|
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 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20
76
« on: July 02, 2015, 06:32 »
Thanks Zeus & Noedelhap for the feedback on pricing. Our mission is to provide creative content that everyone can afford, but of course we want to benefit the seller too. A lot of data went into our decision on pricing, and we think $49 strikes a good balance between saving customers money and compensating you guys for you work.
One of the main reasons many new businesses go under, is that they set their prices too low. Don't make that mistake!
77
« on: June 29, 2015, 16:53 »
I haven't used the camera myself, but know some people using it - just with the kit lens. Personally, I wouldn't use any adapter, since that defeats its primary advantages being small and inexpensive. If you think, you'll need longer lenses, you may be better off with a larger Sony model (or Nikon 5x00). Here is a link to an article about a young Hawaii-based photographer with some of his images taken by A6000. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8511033648/readers-showcase-raiatea-arcuriNo doubt, the A6000 will be superceded at some time by a newer model. Nevertheless, this camera is still one of best values around, and much lighter than most of its competitors.
78
« on: June 29, 2015, 10:07 »
When it comes to image quality, it's very good (of course, it depends also on the lens), but you shouldn't have any problems getting it accepted at any agency. 24MP, quality-wise comparable to Nikon 7100 (DXO score 82 vs 83).
79
« on: June 25, 2015, 19:59 »
Most likely, delayed reporting. I think, they call it "rear curtain".
80
« on: June 24, 2015, 17:48 »
$199 wouldn't be bad, if the authors got 50 or 70% of the proceeds.
Remind me, how much are they getting now?
30%
So, we are talking about the following split: $60 return for the movie concept and detail planning, driving to a location, shooting, editing, keywording, submitting, equipment depreciation and $140 for adding the clip to an existing storage and display facility, some promotion, plus a few pennies to keep a 500MB file online. Something doesn't seem quite right.
81
« on: June 24, 2015, 17:22 »
$199 wouldn't be bad, if the authors got 50 or 70% of the proceeds.
Remind me, how much are they getting now?
83
« on: June 22, 2015, 00:57 »
Classy move by Apple (the second part of the act). And smart, too.
Anyone can guess how would the major stock agencies react in such situation?
85
« on: June 20, 2015, 04:58 »
Back to the OP:
You'll just have to be careful what you photograph.
If you aim you a camera at a government building or a bridge, you'll be accused of being a terrorist
if you photograph a female, you are a stalker and exploiter of women
if you photograph children, you are definitely a pedophile
if you photograph a homeless person, you are an insensitive clod
if you take a selfie, you must be a narcissist
best, stick to shooting butterflies and birds
86
« on: June 19, 2015, 20:27 »
With such a large portfolio, it should be worthwhile to create your own site. Then you can put there whatever you want.
Have you looked at the new Symbiostock or grfx?
87
« on: June 19, 2015, 18:12 »
With the pace of increasing the stock image volumes (at any agency), it is only logical that this leads to a decrease in RPI, RPD, and RPC (return per contributor). Anybody hoping for a reversal should start shooting inside a mental institution.
88
« on: June 18, 2015, 04:53 »
There are opportunities even in Microstock if you've seen what I've seen. There are always emerging trends in microstock. When the iPad first came out, I was looking for well-composed photos of people holding iPads in different settings to use for websites. Guess what, there were none and this was months after it was released. Nah, those emerging trends are just short-term fads. There is much more demand for timeless concepts like a firm tomato or a rosy-cheeked Santa.
89
« on: June 18, 2015, 04:31 »
Some optimism would be nice And a good dose of realism might be not quite so nice, but really helpful.
90
« on: June 16, 2015, 02:45 »
I haven't named anyone so I don't see the harm.
Whilst the comment seemed flippant there's a serious point behind it you need Directors that understand business and are professional in that area. I have to say in my opinion many posts here demonstrate a lack of understanding of commercial realities. So totally ON TOPIC
You can still be professional and have a sense of humour 
I disagree.
It appears that in the first round, the wise and funny garnered more support than the plain disagreement. In the wee hours of the morning after, the score shows 9:0 in favor of the defender.
91
« on: June 15, 2015, 06:40 »
That's terrible, where did they download those videos from - pond5, youtube, or somewhere else?
92
« on: June 14, 2015, 22:39 »
Better funny than mean.
93
« on: June 10, 2015, 19:29 »
If they are partnering with one of your agencies, they should display agency's watermark.
94
« on: June 09, 2015, 10:09 »
Congrats, Ron!
The bad thing is that because of all the royalties SS is paying to Ron, their profit and stock price is dropping like a rock.
15% decline (from $73 to $61 this morning) in last 6 weeks.
95
« on: June 07, 2015, 19:39 »
However, if you are a landscape photographer, nothing beats the America the Beautiful - National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Senior Pass in USA - Lifetime Pass for $10. Seniors from all other countries would go to war for such a deal.
I agree with that, Les, and in fact I make verrrry good use of the lifetime Senior Pass I bought for $10.
However the time and gas it takes to get to those widespread national parks and other public lands, and the price of staying in those areas (with their often-$$$ accommodations), undercuts the cost benefits. My artist husband and I own a motor home, so we can eat, sleep, and hang out quite reasonably in places like that. But even for us, there's a cost to get there.
Hi Martha, How I wish, I could buy that $10 lifetime pass, but in my case, it's too late to apply for the green card. Speaking about green - that's how most our parks look, interlaced with swimmable sparkling blue waters (well, for the few short months, anyway). That's the part I like about parks here.
96
« on: June 07, 2015, 18:16 »
... but the further east you do, the cheaper the life gets.
This is a simplistic view. You should have said the "harder the life gets"
In those countries there is virtually no middle class. You have very few rich people and almost everybody else is poor.
This is why most of the top technology (including good photo equipment) can only be afforded by the tiny fraction of very rich people with absolutely no money problems.
Good technology cannot be afforded by the masses, so the prices are kept up for only those who can afford it. You will be surprised to see that good TVs, good cameras, good cars, etc are more expensive in Eastern Europe than in Western Europe (and definitely more expensive than in US).
So purchasing the gear required for decent quality photography requires huge sacrifices from a regular photographer. You should factor this in when you make your statements.
You are right, it was a generalization and simplistic, too. It's not absolute all the way from Prague to Ulan Bator, there are a few exceptions, notably Moscow, and as you say, the further east you go, the harder the life gets - in general. However, I know some photographers in eastern Europe whose living expenses, model fees, and studio rents are less than half of West European prices, and these guys know how to buy their cameras and computers from the same mail order outfits and for the same prices as their West European counterparts. So, everybody's mileage will vary. Enjoy the summer. EDIT: I must confess, that I also exaggerated (in my other post), about all seniors willing to go to war for that park pass. Maybe just the younger ones.
97
« on: June 07, 2015, 05:42 »
However, if you are a landscape photographer, nothing beats the America the Beautiful - National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Senior Pass in USA - Lifetime Pass for $10. Seniors from all other countries would go to war for such a deal.
Our National Parks are free for everyone, though admittedly nothing like as varied.
That's even better. In Canada, the annual pass for adults to all National parks costs $67.70 and $57.90 for seniors. The provincial parks are not included in those fees, and they sell their own annual passes in each province anywhere between $20 (Newfoundland) and $175 (Ontario) - and that's just for day visits, not camping. And for all this money, they don't even stock the prairies with giraffes and lakes with crocodiles anymore. Regardless, for the government it seems much more profitable and easier business than taxing the oil companies.
98
« on: June 07, 2015, 00:26 »
(1) Do these figures seem accurate?
(2) Are figures for other Eastern European and former Soviet nations about the same or higher/lower?
(3) What would be the average for your country?
Yes, these figures seem about right, but the actual rates vary from country to country. Prague is nowadays not much cheaper than Berlin, but the further east you do, the cheaper the life gets. And also the female models get prettier and vodka gets more available as you travel eastwards. Or maybe they look prettier because of the vodka. In Canada, the standard of living is about the same as in USA. Taxes are higher, health care is cheaper. The only thing is that we don't get paid for blood donations (however, that could be circumvented if the blood donor is also a fashion model, and enterprising stock photographer could be fooled into parting with his money by believing he discovered a niche). Gas is less expensive in USA, but Florida oranges and Cuban cigars can be found cheaper here. Alcohol costs more here, but that could be compensated by a cheaper highly potent BC-grown marijuana. Photo gear used to be cheaper south of the border, but due to the drop of Canadian currency, and depending on a particular item, it could be now more advantageous to buy it here. However, if you are a landscape photographer, nothing beats the America the Beautiful - National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Senior Pass in USA - Lifetime Pass for $10. Seniors from all other countries would go to war for such a deal.
99
« on: May 24, 2015, 20:48 »
100
« on: May 13, 2015, 08:56 »
All I can do is guess. Knowing SS they've taken a look at the percentage of rejections averaged over the years.
In the end we are left with the above oxymoron.
Without actually being involved in shutterstock's review or content screening process; we are left to guess.
Based on shutterstocks statement all we actually know for sure, is that the process involves storing undefined data or attributes for each review in a database.
We could take a leap and also assume that they use data driven database queries to analyze that data, combined with review statistic's which they have already collected .
There are several clues which point to some data driven rejection criteria. Case in point: Recently, I submitted some pictures taken by Nikon Coolpix A. This is a tiny camera, however it uses an APS-C sized sensor with 16MP. According to DXO Mark, it has higher IQ (and resolution as well) than D300. The lens is a very sharp fixed 18.5mm wide angle. The pictures I took were taken all outside in good light, at base ISO, and as far I can see the IQ is way better than D300 and or Canon 7D. a) Paradoxically, despite the sharper image from this camera, most of these pictures were rejected due to: Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution. Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized. Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance. If the better images by Coolpix A are rejected and the mediocre ones by D300 are accepted, one can only assume that the reviewers (human or automated) do not look at the image quality, but only at the camera model in exif. b) Another clue pointing to automated reviews could be the recent change in submission comments from a free-form text field to a drop-down menu with just a few standard (and useless) options.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
