MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Does micro-stock have the most stringent technical standards of all commercial p  (Read 2696 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 01, 2012, 05:29 »
0
 i believe lisa got the point quite good in her first post. for example, i noticed on istock that since getty photo-editors are let's say more involved (i am sure) in reviewing process (or changing the rules, i do not know, whatever..) images that are in generally good (answer for some theme/subject), are being accepted in a bit bigger percentage than before, even if there are some technical if i can say "problems". o.k. to be honest, is was the only site even before recent changes, that was much more if i can say "looking on the image" rather than just "counting pixels".
 the fact is that these "problems" actually are not problems. from other hand, reviewing process, and whole microstock industry was not started by people from photo/imaging industry, but by graphic/web designers. so i believe these people had to start somewhere, and maybe gave advantage to technical aspects of the image rather than artistic/real usage/... value. (* language, i'll have to take lessons in english.. :) ).
 from the oother hand, if you are experienced photographer, you'll see that lots of images on macro sites are not so simple for produce - you can (i can) see on the first sight "o.k. - this guy (author) knows what's he doing, very well " ..."aham, we have pretty complex lignting setup here..." ..." hm.. looks this guy knows how to work with models " or " .. i would call this excellent composition" etc etc...  - when i take a look on newest images on is, well... let's say that i do not have such thoughts so often :)


lagereek

« Reply #26 on: May 01, 2012, 06:26 »
0
[Micro came along, for better or worse and made it possible for millions, the monopoly was broken, add to that, todays buyers are not your AD, at an advertising agency and that todays buyers are far from quality conscious with very little money in the pockets.

In your opinion...what is the profile of today's buyers?

I recon its made up of smaller one-man band designer operations, webb, homepages, non creative buyers, etc. They dont need to spend hundereds or thousands on a shot, what for? here, Micro came along and made it possible for the little guy to get a picky, which really is a good thing I suppose.

I mean, if you take the big sites, like, SS, IS, DT, FT, we do scream and complain when things arent going our way but they are actually providing a nice and healthy side-income, arent they. :)

I would add to that, all the small boutique design firms and advertising agencies which make up the majority of creative web, print and branding design in small  towns and many major cities. The large firms with big-budget national accounts of course will hire the specialized professional photographer (who hates microstock). Also, the marcom and product managers at mid-sized tech and manufacturing companies ($10 million plus annual billing) are fully hip to iStock and ShutterStock from my experience. They cringe at buying from Corbis of Getty due to the high prices, and licensing issues. Macro stock is an antiquated business model now that microstock has matured and gained mind share. The perceived value proposition cannot be denied. Over the past 15 years, I have had only one of my branding clients purchase a photo from Getty when they could not find an image at IS or SS.

The Getty-RM,  is still doing well, lots of heavy buyers such as AD-agencies, etc, I know my last three months there have been great. Lots of top pros are supplying to Micro nowdays, if you knew the names behind some of the pseudos,  you would not believer it.

« Reply #27 on: May 01, 2012, 11:35 »
0
lagereeek - interesting. i thought Getty RM was tanking as an industry because of the response from most all of my design clients over the past 10 years or so. I don't doubt what you said... but wonder how you know that Getty RM is doing well. I just priced a simple tennis shot for a web site at a small size - $750 for one year. None of my clients would ever spring for that. I can see Getty editorial doing well... but really surprised that RM is still rolling along.

ox

lagereek

« Reply #28 on: May 01, 2012, 12:46 »
0
lagereeek - interesting. i thought Getty RM was tanking as an industry because of the response from most all of my design clients over the past 10 years or so. I don't doubt what you said... but wonder how you know that Getty RM is doing well. I just priced a simple tennis shot for a web site at a small size - $750 for one year. None of my clients would ever spring for that. I can see Getty editorial doing well... but really surprised that RM is still rolling along.

ox

The RM side, is not what it used to be, ofcourse, but there is still a good demand for rights material, especially from advertising-agencies and bigger clients.

PhotoDuneMicrostock Insider

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
1851 Views
Last post January 04, 2008, 00:42
by ParisEye
0 Replies
775 Views
Last post April 16, 2009, 02:09
by mevangelist
39 Replies
5669 Views
Last post May 07, 2010, 01:20
by cascoly
9 Replies
472 Views
Last post March 12, 2014, 14:46
by tickstock
3 Replies
505 Views
Last post August 14, 2014, 11:45
by Benozaur

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors