Author Topic: Buyers frustrations (Read 28115 times)

hqimages · « **on:** April 22, 2010, 08:28 »

And here we go again: http://www.veer.com/products/marketplace/

Click on big business, portraits, teamwork, practically anything, and yet again we have siai syndrome, same images as istock...

Is there no gallery can offer fresh business images that we HAVEN'T seen before, or do they all wet themselves when Yuri uploads his portfolio and push them to the top of every category, cos by God I'm sick of those models..

stockastic · « **Reply #1 on:** April 22, 2010, 09:52 »

I remember reading an interesting magazine article about the decline of the big shopping malls. All the big clothing retailers now carry mostly the same stuff. Relentless quarter-by-quarter management and unattainable profit goals have made them afraid of stocking anything but the proven sellers. The big department stores used to have creative buyers combing the market, but now they just mark off areas and turn then over to Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger.

Because there's little chance of discovering anything new as you go from store to store, shopping isn't fun anymore and the malls cease to be "destinations".

red · « **Reply #2 on:** April 22, 2010, 10:14 »

I know what you are saying. The only thing you can do is to go to the different stock image sites and search for exclusive images or exclusive photographers. Too many sites have too many of the same images and after 5 or 6 pages I know what I'm going to see - same old, same old. I feel like I know some of those models by name. I'm not searching for the cheapest image, but the most unique and those are getting harder and harder to find.

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** April 22, 2010, 11:00 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 22, 2010, 10:14

I know what you are saying. The only thing you can do is to go to the different stock image sites and search for exclusive images or exclusive photographers. Too many sites have too many of the same images and after 5 or 6 pages I know what I'm going to see - same old, same old. I feel like I know some of those models by name. I'm not searching for the cheapest image, but the most unique and those are getting harder and harder to find.

On istock, you can go into advanced search and tick to search on exclusive only, then at least you won't see the same images elsewhere. For example, there are 196767 with the keyword 'business'.

stockastic · « **Reply #4 on:** April 22, 2010, 11:23 »

Just another example of why starting in microstock today is becoming hopeless. You're forever entombed in a gigantic dusty pyramid of old stuff that buyers want to avoid. The microstocks leave these millions of dessicated mummies in place, to push buyers to higher price tiers in search of something new.

cathyslife · « **Reply #5 on:** April 22, 2010, 11:56 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 22, 2010, 11:00

Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 22, 2010, 10:14
I know what you are saying. The only thing you can do is to go to the different stock image sites and search for exclusive images or exclusive photographers. Too many sites have too many of the same images and after 5 or 6 pages I know what I'm going to see - same old, same old. I feel like I know some of those models by name. I'm not searching for the cheapest image, but the most unique and those are getting harder and harder to find.
On istock, you can go into advanced search and tick to search on exclusive only, then at least you won't see the same images elsewhere. For example, there are 196767 with the keyword 'business'.

And I have a hard time believing that going exclusive somewhere is the answer, because there are tons of exclusives competing with each other on this stuff, too. You just proved it above, saying there are 196767 images with the keyword business. Even if I shoot a fresh and new business image tomorrow and go exclusive, what are the odds I will be able to shoot something SO unique that it will shoot to the top of the line?

I wish I knew the answer, to me, everything seems like a catch-22.

stockastic · « **Reply #6 on:** April 22, 2010, 12:16 »

Last year we lost 2 big trees in our front yard and the dandelions took over. Now it's a sea of yellow. It's just not possible to remove them all one-by-one, or to use an herbicide while trying to get new grass started at the same time.

All I can do is try to create conditions that cause the the grass to predominate, and the weeds to die out, over time. I water a lot and I applied something that is supposed to prevent the existing weeds' seeds from germinating.

Xalanx · « **Reply #7 on:** April 22, 2010, 12:37 »

Quote from: cclapper on April 22, 2010, 11:56

And I have a hard time believing that going exclusive somewhere is the answer, because there are tons of exclusives competing with each other on this stuff, too. You just proved it above, saying there are 196767 images with the keyword business. Even if I shoot a fresh and new business image tomorrow and go exclusive, what are the odds I will be able to shoot something SO unique that it will shoot to the top of the line?

very true.

melastmohican · « **Reply #8 on:** April 22, 2010, 12:57 »

Entry point for a site is still pretty low. Many start without any innovative idea so they just copy what established sites did. This technology based industry so there must be some innovation to push it forward. Right now they can only play with pricing which while they should invest in technology that helps them solve customers problem. They are sitting on huge pile of things and have no clue how to more efficiently present it to customer.

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** April 22, 2010, 13:04 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 22, 2010, 11:23

Just another example of why starting in microstock today is becoming hopeless. You're forever entombed in a gigantic dusty pyramid of old stuff that buyers want to avoid. The microstocks leave these millions of dessicated mummies in place, to push buyers to higher price tiers in search of something new.

I can't speak for any of the other micros, but buyers at iStock have the option of searching by age, should they want to avoid the older high sellers. However, there's little evidence that many buyers really care, strange as that may seem.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #10 on:** April 22, 2010, 13:05 »

Question is , what should the images look like? It's the nature of the business, any business for that matter, to propagate to a commodity that buyers want in the greatest quantity. That's what we see.

epantha · « **Reply #11 on:** April 22, 2010, 16:03 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 22, 2010, 12:16

Last year we lost 2 big trees in our front yard and the dandelions took over. Now it's a sea of yellow. It's just not possible to remove them all one-by-one, or to use an herbicide while trying to get new grass started at the same time.

All I can do is try to create conditions that cause the the grass to predominate, and the weeds to die out, over time. I water a lot and I applied something that is supposed to prevent the existing weeds' seeds from germinating.

Some people don't see dandelions as weeds but think of them as beautiful wildflowers.

godrick · « **Reply #12 on:** April 22, 2010, 16:19 »

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=50507824

hqimages · « **Reply #13 on:** April 22, 2010, 16:19 »

Quote from: epantha on April 22, 2010, 16:03

Quote from: stockastic on April 22, 2010, 12:16
Last year we lost 2 big trees in our front yard and the dandelions took over. Now it's a sea of yellow. It's just not possible to remove them all one-by-one, or to use an herbicide while trying to get new grass started at the same time.

All I can do is try to create conditions that cause the the grass to predominate, and the weeds to die out, over time. I water a lot and I applied something that is supposed to prevent the existing weeds' seeds from germinating.

Some people don't see dandelions as weeds but think of them as beautiful wildflowers.

Lol, there's the problem in a nutshell

Thanks for all the replies, I would say, keep doing what you do, keep it real (so important, these shiny happy people are just not real enough to actually sell anything to ordinary people, specially in this recession), and maybe give exclusive images to some other sites besides istock if you want another site to succeed.. I think a lower volume of 'real', and unusual images will still trump a bigger amount of over-saturated, over-processed ones.. that's in my opinion anyway.. thanks guys

fotografer · « **Reply #14 on:** April 22, 2010, 16:27 »

I don't agree

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 16:19

I think a lower volume of 'real', and unusual images will still trump a bigger amount of over-saturated, over-processed ones..

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #15 on:** April 22, 2010, 16:29 »

Quote from: fotografer on April 22, 2010, 16:27

I don't agree
Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 16:19
I think a lower volume of 'real', and unusual images will still trump a bigger amount of over-saturated, over-processed ones..

Yeah. Buyers talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. Which isn't bad, I mean, but they say they want this or that, but they seem to be happy buying what is out there. Although I do get the sense they are getting tired of a certain set of models, as mentioned in the OP.

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** April 22, 2010, 16:47 »

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 16:19

I think a lower volume of 'real', and unusual images will still trump a bigger amount of over-saturated, over-processed ones.. that's in my opinion anyway

While you're entitled to your opinion, the current evidence doesn't seem to back it up.
Styles//trends will, of course, change.

hqimages · « **Reply #17 on:** April 22, 2010, 17:29 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 22, 2010, 16:29

Quote from: fotografer on April 22, 2010, 16:27
I don't agree
Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 16:19
I think a lower volume of 'real', and unusual images will still trump a bigger amount of over-saturated, over-processed ones..

Yeah. Buyers talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. Which isn't bad, I mean, but they say they want this or that, but they seem to be happy buying what is out there. Although I do get the sense they are getting tired of a certain set of models, as mentioned in the OP.

Trust me, I have bought the typical stock shots for my company in the past, a few years ago, but never again, I've learned too much since then about the market, and seen too many of the images we bought absolutely everywhere (no exaggeration).. why would I lie anyway?

The images I now seek out are ones I haven't seen before, that use more obscure models, or even people that seem like they aren't models at all, someone's Mum, brother, husband whatever.. real images, that's the current way things are going..

hqimages · « **Reply #18 on:** April 22, 2010, 17:31 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 22, 2010, 16:47

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 16:19
I think a lower volume of 'real', and unusual images will still trump a bigger amount of over-saturated, over-processed ones.. that's in my opinion anyway
While you're entitled to your opinion, the current evidence doesn't seem to back it up.
Styles//trends will, of course, change.

Exactly, well I can only speak from my own point of view, I don't know anything about trends, all I know is that personally speaking as a designer, what looked cool in the boom and in the 90's, 00's, isn't as effective now. That's in my little corner of the advertising world.. the recession has changed things somewhat as to what look is going to sell..

ouchie · « **Reply #19 on:** April 22, 2010, 17:33 »

What this site offers might be just a bit too diffrent from what you need, dont know, but take a look.

http://www.photocase.com/en/

hqimages · « **Reply #20 on:** April 22, 2010, 17:38 »

Quote from: zenpix on April 22, 2010, 17:33

What this site offers might be just a bit too diffrent from what you need, dont know, but take a look.

http://www.photocase.com/en/

Oooooooo.... interesting, thanks zenpix.. taking a look around but yes, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about!

gostwyck · « **Reply #21 on:** April 22, 2010, 17:55 »

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 17:38

Oooooooo.... interesting, thanks zenpix.. taking a look around but yes, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about!

Well if you couldn't find anything suitable out of Istocks 23,000 images corresponding to a search of 'business team' I think you might struggle at Photocase. You get choice of just 185 images, none of which appear to have anything to do with the search words. Very creative though __ in their use of keywords anyway.

Designers have never had such an extraordinary choice of images available to them, from a huge number of contributors drawn from all over the world and for very little money. Not only that but there's over 100K brand new images appearing every week. It is barely credible to me that you are whining about how little choice you have. You could always go and shoot stuff for yourself and show us all how creative you can be.

hqimages · « **Reply #22 on:** April 22, 2010, 18:01 »

Quote from: gostwyck on April 22, 2010, 17:55

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 17:38
Oooooooo.... interesting, thanks zenpix.. taking a look around but yes, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about!

Well if you couldn't find anything suitable out of Istocks 23,000 images corresponding to a search of 'business team' I think you might struggle at Photocase. You get choice of just 185 images, none of which appear to have anything to do with the search words. Very creative though __ in their use of keywords anyway.

Designers have never had such an extraordinary choice of images available to them, from a huge number of contributors drawn from all over the world and for very little money. Not only that but there's over 100K brand new images appearing every week. It is barely credible to me that you are whining about how little choice you have. You could always go and shoot stuff for yourself and show us all how creative you can be.

Not whining.. simply giving my experience from a buyers perpective is all.. no need to hate

Yes, I am familiar with istock, use it everyday for my company, simply looking for a good alternative also (and you just proved my point in how difficult this can be, indeed yes there are not enough images on that web site).. and yes, I do shoot also, for obvious reasons it's not practical to shoot for every client, and not every client has a budget for images full stop..

To the person that posted months ago about a bad attitude in this forum towards others, this kind of post is exactly what they were talking about, and I see where they were coming from, still the snarky few need not ruin what is a pleasant exchange of information and opinions for others, so I'll post regardless..

ShadySue · « **Reply #23 on:** April 22, 2010, 18:03 »

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 17:38

Quote from: zenpix on April 22, 2010, 17:33
What this site offers might be just a bit too diffrent from what you need, dont know, but take a look.

http://www.photocase.com/en/

Oooooooo.... interesting, thanks zenpix.. taking a look around but yes, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about!

The comments on their blog are valid: at micro prices, images (of the sort that need models paid/props bought etc) have to sell in bulk to make it worthwhile.

cthoman · « **Reply #24 on:** April 22, 2010, 18:07 »

Yeah, it's definitely a numbers game. Contributors sell more shiny happy people, so they make more images. It's harder to carve out an individual niche, so people gear their portfolios for what the majority want.

ShadySue · « **Reply #25 on:** April 22, 2010, 18:10 »

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 17:38

Quote from: zenpix on April 22, 2010, 17:33
What this site offers might be just a bit too diffrent from what you need, dont know, but take a look.

http://www.photocase.com/en/

Oooooooo.... interesting, thanks zenpix.. taking a look around but yes, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about!

Be careful: I just saw - in the very first search I made - a silhouette of a sculpture that I recognise. It's modern, and I'd be astonished if there were a property release attached to it (of course, there could just be) .
Suggests they might not be as careful as some other sites about releases.

hqimages · « **Reply #26 on:** April 22, 2010, 18:10 »

Quote from: cthoman on April 22, 2010, 18:07

Yeah, it's definitely a numbers game. Contributors sell more shiny happy people, so they make more images. It's harder to carve out an individual niche, so people gear their portfolios for what the majority want.

I wonder though do the majority still want shiny/happy in a recession? Are there more buyers like me that need to veer away from that!? Pity more don't post but..

ShadySue · « **Reply #27 on:** April 22, 2010, 18:12 »

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 18:10

Quote from: cthoman on April 22, 2010, 18:07
Yeah, it's definitely a numbers game. Contributors sell more shiny happy people, so they make more images. It's harder to carve out an individual niche, so people gear their portfolios for what the majority want.

I wonder though do the majority still want shiny/happy in a recession? Are there more buyers like me that need to veer away from that!? Pity more don't post but..

People do post sometimes in the request new content forum on iStock.
However, download figures suggest that happy/shiny is still by far preferred, at least in the Main Market.

hqimages · « **Reply #28 on:** April 22, 2010, 18:12 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 22, 2010, 18:10

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 17:38
Quote from: zenpix on April 22, 2010, 17:33
What this site offers might be just a bit too diffrent from what you need, dont know, but take a look.

http://www.photocase.com/en/

Oooooooo.... interesting, thanks zenpix.. taking a look around but yes, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about!

Be careful: I just saw - in the very first search I made - a silhouette of a sculpture that I recognise. It's modern, and I'd be astonished if there were a property release attached to it (of course, there could just be) .
Suggests they might not be as careful as some other sites about releases.

Yeah no, it's a viable alternative to istock I would like and although those images are more 'anti-stock' looking, which I like, there's not enough there to consider it, plus there are some images that imo shouldn't have been approved.. pity though it has potential, and I like their 'about us' spiel, maybe in time..

hqimages · « **Reply #29 on:** April 22, 2010, 18:14 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 22, 2010, 18:12

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 18:10
Quote from: cthoman on April 22, 2010, 18:07
Yeah, it's definitely a numbers game. Contributors sell more shiny happy people, so they make more images. It's harder to carve out an individual niche, so people gear their portfolios for what the majority want.

I wonder though do the majority still want shiny/happy in a recession? Are there more buyers like me that need to veer away from that!? Pity more don't post but..
People do post sometimes in the request new content forum on iStock.
However, download figures suggest that happy/shiny is still by far preferred, at least in the Main Market.

