Jump to content

balajisrinivasan

Members
  • Content Count

    699
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by balajisrinivasan


  1. 2 hours ago, Studio 2 said:

    Very glad I have quite a few editorials in my port as in recent weeks they tend to represent at least 50% of my sales. I am assuming that this is to do with certain types of media surviving in these challenging times.

    I wonder if this is true for others?

    Always been the case for me. But yeah, it's more pronounced the last couple of months.

    About 40 percent of my port is Commercial but Editorials account for over 80 percent of my sales.


  2. 5 hours ago, Studio 2 said:

    So sorry to hear this. Hope you have another 'string to your bow'. Everything is so inter-related that the knock on effect of Covid seems infinite. Selling hand gel and personal protective products might be a good industry to be in at the moment ūüė∑

    My bow has a few strings and thanks to the pandemic, it's picked up a few more.

    With restaurants and street food places shutting down, I now know a thing or two about cooking. And because of all the free time, I can now play a few chords on the guitar. And because the shops were shut for so long, I learnt how to grow potatoes on my balcony.

    So, worst case scenario, I won't starve and could doodle on the guitar to keep myself busy during the jobless time.

     


  3. 59 minutes ago, Milo J said:

    The other half of my income is from corporate video production, which is also pretty much dead right now.

    :( Appears to be a worldwide phenomenon at the moment. So little work...

    I was hoping for things to pick up on the corporate side by June or July but looks like bad times are going to go on for a while.


  4. 15 minutes ago, Doug Jensen said:

    I don't rely on stock for money either, it is just pocket change.  But I think you are crazy to enjoy doing keywording, descriptions, category selection, etc. I seriously would rather be digging a ditch than doing metadata. . . . but digging a ditch would not pay as well.

    What do you figure your hourly income is for stock?  And how do you calculate that for yourself?

    It maybe hard to believe but I don't consider keywording or describing images painful at all. Digging a ditch is, yes, painful. Shooting video too. Not keywording. In fact, I used to do it even before microstock because I always liked to organize my pictures meticulously so I could find them whenever I wanted. I did it when I uploaded to flickr and instagram. So most of my images have already been described and keyworded in my lightroom catalogue. With stock, I just need to add a few more targeted keywords.

    As for hourly income, I don't care. I care about it for my regular job not for my hobby. Because, like I said, every dollar and cent is a bonus. These pictures were never taken to make money. But a bit of extra money is nice and as long as they buy me a cup of coffee or a mug of beer, I'm content. If I get more greedy, all I'll do is lose my sleep and the only thing I like more than photography and cinema is sleep.


  5. 4 minutes ago, Doug Jensen said:

    I continue to wonder why the hell anyone would waste time submitting photos?

    Well, firstly, some of us don't really depend on microstock money. For instance, I have a day job and photography is something I do in my hobby time. I hate shooting videos and I seriously wouldn't want to spend my spare time doing something I don't like.

    I've been doing photography for over 15 years and didn't make a cent (apart from a couple of nice flickr sales) because I just truly enjoy the process. I've only been submitting to stock agencies for the past year because, well, I would rather they make 10 cents than zero. But I consider every cent I make a bonus.

    And, secondly, I'm a video editor and I know that it costs an insane amount of money to buy equipment to shoot good quality video. For photography, I have a trusty old DSLR and a few lenses that have served me for over 10 years and that still work remarkably well. So I don't have to invest an extra dollar in equipment.

    As for time, I spend maybe 20 minutes a day keywording and submitting images. Most pictures I submit to microstock agencies have already been taken and processed years ago. So I spend no time doing that. And the money I make is probably good enough for that amount of work.


  6. 1 hour ago, Tony Dunn said:

    I think they're wrong because pixel peeping is unhealthy can rain your eyesight & sanity. and simply makes no sense for what they pay. 

    Well, there's an easy way out of that situation. Don't submit ;)

    But yeah, pixel peeping is essential if you're selling images because when you print an image, every defect is going to show up, defects you won't notice when you look at your images at 25 percent.

    Anyway, if you really want to avoid pixel peeping rejections, reduce resolution and submit. Sometimes does the trick.


  7. 31 minutes ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

    Yes, it is obviously.

    Then it's not far until the advertising agency can't pay you either. Then they will ask you to work for them for free - for profit maximization.

    That's already happening. I have had 80 percent less work the last 4 months than the same period last year.

    And that's not just because of Covid. It's also because of production houses being able to find editors working for cheap on platforms like Fiverr.


  8. On 8/29/2020 at 1:08 PM, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

    Why are there (large) advertising agencies? Because companies hire them to promote their own products or services. If such a company is no longer able to pay a budget of $100 or 200 for the purchase of images, how should they be able to pay an advertising agency? Something about the story can't be right!

    Or is it just that the entire customer budget should remain with the advertising agency in order to maximise profit? Then the advertising agencies mentioned above behave exactly as shutterstock is behaving at the moment. Profit maximisation at any price.

    My 10 cents.

    It is profit maximisation at any price and with covid19, we're seeing brute force capitalism at its worst.

    Companies need agencies because they don't have inhouse expertise to make campaigns and it is much more expensive to put together a full-time team than pay an agency per project. In the case of my clients, what happened is, the companies slashed budgets for the campaigns. So the agency had to cut corners to maximize profit. A few years ago, it might have been difficult because high resolution footage and images of such quality were practically impossible to come by for free. Now there are hundreds of thousands scattered on the web and are incredibly easy to find. So the agencies design the campaign based on what's available for free. The company that pays them neither knows nor cares as long as their video looks good.


  9. 14 minutes ago, Foodio said:

    Thank you Balajisrinivasan. That helps me understand your perspective and why you might choose to upload to theses sites. Ultimately they are no real threat to your primary income.

    Well, it is a threat to my secondary income, which is why I only upload my black and white, grainy, posterized, double exposure work there and that too, only a very few. Because I want to see how they do and if there's demand for that kind of work (there apparently isn't). But the photographers like myself aren't the problem, it's the advertisers and the advertisers are stock photography sites. It's strange for companies to fund their direct competition that's increasingly taking customers away but that's exactly what's happening. If you go on Pexels or Unsplash, you even get a discount if you want to buy a similar shot from Adobe or istock but why would anyone?


  10. 11 minutes ago, Foodio said:

    How so?

    I work as a professional video editor for my day job. For the last three projects I did in June and July, my clients (big advertising agencies) didn't have the budget for either stock footage or images for the AVs we were cutting. These are clients I've worked with for years and usually we grab all our images/video from stock websites but this time we only got the very few we couldn't find on the free sites.

    Earlier this year, I cut another 9 minute AV with stock footage pulled entirely from Pexels and Videezy. So that's where the wind is blowing. It doesn't help that the free sites have the tacit endorsement of the microstock sites who appear to be funding them with ads on the sites. 


  11. My August was marginally better than July in terms of earnings from about 28 fewer downloads than July. Still worse than my months before the pay cut. But I think I'll take less downloads more earnings over more downloads less earnings. Future looks bleak but a bit of a silver lining this month.


  12. 9 hours ago, Philip Armitage said:

    I can not understand folks who upload full res high quality images to free sites - almost as bad as uploading to sites that only pay a pittance such as SS or IS. 

    Same reason why people upload to instagram and flickr. To see how people react to their images. While the free sites make it far easier to steal your work, if your images are up on the internet, they're there to be stolen, regardless of where they are.

    I upload a small fraction of my work to the free sites as well, but only highly experimental photoshopped versions of images that won't be accepted on any of the micro sites and reduced to the lowest acceptable resolution. And the reason I do that is, like it or not, the free sites are the immediate future. I find it somewhat valuable to test the waters and see what happens.


  13. 17 hours ago, Linda Bestwick said:

    There's another from a different view point, did you see that one too? I love that it meant something to you :) My father took the picture, he was in the merchant navy and travelled a lot of the world. I have a lot more images he took, I uploaded some of the ones I thought may have some historical interest. 

    These images are what they call 'vintage content'. Images taken between 1930 and 1990, off the top of my head. Older images they consider public domain and they wont accept. There are strict rules for vintage content, but if you get it all right, which can be a mine field and nightmare, they can accept them. 
     

    Here's the other one: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/bombay-india-circa-1962-vintage-photo-1182617248

    Oh, and there's this one :) https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/bombay-india-circa-1962-vintage-photo-1182617242

    Fantastic images, all of them! Thanks for sharing :)

×
×
  • Create New...