|
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 - cdwheatley
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 20
126
« on: December 14, 2009, 10:13 »
I've been on the fence for a couple of years. Started making preparations twice and chickened out both times. After looking at the numbers for diamond exclusive, it's an easy decision for me. The new nonexclusive best match search placement sounds a little scary. Not sure how that loss would be replaced. There are 4 solid Micro sites and I don't see that # growing. I've always felt that Istock is moving in the right direction and like the idea of submitting to their multiple collections.
The best match thing is kind of the wild card. Without knowing how much damage that will do to non-exclusive files in search placement, it's hard to come to any conclusions about exclusivity. In theory, the royalty percentage increase plus the price increase plus the best match factor could result in similar (or more) earnings compared to independent earnings. But there is no way to know just yet how the best match factor will pan out.
I think it is safe to say, however, that some shift to favor exclusive files will happen, regardless of how vague the istock admins may be about it. They'd be crazy not to favor exclusive files in search results if they are going to start making more money from those files on each sale.
best match seems pretty stable these days, no huge swings like in the past. It does look like exclusives get a little push which is understandable. If newer higher priced collections are getting good placement which nonexclusives have no access to, there is only one direction for nonexclusive earnings to go. Less visibility=less sales, regarless of what happens with best match. But, like you said, what point is there in keeping nonexclusive files up front if they are making less on them.
127
« on: December 14, 2009, 09:33 »
The new nonexclusive best match search placement sounds a little scary. Not sure how that loss would be replaced.
We also don't know how the customers are going to react when faced with such huge price rises on so many of the images. An 'average' sale of a Medium exclusive image is going up nearly 70% __ in this climate! It could end up being the biggest gift to the other agencies that they've ever had.
It is certainly going to be interesting to see how this all plays out with both customers and contributors.
Is the difference between $6.00 and $10.00 that big of deal to the average buyer? It would be nice to hear from some buyers. The cost of a gallon of milk where I live is about $7.00, I could move to a cheaper Island, but I like it here. It offers a little more of what I'm looking for. I'm sure Istock lost a few customers during the last big price hike, but not that many. If prices were going from $60.00 to $100.00 I think that would be more significant.
128
« on: December 14, 2009, 08:32 »
I've been on the fence for a couple of years. Started making preparations twice and chickened out both times. After looking at the numbers for diamond exclusive, it's an easy decision for me. The new nonexclusive best match search placement sounds a little scary. Not sure how that loss would be replaced. There are 4 solid Micro sites and I don't see that # growing. I've always felt that Istock is moving in the right direction and like the idea of submitting to their multiple collections.
129
« on: October 23, 2009, 21:40 »
I don't want to leave Fotolia because I actually like the site but there is no way I am going to be paid less and be put further back in the search results than somebody new who's sold less than me, the last ranking fiasco was bad enough.
ditto.
130
« on: October 21, 2009, 22:10 »
I don't see anywhere where it says: current contributors will be excluded from the deal. They would never do that to the hard working folks who have been supporting them, would they. 
131
« on: October 11, 2009, 23:34 »
Well obviously, from knowing it was in the VI's, it only took me a couple of minutes to identify the location. You can ensure that many buyers won't see your images but you can't keep it secret from your serious competitors. We photographers have a great interest and memory for spectacular locations. Most landscape photographers could open any coffee-table book and name the majority of the locations without reading the text.
And yep, 'woman on beach' has probably been shot before and it'll probably happen again. Just like everything else. Any image/theme on microstock that rises up the rankings will be copied relentlessly unless it is sufficiently unique to make that difficult or impossible.
I agree with you, If a photographer wants to find a location, he will. As you well know, advertisers lie all the time. I don't know how many times I've had beach images from Florida used for advertising in the Caribbean or Mexico and vise versa. Or, images from the Caribbean used for the Maldives etc... When I first moved here there was an image of my wife posing with a snorkel and mask (which was shot in Florida) on a magazine cover here in the Caribbean. So I don't think exact location is all that important. The best beach for micro would be one with no identifying markings that would give away the location. One that could be used for anywhere. Maybe for macro it would be much more important. Just my opinion.
