MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: picomatic on September 07, 2009, 18:28
-
You'll :o get a kick from this story ...... also see the comments.....
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/02/BU2H19DPFN.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/02/BU2H19DPFN.DTL)
-
Congrats to Stacey on her cupcake and being quoted.
I got a huge chuckle when they mentioned "online photo sharing sites like Flickr and iStockphoto.com" in the beginning of the article. Glad they later clarified that istock is a paid agency and has been for years.
On the whole, though, there was nothing really new that I could see. Still same old us vs. them from the traditional pros quoted.
They neglected to mention that for the past year or so many of those "pros" have now been submitting large portfolios to the micros. Probably not Flikr though. Most micro photogs I know do draw the line at FREE.
-
I couldn't read all the way to the end ... halfway .. ok I read 2 paragraphs .... boring.
-
Hi All,
I think their are a lot less pros squawking, rather news companies trying to create a friction. I know it used to be that way but the real Pros are very aware of Micro and even though it cost them money when the model was built the ones that are successful are not turning there back to it. There will always be a whiner for the media to play off of. We are all stock photographers, not one kind or another.
Best,
Jonathan