Author Topic: Share your knowledge or keep it secret? (Read 26551 times)

lisafx · « **Reply #50 on:** June 29, 2011, 11:06 »

^^ Interesting perspective Jonathan. Thanks for sharing that

madelaide · « **Reply #51 on:** June 29, 2011, 18:34 »

Very interesting post indeed, Jonathan. A consultant once told me: you get more than you give when you share.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #52 on:** July 02, 2011, 14:25 »

Hi shank_ali_reborn,

I still love photography after 23 years and hope I always will but I do see a lot of people that lose touch with their passion over time and get distracted by chasing the money, I have been guilty of it in the past. I think it is important to realize how lucky you are to be able to pay the bills by taking photos. It just doesn't get any better in my opinion.

best,
Jonathan

Slovenian · « **Reply #53 on:** July 02, 2011, 15:07 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 25, 2011, 15:33

Quote from: madelaide on June 25, 2011, 11:25
I don't mind sharing knowledge. Is there something that is really a secret? What make some more succesful than others is experience, hard work and talent.

But creating more competition doesn't help. Look at the guy Yuri trained who's on iStock - his 240 sales a day are coming off someone else, aren't they? And we can guess who is hardest hit. There may be others who have to spend a year at a lower earnings level because someone they helped picks up the redeemed credits they would have had - If you get 30% instead of 35%, then 16% of your year's income could have gone down the tube. For an exclusive on the 35% borderline, that would probably be around $5,000 gone as the price of being nice to someone.

Yeah that's just that dog eat dog way of thinking IS is forcing on us and some of you fell for it. No need to explain who profits the most from it;). It's the most basic extortionate capitalistic way of doing business. Make your employees fight for every cent, turn them against each other, make 'em compete for those pathetic few $ more. If they are united, they pose a threat.

I won't do it (I never did it working my day job. I told a couple of my bosses to shove it). I don't even care about IS, it's not even my top earner, not even close.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #54 on:** July 02, 2011, 21:17 »

'I have been guilty of it in the past.'

... until you had enough

...

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #55 on:** July 02, 2011, 23:07 »

Quote from: Slovenian on July 02, 2011, 15:07

It's the most basic extortionate capitalistic way of doing business. Make your employees fight for every cent, turn them against each other, make 'em compete for those pathetic few $ more. If they are united, they pose a threat.

Do you really imagine that teaching newbies how to get stuff accepted is going to create a sense of unity that will threaten iStock's ability to dictate terms? If so, I think you are wildly off track.

Who do you think it is who has benefited most from the "community spirit" sense of co-operation in the past? The people giving advice? The people getting it? Or iStock which had its suppliers (not employees, please note - try claiming some employees legal rights from iStock and see how far you get) running a free training course for each other?

As for the "you get more out of helping others than you put into it" mantra, fair enough if you are using it as a marketing tool to sell yourself or your products or to get referral earnings (as Yuri does) but casually showing people how to compete against you without having a clear idea of how to monetise that (and at a level that will compensate for iStock's new commission system) is counter-productive.

How many threads have there been down the years complaining that "dilution" undermines earnings? I don't see how anyone can square that with the idea that they will help themselves by helping competing suppliers to become successful. Unless, of course, selling images is just a lure and your main strategy is to generate referral income or to use it to sell some product - a book, training courses or whatever - as a few people seem to do very successfully.

luceluceluce · « **Reply #56 on:** July 03, 2011, 00:12 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 02, 2011, 23:07

As for the "you get more out of helping others than you put into it" mantra, fair enough if you are using it as a marketing tool to sell yourself or your products or to get referral earnings (as Yuri does) but casually showing people how to compete against you without having a clear idea of how to monetise that (and at a level that will compensate for iStock's new commission system) is counter-productive.

This kind of thinking only works if you base your decision-making entirely on the values of profit and self-gain.

Life's a bigger box than that isn't it? How about the unquantifiables? The happiness you get from helping someone do something they never thought they could do? And the mixture of annoyance and excitement when they start competing against you? The despair when they beat you to the ground? The devilish enjoyment of creating a cunning plan to defeat them? The desperate training montage where you become a master in 3.2 minutes? And the dénouement where you both, lying broken in the dirt, overcome your differences and decide to go and conquer the world together?

I'm a big fan of money but you know what the dalai lama would say - he'd say (i get his fb status updates) the only chance of real happiness is through acts of compassion.

So the real question is: is it an act of compassion to introduce someone to microstock - or is it more humane to club the idea to death while it's still young?

lthn · « **Reply #57 on:** July 03, 2011, 03:31 »

What secrets? Someone really needs some harry potter magic book to manage floodlighting people (or anything) on white background or to choose attractive friendly-faced models?... *... must be a joke. If someone is so confused about reading the lighting from a pic f.e., just zoom on the model's eye. Many photogs don't have the resources to produce some of the best selling stuff, that is the problem for most, there are no secrets.