132
« on: October 11, 2009, 20:42 »
Hmm, I wonder why I did not stop at Maho Bay? I went to Hawksnest Bay, Leinster Bay, Watermelon Cay, Francis Bay, Cinnamon Bay, Trunk Bay, Honeymoon Beach, Caneel Bay. Perhaps Maho did not exist in 1996? 
It looks like you covered a lot  Francis is right next to Maho, Maho is actually easier to find because it's on the way to the other north shore beaches coming from Coral bay. I'm surprised you made it out to Watermelon Cay. That's a cool spot to hike to and do a snorkel around the Island. The nice thing is it's a flat hike unlike some of the other trails. I actually lugged an underwater housing out there, propbably won't do that again
133
« on: October 11, 2009, 18:50 »
There are more than 20 beaches on this little Island. The odds of same shot on same beach from the same angle being coincidence are pretty slim. Even with the early morning shadows there are many angles to shoot. In my experience, these types of shots aren't selling very well in micro these days unless they are really special, or lucky in best match . It's to easy to shoot.
Maho Bay does seems to be a well-known location as there are lots of images taken from a similar viewpoint on the internet;
http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/TCB1206.jpg
http://www.dcpanoramics.com/106.html
http://photos.travellerspoint.com/168527/maho.jpg
Maybe the other guy saw it on a postcard? You might get better sales if you were more specific with your keywords like 'St John' & 'Maho Bay' etc. If some resort operator or travel agent wanted shots of the local area then they might struggle to find yours.
I'm not talking about the beach itself. I have tons of images of Maho, I live here. It's probably the 5th best beach on St John, easy to get to, even the tour taxi's swing by. Find me an image with a girl on that beach in that same pose from that same angle. That image has been in many travel mags and around the net for a couple of years, so it is possible he saw it there. Or maybe he took a peek at my port since I live here and he was planning a trip all the way from Hawaii. I know who he is and all the other beach guys, it's a pretty small genre. As far as keywords go, they are pretty much identical except he added a few. I choose not to name my beaches, I go back and forth with the pro's and con's. My point was shooting a single woman on the beach lying down doesn't play like it used to. Just calling it how I see it. They do fantastic work by the way, print work is also very very good, not trying to take that away from them.
134
« on: October 11, 2009, 15:11 »
There are more than 20 beaches on this little Island. The odds of same shot on same beach from the same angle being coincidence are pretty slim. Even with the early morning shadows there are many angles to shoot. In my experience, these types of shots aren't selling very well in micro these days unless they are really special, or lucky in best match . It's to easy to shoot.
135
« on: October 11, 2009, 13:06 »
To be honest I do think the example above is probably coincidental. They appear to be a husband and wife team who shoot similarly-themed stuff throughout their portfolio and naturally she has the outfits to go with it.
As far as framing the shot is concerned you almost have to place the background island close to the centre of the composition and, taking the shadows from the trees into account, there's only really one place she could sit. It is the most obvious and natural composition of that scene under those particular conditions.
It's more common than you might think to produce near identical images. I've several examples when neither photographer had seen the others work (for example because the image uploaded later had actually been captured months before being submitted).
You might be right, who knows. If the shot was taken on any other beach than I wouldn't even think twice about it. My wife and I just thought it was pretty interesting.
136
« on: October 10, 2009, 21:51 »
137
« on: October 10, 2009, 21:33 »
Thanks for your sympathy click click it does suck when you see copying but what can you do? move forward and don't look back. Copying is a "missing the bus" approach. It's possible that somehow our brains are wired together...lol. The guy whose image I mentioned is the current dreamstime featured artist. I browsed his portfolio and found a girl in santa's hat snorkeling underwater. I just recently did this shot as well and to my knowledge couldn't find anything similar in micro, I thought it would be fun to try. The creepy thing is, according to dreamstime both our shots were done on the same day one Island apart in the Caribbean. How creepy is that 
138
« on: October 10, 2009, 19:36 »
My hat is off to this guy . He managed to find the same beach on a tiny Island in the middle of the Caribbean, get the same shot from almost the same angle, with similar accessories. his  mine from a couple years ago  I don't really like to make accusations, but not sure what to think on this one. I guess I should be honored that my stuff is making his shotlist
139
« on: August 25, 2009, 19:30 »
757 images online
2 rejects
small handful of sales
Hope it gets better.
140
« on: August 25, 2009, 18:55 »
This will work until for a while until the non exclusive iStock photographers start producing equal quality images and selling them on the other stock sites for cheep.
I'm not sure that is a valid reason buyers don't shop at other places. There's lots of good stuff all around. Something else is drawing them to Vetta then.
How about "it costs more therefore it must be better". Well, that and good search placement.
141
« on: August 25, 2009, 18:33 »
yes I did receivethe same letter.
I am currently silver at Fotolia. I looked at the royalty structure (for non-exclusives) and this offer makes no sense for me (from an increased rank perspective, not sure about increased traffic).
If I would be gold and could make it to emerald, now that would be a completely different matter ...
I feel the same way. It sounds like mostly silver canister contributors were offered?? hmmm?? Anyone gold get the offer? Another issue I have is they want to include best selling images in the package. I have a hard time seeing the benefit, great for Fotolia though.
142
« on: June 05, 2009, 07:26 »
Fotolia has been selling well for me lately. I just wish they would raise the prices.
overall -223
7day -41
143
« on: May 22, 2009, 08:38 »
Synchronizing the coffee pot with the computer can be tricky, and then there is always the wardrobe issue...boxer's or shorts... hmmm?
144
« on: May 21, 2009, 14:47 »
Projector sounds interesting. I had a 57" sony CRT which had a great picture but the thing just took up to much space. Anything over 50" really needs an HD signal to look good. Also room size is a big factor. Big TV in small room sucks. I have a 50" inch plasma with no regrets except it gets really hot. Never experienced pixel burn in. I can't ship the 50" to where I'm moving without paying a fortune so I Just bought a 37" Samsung LCD. Looks like a nice TV for the price.
I can't see a big difference between any of the technologies. The LCD might save a little on the power bill especially at large size. I wonder what happened to laser technology which was supposed to make the rest obsolete??
145
« on: May 19, 2009, 15:47 »
Another vote here for "we deserve an explanation". If credit prices have increased, contributors should benefit as well. This is a can of worms.
146
« on: May 18, 2009, 15:16 »
147
« on: May 15, 2009, 10:27 »
I have 3 EL sales from April (who knew??) that I have not been paid for yet. Starting to wonder if there is a glitch. It's my understanding that payment goes out at the end of the month.
148
« on: May 03, 2009, 23:33 »
I think the weather frustrates me more than anything else. Its like the clouds are just waiting till I get set up, or there isn't a cloud in site and you end up with banding issues.
The infamous banding of blue skies, right. There are ways to solve it, but they eat time.
Thanks for the link but I've given up on trying to fix banding. There was a huge thread on SS a while back looking for a solution and nothing really worked all that well. I've come to the conclusion that If I can't live without the image, I'll try to replace the sky using another image from the series or just move on. Its usually pretty quick and painless if the colors match to start with.
149
« on: May 03, 2009, 21:38 »
I think the weather frustrates me more than anything else. Its like the clouds are just waiting till I get set up, or there isn't a cloud in site and you end up with banding issues.
150
« on: May 03, 2009, 21:11 »
The ones who hides their eyes , that's the one you watch!
Ah obviously, you have been a spy too.  Sunglasses are used (1) to hide who you're looking at (turning your head 30 degrees away) and (2) in the event of a blast, you're the one who's recovers his sight first from the strong light and you don't get debris in your eyes.
Speaking of difficulties doing public photography (on-topic), the main difficulty doing beach shots in the Phils are the kids, yelling "Piktyor" and always sneaking in behind the model to be in the frame. With 50% of the almost 100,000,000 population under the age of 20, they pop up literally everywhere. Ten minutes on a beach and you look like a Scouts leader, dragging a long tail of kids behind you. The bargain to make is taking their "Piktyors" with loud clicks, show them on the LCD, then erase them.
After that, you get about a 10 minutes grace period with your model, and then the game starts all over.
Is the guy playing chess and the little dude in front related?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
