|
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 - pr2is
101
« on: August 06, 2007, 18:16 »
I see you shoot with Oly 8080... be careful with noize, especially in the blue sky, that camera is known to be a noizy beast. And do not submit too many of similar theme shots for your test. 10 "travel" photos will raise their flag even if they are good. Try to show variety
102
« on: August 06, 2007, 17:23 »
Lincoln... have you familiarized yourself with requirements of major sites for photo acceptance? Maybe to avoid surprizes you may want to post your candidates here first, both thumbnail and 100% crop, before submitting them to reviewers. Experienced folks here may save you a lot of grief 
103
« on: August 06, 2007, 14:52 »
Gordon Gekko. "Greed is good". Extra points in a form of credits or what?
104
« on: August 04, 2007, 12:09 »
To my eye, unsharpened version looks the best...
105
« on: August 02, 2007, 23:31 »
Data seems to be OK, but I don't see thumbnails. Rightclick - Show Picture doesn't help. Probably takes more time to restore.... unless everyone else sees them?
106
« on: July 28, 2007, 10:56 »
So far, people with natural revulsion to unions fight their puking reflex and discuss unions. Just how ironic would that be if participants - crying and throwing up - eventually decide that yeah, as disgusting as the thought is we still need one  Come on guys, look at the trends. Do we see agencies increasing or cutting contributor's cut? Do they live in situation of fierce competition or near-monopoly? Do companies with strong unions tend to outperform or underperform those non-unionized? Do countries with stronger socialistic tendencies tend to demonstrate stronger or weaker economic performance? Finally, what happens to union movement over last, umm, couple decades - does it pick up and broaden or does it wilt? Answer all these questions and you will see whether union idea goes with grain or against it.
107
« on: July 27, 2007, 19:08 »
the more I upload, the more I sell. And ironically, it's not the new uploads selling
That's interesting phenomenon I noticed, too, and I believe it was mentioned earlier by some. Not sure what gives - maybe search algorithm on some sites lift to the top of search not just new uploads but entire portfolio? Or customer seeing newest uploads has no need for those exact images but gets interested and takes a look at the rest? Something else? Anyone knows or has suggestions?
108
« on: July 25, 2007, 20:53 »
Sorry, I fail to see logic here... So what is the logic of you giving your image library to these new agencies? You've spent thousands of hours creating those images, and now you are freely handing them to new agencies Freely giving? We upload them just as we do to any of existing and proven agencies. Motives are different of course: with proven ones it's for profit, with newer ones it's in order to be there in case it picks up. Each decides whether s/he wants to bet on this and if so, which ones appeal more. Fair game, what does it have to do with "freely giving"? But great for the new agency owner: he collects over time a nice image library of say 1 million pictures; he now has a valuable asset that he can sell - YOUR asset of course. So in a year's time Albumo go along to Snapvillage and say "hey guys, don't waste your time collecting images one by one - you can buy our library for 2 or three million dollars; all the pictures nicely keyworded and categorised by our mug contributors who have made no money because we couldn't get any customers". If that assumed buyer (Snapvillage in your example) is existing one, they likely have those same images or quite close collection. I have hard time imagining this kind of acquisition happening, not for collection of images anyway. It could be if a company looking for a buyer has certain interesting and protected technology, customer base, but in that case it's not our images that made acquisition feasible. Now, if assumed buyer is a new player and simply wants to buy out the one with library, it could be argued whether it makes sense... but even if so, what do contributors stand to lose? Their images are already online, new player is likely to invest in advertising to justify their acquisition... The only practical question in all this is, how much time and effort uploading to new site takes. If it's as easy as 123RF makes it, it's not a problem at all. You uploaded, they are there, simple as that - no disambiguwhatever, no three levels categorizing. The only "general approach" question in all this is, how many sites consitute a good compromise between "too many, market gets diluted" and "too few, monopoly may get too powerful which is never good for either customer or contributor". The rest is touchy-feely "ah my precious images in dirty hands of greedy capitalist pigs" - beyond wierd to me
109
« on: July 25, 2007, 12:57 »
Gizeh, your line of reasoning has nothing to do with majority of microstock contributors. Try different perspective described as follows. Hobbyist loves photography. (S)he enjoys shooting, learning, editing, both process and result. Family albums are filled, friends and relatives fed up (LOL) with being constantly barraged by e-mails with new shots. Photgrapher feels he wants new venue, more recognition. The quest takes him to something like Flickr. Firther quest takes him to stock sites and he finds out that by doing what he loves he becomes a part of new community, can learn new technical and artistic aspects of his favorite hobby AND make some money off all this. Now, the camera, lenses, computer, time invested etc WERE already there and would be there anyway, stock or no stock. All those economic models of yours simply do not apply here for anyone but those who seriously try to build their livelihood on contributing to microstock. As for "normal shooting doesn't work for stock" - not exactly true. Of course most popular and well-selling images are often different from what vacation-shooter would do but it doesn't mean taking those images is not a pleasure. I haven't shot any single one I wouldn't like to, even though many of them are mundane shots. And I learned something from most of them.
