|
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 - ParisEye
26
« on: February 04, 2008, 13:33 »
I just have one image there, and it was really hard to get it through their uploading process, with a lot of its sisters gone God knows where. Not really interested in uploading more at the moment, but I'll keep it there (if it's as difficult to erase it as it was getting it there, I fear I'll be dead before it happens !). The idea is that it doesn't cost me anything but I think when Mr Gates understand (or gets interested by) what he launched, there could be a huge potential. So, wait and see for me. 
27
« on: February 03, 2008, 14:10 »
I agree, and I think they need to be used by professional. Since the great days of Minolta, when there were three "majors" (Nikon as the first and Canon & Minolta struggling to be second) Minolta went down and down. Now Sony will have a huge handicap to fight. Their products seem very interesting, but their main recognition will have to come from professionals. And for now, only Canon and Nikon are side by side, all the others look far behind.
28
« on: February 03, 2008, 13:03 »
Of course they look at the price, but why ? Because they can have the same thing for less. When they buy through subscription, they take the maximum size. When they pay according to the size, they choose the size according to what they really need. It doesn't mean they won't pay 10 or 100 or 1000 $ if the picture they need is as that price and their budget can afford it. Otherwise all the macrostock agencies would be closed now. But, if you offer that 1000 $ picture for peanuts just because that's the price it would be sold in microstock, the buyer will be glad to pay peanuts. The ultimate client will still be asked for 1000 $ because he won't know the real price of the picture. Now, it's up to you to decide if you are willing to sell for less than nothing (and leave the middle user grab the margin) or try to raise the level. I don't think that a few dollars or ten of dollars in Featurepics is such an obstacle for 90% of the needs (publication, calendar, mug, posters...) and if it is, there is always the resizing option... or microstock.
29
« on: February 03, 2008, 06:37 »
But if there is less traffic on this site why would you just settle for the same
amount? would it not benefit you to obtain a bit more to justify the lack of
sales? that image that just sold for me would take more than eight sales at
SS! IMHO less than 5.00 before rezise would simply not cover the trouble of having another place to submitt.
I just checked SS and I have had that image there since July. Earned only
.65 cents more there.
Is very easy upload images to featurepics. I loss a litte amount of time.
I think that cheaper prices will allow a featurepics momentum.
You should try offering money with your pictures. I think buyers would love the idea ! That would be a hit ! 
30
« on: February 02, 2008, 14:00 »
On my screen the hand in the 5 is really pink. And on the 4 the shadows are on our side, which seems to indicate the lighting was behind the eggs.
31
« on: February 02, 2008, 00:20 »
Hi all,
Did anyone already go through the hassle of Photoshelter's tax form submission ?
It seems that even non-US-residents have to request a US Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) in order to claim a reduced rate of withholding under a tax treaty. Otherwise, PS will withhold 30% from all payments.
Does it really have to be that complicated ?
See : http://psc.photoshelter.com/mem/learn/payment/tax
(you may have to be logged-in to access this link)
I encountered the same problem after all the hassle to get one (1 !) photo accepted. I am not a US citizen, I don't live in america, I don't intend to... I don't see why I should register with their tax offices. I quit.
32
« on: January 31, 2008, 13:50 »
I think it will be a hit with war photoreporters. They already get killed because some snipers "seem to believe" they are wearing guns...
33
« on: January 30, 2008, 13:26 »
I use the 28/135 which is very good for all kind of situations. 55 is a bit short. With a 28/135 you cover 90% of your everyday needs.
At least, when you are working with film or "full frame" sensor.
34
« on: January 29, 2008, 13:08 »
I tried Flash this week-end, as suggested here, and everything went smoothly... that is until I met Attila at the first corner.
35
« on: January 29, 2008, 13:06 »
And I thought it was only me ! Nine rejected out of ten last week-end. The good part is that Attila did it only a few hours after I uploaded them. I still wonder why he kept that one... 
36
« on: January 28, 2008, 13:49 »
I just got accepted too, but it seems a very heavy processing to make a picture "live".
37
« on: January 27, 2008, 12:46 »
They accept only JPEG. So, as long as your TIFF file is more than 48MB you save it in JPEG, you send the JPEG. Et voil !
38
« on: January 26, 2008, 07:51 »
And that's how amateurish thinking leads to the collapse of a whole economy.
Because there is a huge difference between saying "we'll swap photos between amateurs, if you give me one of yours I'll give you one of mines" & "you can buy for one dollar any picture you want and use it for whatever you want (and don't listen to these "professionals" who say the making of a photo involve investment in time an money and should be correctly paid : we are all lovers of photos, aren't we ?)"
And now, the providers of these 1$ photos are struggling to get "a little bit more"...
39
« on: January 26, 2008, 02:12 »
I can't upload anything this morning. Somebody else with the same problem ?
40
« on: January 20, 2008, 14:05 »
Dump the rating system. If I want a critique of my work, I'll ask.
I totally agree with that.
41
« on: January 20, 2008, 12:14 »
It seems to me to be one out out of two choices : either you grant one agency the right to manage all the rights for you (RM) and you don't sell anything anywhere else, or you chose to sell it everywhere to whomever ask and for whatever they offer. But you can't sell it to everybody on one side and grant to some agency an exclusive right on the other side.
42
« on: January 19, 2008, 01:50 »
I lost several photos a few weeks ago using FTP with Filezilla ; they were visible in the distant server, but didn't appear on my list of waiting pictures, then disappeared from Filezilla also. Meanwhile, some got throuhgh. I'd say I lost something between 10 and 30% of my uploading there (which is better than snapvillage where I lost 99%).
43
« on: January 19, 2008, 01:40 »
I wonder if these buyers don't want to let their clients know where they get those images from? You know, they may be telling clients they pay EUR$250 when they're paying EUR$25...
Regards,
Adelaide
I think you are right Adelaide, that is probably the explanation. So they can make a draft, show it to their client, with four pictures inside, ask for 1000$ + expenses for these photos, and pay 1 $ for the lot in subscription... if they don't use the photos without paying. Which raise another question : as many pictures are available through several agencies, if the agencies don't put watermark how could they know the picture was stolen ? Suppose they see one of "their" pictures in a leaflet somewhere in forgottenlandcountry, if they have the exclusivity on that picture they can check it they sold it or not ; but if the picture is sold in other agencies and nobody put watermarks the "buyer" can always answer that he bought it elsewhere.
44
« on: January 18, 2008, 06:47 »
They don't like the watermarks. They want to be able to use the low resolution photos for sketch and outlines before they buy the high resolution.
Where the problem is ? For sketch and outline they can use watermarked images. MP watermarks are very small and almost invisible.
I will remove my portfolio (very small at MP at this time, you will not lose a lot ;-) if you remove watermark.
I was preparing an answer along the same line. I don't understand what the problem is. For a sketch, they could use anything ! The watermark is disturbing only if they want to show it outside, i.e. using the picture professionnaly ! I won't remove my portfolio if you remove the watermark, as I don't have one yet. But I intended Mostphoto to be my next move. I'll wait and see.
45
« on: January 18, 2008, 05:09 »
On the other hand you must understand the dilemma, it is hard to compete with agencies that give out photos for free.
Hello Arian, Sure it's hard to compete with agencies that gives photos, but what is the next step ? You'll pay buyers who want photos ? You should read this article ; I posted the link in another thread, but Crestock (among others) find here very interesting. It opens the horizon regarding price structure in stock photography. The myth that microstock agencies hurt stock photo pricing http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/myth-that-microstock-agencies-hurt.htmlbest regards,
46
« on: January 17, 2008, 12:06 »
Yes, when the prices variation is in a few percentage bracket but here you speak about selling the same pictures 200$ on Alamy and 1 $ or less in microstock agencies.
Everybody here seems trying to get a better return for their pictures, if you sell the same thing at both markets you just muddle the water a bit more.
Is it so difficult to keep some really good photos for the better paying market and help them to make a difference ?
47
« on: January 16, 2008, 12:07 »
I just registerd there without any problem. I am glad to find a European site ready to pay decently the contributors.
49
« on: January 13, 2008, 06:44 »
If your profile is different from other as you sales seems to suggest, perhaps you should try some agencies with different approch as Alamy, Featurepics or Photoshelter ? At least give them a try. As you seem to have already a huge porfolio, select 100 pictures for each and load them. What is you risk ?
50
« on: January 12, 2008, 09:02 »
I read somewhere last month (but I can't find the reference) that Canon announced... that they would make an announce on january 24th. Which was surprising as they tradionally announce new cameras and lens on feb/march in Las Vegas or in such an opportunity.
But why 7D ? It should be far lower on the Canon scale which is traditionnally 1, 3, 5 with lower grades as 10, 30, 50, and still lower as 100, 300, and so on. So, as Canon just launched the 40D, the upper step should be 4D.
So, personnaly I would rather expect either a 5DmarkII (but why such a pre-announce if it's "just" a revamping of 5D) or rather a 3D (now I am droling).
Anyway, certainly 24x36, 14bits and 16Mpix
Any idea, the canonists ?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
