|
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 - webbing
51
« on: May 26, 2011, 13:51 »
FYI: I have invested over 13,000$ in equipment for our photography bussiness.
And 80% of the stuff I got was second hand!
I was looking at ebay stuff, but in a lot of cases it goes for more than the same piece new. Thanks though that give me an idea of where it's going.
52
« on: May 26, 2011, 13:31 »
How do you folks afford to do this.
Camera 1000+
Any lens 500+ (with a coupld of exceptions)
A stupid Flash 400+
Tripod 200+
Monopod 100+
I can't keep up, is there something I'm missing or is this just about right? Is this really this cost prohibitive or am I just not finding the bargains that allow me to get started?
To get started at what? Photography as a hobby? If you're looking to enter the business of microstock, don't forget things like tax advisors, business insurance, computers, software, etc. etc. etc. So, yes, it does take a time and money investment.
I wasn't, I was really just talking about the equipment costs. Seems like you need most of the equipment in order to produce anything that you could sell as microstock and every new piece of equipment is a stinking fortune.
53
« on: May 26, 2011, 13:28 »
So, in other words. I'm not missing anything other than a lot of time. I've only been "really" trying to do this since Dec. of last year. I've got a Canon T1i, 18-55, 75-300, and a 50mm, no flash (other than the built in one), a table top studio with 2 little lights, 1 tripod. But if I can't sell some stock don't know how I'm going to be able to afford to buy anything else.
That's far from ideal but you do already have enough gear to make a lot of money from stock photos. What's harder to get than the gear is the technical skill to use it to its best advantage and the ideas that pay off.
You'll struggle to make money if you do table-top work shooting subjects that everybody has already done and not being up to the standard of the best of your competitors.
So bascially, stick with what I have for now and slowly pick up gear going forward?
54
« on: May 26, 2011, 12:59 »
So, in other words. I'm not missing anything other than a lot of time. I've only been "really" trying to do this since Dec. of last year. I've got a Canon T1i, 18-55, 75-300, and a 50mm, no flash (other than the built in one), a table top studio with 2 little lights, 1 tripod. But if I can't sell some stock don't know how I'm going to be able to afford to buy anything else.
55
« on: May 26, 2011, 12:38 »
I should have posted this over here. Sorry.
How do you folks afford to do this.
Camera 1000+
Any lens 500+ (with a coupld of exceptions)
A stupid Flash 400+
Tripod 200+
Monopod 100+
I can't keep up, is there something I'm missing or is this just about right? Is this really this cost prohibitive or am I just not finding the bargains that allow me to get started?
56
« on: May 26, 2011, 10:13 »
On a seperate but connected issue, do you folks think https://www.lynda.com/ is worth while for training?
57
« on: May 26, 2011, 09:50 »
Well I got the frog off all the sites except Bigstock. Can't figure out how to remove it from there.
BTW, thanks everyone for all the great advice. I just have to figure out what I'm going to try to submit now. I haven't been accepted at IStockphoto or Shutterstock (need 10 for that one, yuck).
58
« on: May 26, 2011, 09:35 »
yeah, all 3 of those files were accepted by all of those sites. That's why I was gonna use them. But the frog is really super bad so I'm getting it off all the sites.
59
« on: May 26, 2011, 09:32 »
Yep, and based on you guys, I'm deleting it. I don't want people seeing that piece of crap. LOL I just hate what I don't know.
60
« on: May 26, 2011, 09:21 »
The sad part about the frog is, it was accepted on Bigstock, Fotolia, Dreamtime, Canstock and 123RF.
Go figure.
61
« on: May 26, 2011, 07:55 »
At admission test, they are a bit lenient with technical aspects (noise, artifacts etc), and pay more atention to concepts and angles. Even so, you should go on working before trying it again. By the way, pn a different topic, I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect.
Ok, so now my confusion has returned. I got home this evening, waited for the right kind of light and tried to reshoot the little girl drinking. Then I come back to the computer and read this and I don't know what "I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect" means.
Sorry, I just meant that is the kind of shot that could be photoshopped in something disgusting, propably just personal paranoia. Never mind.
Ahh, now it makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
62
« on: May 25, 2011, 20:56 »
At admission test, they are a bit lenient with technical aspects (noise, artifacts etc), and pay more atention to concepts and angles. Even so, you should go on working before trying it again. By the way, pn a different topic, I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect.
Ok, so now my confusion has returned. I got home this evening, waited for the right kind of light and tried to reshoot the little girl drinking. Then I come back to the computer and read this and I don't know what "I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect" means.
63
« on: May 25, 2011, 15:12 »
Thanks Jon, very helpful.
Yes, I used the magic wand as the tutorial at the time I did it told me too. I've discovered there are good ones and bad ones. There are tons of frogs on IStock right now, I just figured it would be one more, not really sure what the value would be.
I really appreciate the light insight, now if I only spoke Greek, I might understand... LOL I'm kidding at least a little bit, some of it's Greek to me still but I'm learing. The only lights I have right now are on my "new" table top tent and the on camera flash. Need to work on that, limited budget though.
64
« on: May 25, 2011, 14:39 »
I really don't mean to sound dense here, but these kind of things are not spelled out (at least not that I can find).
BTW thanks to all of you for helping, I'm really getting tired of the rejection (and yes, getting a little discouraged) That's why I'm hear to try to avoid it this time around.
They are spelled out - in the photographer training manual. See this section.
Ok, so maybe I am dense, I've read that a ton of times and truely never made the connection. I'll fix that going forward. See that's why you folks are great. You think a reviewer could have told me that?
65
« on: May 25, 2011, 14:34 »
Don't get discouraged. Just find some tutorials. You can't go on like this, not knowing basic stuff as "image size". If you use Photoshop, go to:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu5adJfxuhw[/youtube]
No, I know what image size is, what I don't know is what is minimum image size to submit or how to find that out.
66
« on: May 25, 2011, 14:33 »
I'm trying to take emotion out of this, but what do you mean is it a joke?
I'm sure Sean thinks the isolation is a joke. Look at your edges. Maybe you posted the wrong version of the image
See this is where part of my frustration comes in, Sean said is this a joke, well I don't know when I read that if he means subject, composition, quality or what. I'm not picking on Sean, but this is kind of what the reviewers give me and I don't know what to work on.
67
« on: May 25, 2011, 14:26 »
I really don't mean to sound dense here, but these kind of things are not spelled out (at least not that I can find).
BTW thanks to all of you for helping, I'm really getting tired of the rejection (and yes, getting a little discouraged) That's why I'm hear to try to avoid it this time around.
68
« on: May 25, 2011, 14:23 »
so what are "size/dimensions of the image to the smallest acceptable" and how do I know what that is?
69
« on: May 25, 2011, 14:18 »
I don't understand that last comment about reducing the size? Can you please explain?
70
« on: May 25, 2011, 14:13 »
I haven't submitted any of these yet, these are the ones I thought I would try but apparantly not.
71
« on: May 25, 2011, 14:06 »
I'm trying to take emotion out of this, but what do you mean is it a joke?
74
« on: May 25, 2011, 13:43 »
I've been rejected 3 times, I need some critique so I can try again.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