Slovenian · « **Reply #58 on:** July 03, 2011, 05:45 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 02, 2011, 23:07

Quote from: Slovenian on July 02, 2011, 15:07
It's the most basic extortionate capitalistic way of doing business. Make your employees fight for every cent, turn them against each other, make 'em compete for those pathetic few $ more. If they are united, they pose a threat.
Do you really imagine that teaching newbies how to get stuff accepted is going to create a sense of unity that will threaten iStock's ability to dictate terms? If so, I think you are wildly off track.

No one said newbies, at least I surely didn't. I'm talking about the sense of unity that diamond videographs showed, pushing IS into a corner and giving them higher royalties for Vetta. IS had to back off, because of their unity;). For once they were, the weak, powerless and had to swallow the fact that they're getting a smaller cut. I'd love to see that in the photo community, not just for the money, but also for the pure perverse pleasure of seeing the greedy corporate *insult removed* taking a hit.

IMO your way of thinking is exactly the kind IS would want from every contributor.

IS is creating the same kind of inequality neoliberalism is; a handful of wealthy ppl (owners) is profiting from extorting all the rest. They're giving the most important contributors a taste of fairness by giving them 40%+, so they keep their mouth shut. They're just to dumb to realize they're being ripped off and are in fact being quiet, because they are gloating for getting a bit more than the rest of the peasants. Those top contributors are just like IS, to shortsighted and greedy to be able to make a threat of pulling their port unless they raise the royalties by 50%. Which would be fair (not to non-exclusives though).

And yes like someone mentioned, there are unquantifiables, such as happiness.

Discussing this is so pathetic in a way. Capitalism is based on indefinite growth. Which is impossible. IS is one of the worst in the way they're following this doctrine (trying to sell us unsustainabilty etc) and it's working since half of the contributors or even more is thinking alike (companies should see indefinite profit growths etc). It seems we have learned NOTHING from the last recession, everything is just the same as it was and the next recession surely is near. IS's end is also near, as most ppl can see from their stats (members with big ports have to produce vast amounts of new material, as much as possible of A/V stuff, to just stay even compared to last year, if they are on the same percentage of course), they'll possibly join the middle tier in a couple of years.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #59 on:** July 03, 2011, 06:50 »

"Life's a bigger box than that isn't it? How about the unquantifiables? The happiness you get from helping someone do something they never thought they could do? And the mixture of annoyance and excitement when they start competing against you? The despair when they beat you to the ground? The devilish enjoyment of creating a cunning plan to defeat them? The desperate training montage where you become a master in 3.2 minutes? And the dénouement where you both, lying broken in the dirt, overcome your differences and decide to go and conquer the world together? "

To each his own. I'm happy paying my mortgage so my kids have a nice house to grow up in. I'm happy not having to work doing something I hated - now I'm having a great time doing what I do. I'm happy I can go on vacation with my family. Maybe that will change when I'm older and looking for some sort of validation or something. Right now, I'm pretty happy

.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #60 on:** July 03, 2011, 06:52 »

Quote from: lthn on July 03, 2011, 03:31

What secrets? Someone really needs some harry potter magic book to manage floodlighting people (or anything) on white background or to choose attractive friendly-faced models?... *... must be a joke. If someone is so confused about reading the lighting from a pic f.e., just zoom on the model's eye. Many photogs don't have the resources to produce some of the best selling stuff, that is the problem for most, there are no secrets.

If it were so easy, we wouldn't have people who just bought their camera coming in here looking for step by step guides to the easy-micro-life they imagine.

Give your knowledge and experience some value, eh?

cthoman · « **Reply #61 on:** July 03, 2011, 10:44 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 03, 2011, 06:50

Right now, I'm pretty happy .

And here I thought you were grouchy all the time.

I don't think there is anything wrong with sharing. I really enjoy what I do, so when people want to listen to me jabber on about it I'll usually share. Like others here, I occasionally give really smart a$$ answers to some of those questions you've heard a thousand times. Also, I like to give bad advise to throw off the competition. Kidding... or am I? [insert maniacal laughter here]

P.S. I feel bad that I missed that other thread. I have a Canon Rebel, and I take really crumby pictures with it. I think that is mostly operator error though.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #62 on:** July 03, 2011, 12:00 »

It's never enough Sean

Cheers,
J

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #63 on:** July 03, 2011, 12:30 »

Dat da truth.

lthn · « **Reply #64 on:** July 03, 2011, 17:00 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 03, 2011, 06:52

Quote from: lthn on July 03, 2011, 03:31
What secrets? Someone really needs some harry potter magic book to manage floodlighting people (or anything) on white background or to choose attractive friendly-faced models?... *... must be a joke. If someone is so confused about reading the lighting from a pic f.e., just zoom on the model's eye. Many photogs don't have the resources to produce some of the best selling stuff, that is the problem for most, there are no secrets.

If it were so easy, we wouldn't have people who just bought their camera coming in here looking for step by step guides to the easy-micro-life they imagine.

Give your knowledge and experience some value, eh?

