|
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 - KiwiRob
51
« on: November 06, 2007, 15:44 »
Does anyone else do this, I sometimes report them if I notice something really out of order, however I think the system has bigged down, it appears to take months now for the changes to be reviewed. I just wonder if it's worth the effort.
52
« on: October 02, 2007, 11:00 »
Be sneaky sign up with another agency using an alias and upload all the rejects there. I'm pretty sure their are some people who do that. Anoher way of doing it is put all you stock on IS and editorial images on shutterstock.
Are you serious or did you just miss to include some smilies?
It's hard to cash checks using a fake name. 
According to the guy I was talking to who is exclusive at IS and sells (different images) on all the other sites under a his another name it doesn't matter what you call yourself if you are recieving payment via paypal or moneybookers since they use an email address not your name.
53
« on: October 02, 2007, 10:37 »
The way these things are developing I can see the medium format firms going out of business in a few year's time.
Yes, I know there are differences, but would you choose a Hasselblad over a Canon 1DSiii or whatever 35mp beast they launch in a couple of year's time?
If I could afford it I would, most MF lense box outresolve 35mm any day of the week, even Nikon and Canons pro spec glass isn't as good. After reading FM canon have a real problem on their hands the 1ds II out resolved a lot of canons L glass and now the new 22mp version will probably be too good for what's left, Canon are going to have to spend some serious money sorting out the glass before they can realistically go any bigger. People are always going to want huge files, 35mm will never get to the size and quality that a MF back will produce, just like in film days, bigger negitive, better quality. I think a lot of the top guns at IS will probably go MF sooner or later, if they haven't already.
54
« on: September 14, 2007, 01:35 »
I have had an image returned at big stock, I was quite surprised, it was only 50 cents.
55
« on: September 10, 2007, 23:41 »
I wonder if she would make more buy spreading her work around to other sites as well; I think she would, what do others think?
I think she probably would too, but the amount of work needed to duplicate her portfolio elsewhere would be enormous.
It wouldn't be much work at all, the other site who gets her would fall over themselves to have her portfolio and would doall the work to upload the images and keyword them, at least that's what I would do if I was SS or DT.
56
« on: September 10, 2007, 07:28 »
these guys are a complete waste of time, I don't know why I ever bothered with them.
57
« on: September 10, 2007, 06:02 »
I wonder if she would make more buy spreading her work around to other sites as well; I think she would, what do others think?
58
« on: August 29, 2007, 04:37 »
That's not correct KR - Yuri holds the daily record at SS at 1190 downloads.
Besides, if she wants to broaden out she now has access to Getty.
Being exclusive at IS and broadening out to RM agencies and other specialist fields would make a lot of sense and be a good economic strategy.
That's Yuir's own personal record which was set some time ago,I believe his portfolio has grown since then and he probably sells farmore than that every day, there are quite a few other photographers at SS who have larger porfolios than Yuri and probably sell as much if not consideribly more than he does. Hidesy also has a larger portfolio of equal quality, you would expect her to sell more, she doesn't have access to the good side of Getty just the photodisc stuff. I really do believe she would make a lot more selling on other sites, exclusivity doesn't make sense, it never has and it never will, it limites your market, besides the payouts at IS for exclusivity aren't as good as being non exclusive at other sites.
59
« on: August 27, 2007, 05:47 »
At a guess I'd say she would have been far worse off my not being exclusive; the other sites do not have the customer base to be able to sell in such volume.
But if you add in SS where she would easily sell 1500 plus images a day, their are quite a number who do that there, any additional images sold at DT (or other site) would be a bonus. I really think being exclusive would be a limiting factor to potentially greater income. Besides I'm sure any site would welcome a photographer like her with open arms and do all the donkey work to put the images up.
60
« on: August 27, 2007, 00:09 »
I reckon she's getting an average of $1.20 or so per download, so at an annualised 120,000 downloads that's $144,000 per annum or AUD $170,000 (Australian Dollars).
Now here is the million dollar question, do you think she would have made more is she wasn't exclusive and sold on other sites, I think she probably would have made double if her portfolio was on SS and DT as well, even considering the loss of exclusive bonus at IS which is more than made up for by the higher payouts at other sites.
61
« on: August 27, 2007, 00:05 »
Awesome achievement wish I had the time (and the talent) to put together a portfolio like hers.
Just as an aside Istock announced that Lisa Gayner hit 500,000 in early June and now has 562,000 downloads, 20,000 downloads per month is huge.
62
« on: July 26, 2007, 13:51 »
Istock has the Dollar Bin and Getty has Istock
nice answer. The crap on getty is probably worse than the average to good stuff on IS, so we should be ok.
