|
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 - HermanM
26
« on: September 27, 2009, 22:27 »
You can legally sell non-exclusive royalty free images there, although many people consider it unethical due to huge differences in prices between Alamy and microstock sites.
I got a $1 sale (and $0.50 royalty) at Alamy last month, despite not being into the "scheme" to do so and got a $4 royalty on a RM image this week! I'm starting to reconsider offering my micro images there if they keep this trend, but at least I got some more regular sales to make me happy for now.
27
« on: September 27, 2009, 20:33 »
only the very best images will get noticed. Quality is becoming everything, volume is pointless unless the quality is there.
I agree 100%
28
« on: September 27, 2009, 18:14 »
OTOH, I charged him three months worth of micro earnings 
Great! Recently I had a couple of events and each paid very well.
29
« on: September 27, 2009, 18:11 »
In their blog you can see a photographer that reports his 3000th image upload and his portfolio are countless series of similars each of 10-20 images.
30
« on: September 27, 2009, 02:03 »
I am wondering about the quality of the photos that show in the main page (latest uploads, I pressume) and how that can affect the perception buyers get from this site. I welcome the idea of a wide approach in the themes of the pics that are accepted, especially since many micros are underserved in some areas (as being "not stock" in their perception). But I wonder if images that have been clearly improvised and without any editing being uploaded are going to give buyers the idea that the quality of this collection, as a whole, is not that good. There are lots of images of people's backs, other images in which the built-in flash was the source of light, images taken on a harsh midday light and very large series of similars that show up quite frequently. There are even images of people with T-shirts with the names of universities that are marked as RF! I'm not the best photographer out there, on the contrary, I'm an amateur, but I've seen in the last four or five years that the sites that thrive the most are the ones that are "picky" with their collections.
I hope they look into this because I really like them and I've had more sales there in my first month than on 123RF and BigStock and they promise a lot if they can correct these situations.
31
« on: September 27, 2009, 01:31 »
Welcome to the real world: a world without gold canisters, without "yeehhhaaas" and driven by your work and the quality of it, way beyond micro-land. Clients expect quality and with a quality work you can negotiate a fair price. I've said it before, there is a whole lot more than micros and we should approach those opportunities leaving behind the micro-mind. It's nice to get some cash out of a hobby, but if you expect to be treated as a pro by a customer you sit with you have to be sure that you know your craft. It is a first (and enlightening) experience for you. Just be careful in the wording of your licence, especially since you have that "model release problems"!
32
« on: September 26, 2009, 21:17 »
Very interesting discussion that raises pretty serious questions. I agree on some points and not on others, but as a whole it is a recommended reading.
33
« on: September 26, 2009, 11:53 »
Yes, but that butterfly could be used for commercial projects without releases, no? What if there are logos / identifiable property or people?
You are mixing two completely different things. You can use a Rights Managed image for commercial usage if it has releases. The concept of RF-RM is about the licence, not necessarily the use (but the use can be affected by the licence). You can illustrate a newspaper article with a RF image. You can run an ad with a RM image that is released. You can have a RM image, with releases, but with restrictions that prevent certain specific commercial uses (for example, tobacco ads). You should do more research, there is plenty of material out there about this broad and not so easy subject.
34
« on: September 25, 2009, 22:36 »
Indeed I have had a "not correct size" message while uploading images that are 48Mb. I usually work all at 52Mb to be sure.
35
« on: September 25, 2009, 22:33 »
Editorial is not news. These can be altered (for example, a rare tropical butterfly). News is a completely different thing.
36
« on: September 25, 2009, 09:21 »
The 20D wasn't a 'classic' __ I though it was expensive rubbish and the worse DLSR I've ever owned. I only reluctantly upgraded to it from my 10D because of the extra pixels but the images were nothing like as good. I was so grateful when they brought out the 5D and I could finally bin it.
My 20D was bought the first week it went out. Never have had a problem, not even a tiny glitch, with it. My wife (that always shoots in burst mode) used it for two years (heavy ones) and now my 10 yo daughter uses it and it still takes great pics. Maybe you got a bad piece, but for me is one of the most loved cameras I've had.
37
« on: September 25, 2009, 09:18 »
Been using it since I bought it for my wife... My 5D is great, but I like the 50D a lot, especially in the studio. If you can control light then it is a great tool. It requires very good lenses to really get great results since the pixel count shows every cheap lens' defects quite fast. I too have noticed some noise, but it is not that bothersome to me, I have submited images taken in dim light to some trads and no problem there, but the micros are somewhat obsessed with noise and there could be a problem. What I do when submitting to the micros is that I use Dfine (Nik's noise reduction) at 60-70% opacity and then downsize a bit. Even iso 800-1000 images have been accepted with no problem. I wouldnt consider buying a higher megapixel camera to try to get "XL" sales, especially since the subs model is showing its ugly face everywhere, I hate so see my very large pics go for 35 cents, but maybe it doesnt bother you, but think about it.