Have download figures for those images been the same between let's say, Jan-Mar this year compared to two years ago, same period? I doubt I'm the only one wanting more recession based images..

cthoman · « **Reply #30 on:** April 22, 2010, 18:16 »

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 18:10

I wonder though do the majority still want shiny/happy in a recession? Are there more buyers like me that need to veer away from that!? Pity more don't post but..

I think people definitely do want things that are outside the norm, but cliche is still king when it comes to the micros.

hqimages · « **Reply #31 on:** April 22, 2010, 18:16 »

Like so:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=133661&page=1

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=85218&page=1

Thing is though, when you ask for an image outside the box, quality seems to immediately crash, lighting not right, crooked frame etc, so you're almost forced to revert back to shiny/happy, it's like there's not a good compromise there at all! Thanks all btw for your feedback and thoughts on it.. I'll keep searching

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #32 on:** April 22, 2010, 18:23 »

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 18:01

Not whining.. simply giving my experience from a buyers perpective is all.. no need to hate Yes, I am familiar with istock, use it everyday for my company, simply looking for a good alternative also (and you just proved my point in how difficult this can be, indeed yes there are not enough images on that web site).. and yes, I do shoot also, for obvious reasons it's not practical to shoot for every client, and not every client has a budget for images full stop..

To the person that posted months ago about a bad attitude in this forum towards others, this kind of post is exactly what they were talking about, and I see where they were coming from, still the snarky few need not ruin what is a pleasant exchange of information and opinions for others, so I'll post regardless..

No, that's whining.

hqimages · « **Reply #33 on:** April 22, 2010, 18:24 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 22, 2010, 18:23

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 18:01
Not whining.. simply giving my experience from a buyers perpective is all.. no need to hate Yes, I am familiar with istock, use it everyday for my company, simply looking for a good alternative also (and you just proved my point in how difficult this can be, indeed yes there are not enough images on that web site).. and yes, I do shoot also, for obvious reasons it's not practical to shoot for every client, and not every client has a budget for images full stop..

To the person that posted months ago about a bad attitude in this forum towards others, this kind of post is exactly what they were talking about, and I see where they were coming from, still the snarky few need not ruin what is a pleasant exchange of information and opinions for others, so I'll post regardless..

No, that's whining.

You would be the expert

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #34 on:** April 22, 2010, 18:25 »

Posting an emoticon (

) doesn't really make a point.

hqimages · « **Reply #35 on:** April 22, 2010, 18:26 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 22, 2010, 18:25

Posting an emoticon ( ) doesn't really make a point.

So why did you just do it?

macrosaur · « **Reply #36 on:** April 22, 2010, 18:59 »

where's the problem ?

just browse any decent RM agency and there's millions of smiling and non-smiling business photos ready to fit any design.

the real problem is buyers want to spend just a pittance and even dare to complain if the photos are boring
and seen everywhere else.

buyers talk and talk but never want to spend a single dime more.

do they want some obscure model in some hard to find position and location ? just head to Alamy, there's so much junk there you'll never find anywhere else.

donding · « **Reply #37 on:** April 22, 2010, 20:23 »

It's good to hear it from a buyers perspective. I personally don't shot models...just family and friends in candid shots. I could never afford to pay models for what we get for these pictures. I can understand what you are saying even though I'm not a buyer. I get tired of looking at the same ol same ol picture when I log on to my accounts...outside of iStock, which does change them...but most of the others don't.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #38 on:** April 22, 2010, 22:39 »

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 17:38

Quote from: zenpix on April 22, 2010, 17:33
What this site offers might be just a bit too diffrent from what you need, dont know, but take a look.
http://www.photocase.com/en/

Oooooooo.... interesting, thanks zenpix.. taking a look around but yes, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about!

Yes, interesting. Saleable? Maybe. Take the homepage photo. How often is a picture going to sell of a hand in a lion's mouth? Probably rarely. How much resources would it take to set up shots like that? Probably more than the average high volume selling boring smiling model. Low volume + high effort/cost = low sales/profits.

This is what Vetta or RM macro is for. Are you willing to pay higher prices for stuff like this? Or do you still want micro pricing?

hqimages · « **Reply #39 on:** April 23, 2010, 01:24 »

Quote from: macrosaur on April 22, 2010, 18:59

where's the problem ?

just browse any decent RM agency and there's millions of smiling and non-smiling business photos ready to fit any design.

the real problem is buyers want to spend just a pittance and even dare to complain if the photos are boring
and seen everywhere else.

buyers talk and talk but never want to spend a single dime more.

do they want some obscure model in some hard to find position and location ? just head to Alamy, there's so much junk there you'll never find anywhere else.

Pardon my language, but this is the most ignorant statement I have read so far. It has nothing to do with whether the buyer will get rm, I would LOVE to have the kind of client that would tell me to go source images at RM sites, and they foot the bill, trust me, that's my dream job right there. The problem is not the buyer, it's the client. When I purchase microstock images, it's for clients that do not have any budget for images at all, we pay for the images out of the profits (out of our own pockets).. so please don't be so inconsiderate and jump to assumptions about 'buyers'.

I recently came across a graphic designer in my town that gets all of his images via google images, does he get a fund from clients for images, no, does he pay for his, no. Unfortunately this is what we have to compete with, so microstock is a great way to go for certain clients.

hqimages · « **Reply #40 on:** April 23, 2010, 01:35 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 22, 2010, 22:39

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 17:38
Quote from: zenpix on April 22, 2010, 17:33
What this site offers might be just a bit too diffrent from what you need, dont know, but take a look.
http://www.photocase.com/en/

Oooooooo.... interesting, thanks zenpix.. taking a look around but yes, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about!

Yes, interesting. Saleable? Maybe. Take the homepage photo. How often is a picture going to sell of a hand in a lion's mouth? Probably rarely. How much resources would it take to set up shots like that? Probably more than the average high volume selling boring smiling model. Low volume + high effort/cost = low sales/profits.

This is what Vetta or RM macro is for. Are you willing to pay higher prices for stuff like this? Or do you still want micro pricing?

Yeah I still want micro pricing, as I said above, we use micro for a client that has given us no budget for images, I have a problem with Vetta anyway I think the pricing is wrong, i posted here at the time but I found two images of seniors citizens, one priced at Vetta prices as part of the collection, and the other, with literally one persons head angled being the one and only difference, at normal prices. For obvious reasons I don't want to make that spend on a Vetta image, to then find a virtual duplicate at a massively lower price after.. so in my eyes Vetta has a problem, also you're talking about images that possibly have saturated the market already.. I just would like a collection of alternative microstock shots, possibly a different web site to istock, so that we are not always stuck with the one supplier.. but no worries, I'll keep looking around!!

ShadySue · « **Reply #41 on:** April 23, 2010, 02:06 »

Keep sorting your search results by age. You might find newbies trying different things until they see it doesn't pay.

crazychristina · « **Reply #42 on:** April 23, 2010, 02:30 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 22, 2010, 16:29

Quote from: fotografer on April 22, 2010, 16:27
I don't agree
Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 16:19
I think a lower volume of 'real', and unusual images will still trump a bigger amount of over-saturated, over-processed ones..

Yeah. Buyers talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. Which isn't bad, I mean, but they say they want this or that, but they seem to be happy buying what is out there. Although I do get the sense they are getting tired of a certain set of models, as mentioned in the OP.

Still selling well though.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #43 on:** April 23, 2010, 03:06 »

How I see this in the future?

Someone sitting behind 3D CG computer system is making 3D setting of an image. Defining backgrounds, lighting and props... He/she is positioning and posing model as desired and then renders output picture.

It may be Hulk Hogan or Arnold, Chuck or Naomi or anyone else because that will be RM Stock for dimes. Anyway such images will be possible to create in just a seconds and in any resolution!

That will be future of stock pictures.

So, take now what you can and try to get as much possible. Soon, cameras will small and in any gadget as commodity and more powerful than we can imagine.

macrosaur · « **Reply #44 on:** April 23, 2010, 03:28 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on April 23, 2010, 03:06

How I see this in the future?

Someone sitting behind 3D CG computer system is making 3D setting of an image. Defining backgrounds, lighting and props... He/she is positioning and posing model as desired and then renders output picture.

It may be Hulk Hogan or Arnold, Chuck or Naomi or anyone else because that will be RM Stock for dimes. Anyway such images will be possible to create in just a seconds and in any resolution!

That will be future of stock pictures.

i was thinking the same years ago and there's already many examples of 3D photos and concepts selling well on RF.

but i think there's a legal issue on using celebrities as 3D model, because same happens if you make a painting
from a photo (ie : the author of famous Obama painting, taken from an AP photo, got sued and lost).

recently i've seen some photo-realistic videos made in 3D from scratch and they look very good, but how much time
you need to produce these things ? will you recoup the investment ?

macrosaur · « **Reply #45 on:** April 23, 2010, 03:36 »

@hqimages :

cheap designers rarely buy RM images as they've small budgets.
RM works better for books, magazine, and publishers.

you can say what you want but once your client can not possibly find the image he needs,
his only option is either buy it on RM agencies or paying a photogs on assignment and trust
me RM can be 10x or 20x cheaper than hiring a photographer.

to me it's still not clear what Vetta really is.

as i see it, it looks just as yet another "creative collection", nothing to do with RM or MidStock or
pics you can't find elsewhere.

but then again, if your pics are good enough to go in Vetta why can't you just join Getty and sell them
as "creative RM" for 100x times more ?

i mean, from what i'm seeing now Vetta has nothing to envy from Getty RM, it's the price that makes
it special.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #46 on:** April 23, 2010, 03:37 »

Quote from: macrosaur on April 23, 2010, 03:28

Quote from: Albert Martin on April 23, 2010, 03:06
How I see this in the future?

Someone sitting behind 3D CG computer system is making 3D setting of an image. Defining backgrounds, lighting and props... He/she is positioning and posing model as desired and then renders output picture.

It may be Hulk Hogan or Arnold, Chuck or Naomi or anyone else because that will be RM Stock for dimes. Anyway such images will be possible to create in just a seconds and in any resolution!

That will be future of stock pictures.

i was thinking the same years ago and there's already many examples of 3D photos and concepts selling well on RF.

but i think there's a legal issue on using celebrities as 3D model, because same happens if you make a painting
from a photo (ie : the author of famous Obama painting, taken from an AP photo, got sued and lost).

recently i've seen some photo-realistic videos made in 3D from scratch and they look very good, but how much time
you need to produce these things ? will you recoup the investment ?

Well... Today's information technology can make 3D model from just 2 photos of ANY subject! You also may create very precise model from more photos. So, just imagine what will be possible with future information technology... I can have some picture about it, but that may even be far, far more than I can guess...

gostwyck · « **Reply #47 on:** April 23, 2010, 04:13 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on April 23, 2010, 03:06

How I see this in the future?

Someone sitting behind 3D CG computer system is making 3D setting of an image. Defining backgrounds, lighting and props... He/she is positioning and posing model as desired and then renders output picture.

It may be Hulk Hogan or Arnold, Chuck or Naomi or anyone else because that will be RM Stock for dimes. Anyway such images will be possible to create in just a seconds and in any resolution!

That will be future of stock pictures.

So, take now what you can and try to get as much possible. Soon, cameras will small and in any gadget as commodity and more powerful than we can imagine.

... and we'll all be using flying saucers or jet-packs as our personal transportation. All our food will be dehydrated packets , we'll have microchip implants in our brains, our clothes will be shiny and made out of space-age materials and electricity will be free because it will come from the new nuclear power stations. They've been fantasising about this sort of stuff about "the future" since the advent of the modern age ... and none of it ever comes true.

It is already incredibly cheap to both produce and buy stock imagery. There are subscription sites out there that charge as little as $80 PER YEAR for full access to their collections. All that's going to happen is that imagery will become ever more abundant which will most likely drive down prices yet further, quite possibly to the point of being free. Customisable 3D CG stock imagery being more cost-effective than what is already available is about as likely as the flying saucers. There simply isn't the profit potential from stock to drive it.

If anything could drive the technology to the point of cheap customisable CG imagery then it will undoubtedly be the porn industry first __ just like most internet technological advances. If and when customisable porn becomes available that's the point when we might need to look over our shoulders.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #48 on:** April 23, 2010, 07:20 »

Quote from: hqimages on April 23, 2010, 01:35

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 22, 2010, 22:39
This is what Vetta or RM macro is for. Are you willing to pay higher prices for stuff like this? Or do you still want micro pricing?

Yeah I still want micro pricing, as I said above, we use micro for a client that has given us no budget for images, I have a problem with Vetta anyway I think the pricing is wrong, i posted here at the time but I found two images of seniors citizens, one priced at Vetta prices as part of the collection, and the other, with literally one persons head angled being the one and only difference, at normal prices. For obvious reasons I don't want to make that spend on a Vetta image, to then find a virtual duplicate at a massively lower price after.. so in my eyes Vetta has a problem, also you're talking about images that possibly have saturated the market already.. I just would like a collection of alternative microstock shots, possibly a different web site to istock, so that we are not always stuck with the one supplier.. but no worries, I'll keep looking around!!

Well of course you _want_ diamonds at cubic zircona prices (or your client does). They just don't get to _have_ them, without a bit of time investment and luck.

lagereek · « **Reply #49 on:** April 23, 2010, 07:35 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 22, 2010, 11:00

Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 22, 2010, 10:14
I know what you are saying. The only thing you can do is to go to the different stock image sites and search for exclusive images or exclusive photographers. Too many sites have too many of the same images and after 5 or 6 pages I know what I'm going to see - same old, same old. I feel like I know some of those models by name. I'm not searching for the cheapest image, but the most unique and those are getting harder and harder to find.
On istock, you can go into advanced search and tick to search on exclusive only, then at least you won't see the same images elsewhere. For example, there are 196767 with the keyword 'business'.

Yeah! trouble is, theyre no better then the others, just exclusivity isnt enough Im afraid. Trouble is in todays stock-files, it doesnt matter the slightest if its exclusive, RM,RF, Micro or whatever, the overwhelming majority of files are no better or worse, unless its specialized categories.

best.

macrosaur · « **Reply #50 on:** April 23, 2010, 07:52 »

if buyers need something really original they better check fine-art sites or Flickr, providing they've plenty of time in their hands...

lisafx · « **Reply #51 on:** April 23, 2010, 09:12 »

Quote from: hqimages on April 23, 2010, 01:24

I recently came across a graphic designer in my town that gets all of his images via google images, does he get a fund from clients for images, no, does he pay for his, no. Unfortunately this is what we have to compete with, so microstock is a great way to go for certain clients.

I believe you should have put "graphic designer" in quotes. Obviously a real professional would not be stealing images and using them without a proper license. You can feel good that neither you or you clients are going to have their a$$ sued off, which certainly this other "designer" will.

Google images, for anyone who doesn't know it, is not a free image source! It only indexes and links images that are already used somewhere else by someone who licensed them. They are NOT a source for stock imagery.

crazychristina · « **Reply #52 on:** April 23, 2010, 09:15 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 23, 2010, 09:12

Quote from: hqimages on April 23, 2010, 01:24

I recently came across a graphic designer in my town that gets all of his images via google images, does he get a fund from clients for images, no, does he pay for his, no. Unfortunately this is what we have to compete with, so microstock is a great way to go for certain clients.

I believe you should have put "graphic designer" in quotes. Obviously a real professional would not be stealing images and using them without a proper license. You can feel good that neither you or you clients are going to have their a$$ sued off, which certainly this other "designer" will.

Google images, for anyone who doesn't know it, is not a free image source! It only indexes and links images that are already used somewhere else by someone who licensed them. They are NOT a source for stock imagery.

HI Lisa. Not every country has copyright laws. 1% of people are psychopaths. Have a nice day.

hqimages · « **Reply #53 on:** April 23, 2010, 09:59 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 23, 2010, 09:12

Quote from: hqimages on April 23, 2010, 01:24

I recently came across a graphic designer in my town that gets all of his images via google images, does he get a fund from clients for images, no, does he pay for his, no. Unfortunately this is what we have to compete with, so microstock is a great way to go for certain clients.

I believe you should have put "graphic designer" in quotes. Obviously a real professional would not be stealing images and using them without a proper license. You can feel good that neither you or you clients are going to have their a$$ sued off, which certainly this other "designer" will.

Google images, for anyone who doesn't know it, is not a free image source! It only indexes and links images that are already used somewhere else by someone who licensed them. They are NOT a source for stock imagery.

Exactly Lisa, I even explained the microstock model to him, and explained that he could get an image in the same (terrible!) resolution he gets from google images, but legally, for only 2 dollars or thereabouts (maybe smallest size on istock, thought the price for the best res would be too much for him to take in,

), which he can pay out of his own profits if the client doesn't want to, it's so little money.. but as far as I know he's still doing it.. and yes I think 'cowboy' is the term really, lol!!

hqimages · « **Reply #54 on:** April 23, 2010, 10:05 »

You know, I think a lot of this is because of what the web sites push the photographers to produce too, I think a lot of them maybe don't know how to handle a really creative/different upload, and possibly reject them because they are just not 'stock' looking.. maybe.. but then how can they evolve, they just keep approving what worked in the 90's and 00's with no real progression in the stock look/feel..

macrosaur · « **Reply #55 on:** April 23, 2010, 10:40 »

of all the evils done by google, google Images is certainly the worst !

just think what people could do without google images ... bloggers would go nuts and resort to Flickr ... others would start browsing stealing from other blogs or googling "free images".

image search should be BANNED right away as it's de-facto a piracy tool promoting piracy and theft !

as for rock bottom designers, they never paid for fonts as well, and 90% of their designs and templates are probably stolen or copied from somebody else.

there's a huge market for pirated artwork. stock photos, and any gfx on the web.

if every designer really paid for pics and anything else we would be rich now.

gostwyck · « **Reply #56 on:** April 23, 2010, 10:46 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 23, 2010, 09:12

[I believe you should have put "graphic designer" in quotes. Obviously a real professional would not be stealing images and using them without a proper license. You can feel good that neither you or you clients are going to have their a$$ sued off, which certainly this other "designer" will.

I recently had a local aerial/dish installer do a job for me. I complimented him on his web site, which is how I'd found him, and it turned out that he'd had one of those letters from Getty demanding something like $15K and/or massive legal retribution for the unauthorised use of one of their images on his site (a picture of a workman on top of a roof). The bloke himself knew nothing about stock imagery or how it worked. He'd simply paid a local "designer" to produce his website for him and had no idea where the images had been sourced from but assumed the price he paid had included their legitimate use. There must be a lot of dodgy developers about even in the most developed economies.

ShadySue · « **Reply #57 on:** April 23, 2010, 10:57 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 23, 2010, 07:35

Quote from: ShadySue on April 22, 2010, 11:00
Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 22, 2010, 10:14
I know what you are saying. The only thing you can do is to go to the different stock image sites and search for exclusive images or exclusive photographers. Too many sites have too many of the same images and after 5 or 6 pages I know what I'm going to see - same old, same old. I feel like I know some of those models by name. I'm not searching for the cheapest image, but the most unique and those are getting harder and harder to find.
On istock, you can go into advanced search and tick to search on exclusive only, then at least you won't see the same images elsewhere. For example, there are 196767 with the keyword 'business'.

Yeah! trouble is, theyre no better then the others, just exclusivity isnt enough Im afraid. Trouble is in todays stock-files, it doesnt matter the slightest if its exclusive, RM,RF, Micro or whatever, the overwhelming majority of files are no better or worse, unless its specialized categories.

best.

The OP mentioned that 'too many of the sites have too many of the same images", and that was the issue I was addressing.

cthoman · « **Reply #58 on:** April 23, 2010, 12:13 »

Quote from: macrosaur on April 23, 2010, 10:40

of all the evils done by google, google Images is certainly the worst !

just think what people could do without google images ... bloggers would go nuts and resort to Flickr ... others would start browsing stealing from other blogs or googling "free images".

image search should be BANNED right away as it's de-facto a piracy tool promoting piracy and theft !

You can't be serious?

Google image search is great. You can find where your images are being used, clients can find you to hire you for freelance work and don't even get me started on it's use as an easy resource library. Sure, people can use it to steal things, but that's why watermarks were invented. The positives completely outweigh the negatives.

macrosaur · « **Reply #59 on:** April 23, 2010, 13:01 »

they would find me with google WEB search as they did before google images was launched.

and in any case if your pics are on sale in the right places they will find you anyway.

besides, most of the portfolio sites of the best photographers are in flash therefore not indexed
by google images.
and yet they've no problems getting clients into their sites.

danoph · « **Reply #60 on:** April 23, 2010, 13:17 »

Our site, http://graphicleftovers.com has a pretty unique portfolio of images. We don't sell any photos that require a model release, so that knocks out you recognizing the models in our photo shots! Our photos are more objects, foods, scenery, etc. and we have tons of vectors...I don't know if there are a lot of "niche" stock sites out there besides the site, photocast.com, mentioned earlier but we hope to have the different stuff buyers are looking for. There are so many images out there now that it's nice to be able to organize them into smaller niches for people looking for non-mainstream or most popular stuff while keeping it affordable...

hqimages · « **Reply #61 on:** April 23, 2010, 13:27 »

Quote from: gostwyck on April 23, 2010, 10:46

Quote from: lisafx on April 23, 2010, 09:12
[I believe you should have put "graphic designer" in quotes. Obviously a real professional would not be stealing images and using them without a proper license. You can feel good that neither you or you clients are going to have their a$$ sued off, which certainly this other "designer" will.

I recently had a local aerial/dish installer do a job for me. I complimented him on his web site, which is how I'd found him, and it turned out that he'd had one of those letters from Getty demanding something like $15K and/or massive legal retribution for the unauthorised use of one of their images on his site (a picture of a workman on top of a roof). The bloke himself knew nothing about stock imagery or how it worked. He'd simply paid a local "designer" to produce his website for him and had no idea where the images had been sourced from but assumed the price he paid had included their legitimate use. There must be a lot of dodgy developers about even in the most developed economies.

God yeah, there are cowboys everywhere.. the worst part is they price down so hard (some not even registered for any kind of tax), that the customer doesn't understand why your price is double.. I would imagine people get caught ALL the time, and I'm glad, cowboys ruin any trade they decide to infiltrate, whether it's roofing or graphic design (although in roofing a lot more dangerous to hire one!!!!). End of the day you can pay for a cowboy or pay for a professional, and if you pay 400 quid (or whatever price is lowest of the low) for your web site this kind of thing is going to happen.. people are always shocked though, and then you ask them how much they paid for the job and it's like well, you shouldn't be shocked really, what did you expect at that price?

Thanks Danoph I'll take a browse!

madelaide · « **Reply #62 on:** April 23, 2010, 13:38 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 23, 2010, 09:12

Google images, for anyone who doesn't know it, is not a free image source! It only indexes and links images that are already used somewhere else by someone who licensed them. They are NOT a source for stock imagery.

Unfortunately, there are lots of people who truly believe they can use anything they find in the internet. Its a huge misconception, but a common one.

macrosaur · « **Reply #63 on:** April 23, 2010, 14:32 »

Quote from: madelaide on April 23, 2010, 13:38

Quote from: lisafx on April 23, 2010, 09:12
Google images, for anyone who doesn't know it, is not a free image source! It only indexes and links images that are already used somewhere else by someone who licensed them. They are NOT a source for stock imagery.
Unfortunately, there are lots of people who truly believe they can use anything they find in the internet. Its a huge misconception, but a common one.

and why should they bother ?

google never gave a sh.. about writing clearly that ALL images apart rare cases are copyrighted and need a permission for re-use.

after all google is the biggest thief on the web, see what they're airing on youtube and it's 99% illegal.

cascoly · « **Reply #64 on:** April 23, 2010, 16:08 »

Quote from: hqimages on April 23, 2010, 09:59

.. but as far as I know he's still doing it.. and yes I think 'cowboy' is the term really, lol!!

i think you're confusing cowboys with pirates & hedge fund managers!

macrosaur · « **Reply #65 on:** April 24, 2010, 05:24 »

isn't it ironic that the cowboy photo above wasn't taken from microstocks ?

but check on Alamy how many pics they have searching for "cowboy skiing" :

http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?CreativeOn=1&qt=cowboy+skiing&all=1&creative=&adv=1&dtfr=&dtTo=&et=0x000000000000000000000&ag=0&vp=0&loc=0&lic=6&lic=1&hc=&selectdate=1&txtdtfr=&txtdtto=&size=0xFF&ot=1&ot=2&ot=4&ot=8&imgt=1&imgt=2&archive=1&chckarchive=1

and here's the original, from Alamy :

crazychristina · « **Reply #66 on:** April 24, 2010, 09:13 »

Quote from: macrosaur on April 24, 2010, 05:24

isn't it ironic that the cowboy photo above wasn't taken from microstocks ?

but check on Alamy how many pics they have searching for "cowboy skiing" :

http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?CreativeOn=1&qt=cowboy+skiing&all=1&creative=&adv=1&dtfr=&dtTo=&et=0x000000000000000000000&ag=0&vp=0&loc=0&lic=6&lic=1&hc=&selectdate=1&txtdtfr=&txtdtto=&size=0xFF&ot=1&ot=2&ot=4&ot=8&imgt=1&imgt=2&archive=1&chckarchive=1

and here's the original, from Alamy :

And how many of them are model-released? Micros cater mostly to commercial use.

hqimages · « **Reply #67 on:** April 24, 2010, 09:20 »

Quote from: averil on April 24, 2010, 09:13

Quote from: macrosaur on April 24, 2010, 05:24
isn't it ironic that the cowboy photo above wasn't taken from microstocks ?

but check on Alamy how many pics they have searching for "cowboy skiing" :

http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?CreativeOn=1&qt=cowboy+skiing&all=1&creative=&adv=1&dtfr=&dtTo=&et=0x000000000000000000000&ag=0&vp=0&loc=0&lic=6&lic=1&hc=&selectdate=1&txtdtfr=&txtdtto=&size=0xFF&ot=1&ot=2&ot=4&ot=8&imgt=1&imgt=2&archive=1&chckarchive=1

and here's the original, from Alamy :

And how many of them are model-released? Micros cater mostly to commercial use.

Not to mention the 'Bud light' ads in the background, in fact the whole thing looks like a pretty cool Bud light advert.. are they selling this as commercial? Never gonna happen, maybe a nice editorial news image, even then Bud are getting some nice free advertising out of it..

ShadySue · « **Reply #68 on:** April 24, 2010, 09:32 »

Quote from: hqimages on April 24, 2010, 09:20

Quote from: averil on April 24, 2010, 09:13
Quote from: macrosaur on April 24, 2010, 05:24
isn't it ironic that the cowboy photo above wasn't taken from microstocks ?

No, why would that be ironic?

but check on Alamy how many pics they have searching for "cowboy skiing" :

They are clearly marked as no MR, no PR and RM, not RF. The Alamy terms then put the onus on the buyer to know how they may use the image, though that's something support can help with.

macrosaur · « **Reply #69 on:** April 24, 2010, 09:34 »

yeah, in the meantime the photographer pocketed at least 100 bucks for this image.

maybe it can be shocking for you to discover that MOST of the images you see in magazines and newspapers
have no model release and plenty of logos/trademarks and have been sold on RM agencies.

THAT's exactly the very bug limit of RF and microstock actually.

numerically, advertising/commercial is probably 5% of the whole stock industry cake, despite being the highest paying slice.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #70 on:** April 24, 2010, 09:57 »

Quote from: macrosaur on April 24, 2010, 09:34

maybe it can be shocking for you to discover that MOST of the images you see in magazines and newspapers
have no model release and plenty of logos/trademarks and have been sold on RM agencies.

Wow, that is shocking! Oh wait, I do know the difference between an editorial and commercial license (both of which can be found RM, RF and micro). I guess I'm not that shocked.

Quote

THAT's exactly the very bug limit of RF and microstock actually.

numerically, advertising/commercial is probably 5% of the whole stock industry cake, despite being the highest paying slice.

Dinosaurs tend to make up %84 of statistics they use.

ShadySue · « **Reply #71 on:** April 24, 2010, 10:05 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 24, 2010, 09:57

Quote from: macrosaur on April 24, 2010, 09:34

THAT's exactly the very bug limit of RF and microstock actually.
numerically, advertising/commercial is probably 5% of the whole stock industry cake, despite being the highest paying slice.

Dinosaurs tend to make up %84 of statistics they use.

LOL!

macrosaur · « **Reply #72 on:** April 24, 2010, 11:58 »

fine, but grab today's copy of your local paper and check out the credits ... most of them
will be wire services like AP/AFP/Reuters/Getty and the rest of the gang will be RM.

how many come from istock or SS ?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #73 on:** April 24, 2010, 13:05 »

Most of what I see is local work by STL photogs, non-local stuff from the wire, and feature photos or illos are from SS.

macrosaur · « **Reply #74 on:** April 24, 2010, 13:11 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 24, 2010, 13:05

Most of what I see is local work by STL photogs, non-local stuff from the wire, and feature photos or illos are from SS.

then you live "in the wild".

cascoly · « **Reply #75 on:** April 24, 2010, 14:08 »

Quote from: hqimages on April 24, 2010, 09:20

Quote from: averil on April 24, 2010, 09:13
Quote from: macrosaur on April 24, 2010, 05:24
isn't it ironic that the cowboy photo above wasn't taken from microstocks ?

but check on Alamy how many pics they have searching for "cowboy skiing" :

http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?CreativeOn=1&qt=cowboy+skiing&all=1&creative=&adv=1&dtfr=&dtTo=&et=0x000000000000000000000&ag=0&vp=0&loc=0&lic=6&lic=1&hc=&selectdate=1&txtdtfr=&txtdtto=&size=0xFF&ot=1&ot=2&ot=4&ot=8&imgt=1&imgt=2&archive=1&chckarchive=1

and here's the original, from Alamy :

And how many of them are model-released? Micros cater mostly to commercial use.

Not to mention the 'Bud light' ads in the background, in fact the whole thing looks like a pretty cool Bud light advert.. are they selling this as commercial? Never gonna happen, maybe a nice editorial news image, even then Bud are getting some nice free advertising out of it..

actually i have it avaialble on both alamy and ms -- only sales are from ms despite lack of model release [of the 38 images on alamy, 21 are mine]

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #76 on:** April 24, 2010, 18:49 »

Hi HQIMages,

Sometimes to get something a bit higher in quality and concept you need to pay more. If you check some top RM agencies I think you will find images that have very strong talent and big budgets. This is where the cream can be found. There are some Micro images that meet the standards of some lower end Macro RM shots but there is no control over who or how many times it has been used.
If you go with Macro RM you can see the history of the sales and be sure it doesn't and won't conflict with your clients needs, you can even pay to make sure no one uses it for a certain period of time. You must also educate the client that the image is what stops the buyer to read the copy. You place the right image in an add it will more than cover the cost in return sales from the cost of the image usage.

Best,
Jonathan

crazychristina · « **Reply #77 on:** April 24, 2010, 19:15 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on April 24, 2010, 18:49

Hi HQIMages,

Sometimes to get something a bit higher in quality and concept you need to pay more. If you check some top RM agencies I think you will find images that have very strong talent and big budgets. This is where the cream can be found. There are some Micro images that meet the standards of some lower end Macro RM shots but there is no control over who or how many times it has been used.
If you go with Macro RM you can see the history of the sales and be sure it doesn't and won't conflict with your clients needs, you can even pay to make sure no one uses it for a certain period of time. You must also educate the client that the image is what stops the buyer to read the copy. You place the right image in an add it will more than cover the cost in return sales from the cost of the image usage.

Best,
Jonathan

I find it interesting that you think the image is what sells (or am I overgeneralizing here?). I don't think I've ever made a buying decision based on an image. Usually I'm looking for very specific things and it's always features I go for. To me images in advertizing are like muzak in department stores - create a nice ambience but not actually meaningful in context.

stockastic · « **Reply #78 on:** April 24, 2010, 19:41 »

Quote from: averil on April 24, 2010, 19:15

I don't think I've ever made a buying decision based on an image. ...

Consciously, you mean.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #79 on:** April 24, 2010, 20:28 »

Gosh, I'm sure we all dream of meeting standards of some lower end macro RM shots.

crazychristina · « **Reply #80 on:** April 24, 2010, 20:53 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 24, 2010, 19:41

Quote from: averil on April 24, 2010, 19:15

I don't think I've ever made a buying decision based on an image. ...

Consciously, you mean.

True, but then I don't belong to any demographic that advertising generally targets.

lagereek · « **Reply #81 on:** April 25, 2010, 01:09 »

Ian Ogilvy ( Ogilvy-Mather agency) the grandfather of all Advertising and supreme guru, once said to a very famous photographer " my dear fellow, Im not interested in youre pictures and weather they are good or bad even lousy, that I can find anywhere, Its only youre name that will sell this commercial, youre name is why I hired you".
Thats what its all about, who you are, not what you are. Take this a bit further and apply this to the stock-agency world. What do we find?? well, RM, RF, the better Micro, etc, all the same, bazillions of shots, all the same, none better or worse then the other, add to that, buyers "quality-thinking" have decreased to a minimum geared by a forever lousy world-economy. So?? they head straight for the Micro!

Buyers dont give a crap about which Micro ( as we would like to think the opposite) but really buyers dont, as long as they find what theyre looking for, they dont give a toss about Micro exclusivity, special-collections or whatever, they know its BS, how great can a 20 buck exclusive shot be?? its BS and buyers know that.

As a freelance Ad-photographer and stock, well I can really feel the buyers dilema: theres simply nothing special out there any more, its all gone down the spout.

best thing the Micro industry can do, to save name and status is to: start limiting the acceptance rate into the files, throw out all irrelevant material, tons of it.
onlky because images are technically sound doesnt mean a thing, they must also be good, able to convey. i.e. rigorous creative inspection, not technical only, this is amateurish.
Micros should not be an escape-route for dilletants or happy weekend snappers. Its a job and shoukld be treated as such.

red · « **Reply #82 on:** April 25, 2010, 01:51 »

I can't fathom why some images are accepted unless the sites want to entice people into uploading their snapshots from which a few (very few) downloads will be realized. The photog gets discouraged and never uploads again, leaving the agency with a few bucks multiplied by thousands of disheartened submitters who never reach a payout. Not a bad scheme.

That being said, I've just viewed the "latest downloads" on DT (shown on one of the main pages) and can't fathom why they are being downloaded, who is purchasing them, and for what use. They currently include a set of birdhouse vectors, a hydrangea, a website template with the obligatory earth image, a black background with blue circles and a cow.

What's worse is that this same page also shows the "latest additions" which include a sunflower, a turtle, a "pretty woman," a cup of coffee, stack of books, a bunch of grapes and green grass.

My take on it is that the majority of purchases are not for high level ads, books and product campaigns, but for scrapbookers, grade school teachers, IT websites and people writing blogs about food.

Perhaps it's not the audience we imagine or would like purchasing our photos. I agree that the schlock should be weeded out, but it's too little too late with millions of images already there and selling to everyone and their uncle for triviality.

crazychristina · « **Reply #83 on:** April 25, 2010, 02:09 »

Get real people, the world has changed. I get my money from ATMs not bank tellers these days. And pay my accounts online. With respect to imagery, I'm a very small buyer. I teach, and occasionally buy an image for inclusion in my teaching material. Do you really think I'd be paying Getty RM prices? I've enjoyed quite a few battles in the istock steel cage, and had to buy images for quite a few of them. Wouldn't be doing that either under the old regime.

Perhaps traditonal buyers are being seduced away from quality imagery by the abundance of decent cheap stuff. You may want a return to the good old days but ain't gonna happen.

As a contributor I have another full time job and no intention to work at stock (or photography generally) full time. However I have few assets and I'm getting on. I expect istock to pay my rent by end of next year, and why should I get out of the game just because some people think I'm not taking it serioulsy enough.

lagereek · « **Reply #84 on:** April 25, 2010, 02:42 »

Quote from: averil on April 25, 2010, 02:09

Get real people, the world has changed. I get my money from ATMs not bank tellers these days. And pay my accounts online. With respect to imagery, I'm a very small buyer. I teach, and occasionally buy an image for inclusion in my teaching material. Do you really think I'd be paying Getty RM prices? I've enjoyed quite a few battles in the istock steel cage, and had to buy images for quite a few of them. Wouldn't be doing that either under the old regime.

Perhaps traditonal buyers are being seduced away from quality imagery by the abundance of decent cheap stuff. You may want a return to the good old days but ain't gonna happen.

As a contributor I have another full time job and no intention to work at stock (or photography generally) full time. However I have few assets and I'm getting on. I expect istock to pay my rent by end of next year, and why should I get out of the game just because some people think I'm not taking it serioulsy enough.

Somehow these posts are not aimed at buyers like you and although youre a very important category of buyer, I think we are more or less refering to the full-time buyers, designers and contributors.
The old cliches, like "world has changed" Trad-buyers" good old days" they dont exist anymore and I dont think any would like them back either or we wouldnt even have RF and Micros but since we do have it, lets then take care of it not throwing stones in glass-houses.

ShadySue · « **Reply #85 on:** April 25, 2010, 04:12 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 25, 2010, 01:51

My take on it is that the majority of purchases are not for high level ads, books and product campaigns, but for scrapbookers, grade school teachers, IT websites and people writing blogs about food.

Where do these grade school teachers work that they can afford to buy stock images?

lagereek · « **Reply #86 on:** April 25, 2010, 04:30 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 25, 2010, 01:51

I can't fathom why some images are accepted unless the sites want to entice people into uploading their snapshots from which a few (very few) downloads will be realized. The photog gets discouraged and never uploads again, leaving the agency with a few bucks multiplied by thousands of disheartened submitters who never reach a payout. Not a bad scheme.

That being said, I've just viewed the "latest downloads" on DT (shown on one of the main pages) and can't fathom why they are being downloaded, who is purchasing them, and for what use. They currently include a set of birdhouse vectors, a hydrangea, a website template with the obligatory earth image, a black background with blue circles and a cow.

What's worse is that this same page also shows the "latest additions" which include a sunflower, a turtle, a "pretty woman," a cup of coffee, stack of books, a bunch of grapes and green grass.

