Author Topic: Buyers frustrations (Read 28144 times)

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers frustrations (Read 28144 times)

ShadySue

hqimages

ShadySue

hqimages

hqimages

cthoman

hqimages

Sean Locke Photography

hqimages

Sean Locke Photography

hqimages

macrosaur

donding

PaulieWalnuts

hqimages

hqimages

ShadySue

crazychristina

Albert Martin

macrosaur

macrosaur

Albert Martin

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors