|
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 - dragonblade
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 31
551
« on: October 13, 2017, 20:25 »
You can only do that if you had no royalty free sales while they were on iStock or at other agencies.
Otherwise you'll have to submit as royalty free to Alamy
Yea I remember reading that. Last time I checked, those particular images had not sold in micro stock. Though I'll look again to see if that's still the case. Congrats on those nice images doing so well 
Thanks! One of them in particular did pretty well. It also won Second Prize in the same exhibition it was sold in which gained me an additional $200. And Ive sold a fair few copies of that image as home-made greeting cards at a market stall. Over a period of time, it sold considerably more than my other greeting cards did at the market.
552
« on: October 13, 2017, 12:48 »
Looks like I'm not alone. There have always been cycles of good sales / bad sales before but at the moment, I reckon I'm having the longest period of no sales / low sales ever.
553
« on: October 13, 2017, 12:38 »
Thanks for the link. I'll explain to them that I'll be uploading the images to Alamy as Rights Managed (which is the truth btw.)
554
« on: October 13, 2017, 12:12 »
There's a small number of images that I want to remove from iStockphoto. I was silly uploading them there in the first place because these particular images have sold in exhibitions for hundreds of dollars (and one of them won a photography competition too.) So it doesn't seem right selling them on iStock for 20c or 4c or whatever.
Problem is I don't even know how to locate the images. Ever since the ESP website was created, it's all become a confusing mess. So where or how do I start looking for them? And when I find them, do I need to quote some image ID number or something when asking Getty or whoever to remove them? Not sure about all the fine details of this removal process.
555
« on: October 04, 2017, 04:03 »
Just now, I sold three photos of the same subject at the same time on DT. Must have been bought by the same person. Thankyou buyer.
556
« on: August 31, 2017, 19:24 »
Forgetting to take the lens cap off the lower lens of a TLR (twin lens reflex) when taking a photo.
557
« on: August 28, 2017, 19:40 »
Less than a few weeks ago, I was really surprised to find that I had two photos selling on SS just several days after I uploaded them. Actually, I think one of them had been on SS less than several days. I think I was just lucky. Most of the content I sell is a fair bit older. Regardless, sales have almost come to a stop now.
558
« on: August 28, 2017, 03:39 »
1. Quitting too early in 2009 when there were a lot less images, only to have another go in 2012 and sticking with it since. I regret not getting into stock back then. Really sounds like the golden days of microstock. 2. Licensing images which have won or been shortlisted in major photography competitions in micros, thus reducing their value significantly. I'm guilty of this. Ive had photos that have won competitions (and one of these images won a prize in an exhibition) and I put them in micro afterwards. I'm thinking of removing them and putting them up in Alamy though I'm not sure how hard it's going to be to try and convince iStockphoto to delete them. 3. Taking too long to upgrade away from the (door stop) kit lens to a more decent lens, which was a 50mm f1.8 prime, an excellent lens. My first lens was a 50mm f1.8. Though I started with a manual 35mm SLR so they were usually coupled with 50mm lenses as a standard package. 4. Istockphoto
Same.
559
« on: August 20, 2017, 05:51 »
iStock/Getty is the most miserable, the most disrespectful in regard to artists agency. Their commission is a joke.
Unfortunately, SS might be starting to go down the same path. Someone got a $3 video sale there recently.
560
« on: August 15, 2017, 21:23 »
The choice of lens certainly does make a difference. The vast majority of my footage is tripod-mounted. However, there have been times when Ive done pans and tilts with a 12mm wide angle lens hand held and got decent results without any stabilisation. And one of those hand held shots was accepted by SS.
561
« on: August 15, 2017, 21:09 »
I have a number of photos of fruit bats hanging from trees which have severe chromatic aberration. It's so prominent that you don't even need to zoom in to see the colour fringing. They weren't shot with a cheapie lens (though it was a zoom and the subjects were against a bright background.) I couldn't get rid of the colour fringing in Lightroom, only reduce it a little. With the amount of CA that these images have, I doubt many stock agencies would accept them. Though I was thinking of converting them to B & W and trying my luck.
562
« on: August 07, 2017, 09:23 »
"Multiple" just means "three or more"
Mine's a double figure  .
563
« on: August 02, 2017, 19:04 »
No, I didn't obtain any permission.
I just consulted Shutterstock's known restriction list (link below) and Heathrow airport doesn't feature, therefore editorial submissions appear to be OK.
Yea I see that Heathrow Airport is not included in that list but there's the expectation that when we take photos for editorial usage, we do so while on public land. In the case of a building, that would usually be a photo of the exterior of a building - taken from public land. However, the inside of an airport terminal would be considered private property. Regardless, there are a huge number of airport terminal interior photos on SS so maybe they've got a relaxed attitude towards these particular places. I may as well upload some of my own then.
564
« on: August 02, 2017, 01:36 »
I travel quite a bit and I'm often shooting at airports (careful that security don't harass me)...these tend to do quite well. Here's an example from Heathrow Terminal 5.
Very nice image. Though I'm curious how you can get away submitting photos like that for stock, even as editorial. One of the very few restrictions on editorial images is that you can't photograph on private property. And I would think that the interior of an airport terminal would be considered private property. Did you manage to get a signed property release? I took a few photos inside some overseas airport terminals myself recently but I doubt I can use them for stock (well not legally.) Similarly, I also see photos on stock sites that were taken from inside planes - looking through the window at the wing. And once again, a plane interior would likely be private property.
565
« on: August 02, 2017, 01:09 »
I note there's a contributor on DT with 0 sales who wants to buy his/her own photos. Not sure if that's a desperate attempt to generate some sales or what.
566
« on: August 01, 2017, 22:39 »
I only have a very small video portfolio on SS (35 videos in total.) Ive made two sales from those - first was $22.14 and the second was $17.98
567
« on: August 01, 2017, 22:14 »
Keep in mind that editorial images have a much lower sale potential.
Personally I don't do editorial at all and consider it a waste of time: they never sell multiple times per file, while what I am looking for are best sellers that sell over and over.
The photo that has made me the most money in stock is an editorial image. It has sold multiple times. It's my No.1 top earner on SS. It shows an accident scene in which emergency services were called over (I won't go into further details.)
568
« on: August 01, 2017, 21:52 »
How very.....original.
Actually, by the way, Ive noticed an unusual thing when Ive been photographing in touristy spots (sometimes in overseas locations.) Sometimes when I'm setting up and framing a shot, another person will see this and quickly run over to where I am, stand right next to me and take a photograph of the same subject that I'm shooting (from the same angle) and then move away just as quickly.
One time in Rome, I was photographing a street scene side by side with someone from a group tour. We were both looking for interesting angles. All of a sudden, I had the idea to tilt my camera up skyward and photograph the upper levels of some nice old buildings above me. Immediately afterwards, the guy next to me does exactly the same thing with his camera. Copycats are everywhere.
569
« on: July 03, 2017, 08:53 »
when rate was 25 30 they not sell a lot...now my experience is they are selling a lot...sure i d like 25 but better 15% of a lot than 35 of nothing....they are growing royalty very month despite a small portfolio compared to fotolia.
Over the last few months, sales have been very few and far between for me on iStock. By comparison, SS is doing much better and I'm ready for my second payout there. Just seems like a waste of time submitting content to iStock. And the 2c and 9c payments just adds insult to injury. What a joke.
570
« on: July 01, 2017, 02:34 »
I would recommend using manual exposure when shooting video. Auto exposure can have some undesirable results. For example, if you're panning past something that is fairly dark like a cave, auto exposure will open up the aperture to compensate, overexposing the footage temporarily and then resuming normal exposure after the cave has passed. As you could imagine, this would be very distracting. Likewise - suppose you're recording a static scene and all of a sudden, a shiney white car moves past the camera. If left on auto exposure, the camera will close down the aperture to compensate, temporarily darkening the scene. The same thing will happen if you tilt the camera from ground level to a higher point to film a building or other tall structure. The inclusion of the sky in the frame will darken the footage somewhat. If you set the camera to manual exposure mode (if your OMD has one) you won't have these issues.
571
« on: June 27, 2017, 10:47 »
On one of my latest sales reports, I received $0.00 for one of my images. What's up with that? Is IStock giving away some of our content for free?
572
« on: June 26, 2017, 11:32 »
Any updates?
Ive had one magazine editor tell me in his own words: "It's a good photo" but they're not interested. And another editor in another magazine who said they only accept free content (no payment.) There's also my previous update.
573
« on: June 14, 2017, 03:48 »
Yes there are some cents sales but there are more than $1 too so it levels out to be similar to SS which orbits around $0.25 mostly.
Sales were not good at all in my April report. Out of those, the highest payment was 26c. Most other sales were considerably less. Doesn't inspire me with confidence. On the other hand, I'm pretty happy with how SS is going and am very close to making my second payout there.
574
« on: June 12, 2017, 21:11 »
One of the publications that I submitted to was not a science magazine as such. They cover all sorts of themes and topics - mostly nature related but also cultural as well. They informed me that they don't have any immediate use for my image though they did state that if they ever need to demonstrate this aspect of physics, they will be in touch with me. I'm also going to contact some publishers of science / physics textbooks with the aim of getting a rights managed deal.
575
« on: June 12, 2017, 20:53 »
Very close to making my second payout on SS. Not long now.
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 31
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