So, what's is the problem with agency building business on being an enabler for photographer for all those tasks? That is of course if one is not simply hstile to the business in general which is totally different matter. Or, taking it from contributor's side, what is the problem with photographer doing al,l those things he enjoys and making some money off it? How is agency being dishonest and how is contributor being foolish?
110
« on: July 24, 2007, 11:56 »
There is no way really to beat the socialism back to where it belongs eh? Amazing how this kind of outlook creeps in again and again, no matter how many times and at how many levels it's being proved fruitless dead end.
Shovel sellers dare making more money than gold digers. Shame on them.
111
« on: July 23, 2007, 13:37 »
Well, "no style no taste" is a reject no matter what stage new agency is at, I would think there is no really question about that... and hey, thanks for not considering my junk shot a junk, I appreciate that! Just kidding, you know what I meant calling it junk - maybe useful once a year and technically clean, but carries zero imagination. I do have better ones, lol
112
« on: July 23, 2007, 08:05 »
It's a tough choice sometimes for photographers... let me cite an example here. On more accomodating sites with higher acceptance rates my portfolios do have some early days photos (umm, OK, a lot of photos, lol) that I wouldn't take/upload today. Yet what do you know, now and then some of them get downloaded. Fresh from this morning:  There is no way I would have shot such simplistic and overdone image today... but someone somewhere needs it. The conflict here between photographers and agency is, as a contributor I want this kind of "junk" to sit out there and wait for it's time, costs me nothing, right? Meanwhile, a lot of such things with extremely rare downloads (deservedly rare, no doubt) will introduce additional cost/workload for you as an agency. My suggestion would be, for the first stage of agency development accept technically sound images without obvious composition flaws and let buyers sort out their commercial value. This, along with easy uploading process, would attract many contributors who are frustrated with "too many of a kind" or "limited commercial value" rejections. Use this period to build strong community feeling. It will also give you more room to find out what your niche of buyers want as this niche shapes up. Then if necessary tighten criteria as your database grows
113
« on: July 19, 2007, 21:30 »
I'll leave it to others to take this apart if they will... just one piece I can't leave with no comment: Making money is the only reason their in business, their not doing it as a favor to photographers. Ummm... as opposite to macroagencies who are in this out of sheer goodness of their macro-hearts and simply lose their sleep at night worrying about photographers well-being?
114
« on: July 19, 2007, 20:46 »
Congratulations! Keep us updated on how it goes please, I am still of open mind on that one
115
« on: July 19, 2007, 18:17 »
I don't think on StockXpert you can see your photos while application pending. My Photos is where they should be but it remains empty at this stage.
FWIW, I decided against attempts to get accepted there. Well-selling ones, accepted by SS, IS and DT are met with "we don't need this kind"... I don't take it personally but if they don't need it they don't need it, why would I want to upload without sales (I assume they know their client needs).
116
« on: July 18, 2007, 20:17 »
You know you are getting too many e-mails when Delete button in your Outlook Express application starts fading away on your screen
117
« on: July 17, 2007, 20:01 »
Adelaide,
I think you described a lot of us, with some insignificant variations.
118
« on: July 16, 2007, 22:41 »
Oh wow... I thought this topic drowned for good (which it should, lol). Anyway, thanks for warm words folks.
As follow-up... I am really glad I haven't given up on SS, it was totally worth it. Acceptance rate is not bad for such picky agency (75% so far), sales are constant even with small portfolio (albeit growing by day), and even enjoyed first EL. Hope it helps anyone questioning whether SS worth the aggravation of being rejected multiple times
119
« on: July 15, 2007, 23:35 »
Good lighting and good exposure are crucial for getting noise-free images but even with all the right conditions it's not always possible to obtain fully clean shots right out of the camera. Best example is blue sky which is one of the worst noise offenders even when you do everything right. Hard to tell what caused SS rejection without seeing your images but if there is a lot of sky in those, pay special attention to it. You may be able to get rid of it without special software by slight blurring/masking. Don't overdo it, there is a fine line between cleaning out the noise and killing the details, I always do noise clean-up on separate level to mask out some parts if needed.
Sorry about rejection but really, it's rather rule than exception with SS to go through several of those before getting accepted.
120
« on: July 14, 2007, 17:57 »
Quite similar experience here dbvirago, and on top of that, I run into new suprizes when trying to guess what sells and what doesn't. Things that seem to me very stock-oriented sit ignored for weeks, things that I upload by "while at it, let's throw this one in too" imulse become popular with buyers... so I do now what you do, upload and let the nature take its course
121
« on: July 14, 2007, 17:12 »
Image below was submitted to IS (among others) and accepted:  Now, another one is the same parrot, isolated:  Isolation is done is the same breath, meaning I did it when finished working on original without closing and reopening it. Thus, image is absolutely identical quality wise. Being submited a day later though it gets rejected by IS for artifacting (can you even see artifacts on a parrot feathers?? The only conclusion I can come to is, different reviewer... Hope those two example show illustrate well how far from straightfoward the process is. Oh, and I am with fintastique on the thought that more variety won't hurt in first 10
122
« on: July 14, 2007, 17:05 »
Two photos, same theme, slightly different execution:   Both are submitted to SS and IS. Each of agencies takes one, rejects one. You guessed right - they picked different ones Easy to see, there iss no simple conclusion that what is good for one of them must be good for another.
123
« on: July 14, 2007, 17:01 »
Whiz,
1. those that have no reason for rejection are as good as accepted - if not for other 5, they would be in. Don't assume that that will be accpeted next time you submit though, another inspector may have different opinion.
2. SS doesn't hate you (I know you were joking or half-joking). It's just too easy to take these things as personal while they are not.
3. Assumption that what IS accepted has a good chance to be accepted by SS and visa-versa is questionable. While chance is probably higher, it's never done thing. Not only criteria are different betwenn agencies but they vary even between reviewers within one agency, and I suspect same reviewer may look at things differently on another day... let me illustrate the point by two examples so it's clear that there is no straightforward logic and clean continuation in review/acceptance process. I'll post examples in two following posts.
124
« on: July 14, 2007, 11:31 »
Vague feeling is, amount of laws violated by cutting bigger percentage to unionized photographers will exceed amount of fingers on the hands on all union members... not a lawyer though, so maybe not.
But really, why would agency want to motivate contributors to unite and form a potentially threatening body? If anything, agency will want us to stay as we are. Which is not necessary a bad thing btw, the way unions impact business is quite controversial matter.
125
« on: July 13, 2007, 15:44 »
Watermark issue was mentioned earlier, not sure if it was discussed anywhere on FT forums and taken under consideration... looks troublesome really. Who would have spent more than 1 min erasing it from the image attached, raise your hands... 
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
