images. Depending on how judicious they will get with the image selection, we could see hundreds of millions of images. The other big question is the pricing. Somehow I get the feeling they won't compete on price with Getty.
190
« on: July 30, 2014, 04:32 »
191
« on: July 28, 2014, 18:47 »
However the agencies want to justify it, this new practice is misleading, and outright deceiving. It doesn't help me as a buyer, and certainly it doesn't help me as the contributor. Often it's not even proportional (number of days/number of downloads). It even seems that some agencies in their misguided effort trying to present a fresh look of the stats, punish older images with high number of downloads and push them intentionally down several pages.
"Most downloaded" would be a very useful option for the buyers, reflecting the real situation. Leave the decision to the buyers whether they want (or not) the most downloaded image or the most popular image in the last month. As it is implemented now, the display sequence is based on fabricated figures. If you can't trust "the most popular" information, what else can you expect?
Go back to the "classic" model.
One of my new images is now number one most popular in its category on iS. The next most popular has 3x as many dls, but mine happened over a few months and the other over four years. Which is more popular?
I had the opposite happen to me at SS (same image). Mine was bumped out of the number one spot by a newcomer. You win some,you lose some. But you can't have buyers looking at the same images for ten years or you'll start losing sales altogether.
I never said that they should not promote new images. But they should call it appropriately and not use misleading terms. It smells too much of certain regimes that elevated their propaganda above the truth. Most buyers would prefer to have the facts presented in real honest numbers and make the choices themselves.
192
« on: July 28, 2014, 16:16 »
However the agencies want to justify it, this new practice is misleading, and outright deceiving. It doesn't help me as a buyer, and certainly it doesn't help me as the contributor. Often it's not even proportional (number of days/number of downloads). It even seems that some agencies in their misguided effort trying to present a fresh look of the stats, punish older images with high number of downloads and push them intentionally down several pages.
"Most downloaded" would be a very useful option for the buyers, reflecting the real situation. Leave the decision to the buyers whether they want (or not) the most downloaded image or the most popular image in the last month. As it is implemented now, the display sequence is based on fabricated figures. If you can't trust "the most popular" information, what else can you expect?
Go back to the "classic" model.
193
« on: July 27, 2014, 14:51 »
If such observations are unreliable, is the denial of them more reliable?
194
« on: July 27, 2014, 00:44 »
You should be able to make $100 just with 3 good images: One Other download at $70, second a $28 EL, and one SOD at $2.85.
They could also sell a few times as regular subscriptions, but that would be gravy.
Just make sure not to upload them to DPC, because if somebody buys them there, that could ruin the projections above.
195
« on: July 26, 2014, 21:41 »
It seems, that people NOT uploading to zillion agencies are reporting consistent or growing sales on SS.
Im hearing the same Les.
But are the increases enough to make up for not uploading to, say, 7-10 other sites?
There are no guarantees, and of course, it depends on each portfolio and the individual agencies, but I believe that not only there will be increases (or more realistically, a reduction in decreases), but personally, it saves me uploading efforts to the marginal sites, and also it makes me will feel much better that those images were denied to the most exploitative agencies whose only distinguishing features are the rock-bottom prices.
196
« on: July 25, 2014, 09:10 »
I wouldn't say that SS is one of the cheapest sites. Here is a look from the buyer side:
A few months ago, I needed some images, and was contemplating purchasing a one-month subscription at SS. Coincidentally, DT ran a promotion with a 30% discount for their subscription, so I bought their one-month subscription and got all my images from them. The discount amounted to $75, so it was not just a few bucks.
I didn't need to spend time to try and find the same images on several agencies. As it happened, many of the images I previously put into my SS lightbox were available also on DT, and I was quite satisfied with what they had to offer. However, I took time to look for images from fellow Symbiostockers, and bought quite a few images from them. I got my discount and they still received their regular royalties. Thank you all!
197
« on: July 24, 2014, 17:09 »
It seems, that people NOT uploading to zillion agencies are reporting consistent or growing sales on SS.
Good observation, Les. I have a feeling you're right.
I've pulled back and now only upload new stuff to the two most-productive agencies for me (SS and DT), plus my own Symbiostock site.
Still have older images left on a few others, but I'm completely out of IS, FT, and Veer. That feels good, to be honest.
This is the case for me, also. Although I don't know why there would be a connection between consistency on SS and uploading to only a few places. Coincidence most likely.
I upload to SS and Macrografiks, that's it for RF. Tried Getty, iStock and DT but they weren't good fits for me. Now directing my efforts to my own RM site (via Photoshelter) and hope to leave micro behind for good in the next year or so.
There is some logic to it. If you have the same image on SS and also on many rock-bottom price sites, many buyers will buy it from the cheapest site, thus reducing your SS income. Not only you are hurting your combined revenue, but you are also encouraging the cheap sites to continue the downward price spiral.
198
« on: July 24, 2014, 00:16 »
It seems, that people NOT uploading to zillion agencies are reporting consistent or growing sales on SS.
199
« on: July 22, 2014, 03:24 »
Topaz Remask 4 Topaz Labs just released a new version of their masking plugin - Remask 4. If you need to make some isolations, you might want to look at this nifty program. The new version is more streamlined and more precise in creation of complex masks than the previous Remask versions. Compared to the Photoshop CS5 which I'm using, the new Remask program is easier to use and it handles even tricky isolations very well. I don't know how it would compare to the latest Photoshop CC 2014. If you are already using presently Remask 3, you can upgrade it for free to Remask 4. I just posted a short description of this program with a couple of examples on my blogsite: http://advantica.wordpress.com/2014/07/22/topaz-remask/Remask 4 is offered until July 31, 2014 at a 50% discount, at $34.99 instead of regular $69.99. At that price, even if you produce just a handful of isolated objects from some of your existing shots, the program should quickly pay for itself. To try it out on some of your images, you can download a 30-days trial version for free. Here is the Topaz Remask 4 link: Topaz Remaskto purchase it at the reduced price, enter "julyremask" as the discount code at checkout.
200
« on: July 19, 2014, 17:24 »
more like every 30 months
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
