|
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 ... 20
26
« on: July 09, 2016, 08:36 »
The only new money I see on istock these days comes in the form of signature+ subs at $2.50
How do you know that's new money rather than previous credit buyers having switched to subs?
In particular, why would the 2.50 subs be new money rather than the 75c or 34c subs?
Maybe I used the wrong wording. All I'm saying is if I go to image subscriptions and sort by royalties, most of my top earning images are signature+. I'm not selling enough volume of the other collections. There is also the chance those sig+ images might sell on Getty occasionally.
27
« on: July 08, 2016, 17:28 »
The only new money I see on istock these days comes in the form of signature+ subs at $2.50
28
« on: July 08, 2016, 17:24 »
If they moved all images to Getty that would be great and might benefit the exclusive contributor at this point.
If it happened, it might or might not be good. Commissions are only 20% (for exclusives) and many sales are lower even than subs - I've had as low as 18c for a Getty sale, and IME, and apparently that of others, the large net value sales are reducing rapidly.
Yes, might not be the same for everyone. I can only go by personal experience. I'm still getting big sales over there along with little ones. I've noticed my getty sales are are growing closer to Istock with around 30% of the images that I have on istock. It's not that Getty is doing so great, just that istock sales are drying up. So yeah, please move the other 70% of images to Getty 
29
« on: July 08, 2016, 16:58 »
If they moved all images to Getty that would be great and might benefit the exclusive contributor at this point. We are all just guessing here. Istock credit sales are drying up fast, it's just a small fraction of what it was before subs. Makes sense to make Istock Gettys sub only site. People predicted this year's ago and doesn't seem that far fetched right now.
30
« on: February 23, 2016, 10:02 »
Hello everyone,
I would like to invite all of you to check out www.qhero.com - the new tool for uploading fast and easy to iStock. We also made an introductional video for you: https://youtu.be/zXCJQQoE4Vg. We offer fantastic features like:
- Bulk Uploading
- Auto Disambiguitation
- Auto Keyword suggestions
- Auto categories based on keywords
- Bulk editing
- Collection management
- Download files with updated metadata
- Direct uploading to iStock
All of this and much more has been build to make you a faster and happier photographer!
Check us out and let us know what you think.
All the best,
Kasper Ravlo, CEO.
Hi Kasper, We were one of the beta testers and things had been working out great with qhero. The ability to quickly copy and paste all info from one file to the next or to a batch speeds things up considerably. I do however have a huge issue with a recent batch, it involves 6 model releases and a property release. For some reason the releases are not being seen by the istock reviewers, particularly the property release. I'm on the 3rd try with this batch so a little frustrated. I'm wondering if this is browser related? I've been using Edge browser, but also tried internet explorer on the last try with no luck. Do you have a preferred browser? is anyone else having this issue with releases?
Hi, I'm very sorry to hear about the model release issue you are experiencing. We do know about this, and it is caused by problems with the iStock API not communicating accordingly. We are working hard on this issue and if you will send me your username (you can't send it in a Private Message or through our feedback tab in qhero.com if you prefer), then we will into your specific issue.
That is the best I can do for you right now, sorry for the bad experience 
Kind Regards,
Kasper Ravlo.
Thanks Kasper, I do love the service and I'm sure you will get it sorted out. Sent you a PM on qhero.
31
« on: February 23, 2016, 09:13 »
Hello everyone,
I would like to invite all of you to check out www.qhero.com - the new tool for uploading fast and easy to iStock. We also made an introductional video for you: https://youtu.be/zXCJQQoE4Vg. We offer fantastic features like:
- Bulk Uploading
- Auto Disambiguitation
- Auto Keyword suggestions
- Auto categories based on keywords
- Bulk editing
- Collection management
- Download files with updated metadata
- Direct uploading to iStock
All of this and much more has been build to make you a faster and happier photographer!
Check us out and let us know what you think.
All the best,
Kasper Ravlo, CEO.
Hi Kasper, We were one of the beta testers and things had been working out great with qhero. The ability to quickly copy and paste all info from one file to the next or to a batch speeds things up considerably. I do however have a huge issue with a recent batch, it involves 6 model releases and a property release. For some reason the releases are not being seen by the istock reviewers, particularly the property release. I'm on the 3rd try with this batch so a little frustrated. I'm wondering if this is browser related? I've been using Edge browser, but also tried internet explorer on the last try with no luck. Do you have a preferred browser? is anyone else having this issue with releases?
32
« on: January 19, 2016, 16:16 »
It probably depends on what you are trying to market. For stock images only it might be a waste of time. I started pushing my facebook page a little more the past year and some good things have come out of it. I don't pay for advertising after realizing that most of the people you get that route don't participate on your page. My situation might be different because I live in a high tourist area, but the past year we've sold quite a few prints, calendars and had tons of offers for work, all through facebook. This week alone an Airline contacted me about images, also a charter company bought images. I share images and video from the local area so most of my page followers are interested in this area, including local business, gov't, villa owners. I get wedding, portrait photography and other random offers constantly which I don't do, so I recommend someone local. So, personally I feel it's worth it and it's kind of fun break from the mostly negative landscape of stock photos:) www.facebook.com/christianwheatleyphotography
33
« on: November 07, 2015, 09:19 »
R.I.P. Stephen Strathdee (sharply_done) You are missed.
34
« on: October 19, 2015, 17:22 »
You can check out these guys http://www.printpelican.com/ We've been printing calendars with them for the last 5 years, usually between 1000-1500 a year, prices are pretty good, discounts for volume. We've yet to find anyone cheaper that is reliable. We got offered a cheaper deal through a middle man 2 years ago and it turned into a nightmare. Hope that helps.
35
« on: October 15, 2015, 11:40 »
Hi all,
I don't want to spoil the party at all but before you drop 8K on this new DJI product I would be absolutely sure that not one rotor will go out on you. At 3K the first model was okay, losing 3K is a lot different than 8K. Many countries do not allow the use of 4 rotor systems as they can be dangerous. DJI horror stories are all over the place if you do a bit of google search. This industry is moving so fast unless you are ready to start making money tomorrow with your new flying camera I would wait it out. No rush for now they are all just getting things figured out and the changes are happening at light speed. Please read reviews at B and H, and everywhere for that matter, about the Inspire 1 and all DJI products. This new unit is the same Inspire with new optics but the guts of the bird appear to be the same as the 1. There are lots of good ones but there are plenty of bad ones and DJI is the worst for repair if you recover your crashed bird. You could easily be down for 2 months waiting on parts and for professional that makes business difficult. Best of luck
Cheers,
J
You make some good points. Dji does not have a great track record for customer service. One of the problems with DJI is they have captured a huge portion of the market. I would have to say out of the last 50 drones I've seen flying down here 90% of them are DJI, not sure what actual numbers are, but a lot of phantoms around. So, with that huge number of drones, a lot of mishaps are going to happen. A lot of those problems are due to pilot error, bad calibration of compass, or IMU, maybe not doing a solid pre flight check, battery failure, not reading the manual. I flew a phantom 2 over water for two years and never had any issues other than my battery failing which was my fault. Cost me my drone, but I'm moving on. I'm not saying there are not bad units out there like with any company, but a lot of these accidents should not have happened. Most of these people are relying totally on GPS also. I know the inspire 1 had some firmware issues in the beginning, but they have seemed to iron them out with the latest updates. Mine has flown flawlessly so far (knock on wood). I wouldn't fully trust any of these drones. There is always risk involved. $8,000 in the air is a lot of money. Not to mention the cost of a computer that can process the x5r files. The X5 however looks like a nice upgrade at $2,000 especially for stills if you are coming from an X3, or gopro setup. I'm impressed with the Inspire 1, it's quiet, handles very well, camera rotates a smooth 360 which really comes in handy for pans, something I always tried to do by rotating the drone, but never worked out well. Total control over camera and its functions while it's in the air is a huge bonus. Switch from 4k to slow motion on the fly. These features would cost a lot to build from scratch. I've been flying in 20 mph winds which I would never do with a phantom and it's pretty stable. These smaller drones with a large sensor and interchangeable lens are the future. Investing in a large model at this point, might not be the best option either with the way things are headed. As Leaf mentioned, why put all the camera extras in the air. Slim it down to a flying sensor. Waiting is not a bad idea, but not being late to the party has it's advantages too, especially when it comes to stock.
36
« on: October 08, 2015, 18:22 »
This is my backyard :-) shot this with my drone this morning. This is a National Forest so drones aren't banned yet. Flying as much as I can while I can. Stayed below 400ft! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekfob4IcTUo
Beautiful! Nice work!:)
37
« on: October 08, 2015, 18:15 »
Yeah the X5 raw is looking realling exciting. I have had a large drone to fly a Canon 5D Mark III camea but the Inspire X5R will easily outperform that setup in a much smaller, easier to fly package. Good things are coming for drones
It's about time someone makes a drone-dedicated camera like DJI just have. It really makes no sense sticking up a camera like a 5D in the air which has tons of features that you can't use while flying and take up unnecessary weight (screen, buttons, viewfinder, mirror, battery, magnesium body, audio support).
Right, love or hate DJI they are heading in the right direction:) also interesting would be the ability to detach the x5 and put the gimbal on a stick for hand held work. Looking forward to that option which should be right around the corner. Hard to imagine where the tech will be a few years from now.
Yep. They are one step ahead of you 😀
http://petapixel.com/2015/10/08/the-dji-osmo-is-a-handheld-12mp4k-camera-with-a-brushless-gimbal/
Haha!:) Truth be told: I already typed my way over to B&H and pre-ordered one. Normally I would wait until the bugs are worked out, but couldn't help myself this time. Pretty excited about this thing with X5 for run and gun beach stock work. This might prove to be a one man band's dream! I have a ton of uses for this setup. Fly the drone, shoot from boat, shoot on the beach, everything in motion and all secure in one suitcase. Christmas came early this year:)
38
« on: October 06, 2015, 18:34 »
Yeah the X5 raw is looking realling exciting. I have had a large drone to fly a Canon 5D Mark III camea but the Inspire X5R will easily outperform that setup in a much smaller, easier to fly package. Good things are coming for drones
It's about time someone makes a drone-dedicated camera like DJI just have. It really makes no sense sticking up a camera like a 5D in the air which has tons of features that you can't use while flying and take up unnecessary weight (screen, buttons, viewfinder, mirror, battery, magnesium body, audio support).
Right, love or hate DJI they are heading in the right direction:) also interesting would be the ability to detach the x5 and put the gimbal on a stick for hand held work. Looking forward to that option which should be right around the corner. Hard to imagine where the tech will be a few years from now.
39
« on: October 05, 2015, 14:19 »
tahanks jjneff, I was considering getting Phantom2 with GoPro4 but my research shows that Phantom's3 camera gives better quality still photo. on the other hand having a copter without built in camera gives you possibility to change optics when there is something new/better on the market without changing a drone. Sending a dslr into the sky is very expensive, i was thinking about compact camera, but gimbals are also expensive toys. There are some rc tech guys willing to assemble the system for compact, but I don't want to carry a soldering gun in my bag and all those sticking out wires looks user unfriendly.
Have you been exercising on smaller copters before flying P3?
totally with you when it comes to user-unfriendliness of the "big rigs", @spamowanka. Things have become better lately though with, for example, the Tarot hexacopter series (see http://steadiflite.com/advanced-apv-tool-the-tarot-t960-hexacopter/ for details): these can carry a full DSLR (or a good MFT offering a better choice of lenses than, say, this badly-fisheyed Gopro thing and its totally unacceptable shutter-roll etc most seem to use these days)... While definitely not as sleek as these prosumer Phantoms (with their own severe limitations and also cost draw-downs), that Tarot set-of-flying-tubes is definitely manageable for non-RC-techies. Not worse than a decent video rig set-up on a tripod, frame, and external screen. (Ask someone to help with configuration, or you may even "buy" that as an add-on service for a ready-to-fly result.)
Me, I definitely used a small copter as a "training wheels" solution; and it's not even mainly the flying part but the aerial filming and overall composition portion that needs LOTS OF practice here -- used to "get my feet wet" flying a Blade 350 QX3 which is the cheapest platform for any meaningful AP/V use and image quality (and does not have that overly expens-ified Gopro garbage hanging underneath), can be had pre-owned from eBay for 300 bucks or new for a tat higher.
The shutter roll on gopro rig is easily fixed by adding a ND filter. The bigger problem with gopro is the ugly fisheye, easily fixed in post, but it stretches the image, the edges look terrible. Images from gopro 3 are so bad it takes forever to clean up in post. I've just recently crashed my phantom 2 into the drink due to battery failure. Those batteries need to be carefully taken care of or they will fail over time. I fly over water almost 100% of the time so it was bound to happen sooner or later. Luckily there is the DJI Inspire 1 which I just purchased, camera is improved (no fisheye)with options to upgrade to a micro four thirds camera Zenmuse X5, or X5R depending on your needs. This is a game changer in my book, the small drone size with a decent camera and interchangeable lenses. I'm guessing these cameras will compete with a flying dslr in a very small package. It's not really possible, or economical for me to fly a giant rig Like Jonathan mentions from a boat. It would also draw a huge amount of attention as well which is not always favorable.
40
« on: August 21, 2015, 08:27 »
Here is a sample of some of the stock stuff I have done with a drone in the past 2 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hceIbMYDtXE all the aerial shots are done with a phantom 2, gopro and gimbal.
This is great stuff. One of my most favorite places in the universe; thanks for refreshing some wonderful memories. And so well done.
I have to add, though, that I really, really hated one clip: The one with someone touching a turtle.  Perhaps it's useful stock to show what should never, ever be done, but I doubt it's likely to be used that way. Instead it's far more likely to end up encouraging people ("oh, that looks so neat").
Sorry about that, I had no idea that you could harm a turtle by touching it. I guess I should know that after living in the islands for 7 years. Swimming with turtles is amazing, they are like cute puppies, you just want to play with them. I've had a few people make similar comments and point out the issues with touching them. Rest assured that won't happen again by me.
41
« on: August 20, 2015, 15:44 »
Drones are like video cameras, they are everywhere but with the footage you shoot it is not everywhere! I am slowly including models with my drone, planning everything ahead of time and doing the prep work. I get up at 5am to shoot and stay late in the evening to get what I want. I pay people and pick locations. 99% of stock shooters don't do this with a camera or a drone. If you keep on your path with footage like this you will rise quickly! Getty has been good for this stuff for me so far! The rewards come to those who take the time and risk to get shots others don't. Thanks for the kind words on my clips, I could learn a lot from you!
Thank you for the words of encouragement. It's too expensive to shoot the way I am doing it, video is new to me, but not all that different than shooting stills. Weather plays such a huge factor for flying above the ocean that it's hard to plan ahead very far. I spent last summer documenting all the popular islands/beaches in the Virgin Islands. I'm afraid to add up what that cost me to do that, it would be a long time to see any return. Anyway, It was a lot of fun. We'll need to tone down the spending to have any future shooting stock video. Stay local and shoot more lifestyle. Getty is tough on some, getting good search placement there is something I haven't quite figured out yet. Nobody buys your clips/images if you can't find them. Obviously you've been doing this a long time, so you are well established. In hindsight, I should have started years ago.
42
« on: August 20, 2015, 12:59 »
Great footage and thanks for sharing! Maybe we need to chat, I have already made hundreds of dollars with my drone in 4 months! Your footage is very high quality!
Thanks John, you have some amazing shots in your video! Sales are coming, but much slower than anticipated, especially for stuff that really hasn't been possible to do before, or not very much. I guess the demand just isn't there yet, or at least for the type of stuff I am shooting. I could see lifestyle drone stuff being a winner, but it's a little dangerous to fly that close with a wide angle lens...haha. I've had some really close calls. The other thing is, I'm seeing more and more drones popping up everyday. Won't be long before the micros are flooded with aerial stuff.
43
« on: August 20, 2015, 12:26 »
Here is a sample of some of the stock stuff I have done with a drone in the past 2 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hceIbMYDtXE all the aerial shots are done with a phantom 2, gopro and gimbal. It's taken 2 years to pay for the drone through stock, so... not exactly a great investment as far as I'm concerned. It's been fun though, I fly mostly from a boat, so it's exciting if nothing else. One wrong move and your out a couple grand. Click HD button and turn on the music if you decide to watch.
44
« on: June 25, 2015, 17:24 »
Here is Getty's take on Adobe Stock.
Following the launch of Adobe Stock, we felt it was a good time to reach out and communicate to you our exclusive artists with some thoughts on what this means for Getty Images, iStock by Getty Images, and our valued relationship with you.
We start with the point that competition is not necessarily a bad thing. Competition can drive us forward in better serving current and potential customers. It can also help grow our customer base as new marketing builds awareness of the need for and availability of licensed content. The negatives of competition come when you do not have a clearly differentiated product.
Thanks to your content and ongoing submissions, we enjoy and will continue to enjoy a clear point of differentiation superior content. This is the very core of our customers needs. Without great content, customers cannot produce great projects. iStock by Getty Images is the only service in the value space that provides a meaningfully different and superior content offering. Adobe Stock is the same content offered historically via Fotolia and many other providers. Adding a statement that it is curated by Adobe, does not make it true.
We also enjoy the full reach and assets of Getty Images. Only Getty Images offers a comprehensive offering to service all customers, across all projects, in all geographies creative and editorial, new and archival, global and local, premium and value. Only Getty Images has a 700-person dedicated sales force that are experts in content licensing. Only Getty Images has 20 years of building strong customer relationships.
Moving beyond what we believe Adobes entry means to Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images, we wanted to share some thoughts on broader implications for photographers as a whole.
With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10. We simply do not agree with this view. Commercial and photographic experience and investments in pre and post-production do matter to quality and are only commercially viable through higher price points and, ultimately, returns to the photographers. This is a core reason why Getty Images contributors can sell across our offerings versus a one-size fits all, every image is a commodity approach.
The launch of Adobe Stock also under-scores Adobes true focus. Adobe is under-pricing the work of photographers to increase the overall attractiveness of Creative Cloud. In fact, Creative Cloud customers receive an additional 40 percent discount with this discount subsidized by photographers via lowered royalties.
We struggle to understand how Adobe Stock helps to sustainably support the creation of imagery and photographers, many of which are paying Creative Cloud customers. Instead, in current form, we only see how Adobe Stock helps support Adobes broader software ambitions at the expense of the creation of imagery and photographers.
Getty Images remains focused on licensing content with an emphasis on superior material. We will continue to price this superior content to an appropriate premium and provide a higher royalty. We thank you for your contributions and loyalty. We are more committed than ever to maintain your loyalty and will intensify our efforts to compete on the basis of quality and a comprehensive offering. In the coming months, you will see marketing, site merchandising, partnerships and other improvements that only reinforce this strategy and our intensity.
Thank you for being our partners.
45
« on: June 14, 2015, 19:06 »
.
46
« on: June 14, 2015, 16:13 »
I have uploaded video by ESP. but program saying my video ''your file is invalid or unsupported'' I uploaded it as photo jpeg so it should support my video. Cuz ı upload to istock a lot of video by ESP in this format. But now ı see this problem. Do you have same problem?
If you are not doing so already, try uploading with google chrome. I had a similar issue and this solved it after pulling my hair out for a week. May not be the same issue, but worth a shot.
47
« on: June 14, 2015, 15:57 »
You think it's wrong when the OP simply asks about a legal way to get both benefits, but not when iStock actually does it.
Seems like the most consistent view would be that both are wrong.
Yup. But I can understand the impulse to want to level an unfair playing field.
You know, until this thread I really hadn't thought much about the faux exclusivity thing at iStock. And I tend to think about it from a contributor's POV. But now it occurs to me that it's a PR debacle waiting to happen. If I were a buyer and found out I'd paid three times as much for an "exclusive" image and that it was available for a lot less at ten other places, I'd be pretty angry. Who knows...it may have happened already, and they had to issue refunds. It's something they should fix ASAP.
Just the other day I had someone contact me that was interested in an image on getty for $500. They asked me if I could somehow give them the image for less as it was out of their price range. I said the same image at same size is available on Istock for $30.
48
« on: June 14, 2015, 07:37 »
.
49
« on: June 13, 2015, 17:36 »
.
50
« on: June 13, 2015, 15:06 »
.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
