| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/19/2004 10:31:03 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by willem:
Originally posted by melking23:
hehe I am not a expert...and where is the cash you said was in my pocket....*lol*
|
You mean it came in and went out again, aren't you ? 3449 downloads translates to close to 700 USD right ? O.K. it's not lisegagne yet, but a good result anyway. |
Well it went somewhere...because it is not in my pocket...
3449 downloads makes $575.80 USD I have gotton 5 checks so far which gave me around $630.00 CAD
Lisegagne rocks! check her out if you want to see a girl making money on istock
Melissa
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 10:33:15 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by willem:
You mean it came in and went out again, aren't you ? 3449 downloads translates to close to 700 USD right ? O.K. it's not lisegagne yet, but a good result anyway. |
Good result? That is diabolical. Melissa King's images are worth much much more and with all due respect I think if making money of her photographs is her prerogative, then she is not doing very well at all.
700USD for 3449 image sales is a pathetic amount of money for photographs - or for most peoples photographs to be honest.
Even on istockpro she could earn the same for 3 downloads, rather than 3499.
My images are not great by any means, but even I have made 5 times that amount just by selling 4 images in the last 9 months.
Too many people are selling themselves short.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 10:34:36 AM · #128 |
Well, we've been waiting for some response from an istockpro user! Give us more info...I agree, their actual worth should be much higher.
Message edited by author 2004-10-19 10:34:50. |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 10:35:48 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
My wife was pleasantly surprised to find out there's a chance (albeit slight and in the distance) that this money-eating beast called photography might actually throw me a few bucks at some point!
Edit: To do the white background stuff...do you lasso and cut, or how do you do that? I've been increasing the contrast on a seperate layer, then using the wand to select the non-subject area and I make some adjustments to what is selected...then increasing lightness on the non-subject area to pure white. Does that make sense, or is there a better way? |
let me see...I use the Magic wand tool and click on the white around the object then I feather the selection to 7 - 10 and then delete the background to white. Does than make sense?
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 10:36:46 AM · #130 |
Yes, it does! I think the 'feathering' is what I've been screwing up on...I've gotten harsh results and I think that might be why...Thanks!
Message edited by author 2004-10-19 10:36:56. |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 10:41:16 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Edit: To do the white background stuff...do you lasso and cut, or how do you do that? I've been increasing the contrast on a seperate layer, then using the wand to select the non-subject area and I make some adjustments to what is selected...then increasing lightness on the non-subject area to pure white. Does that make sense, or is there a better way? |
Aaauuuuuuuugggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!! *gasp* *shock* *horror*
As someone who uses stock photos extensively, and is a clipping path "guru," I can tell you that the best way to do the clipping path is with the pen tool and some patience. Your method might work on some select photos, but one photo with a poorly-knocked-out background can completely ruin a designer's day.
My 2 cents.
:) |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 10:43:12 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
My images are not great by any means, but even I have made 5 times that amount just by selling 4 images in the last 9 months. |
Where do you have your images for sale? Just curious, really. |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 10:46:02 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Well, we've been waiting for some response from an istockpro user! Give us more info...I agree, their actual worth should be much higher. |
istockpro isn't all that great because they put more resources into istockphoto. As a result it gets more traffic. It also has some users who have $100 images on pro, and the same on photo for $1 which is causing Major problems.
I have sold a few on istockpro, but I don't bother updating it anymore as the.photo is taking away all the trade (plus there are so many flaws in the upload and naming conversions that making global changes is impossible)
Most of my income has been via my website. |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 10:48:17 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by melking23:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
My wife was pleasantly surprised to find out there's a chance (albeit slight and in the distance) that this money-eating beast called photography might actually throw me a few bucks at some point!
Edit: To do the white background stuff...do you lasso and cut, or how do you do that? I've been increasing the contrast on a separate layer, then using the wand to select the non-subject area and I make some adjustments to what is selected...then increasing lightness on the non-subject area to pure white. Does that make sense, or is there a better way? |
let me see...I use the Magic wand tool and click on the white around the object then I feather the selection to 7 - 10 and then delete the background to white. Does than make sense? |
A finer way is to select the bg, . Image >> Adjust >> replace color. then use the tolerance and change to white. Using the tolerance makes it much more precise.
I shot 300 pairs of shoes last week that way! |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 10:51:45 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Aaauuuuuuuugggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!! *gasp* *shock* *horror*
As someone who uses stock photos extensively, and is a clipping path "guru," I can tell you that the best way to do the clipping path is with the pen tool and some patience. Your method might work on some select photos, but one photo with a poorly-knocked-out background can completely ruin a designer's day.
My 2 cents.
:) |
hehe! That's what I figured! So any tips on creating a clipping path? Should I apply USM, and then cut out the object? Should I leave the soft edges?
Any help you can provide (as a customer of these types of photos) would be great!
Edit: Sorry, you said pen tool...not lasso, right? So you actually create a black 'border' around the object?
Here is one of my 'white background' photos I've submitted...I would love to hear your thoughts as the end user:
Be brutally honest...niceness won't help me improve!
Message edited by author 2004-10-19 10:54:38. |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 11:46:02 AM · #136 |
This is a fantastic thread, lots of info and a wide range of opinions. Since finding it I've applied and been accepted to istockphoto and dreamstime (which felt great btw), so thanks everyone for your contributions on this thread. I wouldn't have found these places otherwise
In answer to the point about charging $20 instead of $1, one thing some people do on istockphoto is only upload medium res images, and leave a note saying the full res image is available on istockpro, which they can then charge a meaningful amount for. Istock are happy for you to do that. Sadly my camera doesn't have the resolution to do that really, so i couldn't make any real money until I upgrade my equipment
Anyway, here's my take on the whole thing: It's cool having your photo for sale and I'll get a real kick out of it the first time someone buys one of mine, especially if i can see it in use, but i'm sure the novelty will go pretty quickly. Bearing this in mind I can't understand why people are spending so much time uploading hundreds of images. Taking the photos is fun - I imagine even the corporate studio shots are fun to do if you like that kinda thing. But getting model releases, thinking up descriptions, keywords and actually uploading is unbelievably boring. I'm on DSl and it takes at least 5 minutes per image. I got bored after 6. To do 500 images must take weeks and weeks, which I find difficult to rationalise given the low returns |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 11:49:35 AM · #137 |
The pen tool shouldn't give you a black border if you have it set to "Paths" (in Photoshop 7 or CS). The reason I recommend it highly is because each point you create is another entry in your History palette, so if you screw up 4 or 5 clicks back, you can get back there without starting your path over completely.
I'm actually 95% done with a Clipping Path tutorial for the site here, but it fell by the wayside. I will do my best to get that submitted in the next day or two.
As for the leaf, it looks fine the way it is. The trick will be if I need to put that leaf over a colored background. If I can see even a hint of the original background it was on, it wouldn't work. I'd either have to fix it myself or find another photo (more than likely just fix it, but I shouldn't have to).
NEVER with the soft edges: again, if I were to drop that leaf over a black background, soft edges would give it a white "halo." Clipping paths are meant to be a good solid definition between subject and background.
Again, I'm not an expert on creating photos for stock. I just know that during catalog season, I spend weeks on end doing clipping paths and know that when I (or anyone else in my office) encounters a bad one, things get thrown. :)
Case in point: we re-worked a 60-page catalog from a previous year. Many of the products were the same, but the colors of the catalog changed. The original estimate "assumed" that we could just use last year's product shots, but when we dropped them on the new color background, we could see that someone just went around the product photos with the wand real quick-like 'cause it didn't show on the old color. EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT had to be cut out all over again and it took for-freakin'-ever (much of it was like keychains and jewelry and stuff with lots of little details). OMG...I'm tensing up just thinking about it again. LOL. |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 11:52:46 AM · #138 |
Wow, great info...thanks muckpond!
I only have PSE2.0, so hopefully it allows for clipping paths. I'll have to check when I get home, unless anyone happens to know whether it does or not... |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 12:05:58 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by willem:
You mean it came in and went out again, aren't you ? 3449 downloads translates to close to 700 USD right ? O.K. it's not lisegagne yet, but a good result anyway. |
Good result? That is diabolical. Melissa King's images are worth much much more and with all due respect I think if making money of her photographs is her prerogative, then she is not doing very well at all.
700USD for 3449 image sales is a pathetic amount of money for photographs - or for most peoples photographs to be honest.
Even on istockpro she could earn the same for 3 downloads, rather than 3499.
My images are not great by any means, but even I have made 5 times that amount just by selling 4 images in the last 9 months.
Too many people are selling themselves short. |
I agree, good strong images should be selling for more.
I checked out istock and they want HUGE files that are super clear! They're essentially professional photos which, after paying $10 for or whatever, you can use on posters, brochures, even billboards if the res. is high enough.
Seems outrageous to me. I signed on to see if they'd take some of the quick shots I did. I don't want them, maybe someone else would. But if I actually spent TIME and ENERGY on them (like I know Mel does) then I'd definetly deserve more $$$$.
Hey Mel, Charla sells her photos to designers for brochures, etc for about $300-$400 each! |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 12:19:11 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by melking23:
Lisegagne rocks! check her out if you want to see a girl making money on istock
Melissa |
Funny, I happened apon her before reading this.
Look at her stats!!!
Total iStockphoto Uploads: 1239
Total iStockphoto Downloads: 91245
Member since April 2003
What do you recon she has earnt?
91245 * 0.10 = 9124.50 Minimum, or is my calculation completely wrong.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 12:27:38 PM · #141 |
| On her little blog, she posts several times how she was walking around and saw a billboard or a poster with one of her photographs on it...that would be so cool! |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 12:30:42 PM · #142 |
Hey Lori Where does Charla sell her photos too? and Akiwi yes you are right $9124.00 or more
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 12:31:34 PM · #143 |
I don't know how cool it would be...
On the one had it WOULD be neat to see it in print...
On the other hand, to see it and think "Company XYZ is going to make how much money selling their product with my picture for advertising, and I got 10 cents..." would be quite a depressing thought...
So, I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry...
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 12:34:03 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by dswebb:
I don't know how cool it would be...
On the one had it WOULD be neat to see it in print...
On the other hand, to see it and think "Company XYZ is going to make how much money selling their product with my picture for advertising, and I got 10 cents..." would be quite a depressing thought...
So, I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry... |
Yeah, it all depends on skill level...I've only been photographing for a few months, so for me it would be great!
However, with a few years experience and some confidence it would be a little bit depressing to know I got a dime for that photo! |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 12:42:47 PM · #145 |
Here are my Stock in Action HERE
Message edited by author 2005-05-18 08:40:55.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 12:44:40 PM · #146 |
Regardless of your experience level, if someone buys something from you for $1, and then turns around and makes $1,000 off of it (for example) you've got to feel a little taken advantage of... Even if you agreed to sell it for that much to begin with.
Which is my point. So for your NEXT photo, you'd ask $5, or $10, or whatever YOU felt is right for it. But in my research, there is no "non-professional" level stock house (i.e., that anyone can join and upload images to without having a large portfolio or absolutely perfect images etc.) that will let you do that, set YOUR price. Of course, from a site admin's perspective, they couldn't let you set ANY price you wanted, that would be a nightmare to keep track of everyone's prices then. But if they gave you say 5 or 10 different choices: $1, $5, $10, $20, $30 say, it seems the imagess would "settle out" into various levels of quality, and photogs would WITHDRAW their images from all the $1 only sites. I still think the producers of DPC have the brains and talent (and talent POOL of photogs) to pull something like that off...
Maybe someday they will.
Of course the succes would be predicated on all the photogs STUCK on the $1 sites now because there is no other option would take advantage of it and "move up" to such a site. Maybe that wouldn't happen... Who knows...
It's nice to dream tho... :-)
[Edit: Corrected typo]
Message edited by author 2004-10-19 12:47:35. |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 01:12:02 PM · #147 |
dswebb - check out istockpro. I think it's the business model you're talking about. Despite the name it's not for pros (non-exclusive, much easier to get accepted into than a traditional agency, doesn't require a huge portfolio, you set your own prices). Unfortunately from what I've read it's not well promoted and few people download from it
There are also a few places a lot like istockphoto that pay 50c rather than 10c. Doesn't seem a big difference until you think what it would do to Lisegagne's $9124.50. Again, they unfortunately don't get the same level of traffic as istockphoto. Istockphoto have made $36,498 from Lisegagne - I hope they send her a christmas card!
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 01:18:34 PM · #148 |
I did look at istockpro, and as I recall, they wanted an initial entry of 100 images that they deemed worthy. Which means you may need many more than 100 images depending on how many they select. This limits it for the amateaur who is "just starting out" and drives them to the istockphoto type places I would think.
If I'm mistaken about istockpro's policy Steve, please correct me. That'd be great if they are what I'm talking about...
[Edit: corrected typo]
Message edited by author 2004-10-19 13:19:24. |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 01:30:35 PM · #149 |
It's one thing to be told that your photography is worth more and that other people make a lot of money from their stuff and so can you, but it's another to see it actually happen. These stock sites may only bring in a small amount of money compared to other avenues, but they appear to be the easiest way to do it. You go to the site, you upload some pics, people download them, you make some money. Or else you can put time and money into a professional portfolio that you take around to a vast number of people to be rejected over and over until maybe you'll find someone to give it a go. If people had the confidence to do the second option then they'd be the ones saying their photography is too good for 10 cent stock sites.
Some of us dont have the confidence or contacts that Goldberry exclaims to have. We have an expensive hobby and would like to make some money to put back into lens purchases. We dont think our stuff is great, but other people seem to like it. I wouldnt buy one of my prints for 200 dollars so I cant imagine anyone else would either. |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 01:45:01 PM · #150 |
moodville: I agree. I wouldn't pay $200 for ANY of my images either. But I WOULD pay more than $1 for many of them. (Though some I would only give you 25 cents for!!! Or nothing!!!) Now, some of them I'd only pay $5 for, maybe some $10, and a VERY FEW $20. My point is that the ONLY option that seems to be given to people like you and me (without the big portfolios as you mention) is the "$1 or nothing" route. And I just find it surprising that nobody has stepped in to fill that "nothing" part.
But I'll be the first to admit that I am totally new to this topic. So perhaps somebody HAS filled that gap and I just don't know about it.
Or perhaps NOBODY would pay more than $1 for ANY image us amateaurs have... And that's why it hasn't been filled.
I really don't know the answer.
I find it very interesting that so many people are interested in this topic though. Seems to tell me that there is still room for improvement in the overall business model out there for some enterprising soul.
|
|
