Author Topic: "Because photographers don't need middlemen." (Read 26550 times)

runamock · « **on:** February 12, 2010, 11:57 »

Anyone know anything about photodeck?

http://www.photodeck.com/

massman · « **Reply #1 on:** February 12, 2010, 12:21 »

First I've heard, interesting, maybe.

elvinstar · « **Reply #2 on:** February 12, 2010, 12:22 »

Quote

First I've heard

Me, too, but I'll be keeping an eye on them for sure! Thanks for the heads-up.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** February 12, 2010, 12:28 »

So, it's either something like PhotoShelter, or a hosted per person software thing? We'll see...

stormchaser · « **Reply #4 on:** February 12, 2010, 12:44 »

The Photodeck domain is owned by Jef Maion, a successful outdoor and landscape photographer, so will be interesting to see what he comes up with.

http://www.maion.com/photography/index.html

runamock · « **Reply #5 on:** February 12, 2010, 12:58 »

Quote from: stormchaser on February 12, 2010, 12:44

The Photodeck domain is owned by Jef Maion, a successful outdoor and landscape photographer, so will be interesting to see what he comes up with.

http://www.maion.com/photography/index.html

Yes that looks interesting, thanks.

leaf · « **Reply #6 on:** February 12, 2010, 13:57 »

It will be interesting to see what develops. Thanks for the link. There are already a number of options for selling yourself available - getting the buyers however is a bigger problem.

alias · « **Reply #7 on:** February 12, 2010, 14:17 »

Important to warn potential clients of the dangers of going outside of the agency model unless 2 issues are specifically addressed.

There needs to be some system in place by which any buyers are indemnified against the risk of using pirated content or content which is not properly released. So the agency or new model needs to be able to supply a guarantee. That means that the agency or new model has strict systems in place - and insurance.

It is not enough, for example, to make the client responsible for the content. Any new model will quickly fail unless it can offer buyers something equal and better to what they are offered by an agency model.

3rd less important issue is quality control.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #8 on:** February 12, 2010, 15:52 »

I get the sense that this will be more geared towards RM licensing than RF. I've been debating buying a Cluster Shot pro account and giving that a whirl. The Cluster Shot license reads almost like an extended license, so I would probably price my images fairly high on there ($50-$100).

Randy McKown · « **Reply #9 on:** February 12, 2010, 22:01 »

I get the feeling it's just going to be a "micro script for sale" website. Holding page is not very impressive. Who knows maybe he is a php genius though and the product will rock.

Suljo · « **Reply #10 on:** February 12, 2010, 22:56 »

Now as it looks like it maybe be between my balls...
Who cares about it?!?

Tim Markley · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2010, 07:03 »

Reminds me of clustershot's pro account, small fee with your own store front. Small commission to process sales.

alias · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2010, 09:11 »

Quote from: tsmarkley on February 13, 2010, 07:03

Reminds me of clustershot's pro account, small fee with your own store front. Small commission to process sales.

Where are you pulling the comparison from ? Other than the 'coming soon' page is there further information available somewhere else ?

Perry · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2010, 10:29 »

Quote from: alias on February 13, 2010, 09:11

Quote from: tsmarkley on February 13, 2010, 07:03
Reminds me of clustershot's pro account, small fee with your own store front. Small commission to process sales.

Where are you pulling the comparison from ? Other than the 'coming soon' page is there further information available somewhere else ?

Well if the site doesn't have any "middlemen", it sure needs to be financed in some other way. I can't figure out any other way than the photographer paying for the service (or maybe advertising).

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #14 on:** February 13, 2010, 11:36 »

Quote from: Perry on February 13, 2010, 10:29

Quote from: alias on February 13, 2010, 09:11
Quote from: tsmarkley on February 13, 2010, 07:03
Reminds me of clustershot's pro account, small fee with your own store front. Small commission to process sales.

Where are you pulling the comparison from ? Other than the 'coming soon' page is there further information available somewhere else ?

Well if the site doesn't have any "middlemen", it sure needs to be financed in some other way. I can't figure out any other way than the photographer paying for the service (or maybe advertising).

This is off the subject but Perry's mention of "advertising" got me to thinking. Aren't advertising dollars hard to come by lately?

Leaf .. Have you noticed a slowdown in advertisers?

leaf · « **Reply #15 on:** February 13, 2010, 14:59 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on February 13, 2010, 11:36

Quote from: Perry on February 13, 2010, 10:29
Quote from: alias on February 13, 2010, 09:11
Quote from: tsmarkley on February 13, 2010, 07:03
Reminds me of clustershot's pro account, small fee with your own store front. Small commission to process sales.

Where are you pulling the comparison from ? Other than the 'coming soon' page is there further information available somewhere else ?

Well if the site doesn't have any "middlemen", it sure needs to be financed in some other way. I can't figure out any other way than the photographer paying for the service (or maybe advertising).

This is off the subject but Perry's mention of "advertising" got me to thinking. Aren't advertising dollars hard to come by lately?

Leaf .. Have you noticed a slowdown in advertisers?

I think my view on 'the advertising market' is about as extensive as someones view of the 'microstock market' with only 10 images. That said - people still need to advertise no matter how bad the economy is. The companies who actually do have money will seize the opportunity to advertise when the other companies are counting their pennies and cutting their spending.

A site 'without middle men' could be pretty easily funded by a pay to play account, or where they took a small % of commissions. It would be quite small since they would only essentially have to cover server and programming expenses. Photographers themselves would have to do the advertising. The amount of buyers that are needed for the microstock model to work is really really high though - and for people to attract enough buyers to their little port would be almost impossible. Big advertising $$ are needed I think to bring in enough buyers to make it worthwhile. How (or if) they plan to solve that problem will be interesting to see.

J-F // PhotoDeck · « **Reply #16 on:** April 12, 2010, 13:49 »

Hi guys,

Hope you find this interesting:


PhotoDeck Image keyworking and publishing


PhotoDeck Website Layout and Style Editor


PhotoDeck Pricing Profiles

PowerDroid · « **Reply #17 on:** April 12, 2010, 14:10 »

Because photographers don't need middlemen?

That's a bit like saying an inventor doesn't need Wal-Mart. He can get by just fine hawking his widget on street corners. He can keep 100% of his sales! Yipee!

An incredibly naive notion. Anyone with business sense understands the value of selling through an agency and how far back you'd be starting if you decided to just sell on your own. It's nice to think you can keep (close to) 100% of the revenue from a sale, but how are you going to attract customers in the first place? The agencies provide many services to us, some better than others, and some are more worth the chunks they take from our sales than others. But unless you're a "name brand" with a lot of customers who chomp at the bit for you to post more images they can buy, you are better off in the agency model.

That's my two cents... or .36 cents after agency commissions.

cathyslife · « **Reply #18 on:** April 12, 2010, 14:18 »

Jef, I'm interested in hearing more about PhotoDeck. I cruised your website, but don't see a lot of details on how much it will cost to set up my own website. Any more info you can share here?

cthoman · « **Reply #19 on:** April 12, 2010, 14:35 »

Is it only photographers that don't need middle men or can illustrators not have them too?

I've been looking at a couple of these make your own stock site systems, but I haven't been completely sold on any of them.

PowerDroid · « **Reply #20 on:** April 12, 2010, 14:53 »

Of course, there's always Flickr. You can put up very small versions of your pics with watermarks on them, and encourage people to contact you to obtain the full size non-watermarked version. I get asked multiple times a week, and I quote them a price that is similar to what they might pay at an agency. I probably make about $50 a month doing this. Plus I send them my referral link to Shutterstock, and earn another $10 - $50 a month through referrals. Also, about once a month, my Flickr exposure leads to some custom work, in which a buyer wants an image edited a certain way, text added, or new pics done from scratch, so I earn an additional few hundred a month doing that as well.

cathyslife · « **Reply #21 on:** April 12, 2010, 15:27 »

Quote from: PowerDroid on April 12, 2010, 14:53

Of course, there's always Flickr. You can put up very small versions of your pics with watermarks on them, and encourage people to contact you to obtain the full size non-watermarked version. I get asked multiple times a week, and I quote them a price that is similar to what they might pay at an agency. I probably make about $50 a month doing this. Plus I send them my referral link to Shutterstock, and earn another $10 - $50 a month through referrals. Also, about once a month, my Flickr exposure leads to some custom work, in which a buyer wants an image edited a certain way, text added, or new pics done from scratch, so I earn an additional few hundred a month doing that as well.