In the end I'm split between my 5D and my wifes 50D. I will wait and see the 5D MKIII that should be somewhere around the corner, and the 7D is a great option too.
If you consider buying a used 5D do some research about the mirror issue (becoming loose) and ask the seller if the camera has been conditioned to prevent that.
38
« on: September 24, 2009, 21:13 »
It is not some shady country... And she could get a lawyer to pick the case (that is quite blatant) to work for a % of damages. I bet that they could have got something more than an "apology e-mail"
39
« on: September 24, 2009, 20:42 »
Currently they are bad for me. The only two worst are CanStockPhoto and 123RF. Even The3dStudio is outperforming them 3-1 and I've been there for less than a month. I hope these new changes are good, since I like them.
40
« on: September 24, 2009, 00:12 »
Maybe they didn't see the piggy on the gentleman's hands...  IS is soooo strange at times!
41
« on: September 23, 2009, 19:38 »
Those are extreme shooting conditions, very hard to get good photos on these...
42
« on: September 22, 2009, 18:18 »
I wonder how far the micro model will take on everything... Prices should (and could) be 5x-10x of what they are now and yet they would be good prices. The notion that everything has to be sold for pennies (or small amounts of money) is worriesome and sickening, especially with logos that have zero potential of being sold over more than once. I certainly hope that this one fails, it would be best for everyone. The problem is that there will always be someone that gets a "thrill" to see his logo used by someone.
43
« on: September 22, 2009, 18:18 »
My impression has always been that micros shot themselves on the foot right from the start. The price delta between micros and trads RF images was too steep, the micros started with one dollar vs the hundreds from the trads... The price point selected by the micros should have been 5x-10x that base: at $5-10 (or even $20) those images would still have been bargains. But no, they drove prices to the very bottom and once buyers got used to those prices having them to come up has been a slow and lenghty pain (Vetta is trying to do it, but wouldn't it been better that Vetta prices were the starting price and not the distant hopeful goal?). Once micro prices settled in there was nothing more to do, except to jump into the "feed the beast" model in which we are all in.
44
« on: September 20, 2009, 20:57 »
They once "sent" me a check... one year of earnings... it never arrived, nobody knew anything, they never solved the issue... They absolutely suck.
Did you take any legal action against them?...what did you do about it?
I can tell you one thing Herman, in my case is only the commission of one photo, which may not be worth getting my attorney involved in this (not at his prices), but if this problem does not get resolved soon, I'll make sure to give them the worst trashing advertisement campaign they have ever seen...(de esto puedes estar seguro) and you can be sure of this.
The problem was what to do...? For some 200 dollars and living in Panama there were no legal options viable, at least from a cost point of view. They "sent" the check without being asked to a previous adress of mine, since they were slow sellers I didn't hang over there and when I realized they had sent the check to an old adress I contacted them. They suggested that I checked with the "actual residents" of that adress, then simply ignored the issue. The lesson learned was that I don't deal with sites that don't show reasonable lines of communication with its contributors and that have a certain level of sales to justify visiting the site at least each other day. 123RF does not meet any of these, at least for me. I am waiting my next payout to delete my portfolio there, too little, too slow and not worth it. On the other hand I had a check problem with SS and they solved it without any hassles, they cancelled the previous one and sent a new one in no time. They are on another league.
45
« on: September 20, 2009, 16:28 »
It tried to put some computer images on the "Landscape" category, it is pretty dumb... That is a pain.
46
« on: September 20, 2009, 16:24 »
Professional Photographer Magazine has some excellent advice on a series of articles: the bottom line is to have several backups, on HD, NAS and optical drives.
47
« on: September 20, 2009, 02:02 »
Hace un par de das hice mi segunda venta en 3dStudio... $2.40... Ya supera a CanStock y a 123RF este mes y si sigue as se pasar al BigStock que est esttico como un poste...
48
« on: September 19, 2009, 20:09 »
They once "sent" me a check... one year of earnings... it never arrived, nobody knew anything, they never solved the issue... They absolutely suck.
49
« on: September 19, 2009, 20:07 »
I upload a large batch at once and then "finish" the images in small groups, four or five at a time, each day... It prevents this kind of issues.
50
« on: September 19, 2009, 20:05 »
I too had a rude awakening on this issue several years ago... now everyting is watermarked...
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