63
« on: July 26, 2007, 13:48 »
this is the traditional summer holiday period, sales are always slower this time of year.
64
« on: July 26, 2007, 11:04 »
I think you are referring to the 5D not D5 and it sure as hell freezing over isn't going to be anywhere in europe unless it's stolen. it's a real tossup between Asia and the US some places in Asia like Hong Kong and Thailand you can find super deals but probably not mail order, if you go the mailorder route then the US is the best. One of the best sites to look up is bhphoto.com
65
« on: July 17, 2007, 09:01 »
Brave people to voice complaints on the IS forums, that's a sure fire way to get banned.
66
« on: July 14, 2007, 06:44 »
Freezing I would also recommend two bodies, nothing worse than damaging your camera in the middle of a wedding and not being able to get any shots, I would beg borrow or steal another one as an insurance policy. Also that lense you are using is pretty slow, for the shots inside the church you want something fast f2.8 is probably as slow as you would want to go, see if you can borrow something faster, a 70-200 f2.8 makes a great church lense, if you are using a flash make sure it's not the pop up and bracket everything, take as many shots as possible. I shoot jpeg (more shots per card less processing time), bracket shots and take as many as possible, last wedding I went to I shot about 1500 images.
You have to come prepared, backups for everything, nothing upsets a bride more than seeing crappy photos after the event. I've shot at 3 weddings for family and friends and it's difficult and nerve wracking, but can be a lot of fun if you are confident in your abilities.
67
« on: July 03, 2007, 14:43 »
The SS forums are a bore anyway... show me your best photo of a tulip... and it's usually the same 5 or 6 people doing all the talking. Much nicer place here. Even though we can speak uncensored, everyone is respectful.
I would watch what you say here because some owners post here and they will get you if you say anything too negitive. I've given up posting at SS, its all a little silly there now. I like Rinder, he's interesting and helpful but do think he should have been banned along with the other chap who was, they were both as bad as each other.
68
« on: July 03, 2007, 14:33 »
Just a hobby for me. I make more in a day than I do in two months on micro.
When I go back to NZ (land of the low wage - compared to london anyway) that should change a bit.
it's only land of the low wage if you have a crappy job, I earn several times minimum wage and didn't have to work that hard to get it. I earn about 1-2% of my salary through MS, it's a hobby which is almost pays for my gear.
69
« on: June 20, 2007, 13:15 »
Yes, you would have to remove them. 
oh well fuck that then.
70
« on: June 19, 2007, 12:36 »
I have a large number airliner images which are sold as editorial on SS and an aviation webpage, they are editorial and would never be accepted on IS, would I have to remove these from either site if I went exclusive with IS.
71
« on: June 17, 2007, 02:10 »
My biggest reason for not going exclusive is that rejected images get absolutely no chance of selling.
FP - filled out the non.
Solid point, Maco!! You can't argue with that. I've got pix that IS rejected that have sold literally hundreds of times with other outfits. Why would I squelch those sales?
Let me be clear, I'm a newbie with IS, and I'm now running around 75-80% acceptance, which I am happy with there... but I only send them what already sells well on SS & StockXpert. So those 20-25% they reject would be useless if I were exclusive..... being non-exclusive, I'm making nice money on them.
No doubt there are many good reasons to be exclusive as well. Foremost, it sure would seem to be a lot less work.  -tom
Be sneaky sign up with another agency using an alias and upload all the rejects there. I'm pretty sure their are some people who do that. Anoher way of doing it is put all you stock on IS and editorial images on shutterstock.
72
« on: June 13, 2007, 12:11 »
I have done a search but can't find what I'm after, does anyone have a release that works on every site, so far I use a couple of different ones and it's getting annoying. If anyone has one would you mind sending it to me.
Thanks
73
« on: June 13, 2007, 12:07 »
have you also noticed they have taken away the download stats when you do a search, you can only see how many downloads an image has when you open it.
74
« on: June 13, 2007, 11:59 »
I would say that Lisa is making way more than 100,000 USD per year, probably closer to 200,000. She has already sold more than 100,000 images this year and it only June. Last time I looked (1st June) she had just sold 500,000 as of today she's sold 509,161. She's selling about 700 per day, more than 300,000 per year, she'll break 1,000,000 by this time next year.
75
« on: June 13, 2007, 11:43 »
I wonder how many events will give press passes to Shutterstock, they are hardly a major or even minor press agency, how much exposure will SS generate from an event, do they have the buyers for editorial content.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
