|
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 - increasingdifficulty
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 65 66 67 [68] 69 70 71 72 73 74
1676
« on: July 16, 2016, 10:53 »
Every site is different. Some break apart double terms and some don't. SS is among the best. Fotolia is really bad. If you forgot to put "dog" in a clip with two dogs in it, and just put "dogs", it won't be found with a "dog" search... Useless. And of course you can't change it after upload...
1677
« on: July 16, 2016, 10:28 »
When they are playing we are loosing!!! Loosing big!!! And I don't think that that is good for both of us in long term!!!
"We" is not everyone. Just the contributors that have been fortunate to have good search visibility for a while, and now don't anymore. The sales just go to someone else. What is fair can be discussed in all eternity.
1678
« on: July 15, 2016, 12:34 »
Short update, in line with the above: today's 5 x $24 SODs makes today a good day by most standards, especially when all these sales come from port slightly larger than 800 items.
July is definitely on track to be a good month. Sorry guys, but I can't be happier than this with SS performance!
July is already BME for me at SS thanks to some nice footage sales (some 4k). Hopefully it goes on like this. VB fell off the planet though for some reason...
1679
« on: July 15, 2016, 07:10 »
The simple truth is that the tools are now available to almost anyone who wants to record music or take professional quality pictures. That was not the case 20-30 years ago when the so called veterans started and there was virtually no competition compared to today.
You are joking right? or is this just your complete inexperience talking? The competition was much more fierce 20-30 years ago than today.
.....
Back in the good old days if you got 10% acceptance on any agency your were doing well, now if you are getting one image rejected it's an ordeal that fills pages of "support" on forums from the "pros".
So you're telling me there were MORE people all over the world trying to make a living doing stock photography 30 years ago than today? I didn't say anything about how easy or not it is/was to get stuff accepted. There are WAY more stock photographers today and everyone is competing against the entire world. How is that NOT more competition??? Sure, there is a lot of crap, but among the hundreds of thousands of contributors there is some true talent that would never have had the chance of even talking to an agency 30 years ago. Do you think a kid from nowhere in Russia even had the chance to get into a New York agency? Today, those kids can, and some of them have talent.
1680
« on: July 14, 2016, 10:14 »
I think it's an interesting phenomenon that some veterans seem to think the work of a veteran is automatically of higher quality than the work of a newbie could ever be.
This can't be further from the truth, whether we're talking music, photography, videography, etc...
The simple truth is that the tools are now available to almost anyone who wants to record music or take professional quality pictures. That was not the case 20-30 years ago when the so called veterans started and there was virtually no competition compared to today.
I see many talented 15-year-olds creating amazing high quality work while the work of some veterans looks like they discovered the Shadows and Highlights sliders in Lightroom for the first time and applied them to all their work...
As someone here posted a while back (don't remember who) - the time of making serious $$$ selling mediocre images is over, but the industry is definitely not doomed!
Up your game, competition is serious.
1681
« on: July 09, 2016, 12:27 »
These guys are very good: http://breakthrough.photographyI also have some B+W filters but they have a very, very strong tint that is quite bad. You can get rid of it but I'd prefer filters that are more natural.
1682
« on: July 08, 2016, 08:09 »
You can try StockPerformer free for 30 days. It's a very nice tool but doesn't support all the sites yet. It does have support for the main ones though and you can get a very nice overview really quickly.
1683
« on: July 08, 2016, 07:55 »
So i should buy a ND filter first.  Is 10 stop the highest value in ND filters?
It's the highest COMMON value, but there are higher of course. But you will probably never use a 10-stop for video unless you travel to the sun (or shoot bright things with 1.2 aperture in full sunlight at the equator) - they are for long exposure photography (5+ seconds usually). Can be nice for timelapse. The most useful will be 3-stop to 6-stop. Most likely 3 and 4 (ND8 and ND16) depending on where you live. Variable ND filters don't look as good and often give a cross in your frame. For optimal quality, have a setup of high quality filters. It can get quite expensive however...
1684
« on: July 06, 2016, 18:24 »
Every city is unique so I don't think there are too many generic tips. One thing to keep in mind though is that many of the best rooftops or skyscrapers don't allow tripods...
1685
« on: July 03, 2016, 17:10 »
It's getting funny now - I'm having a zero Sunday on SS but just caught 8 downloads at DT  (1 series by one buyer), all 0,35 subs, but still!
Yeah, happened to me too, someone bought all my images of birds from a certain country on DT in one go. Don't usually sell much though... but series like that never happen on any of the other sites.
1686
« on: July 03, 2016, 09:29 »
He shoots 5 days a week, all editing, key wording and uploading is outsourced. He even has people hired who find locations, models and schedule everything so that every single workday is filled.
For some people this is the way to go, but I would never want to work this way with stock. The pressure to perform would just turn it into another job and take out the joy of filming/photography. With just 5 employees anything below $25,000 per month means losing money. I like the idea of about zero fixed costs and my own time is what I lose.
1687
« on: July 01, 2016, 05:10 »
Yeah, I started in Feb, had decent sales in March, April and May (a nice $300) but also $0 in June. Let's hope July makes up for it.
It could also be when they put in marketing money on AdWords etc.
1688
« on: June 30, 2016, 14:47 »
BME for me there but I'm adding a lot of footage so thankfully sales seem to follow.
1689
« on: June 29, 2016, 07:04 »
I'm working my rear end off to increase my port by about 20% this year, but SS is going to go up by 50%? 100%? The wall crushes us all.
Meaningless numbers unless you also include customer base.
1690
« on: June 22, 2016, 14:41 »
Just raise the blacks with curves and possibly (for cinematic) add some blue in the shadows and orange to the mids.
Or for just the indie look raise the bottom blacks with curves and a bit less vibrance.
1691
« on: June 21, 2016, 15:39 »
Yes, the site looks very dated. They need a complete overhaul. A site that sells design-related assets must look its absolute best.
1692
« on: June 21, 2016, 12:22 »
100% is great for us right now, sure, I enjoy the 4k sales, but probably not in the long run. VB will end up losing money on our footage.
I would be perfectly happy with 80-90% so that VB has an incentive to market our material. Would also be great to be able to choose tiered pricing from $49-99 or something like that.
1693
« on: June 20, 2016, 17:28 »
The latest episode of the great HBO show Silicon Valley opens up with a typical stock footage ad filled with clips from our favorite agencies  - anyone see their clips in there?
1694
« on: June 20, 2016, 13:30 »
That city also has disappointing downloads on DT.
I wouldn't go by DT numbers. They don't sell much nowadays compared to Shutterstock. You can't see the numbers there anymore but if you see 1 download on DT that could easily mean 10-20 or more at SS.
1695
« on: June 20, 2016, 12:30 »
The pro buyers want ProRes. I will supply ProRes. In 2016 downloading 1 GB is not a big deal for most people. If it's a large 4k clip the sites downconvert to h264 anyway so the pros can buy the 4k, the rest the HD if size is a problem.
1696
« on: June 18, 2016, 11:11 »
So, can someone tell me whats the difference between time lapse or using a normal video camera and recording the same stuff and then just fast forward it?
The only real difference is quality (resolution and flexibility in post) - AND exposure time = more motion blur and you can shoot in the dark. You shoot 21+MP RAW photos with a lot more flexibility. If you film during the same amount of time you just throw away a lot of data and get a lower quality final result. If you were to shoot RAW video for 30 minutes to 3-4 hours it would eat up your hard drive collection. And I don't know of any camera that can shoot 21MP RAW 24p...
1697
« on: June 18, 2016, 10:09 »
Yes, I know that.
Well, no camera takes pictures at any particular DPI (or ALL cameras can take with 300 DPI if you want to look at it that way, even the cheapest one you can find for $1). The number assigned in the EXIF data is just an arbitrary number. If Offset don't know this they have never printed an image in their life.
1699
« on: June 18, 2016, 08:14 »
Offset wants images with 300Dpi and changing it with a software is not allowed
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
That doesn't make any sense. The DPI number only tells the printer how much to cram the dots on paper. Changing this in Photoshop doesn't change anything about the image, only how big it will print. 20MP is 20MP. 20 million pixels. No matter if it says 1 DPI or 1 million DPI.
1700
« on: June 18, 2016, 07:47 »
My camera's photos are only 72 DPI despite the 20 MP.
You choose the DPI, and you can change it however you want - no camera has a fixed DPI. This is just how many Dots Per Inch that are used when you print the photos. Standard for non-print is 72.
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 65 66 67 [68] 69 70 71 72 73 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