I sent you a sitemail about this, PD.

melastmohican · « **Reply #22 on:** April 12, 2010, 15:30 »

Where images are stored? I notice that they have an option to use their e-commerce solution on my own site. I hope they put some info about this option.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #23 on:** April 12, 2010, 17:30 »

"Because photographers don't need middlemen."

Chuckle Chuckle .. this is a middleman service .. duh

UncleGene · « **Reply #24 on:** June 07, 2010, 09:19 »

Today's email from PhotoDeck:

Thank you for being part of PhotoDeck Private BETA program.

We have received extremely positive feedback, and the suggestions
have been very valuable in helping us shape a great product. These are
exciting times!

What's next?

We will publicly open the BETA program within a couple of weeks. The
commercial launch is scheduled for July.

Note that PhotoDeck is ready to support real stock websites. In fact,
we have a few of them in full use already - so don't wait!

Pricing plans after commercial launch:

- All launch features with 30GB storage: $24.99 / month

- Limited customization and features, with 10GB storage: $9.99 /
month

No setup fee, and PhotoDeck takes no commission on sales that
originate on your website. Options for additional storage will be
available.

In case you missed it, we have deployed killer lightboxes, among
other features.

Tell us what you think, and help spread the word!

J-F Maion

PhotoDeck founder

cathyslife · « **Reply #25 on:** June 07, 2010, 09:36 »

Sounds interesting, I definitely will be checking it out.

Microbius · « **Reply #26 on:** June 07, 2010, 11:27 »

Would love to hear how people get on with this. Sounds very interesting!

Microbius · « **Reply #27 on:** June 07, 2010, 12:13 »

Quote from: cthoman on April 12, 2010, 14:35

Is it only photographers that don't need middle men or can illustrators not have them too? I've been looking at a couple of these make your own stock site systems, but I haven't been completely sold on any of them.

Yeah would be good to know, I guess all you'd need is to be able to have an eps or zipped file download as well as a jpeg when something is purchased. The thumbnails could still work in the same way as with the photos.

cthoman · « **Reply #28 on:** June 07, 2010, 12:25 »

Quote from: Microbius on June 07, 2010, 12:13

Yeah would be good to know, I guess all you'd need is to be able to have an eps or zipped file download as well as a jpeg when something is purchased. The thumbnails could still work in the same way as with the photos.

I'd exchanged an email with them a few weeks ago and they weren't currently doing any eps or vector files.

Microbius · « **Reply #29 on:** June 07, 2010, 13:32 »

That's a shame, thanks for letting us know!

Xalanx · « **Reply #31 on:** June 18, 2010, 16:59 »

I signed up, I am quite impressed with the features!

cathyslife · « **Reply #32 on:** June 18, 2010, 17:10 »

Quote from: Xalanx on June 18, 2010, 16:59

I signed up, I am quite impressed with the features!

I just tweeted, I am interested in looking around here.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #33 on:** June 19, 2010, 20:30 »

I just spent some time running thought it and for a pre-release it's pretty nicely done.

Compared to Photoshelter it seems to be missing some SEO functionality but the Rights Managed pricing is way more configurable. It seems way better than LicenseStream.

Not bad. Not bad at all.

madelaide · « **Reply #34 on:** June 19, 2010, 22:33 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 19, 2010, 20:30

Compared to Photoshelter it seems to be missing some SEO functionality but the Rights Managed pricing is way more configurable.

Does it have a preset RM table converter (that is, you set a basic price and it automatically calculates all other usages/sizes) or do you have to enter all the prices yourself?

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #35 on:** June 19, 2010, 23:41 »

Quote from: madelaide on June 19, 2010, 22:33

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 19, 2010, 20:30
Compared to Photoshelter it seems to be missing some SEO functionality but the Rights Managed pricing is way more configurable.
Does it have a preset RM table converter (that is, you set a basic price and it automatically calculates all other usages/sizes) or do you have to enter all the prices yourself?

Photoshelter is based on FotoQuote pricing so the pricing is already set and you're limited to increasing or decreasing the standard FotoQuote pricing by percentages. So 100%, 110%, 90% etc.

With PhotoDeck it has an RM converter with their standard pricing but you can completely configure each of the pricing tiers as well as base minimum pricing. Pretty slick. So in a typical RM configurator there's region, layout, and a bunch of other calculation points. You can set each tier and it will calculate the pricing you set for each tier. The minimum pricing is nice because you can say "the minimum I'm willing to sell for is $X". So if a buyer tries manipulating the RM configurator you still have a minimum price set.

PhotoDeck seems to be on the right track here. But, the lingering question is, are serious buyers really using Google to buy direct from photographers. I set up a Photoshelter account to test direct sales. Most of the pundits/analysts claim there is a huge untapped market so we'll see.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #37 on:** June 20, 2010, 07:21 »

Quote from: jfmphoto on June 20, 2010, 01:26

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 19, 2010, 20:30
I just spent some time running thought it and for a pre-release it's pretty nicely done. Compared to Photoshelter it seems to be missing some SEO functionality but the Rights Managed pricing is way more configurable. It seems way better than LicenseStream.Not bad. Not bad at all.

Paulie, I'd love to know what SEO functionality you think PhotoDeck is missing. (You can actually even configure the SEO.)

Yeah, I saw the SEO section and went through it. Nice! I said it seems to be missing some functionality. Like I didn't see anything for Google Webmaster verification for sitemap tracking and stuff like that. After going through it again I did notice a few new things.

The URL for individual image pages includes the image title, meaning http://[yoursite].photodeck.com/media/[image number]-business-people-in-a-conference-room. Niiice! Google looks at URL text for weighing rank and Photoshelter still doesn't have this even after their big refresh.

The themes are configurable with a WYSIWYG editor so you can customize the layout without having to code custom pages.

I'm not seeing any option for selling prints or integration to print vendors.

The administrative navigation seems a bit clunky. Like it was designed by a developer without user input and testing. Not a huge deal but Photoshelter's user interface is pretty dummy-proof.

Is there any info on pricing or release date?

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #39 on:** June 20, 2010, 09:57 »

It's unfortunate but for the most part stock photographers do need middlemen. I wish it weren't the case but this type of scheme or some variant of it has been tried many times in the past with little success. Even this scheme, in a mild way, is form of middleman. I do wish them the best.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #40 on:** June 20, 2010, 15:38 »

Quote from: jfmphoto on June 20, 2010, 09:03

Check out the website:
(from http://www.photodeck.com/faq/)

Thanks. You might want to add some of this info and/or links in the administrative section where a lot of your potential customers are spending their time.

FD · « **Reply #42 on:** July 16, 2010, 13:09 »

Quote from: jfmphoto on July 16, 2010, 11:30

A heads-up: PhotoDeck is now fully open - no invitation required, opening an account takes a few seconds only. www.photodeck.com

This looks like what Clustershot should have been. Nicely designed, but of course, the question remains how to get found by buyers. Right now it's just a nice front for remote backup. I'm going to try the integration out in a while.

Update:
- Just like Veer (and LO earlier, and BigStock till SS reprogrammed it) an older version of the IPTC title field is taken if you changed it later. I don't keyword with Adobe but with Irfanview. There are several ways to import IPTC.

- The bad habit of Flickr and Clustershot is copied to import the location IPTC tags in the keywords. That might be fine for travel snapshooters, but I use that info also for studio location if it's indoors. The address is irrelevant. I have to take it out picture by picture. If location is relevant, I put it in the keywords, like all stock sites accept it.

- Oh well, I have no idea how to bring my images in a gallery, like Home. Tried it many ways but it failed.

- As to integration, I couldn't find any usable info or tutorial. I'll check it out later, when the site is more mature. Maybe. I have my own hoster with several domains and I can't afford yet another paying service parallel to it.

alias · « **Reply #43 on:** July 16, 2010, 14:00 »

The site talks about people building their "own brand". This seems almost disingenuous to me since I do not believe that there are many (perhaps not any) stock photographers who are realistically likely to build their businesses into brands. Although I can see that this idea potentially taps into how many people would like to imagine the world.

I do not see how these one - man - brands can offer buyers a better solution than the agency model. For example an agency provides access to a much wider variety of work.

More importantly, I cannot see how this approach can provide any of the sorts of legal protections, quality controls and guarantees for buyers which a staffed and well financed agency can provide.

What is to stop people trying to sell stolen content ? What is to stop people selling content which is inadequately released ?

If it really is just about people building their own brand (as the site suggests) then I firmly believe that Flickr is a much better way of getting noticed.

dnavarrojr · « **Reply #44 on:** July 16, 2010, 14:16 »

I have to agree with an earlier comment... How many "BUYERS" are using Google to search for image? Most people I know who use google to find images are looking for free stuff or stuff to steal, not buy.

Therefore, for this to be worthwhile you will have to spend a significant effort marketing it yourself. As much as I hate giving anyone else a percentage, this is the primary reason why we do... the existing microstock sites spend a ton of money on marketing to get in front of buyers.

I can understand paying more for more storage, but why limit features based on price? Why not give users the ability to use every feature and simply pay more for their storage needs. If the site is truly going to be successful, users will quickly be upgrading their storage requirements. After all 10 gigs is only 25 to 40 images. If an artist uploads their best 25 images and they start selling, they would quickly upgrade their account to add more images. Hamstringing them with a limited set of features is setting them up for failure and a bad experience.

The overall idea is a pretty good one, I just think it's doomed to fail from poor implementation.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #45 on:** July 16, 2010, 14:43 »

Quote from: dnavarrojr on July 16, 2010, 14:16

After all 10 gigs is only 25 to 40 images.

Sorry, maybe I didn't understand...

J-F // PhotoDeck · « **Reply #46 on:** July 16, 2010, 14:59 »

FD-regular, thanks for the feedback.

Here is the intro tutorial (there is link to it from the dashboard when you log in), it should address many of your questions:


Get started with PhotoDeck HD

A few things have changed since the tutorial was made (we got a much nicer design now

, but it is still valid.

cthoman · « **Reply #48 on:** July 16, 2010, 15:14 »

Quote from: jfmphoto on July 16, 2010, 15:04

Actually 10 GB is 1000 high-res images @10MB each. Most high-res JPGs are less than 10MB.

Bare hosting often costs more than that.

Sounds good to me. Now, all you have to do is get the vectors up and running, and I'm there!

Snufkin · « **Reply #49 on:** July 16, 2010, 15:15 »

It looks promising. If I can customize it the way I want I will give it a try.
I like the nested galleries, but from what I see photodeck offers only a pbase.com-style navigation, i.e. you see a thumbnail of the gallery, when you click on it you go deeper into the nested galleries. What I need, is a sidebar navigation that works like a category tree and is expandable/collapsable. For example if you click on parent-gallery "animals" it would expand into child-galleries: "birds, fish, mammals etc." Clicking again on the parent item would collapse the view.

I was planning to build such a site based on Drupal or Joomla during the cold winter evenings, but now obviously photodeck does offer some advantages and would save me time.

My question to jfmphoto is: is it possible to set up gallery navigation as I described (as an expandable/collapsable sidebar with parent/child galleries)? If not, will such an option be implemented later? I supply a niche market and quick navigation for the buyers is essential to me. It is very easy to set up in Drupal or Joomla, but as I said photodeck does have some advantages.

Snufkin · « **Reply #50 on:** July 16, 2010, 15:23 »

One more question to jfmphoto: will you be offering additional languages for the buyers' interface?

dnavarrojr · « **Reply #52 on:** July 16, 2010, 16:21 »

Quote from: jfmphoto on July 16, 2010, 15:04

Quote from: dnavarrojr on July 16, 2010, 14:16
After all 10 gigs is only 25 to 40 images

Actually 10 GB is 1000 high-res images @10MB each. Most high-res JPGs are less than 10MB.

Bare hosting often costs more than that.

Yeah, my bad. I was looking at my raw images and not the JPGs. And if 10 GB costs you more than $10 a month you need to find another host. I'm paying $30 a month for a terrabyte of space to host my own personal web sites (and those of most of my family).

Like I said, I think your overall concept is a good one and thank you for offering such a service, but your service is unproven. There's no guarantee that you'll ever sell a single image, much less enough images for an artist to cover your monthly fee. So hamstringing them with limited services is a bad move in my opinion. You should be providing all artists every possible tool and chance to be successful at selling through your service. Otherwise you are setting up them and yourself for failure.