|
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 - Travelling-light
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 21
26
« on: December 15, 2013, 22:16 »
27
« on: December 15, 2013, 17:02 »
.
28
« on: December 12, 2013, 19:30 »
I've said this before about reviewing in general, not specificially about SS, but I'll say it again: in any human assessment of art materials there is always going to be some variation in standards, just as there are variations in the quality of work individuals produce. I don't think any of us know precisely what it is that reviewers look for. I happen to have a very good acceptance rater - 90% +, mostly - so it does come as a bit of a shock when I get a batch where 9 out 0f 10 are rejected. However, I can see that I might be working at just slightly better than the required standards, so an off-day for me, or an inspector who is feeling a bit grumpy, might tip the whole assessment against me.
We all scream and shout about how our wonderful work is rejected by blind idiots, but a decade in this game has persuaded me that the inspectors/reviewers, whatever they are called, do a damned good job. I can look back at files where I had a hissy-fit over rejections seven or eight years ago and wonder how I could ever have submitted such rubbish. There were even some files a year or 18 months ago that I got upset over being rejected - but I've since returned to them and found they could be enormously improved (after which they got accepted).
So while there will always be some marginal or doubtful decisions, I really don't have a lot of time for those who shout down the reviewers. Without them, many of us would never have reached the standard that we have, and I for one am a lot better for it, and not just because of shooting stock.
I find I can process a file one day, look at it next day and wonder what I was thinking. A week later I can look again and decide the first was best after all. I agree that we get some very odd rejections from (especially) SS, but if I find it hard to decide on my own files, I shouldn't be surprised if someone else also finds it hard. I think maybe SS don't have enough rejection reasons, so the reviewer has to put something, and OOF is first on the list. I've just been looking at zero sellers, and only a few of them surprised me 
29
« on: December 11, 2013, 12:35 »
Regularly at 800-1600 ISO ?? For stock?
Can You let us know which camera do You have?
Yes, for stock. Not for the micros, though, that sort of work mostly goes to Alamy or Age. The 5D2 is OK at 800 and the Panasonic GH2 can manage 1600 on the right subject. The main thing is to avoid having to open shadows. Blue skies can be a problem on the Canon, and a little NR on just the red channel can be helpful.
30
« on: December 11, 2013, 01:57 »
If you get the exposure right and don't overprocess you should very rarely need noise reduction. When you do need it, PS is fine, especially using it in Camera Raw.
We regularly shoot at 800-1600 ISO without needing NR.
31
« on: November 26, 2013, 16:08 »
We've closed our Photoshelter sites. Their Google presence is poor, and the internal search is overloaded with news and event photography. It's not a good place for general stock.
For RM, the Photoquote engine is just too optimistic about prices. We've put our efforts into our Symbiostock site and linked the RM out to Alamy for now. The returns are certainly better for RF.
32
« on: November 26, 2013, 13:36 »
Similar to Jo Ann, started late 2004, so this is for 2005 - $4000 approximately.
Interesting facts - SS and DT were only $3 different over the full year.
IS was more than both of them added together.
33
« on: November 22, 2013, 16:21 »
Strange as it may seem, I've found a way of checking my stats that's quicker than using IS.
I keep a running total of my cashouts for the month in excel, which I use constantly so it's no big deal, add the current earnings balance, and deduct the amount paid out for the PP. Done!
It's quicker than trying to get through to the stats page, which is ridiculously slow. If the site speed doesn't improve, I'll probably keep doing this if and when they fix the stats.
34
« on: November 21, 2013, 01:55 »
35
« on: November 20, 2013, 15:49 »
36
« on: November 04, 2013, 16:48 »
Thank you, also out of stock. I will see if I can find something in Northern Ireland and just pick it up from the store.
It's pretty unlikely you'll find anyone with a Big Stopper on the shelf (at normal price). Robert White had some free stock on 1st November, but those have gone now. For the last 3 years at least, it's been a case of placing your order and waiting. That's what we had to do.
37
« on: November 04, 2013, 14:44 »
Ok, after study and many problems I choosed:
Lee Foundation Kit - (next time will just upgrade to rotate)
Lee 77mm Wide Angle Adaptor
Lee ND 0.6 Grad (hard) and Lee ND 0.9 Grad (soft) - for start I think that's enough?
Lee Big Stopper - 100.00
Lee Filters 105mm Polariser & Ring
Lee Polariser Adaptor Ring
Many hairs off my head and bank account empty, but filters are coming! Yay
Anybody wants to buy me (new) Heliopan Slim HT SH-PMC, 77mm Polariser? 
Thanks for images above. Would love to see more samples - it's beautiful!
WHere did you find the big stopper for 100 pounds?
http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/shop-by-brand/lee-filters/lee-100mm-system/100-filters-filter-sets/lee-big-stopper.htmlThat's where we buy our Lee bits.
38
« on: November 04, 2013, 14:36 »
We're definitely convinced Lee users. The 0.6 ND soft edge grad is pretty much a permanent fixture on the 24-105mm for outdoor work, and no post-process work will give you that extra 1+ stop of foreground shadow detail. The Lee grads are very neutral and don't need correction, unlike a lot of others, particularly Hi-tech. Also, with the super wide angle adapter, there is no vignetting on the 16-35mm on full frame.
With the Big Stopper you really need to profile the camera with the filter on, white balance is not enough for correction.
We've got a dual polariser variable ND for the GH2, and it's hopeless beyond about 6 stops; the density is very uneven, and it's no match for the Big Stopper.
39
« on: November 02, 2013, 20:36 »
Downloads:
93 - Sept 2013
1421 - Nov 2005
6.5% of my best download month.
Crikey Stan!!!! There seems to be a very wide variation, not an even %. We had our best DL month in 2009, and maybe the high numbers were already over by the time we went exclusive in late 2008. When we quit 18 months ago, we had lost 40% from our DL BME.
40
« on: November 02, 2013, 14:26 »
Does your $9 RPD include Getty?
No. Getty RPD is about twice that.
OK, as a % of your BME, how many DL did you get in October?
No reply from Tickstock? Pity, I could have used that information to work out out if I would be better off exclusive. Just a % of your BME by DL, then I can apply that to our own BME and multiply by $9. (I'm assuming you are on 40%) Any other exclusives interested? Send a site mail if you like. Thanks! One person said he has gone from 150 DL per day to 20, which I make 13%. Is that similar for others?
41
« on: November 01, 2013, 19:13 »
Does your $9 RPD include Getty?
No. Getty RPD is about twice that.
OK, as a % of your BME, how many DL did you get in October?
42
« on: November 01, 2013, 16:14 »
Does your $9 RPD include Getty?
43
« on: October 31, 2013, 18:54 »
The problem at IS is that they've ruined their reputation.
One way they could get it back would be to have hundreds of happy contributors talking all over the internet about how great they are, like we used to.
Now, how could they achieve that?
44
« on: October 22, 2013, 23:12 »
Gostwyck, you aren't comparing like with like. Your 40c RPD is from the PP alone, your SS RPD includes ELs etc. You really need to calculate your IS/PP RPD over both IS itself and the PP.
Also, did you calculate over a full year, or just your latest month?
45
« on: October 16, 2013, 20:51 »
I tend to think if your images are 'too precious' to be sold at sub rates, then they shouldn't be on microstock at all.
To me, it's not really about my images being too precious. I sold at a variety of different prices for a while. What I learned was that higher prices worked better for me. It doesn't make my images special or better than anybody else's images. It just means it is better for me to sell them at higher prices and less profitable to sell them at lower prices. I'd love the option to turn off subs at a number of sites and even set my own prices. It would most likely improve my income drastically overnight.
But isn't it the fact that the 'Big 5' agencies have way more data than any of will ever have, and they also have the same desire as us to optimise prices and profits ... and yet all of them have pretty much ended up embracing subs in one form or another. Nowadays your stuff needs to be really unique and special to warrant making it unavailable on subs.
I always assumed their deal was volume. I was never really able to do that massive volume as an individual (especially outside of SS), but they crowdsource so they can. The massive volume works for some though. It just didn't work that great for me (at least, not as well as other methods).
Exactly. Our photos aren't precious, but we know people will pay a bit more for some of them. As I've said many times, not everything sells in the volume required to be worthwhile as subs, but can do very well at say $20 a pop. Unfortunately no site with volume is offering that. I once had a game of golf (actually in August 1970, now I think of it, at Newquay). After 9 holes for 357 shots, I realised it wasn't for me, but it does mean I have a lot more time available for my camera.
46
« on: October 15, 2013, 13:15 »
I am having a the best month since 2011 at DT which is helping, but all the other sites are in the can - even SS isn't slipping back.
Why am I having such a good month at DT? It sure is amazing how fast "regular" sales add up. It makes me more and more frustrated with the whole subs scenario when you receive a healthy amount of regular sales mixed with the subs. Makes me a little bit sick when I sell the same photo side by side and earn .35 for one sale and 6.97 for the other.
When is this whole give-photos-away-for-nothing idea going to pass?
What fools started this full rez subscription model anyway?
I really wish DT would start a no subs option for some files - there's a lot I would send there, that I simply won't sell at subs rates. 20% of portfolio would be a good start.
47
« on: September 26, 2013, 13:44 »
There's been quite a lot of activity behind the scenes in the last few weeks, and we've been in contact with Justin.
Things are still happening, though slowly.
48
« on: September 19, 2013, 18:13 »
Sor for anybody who wants to sell such content, exclusivity at iStock does not work - because it's artist exclusivity, not image exclusivity.
+1
I agree that anyone who creates average generic content is in trouble even if you are on the sub sites, like I said this isn't an exclusive issue it's an industry wide issue.
(1) Anyone who makes like an ostrich and stays exclusive is in trouble. Within the space of a year it's gone from better than SS volumes and DT commissions to worse than DT volumes and 123 commissions. Can anyone really have faith that the muppets responsible either care or are capable of sustaining the business.
(2) Anonymous commentary about "generic content" in a pejorative way is pretty meaningless and, anyway, generic stuff is the stuff that sells because it's useful.
You are talking from a non-excl point of view. As exclusive I' going the same, or even a bit better (including Getty sales, btw, paid today and great) than last year.I understand that the demise of Photo Plus and the reduction in price for non-ex stuff has taken its toll. That could be an argument to don't stay as non-ex at IS, but, certainly, not a valid argument against exclusivity.
It is in a way. If I were still exclusive, I would fear what IS might do next - will they cut exclusive income in half overnight, just like they have done to Indies. If you could still pay your bills on half the income, then maybe you'll be fine, but giving up on exclusivity for me had a lot to do with concern as to what they might do. That exclusive contract is very restrictive. Having a variety of sources of income feels a lot better.
49
« on: September 17, 2013, 14:04 »
A couple of years ago, when we were thinking of leaving IS exclusivity, we decided to try as many different avenues for selling our work as possible, to discover what worked and what didn't. Like you, we had no idea whether or not we would be able to sell direct, but we set up a Photoshelter site and decided we would run it for two years and see what happened.
The first year was poor, the second year, although not impressive, was better. However, we did discover that there are people out there who are willing to buy direct from us, and pay more than peanuts.
Symbiostock came along in the meantime, and it's much cheaper than Photoshelter, and has actually brought in more sales in its first months than Photoshelter did. We will therefore abandon our Photoshelter site in a couple of months, at the end of its second year, and stick with Symbiostock.
We don't know if your files will sell. If you aren't prepared to risk $75 to find out, you will never know either. Your choice.
50
« on: September 12, 2013, 16:45 »
"What's the definition of successful? What if I think I'm successful, and you think I'm not?"
That's reason 14
No
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 21
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
