|
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 - PaulieWalnuts
2751
« on: February 18, 2008, 17:58 »
I had one of my cars removed for potential copyright issues. Don't like it but it's understandable.
2752
« on: February 15, 2008, 23:01 »
I thought that was kind of weird too. My images are all locked in at the standard prices.
2753
« on: February 15, 2008, 23:00 »
Was just curious what TheSupe knows that maybe I don't. Out of 11 sites, Istock is currently 69% of my earnings. The other 10 make up the remaining 31%. Of those, Fotolia is the only one showing strong and consistent growth. For me, uploading and keywording to these other 10 sites takes a lot of time with a pretty minimal return. Exclusivity with Istock is looking more and more attractive by the day.
2754
« on: February 15, 2008, 22:48 »
Yea, that link was pretty wild. Definately some creative and interesting people.
2755
« on: February 15, 2008, 22:24 »
This is weird. I noticed some of my older images are selling more also. But, I just did a check of the search placement for some of those images and it hasn't changed over the past few months. So, if they're not any higher up in search ranking why are they selling more? More buyers buying?
2756
« on: February 15, 2008, 22:16 »
2757
« on: February 15, 2008, 18:52 »
Same for me. It was a good month, but downloads really slowed down after the 21st.
2758
« on: February 15, 2008, 17:57 »
FT is now my 2nd place earner, has passed SS, and is showing some nice growth. Due to my day job I haven't been able to upload much and SS earnings dropped like a rock.
2759
« on: February 15, 2008, 05:35 »
And yet, their initial "f-you" posting should bring hesitation to anyone. Money heals all wounds... 
2760
« on: February 14, 2008, 22:38 »
I'm planning on buying some strobes and have narrowed it down to these: AlienBees B800 kit - http://alienbees.com/beginner.htmlCalumet Genesis 400 kit - http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/CF0514K/I've heard great stuff about AlienBees but the new Calumets are supposedly rebadged Elinchroms. Anybody have experience with either/both and can comment on them?
2761
« on: February 14, 2008, 08:38 »
I've had some some sales there so it should be interesting to see where this goes. It's about the same as 123rf for me earnings-wise and doing better than StockXpert.
2763
« on: February 12, 2008, 13:08 »
Looks like LO is finally making some changes to their minimum payout. And even a $1 minimum payout for Valentine's Day??? http://www.stockphototalk.com/the_stock_photo_industry_/2008/02/lucky-oliver.htmlI really like LO but I wish they would pick up the momentum on attracting buyers. I have a third less images on IS and make more there in an average day there than I've made at LO in 6 months.
2764
« on: February 09, 2008, 21:04 »
Ron - great insight, thanks for sharing it. I would be curious to know what percentage each row in the earnings represents so I could understand if the Jan - Jan revenue trend increase is 25%, 100%, 200% etc.
2765
« on: February 08, 2008, 21:40 »
Microsoft is about revenue and profits. Yahoo is instant traffic and advertising revenue for them. According to Dan Heller, Flickr has no revenue model or goals within Yahoo. With Microsoft, anything that doesn't generate revenue, or can't be made to generate revenue, will be eliminated.
2766
« on: February 08, 2008, 18:02 »
Also looks like IS handled the situation well while Flickr handled it very poorly.
2767
« on: February 08, 2008, 17:57 »
I like FP but I don't make any money. The same images on IS are selling hundreds per month.
20% of $$$$$ = $
70% of 0 = 0
If I need to invest time promoting a site, I might as well promote my own and make 100%.
FP 70% is a noble cause, but apparantly not a profitable one.
2768
« on: February 08, 2008, 07:51 »
Miz, that picture has banding. But I like it. Maybe you should submit it.
2769
« on: February 07, 2008, 18:25 »
Phil - very well said.
2770
« on: February 07, 2008, 13:56 »
Waldo, your response implies I'm discrediting or downplaying the skills of new contributors, which I'm not. I'm sure there are a ton of talented new contributors.
The extra amount of shooting, processing, and uploading isn't that great and really just eats into photo pimping time, which incidentally earns you nothing anyway, might as well try to make a few bucks with stock on the side to hopefully help to upgrade the equipment collection. The effort level isn't really any greater, though more time is devoted to taking and processing pictures (not much more time) than commenting on others work.
This assumes that the majority of Flickr users are Photoshop and business savvy, and are used to getting out a magnifying glass to look at images at 100% and correct any of the smallest problems. I don't know if the majority do or don't have those capabilites. I wonder how many Flickr images would be accepted as-is at Istock or Shutterstock. Don't know that either but I'm guessing a lot of them would require extensive post-processing to get accepted. From what I've seen, even some more advanced photographers take a while to get adjusted to microstock requirements. The jump from Flickr to microstock may not be as easy as it seems.
2771
« on: February 07, 2008, 13:34 »
Area - I think new sites are going to have an increasingly difficult time entering this market unless they can find a way to attract contributors AND buyers. And usually the best way to attract contributors is with buyers who are buying.
I only join sites now that I see some evidence of earnings potential. I have no interest in uploading hundreds of images to make nothing or at best a couple dollars a month. I would rather take all of that time from the weak earners and invest it in shooting and uploading to sites where I know the images will generate at least .50 or more per image per month. Ideally, I want my portfolio generating a few dollars per image per month. Spending time on low/no earning sites detracts from that goal.
I think Albumo really ruffled a lot of feathers. They looked like they had their act together and paid contributors, but then must have run out of money to attract buyers. The place seems dead.
I'm now very selective where I contribute and a nice design is not enough for me to justify spending my time there. I'm sure there are plenty of others who feel the same.
2773
« on: February 07, 2008, 12:42 »
Allow me to be the one to tell you... I think your image is just fine.
If it's any constipation to you, If I were a reviewer, it would have gone up on the site I was reviewing for.
Now that's my opinion... and I'm sticking to it!
I would also comment on the exposure. It's just right.
Also, I like the idea of the long vertical slender glass, capped with the horizontal flower....(good move)
The MIZ's personal RATING SYSTEM (1-5)
Composition 5
Exposure 5
Focus 5
Framing 3
Color 4
Artistically pleasing to look at 5
Attention to details 5
Mood Value 4
I give this a STAR Rating of 4.5
Be well my friend and good luck,
The MIZ
I agree the rest of the image is great but the technical quality is a 1 or 2 .
2774
« on: February 07, 2008, 06:56 »
I can't believe your photo was rejected ...
I'm about ready to give up submitting to FT
I agree that it is ridiculous the apple shot was rejected. I like it a lot, at least at the resolution we have.
However Mark, I think it is time you stop talking about who you aren't going to upload to anymore because of rejections, and up your game. I don't mean this to sound harsh. But a lot of us did our best to persuade you to get a DSLR now rather than later, and offered advice on how to get a cheap set up (used Rebel, plus $79 50mm 1.4 and you are nicely set up).
That you are still receiving mass rejections at Fotolia means it is time to get more serious about the quality of your images and the equipment you use to produce them. I know you are working hard to get into Shutterstock, and I applaud it. But leaving Fotolia because of rejections seems bizarre. Didn't you write you are having the same problems at Dreamstime? You can join places like MostPhotos and FeaturePics and get images accepted, but 10 of those sites will not replace the sales of 1 Fotolia, or 1 Dreamstime.
You also need to be very careful with your rejection rate at Dreamstime. The ratio is used as part of the search algorithm, which means the more images you get rejected, the farther down you will be in search results. It's important you either get a higher acceptance rate, or stop uploading until you have the issues ironed out.
Please use all of us for advice and critique. My advice right now is to concentrate on your quality, and not uploading to new places. Best of luck.
Well said Dan. You mean this? http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,3162.0.html
2775
« on: February 07, 2008, 06:40 »
Could this be any more of an advertisement? You give 15 reasons to join and then post your referral link twice?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