My take on it is that the majority of purchases are not for high level ads, books and product campaigns, but for scrapbookers, grade school teachers, IT websites and people writing blogs about food.

Perhaps it's not the audience we imagine or would like purchasing our photos. I agree that the schlock should be weeded out, but it's too little too late with millions of images already there and selling to everyone and their uncle for triviality.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very true, at the moment our buyers are probably in the lower end of the market but surely our aim should be to go after and entice the middle and upper end? or else we come to a stand-still, nothing to aim for?

The Gettys, Stones, Image-Bank of this world didnt get the middle and upper end of markets through pictures, pictures alone cant do much. They got it through careful monitoring, market-strategy and special deals.
Back in early 90s, I think if I remember it was Getty actually, tried to put together a collection from famous photographers including Haas and everybody in order to attract business, these pics were only mildly more costly, this whole thing fell flat on its face ofcourse because similar pics could be found by ordinary photographers that little bit cheaper. This business has been tried and tested and it fails every time.
Today, in this digital era, etc. well imagine, who want to sit and wade through page after page of almost identical stuff and in every single agency? even if an image is exclusive, millions of almost identical shots are just around the corner and for 0.25c. Pointless exercise.

stockastic · « **Reply #87 on:** April 25, 2010, 11:29 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 25, 2010, 01:51

....
Perhaps it's not the audience we imagine or would like purchasing our photos.

Very interesting post, also very funny (I thought).

When I stand in line at the food store I always marvel at how other people are blowing their money on tons of junk food, frozen dinners, sugary soda drinks, cigarettes etc.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #88 on:** April 25, 2010, 11:46 »

Hi All,

They blow that money on brands that have been well marketed. What was part of their marketing, photos. I in no way was putting down Micro as some here are always so defensive of I was answering the persons question about finding images that are a cut above the same old stuff they see in Micro. I am still convinced by doing my own surfing of agencies and being involved in every level of distribution that all photos are are not created equal and do not create the same reaction from a buyer. If that were the case we would all be out of work because everything has been shot already to some degree
When is the last time a Micro shot sold for 35,000 dollars or even 17k this happens on a regular basis, two friends of mine just this week had these exact sales in RM. Why do some photographers have better sell through rates that others because some understand the market better and take better photographs for the models they choose to sell in, same goes for Micro some Micro photographers are better than others and their sales show it.
Do not feel that Micro is low end in it's appearance they just stick to a safer image that is general for large sales, that is their market. RM doesn't follow those standards and the buyers are ad agencies that seem they need the photo for the price that is being asked for it. Why would an ad agency pick a photo for 35k over a Micro shot. Different subject matter maybe some control over who else in their market might buy it. No need to feel insulted by my statement. If photos don't help sell products why have advertisers used them for so many years.

Cheers,
Jonathan

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #89 on:** April 25, 2010, 11:54 »

SJ,

You already tried submitting to Macro remember and you said it didn't make you good money so it's good you have the Micro market because from your own words your Macro doesn't sell. That's okay you sell a ton in Micro so you found your niche.

Best,
J

lagereek · « **Reply #90 on:** April 25, 2010, 13:46 »

jonathan is right, Micro should not be viewed as a lower way of selling, its simply just another way of selling, thats all and GOD knows its an effective way as well.
Sales in RM can fetch very large sums and these 5-figured amounts do happen but today they are far and few in between. Back in beginning of the 90os a large Corp bought a shot, lifelong copy and rights, etc, as their new Logo, price was 75K, however extremly seldom this happen.

Its no secret that RM is not at all what it used to be and I know many highly prolific RM shooters that are way, way down in earnings, these same guys are also all involved in the Micros but never, ever on an exclusive basis.
Hell, who cares really, as long as agencies keep selling, who gives a hoot what type of agency? RM, RF, Micro, as long as theyre doing a good job.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #91 on:** April 25, 2010, 14:10 »

Well said Lagereek,

As long as they still want to buy our photos for more than it costs us to make them then all is good. I will say though I still believe photos do stop buyers to attract them to an ad. Tell me how many adds that are all copy catch your interest to read a page about something. A picture is worth a thousand words, just not very often a thousand dollars : )

Best,
Jonathan

cascoly · « **Reply #92 on:** April 25, 2010, 14:18 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 25, 2010, 04:12

Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 25, 2010, 01:51
My take on it is that the majority of purchases are not for high level ads, books and product campaigns, but for scrapbookers, grade school teachers, IT websites and people writing blogs about food.
Where do these grade school teachers work that they can afford to buy stock images?

teachers have ALWAYS spent money from their own pockets to buy materials for their classes - some may even have enlightened school districts that support them.

in any case, this area, as noted is continuing to grow - the elitists don't like to thinkl abut it, and it will never produce the thousand dollar unicorn sales of yore, but this is exactly the sort of market that evolves as prices drop. in the 80s thousands of people were willing to play online games for $10-20 per hour on 2400 baud modems; when the price dropped to pennies, the market exploded to the point wageslaves in china became WOW goldfarmers.

steve

cascoly · « **Reply #93 on:** April 25, 2010, 14:21 »

Quote from: averil on April 25, 2010, 02:09

Get real people, the world has changed. I get my money from ATMs not bank tellers these days. And pay my accounts online. With respect to imagery, I'm a very small buyer. I teach, and occasionally buy an image for inclusion in my teaching material. Do you really think I'd be paying Getty RM prices? I've enjoyed quite a few battles in the istock steel cage, and had to buy images for quite a few of them. Wouldn't be doing that either under the old regime.

Perhaps traditonal buyers are being seduced away from quality imagery by the abundance of decent cheap stuff. You may want a return to the good old days but ain't gonna happen.

As a contributor I have another full time job and no intention to work at stock (or photography generally) full time. However I have few assets and I'm getting on. I expect istock to pay my rent by end of next year, and why should I get out of the game just because some people think I'm not taking it serioulsy enough.

EXACTLY - to many it seems it must be all or nothing -- either you're a fulltime pro or you're wasting your time. some people just can't realize that there are more ways to live in the world than are dreamt of in your philosophy

ShadySue · « **Reply #94 on:** April 25, 2010, 14:27 »

Quote from: cascoly on April 25, 2010, 14:18

Quote from: ShadySue on April 25, 2010, 04:12
Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 25, 2010, 01:51
My take on it is that the majority of purchases are not for high level ads, books and product campaigns, but for scrapbookers, grade school teachers, IT websites and people writing blogs about food.
Where do these grade school teachers work that they can afford to buy stock images?

teachers have ALWAYS spent money from their own pockets to buy materials for their classes - some may even have enlightened school districts that support them.
steve

I buy things for school (high school) all the time, but say 10-15 photos per lesson, five lessons per day, it soon wouldn't be worth working.
My pupils have to satisfice with Microsoft clip art, Flickr creative commons (which is often more suitable, i.e. 'real', than anything I could buy on micros) etc.

elvinstar · « **Reply #95 on:** April 25, 2010, 18:11 »

Quote

some people just can't realize that there are more ways to live in the world than are dreamt of in your philosophy

AMEN!

yuliang11 · « **Reply #96 on:** April 26, 2010, 00:53 »

cool, my photo was sold for 0.30 cents and got refunded cause the image was not suitable for their use. now, where do i vent my frustration ?

Nordlys · « **Reply #97 on:** September 09, 2010, 16:00 »

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 08:28

And here we go again: http://www.veer.com/products/marketplace/

Click on big business, portraits, teamwork, practically anything, and yet again we have siai syndrome, same images as istock...

Is there no gallery can offer fresh business images that we HAVEN'T seen before, or do they all wet themselves when Yuri uploads his portfolio and push them to the top of every category, cos by God I'm sick of those models..

Go here: Alamy.com

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers frustrations (Read 28115 times)

red

Xalanx

lagereek

lisafx

lagereek

red

lagereek

lagereek

lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors