|
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 - Elenathewise
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 35
401
« on: November 23, 2011, 19:04 »
Still dont understand a bloody thing? congrats anyway!
:-) You earn different colours of "paw" icon next to your name depending on how much you sold on PhotoDune (dollar value). Leaf posted the link to the "top authors" list just above. And thanks:)
402
« on: November 23, 2011, 15:15 »
thanks:) I like watching photodune's top authors list - since they are so new (selling photos), it gives you a good idea who is really selling right now. On older agencies it's total number of DLs often, so it really depends on who joined when, plus older files get search preferences, etc. Pressmaster being #2 is interesting:)
403
« on: November 23, 2011, 12:10 »
:-) Rawr:)
404
« on: November 17, 2011, 13:44 »
405
« on: November 14, 2011, 21:01 »
Istock is barely alive for me this month. Everything else is more or less the same, except for SS where all of us see increase in sales. I am wondering if Istock just rotates the content somehow - I had almost a BME this August (!), but November sales are quite disappointing. We upload new content every week, so it's not for the lack of new images.
406
« on: November 12, 2011, 14:10 »
*snip*
This is one thing I like about microstock. Sure, it's not fine art in any sense, but it is an artistic product that rises or falls according to its appeal and utility in a purer way than any single on the pop charts.
c'mon, microstock has nothing to do with an 'artistic product'; its about flat commerce, and the more commercial it is the better it sells.
It's only 'appeal' is its commercial value (and its often 'the tackier the better' too)
Can't agree. Tacky shots sometimes sell, but a lot of microstock's bestsellers are very nice and aesthetically pleasing images.
407
« on: November 11, 2011, 10:56 »
Well in this business you can either provide useful services or images to people who need them (weddings, portraits, stock, etc...) or you put a lot of effort in building up your name/brand first. Once a couple of museums are convinced that you're something special and purchase some of your work, you can sell any mediocre image for ridiculous money. Its becomes all about the name. It's very hard to get to that level but once you there you just cash in. It seems to me that, sadly, most people just don't have their own opinions about art and rely on others to tell them what's good. And it looks like it's pretty random.
This image is interesting, clean lines, just 2 colors and it's geometrically pleasing, but it's definitely very far from being unique enough to fetch this kind of money in my opinion.
408
« on: November 08, 2011, 16:08 »
I got $0.24 subscription sale on Dreamstime yesterday.
And $0.23 for the sale of Level 0 image. Which works out to about 24% commission even with max number of credits bought. And they are supposed to be so much better than PD?
409
« on: November 08, 2011, 10:42 »
But just don't think we low-life mortal snap-shooters will upload to PD just because we were told to do so. 
Oh I am not trying to convince anyone to upload to PhotoDune. My point was that their commission rates are not that far off from other agencies (hence my wondering what's so upsetting about PD's 25%).
410
« on: November 08, 2011, 09:51 »
Many people here give DT as a example of "fair" agenicy. Have you visited their front page? Here is what it says:
2. Buy credits for downloading stock photos; high-resolution stock images can reach as low as $0.20 each or FREE.
Seriously. My hi-res 24 mp image shot with D3X is offered for 20 cents or FREE (if I am not vigilant enough to keep my images from being moved to "free" section automatically). How this is better then PD?
Ok these are sub prices. Let's look at the credits. Just now an image of mine sold on DT for 13 credits. I got $4.21 from the sale. If I (wrongly) assume that 1 credit equals one dollar, my commission rate is about 32%. But one credit doesn't cost 1 dollar to the buyer. It can be anywhere from 1.05 (if you buying a package with max credits) to 1.42 per credit (for 8 credits). That brings the commissions even lower. So it's not far from PD rates at all. Like I said, at least PD is straightforward about their pricing and commissions.
411
« on: November 07, 2011, 21:21 »
I really don't understand why Photodune is being attacked for low commissions. Istock pays 15% to independents and if you work your ass off and earn them hundreds of thousands of dollars then - hooray! - you can possibly make as high as 20%. Other agencies claim they pay more commissions but also have sub programs and I doubt very much we're getting 25% of sales there. There are also "games" with euro/dollar sales and credit prices that fotolia is very good at. Compared to that, Photodune's starting commission is fair enough. At least it's straightforward. It puzzles me why some people are upset with them.
412
« on: November 05, 2011, 15:59 »
This also automatically prices all seasonal images down to 1 credit. Christmas related images can sell a lot in season and them sit dormant for 6 months. I have seasonal images with over 20-30 total downloads that have been set back to 1 credit.
I dumped Fotolia well over a year ago because of their screwy payouts and pricing, but I think that where seasonal images are concerned, those should be an exception. They are just that, Seasonal and don't sell year round and I don't think they should be dropped down to 1 credit.
It used to be 1 year, and then they changed it to 6 months (I don't think that was even announced properly). 1 year would take into account seasonal sales at least. 6 months is just ridiculous.
413
« on: November 05, 2011, 10:54 »
This also automatically prices all seasonal images down to 1 credit. Christmas related images can sell a lot in season and them sit dormant for 6 months. I have seasonal images with over 20-30 total downloads that have been set back to 1 credit.
414
« on: November 01, 2011, 15:33 »
It was a pretty disappointing October for me. Overall I was up 7% on last month and 6% on last year. 3 out of 4 top sites all posted losses. Fortunately the day was spectacularly saved by a big BME at Shutterstock! Funny thing is when I added up my % losses from IS, SS, and DT, over the past year, they totaled the exact % SS was up (51%).
Istock continues to sink into the void. Sales more pathetic each month, and sank to levels not seen since April of 2006!! 
FT actually rebounded a bit, showing a 10% gain over last month, but is still well down on last year.
Below is the market share of each of the sites for me, along with the % gain or loss from October 2010.
ISP 30% (-23%)
SS 28% (+51%)
DT 13% (-9%)
Fot 15% (-19%)
BigStock 4%
Wow Lisa nice data for Shutterstock! I am only about 35% up compared to last October. My sales on istock didn't tank that much though - less than 1% off. I guess it kinda evens it out:)
415
« on: October 27, 2011, 17:30 »
Yeah when I was googling the problem I've read someone else's complaints about Nikon's 50mm 1.4G - they ended up switching to Sigma one and were much happier.... I guess I should look into that. These lenses perform very nice between 5.6-16, no complaints, but then I have my 24-70 for that... Thanks for the advice!
416
« on: October 27, 2011, 17:04 »
It can take a while to get accustomed to shoot wide open with lenses f/1.4 or faster. Think for example that if you're doing a closeup and you focus, then re-compose, you maybe have moved your camera slightly changing the angle of the focal plane. For a razor-thin DOF in the case of f/1.4, you'll most likely have the focus somewhere else.
One good thing to do is focus and when recomposing try not to lean camera (and consequently the focal plane) forward, try to keep it in the same plane where it was when you framed it.
The best way to check whether is something wrong or not, is to have your camera on tripod, make some test shots at f/1.4 at various distances and use the microadjustment if necessary. If the focus point is way off when you shoot from tripod, then go back to nikon and tell them if they don't fix it you'll smash their front elements to bits. 
Smashing their front elements to bits was my first impulsive thought... And yes I tested the crap out of the lenses, on a tripod, with a ruler next to object, different lighting conditions. It all consistently shows front-focusing by 2-3 inches sometimes... It seems that the closer you are to the minimal focusing distance it gets worse. Also, if the light is even a little bit dim, it gets worse. Which is ironic because the very reason I bought 1.4 is that I want to photograph in dim-ish light, like indoors. Grrr....
417
« on: October 27, 2011, 16:02 »
I got Nikkor 50 and 85 mm 1.4 lenses and the stupid things don't focus properly when wide open - focus is in the front by 2-3 inches at least! Took them to the Nikon service center with my D3X, they adjusted the AF on the camera a bit and told me there are no problem with lenses. I take it home, try again - same crap! My 24-70 mm focuses just fine open at 2.8 on the same camera body. I tried AF fine-tune, but even that is not enough to compensate for the front-focusing. You focus on person's eye and get a tip of their nose if you're lucky, but most of the time something in the front, like folds of clothes, etc...
Anyone else seen problems like that?
418
« on: October 19, 2011, 11:03 »
My sales are tanked on IS, FT, and slightly below average at DT. Only place that's hopping for me is SS.
Same here. Istock and FT are selling quite poorly this months. DT has been slowly declining for years though.
419
« on: September 30, 2011, 11:38 »
Folks,
I am not looking to argue the merits or downfalls of Fotolia or any
other agency. And Fotolia is not telling you to stop submitting images
to these lower priced agencies. Just do not expect us to sell their
same images at a higher price. We will no longer allow this to happen.
In a market where there is a good supply of high quality content,
Fotolia is trying to avoid reducing our retail prices.
Now if a photographer wants to remove their images or negotiate a
higher retail price with these agencies then everything remains the
same. Just beware that a few of these sites require that members keep
their images online for 1 year. We're not listing the agencies, but
some have been named here already. If you are selling images at prices
much lower than the top 4 microstock sites then you might want to
review your options.
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
Chad, I very much understand your concern about difference in retail pricing of images. However, what I fail to see is how it is a contributor's problem. What some people are trying to say here is that for a contributor, it's the royalties he receives that matters, not the retail price of the image. Let's say agency A manages to operate on 30% from the image sale (=pays 70% commission) because of low overhead, smart business practices and selling big volume of images cheaper, and agency B takes 85% from the sale (=pays 15% commission), sells at higher prices and lower volume. As a supplier of images I may receive the same compensation for my portfolio from both agencies, in spite of difference in retail pricing. But it seems to me that Fotolia is saying now that I should be supplying agency B, and not agency A, although for me they both generate the same income, because agency B is finding it hard to compete with agency A. This doesn't make much sense. The point is, your retail pricing is your business, not contributors. You can change your retail pricing any time, and I as a contributor will decide if it makes business sense for me to supply you - but for me, the business sense is based only on the monthly royalties I receive (=wholesale prices), not your retail prices.
420
« on: September 23, 2011, 17:17 »
This is just an excuse to lower commissions for top-level contributors. If you want to squeeze out more profit, cutting commissions for people who have biggest portfolios and/or sell most files will bring you biggest chunk of cash. Totally makes sense from the point of view of greed and wanting more profit now. I wonder why they bothered with this excuse - it doesn't make any logical sense if you think about it. Being non-exclusive means I can sell at other places, period. Everyone's prices are different and they are also changing all the time.
And screwing people who helped you to become successful is way easier than competing by proper business practices and nurturing and expanding your customer base. I am amazed by complete lack of business ethics though... and shortsightedness...
Did you receive the email? I very, very much doubt that they would apply this to you Elena. FT have a long history of having 'special rules' for their topselling contributors. I suspect this is more about hammering down commissions for the low selling contributors. They probably don't care if they stay or go.
Yup I've got that email. Like I said, cutting commissions for top sellers makes more sense profit-wise. And last time they did that, they cut Yuri's income (edit: on Fotolia) by 25% (his files used to 4 credit, now it's 3). So.... wouldn't call it "special treatment" 
421
« on: September 23, 2011, 16:57 »
This is just an excuse to lower commissions for top-level contributors. If you want to squeeze out more profit, cutting commissions for people who have biggest portfolios and/or sell most files will bring you biggest chunk of cash. Totally makes sense from the point of view of greed and wanting more profit now. I wonder why they bothered with this excuse - it doesn't make any logical sense if you think about it. Being non-exclusive means I can sell at other places, period. Everyone's prices are different and they are also changing all the time.
And screwing people who helped you to become successful is way easier than competing by proper business practices and nurturing and expanding your customer base. I am amazed by complete lack of business ethics though... and shortsightedness...
422
« on: September 21, 2011, 20:19 »
After Crestock was acquired by Masterfile, it become worse than ever. These macro agencies have some kind of marketing ideas that doesn't work anymore. Their prices are too high, they live in the past.
After the purchase, Crestock turned into a very selective agency with stupid reasons, the result was a huge drop of earnings and a lot of contributors ending their relationship whit the agency. Nowadays I'm returning from time to time and read the forums. It seems to me that they are happy to close everyone's account and let him/her go. The admin is ready to answer anything that leads into the fact that you are stupid/don't understand/don't have/etc. the right collection of images that they want. It doesn't matter for a second what sells at the other places.
Yes I've seen interview with some dude from Masterfile, just before they bought Crestock I think, he came across and a "macro" snob and gave an impression they have no clue what really was happening in this industry. No wonder their Crestock purchase was a disaster - they totally missed the concept of micro, which is selling A LOT of images that have mass appeal. You can't make money selling small amount of "special" images at micro prices, that's insane, but that's what they were trying to do. I wish someone else bought Crestock, they were actually starting to show promise.... So they may be old and were respectable in old times I suppose (they are Toronto based btw), but it looks like theirs is the case when the management was too rigid to adjust to new trends.
423
« on: September 21, 2011, 14:42 »
Leica M9... sigh... can I have that for Christmas, please?
424
« on: September 21, 2011, 14:27 »
Not really a problem Elena, since most actor are not working actors. I post notices in acting schools in my area and have no problem filling spots. At this point I started to turn away people. Give it a try!
He-he:) Well that does makes sense then - thanks for advice!
425
« on: September 21, 2011, 13:54 »
One suggestion, stop using models and start uses actors.
Where do you go looking for actors? Willing to pose for stock??... I would think any actor wants to make it big and it would be same problem as with pro models - they'd want to be able to choose where their face appears...
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