There are ppl who need a manual and several warnings about temperautre for a McDonalds apple pie, so what, that deosn't mean it's a secret, just that they'r stupid.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #65 on:** July 03, 2011, 18:02 »

eye reflection won´t take anyone far

post processing take a big cut too but the picture we took on "set" will be the first "light" it will get, we can get pure white on shooting etc but the real stuff is to master the light you are using (which takes a few more time than seeing softbox/beauty/ring whatever on eye and the approximate angle)

lisafx · « **Reply #66 on:** July 03, 2011, 18:55 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 03, 2011, 18:02

eye reflection won´t take anyone far

post processing take a big cut too but the picture we took on "set" will be the first "light" it will get, we can get pure white on shooting etc but the real stuff is to master the light you are using (which takes a few more time than seeing softbox/beauty/ring whatever on eye and the approximate angle)

All true^^. But I won't discount the usefulness of eye reflections. I used them a lot when I was learning, and it did help. I still will zoom in on the eye if I see an image that has particularly interesting lighting and I can't figure out how it was done.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #67 on:** July 03, 2011, 19:08 »

I do it too

lagereek · « **Reply #68 on:** July 04, 2011, 01:22 »

I tend to agree with both Sean and Baldrick on this one.

Stock however is just ONE way of commercial photography, most tend to forget there is a gigantic world outside stock-photography. Im talking about dayrate work, assignments, commissions, journalism, Advertising, fashion, Industrial, etc, photography.

This is a "word by mouth" world based on skill, contacts and recomendations, a world which, and I say "fortunately" is closed for neewbies, competitors, etc, and where these little 20MP cameras dont count for very much.
A serious creative client with a budget for say advertising, very, very seldom consult any picture-agency, ofcourse there are as alway exeptions, but in general thats true.
A young assistant in a photo-studio will watch and learn from you and then comes the day when he himself is ready to go on his own, not only will he have learned from you but on the way he will also make damned sure he takes a couple of client with him. Its a way of life.

See, stock-photography, any kind or form of this, isnt really associated with Professional photography, not in the eyes of the graphic or media industry, its not.
Even the very best within the RM, has not really ever been looked upon as professional photography.

Stock, is and will always be looked upon, no matter, RM, RF, micro or whatever, the universal "dustbin", left-overs over pictures that really couldnt cut it in the real world of photography.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #69 on:** July 04, 2011, 04:48 »

Quote from: Slovenian on July 03, 2011, 05:45

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 02, 2011, 23:07
Quote from: Slovenian on July 02, 2011, 15:07
It's the most basic extortionate capitalistic way of doing business. Make your employees fight for every cent, turn them against each other, make 'em compete for those pathetic few $ more. If they are united, they pose a threat.
Do you really imagine that teaching newbies how to get stuff accepted is going to create a sense of unity that will threaten iStock's ability to dictate terms? If so, I think you are wildly off track.

No one said newbies, at least I surely didn't. I'm talking about the sense of unity that diamond videographs showed, pushing IS into a corner and giving them higher royalties for Vetta. IS had to back off, because of their unity;). For once they were, the weak, powerless and had to swallow the fact that they're getting a smaller cut. I'd love to see that in the photo community, not just for the money, but also for the pure perverse pleasure of seeing the greedy corporate *insult removed* taking a hit.

IMO your way of thinking is exactly the kind IS would want from every contributor.

I really don't see how you jump from sharing skills (but not with newbies, apparently) to diamond-level videographers uniting to protect their commercial interests. Do you really got together because they share techniques with each other? You don't think it might be purely about a ridiculous plan to make supposedly premium clips pay lower commissions than non-premium ones, thereby making it stupid for any diamond videographer to have material in the premium collection?

Do you think Yuri and Lise Gagne should huddle together to share information about the minute technical detail that made one image or another particularly successful, and that doing so will make them join forces against the next iStock outrage?

We are not employees or workmates in a co-operative; we are all small, private businesses in competition with each other. That's a fact, not a point of view. And businesses do not usually benefit from making their competitors more successful. We have a common interest in getting the best deal from the agents who handle out work but that is completely different from having a common interest in teaching each other how to improve our photography or get a bigger slice of the overall earnings.

You are completely wrong about my thinking being what iStock would want. It is the exact reverse of what iStock would like. Istock would love to have all the black diamonds and diamonds "sharing the secrets" of making big-selling pictures with bronze and silver-level contributors. That would shift sales away from people taking 40% commission towards people making 30% commission, boosting iStock's commission.

So I think you are confusing sharing photo skills with being united because of common interests, you possibly don't understand that you are now a small businessman in a competitive world, and you wrongly believe that iStock is more interested in sowing disunity among contributors than it is in making as much money as possible - which is what the united, sharing community it used to have did for it.

It may look as if iStock would like to drive wedges between its contributors but I'm pretty sure that's just an accidental side-effect of the RC system.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #70 on:** July 04, 2011, 05:49 »

Good post again!

RT · « **Reply #71 on:** July 04, 2011, 05:53 »

Quote from: lagereek on July 04, 2011, 01:22

Stock however is just ONE way of commercial photography, most tend to forget there is a gigantic world outside stock-photography. Im talking about dayrate work, assignments, commissions, journalism, Advertising, fashion, Industrial, etc, photography.

I agree with this.

Quote from: lagereek on July 04, 2011, 01:22

This is a "word by mouth" world based on skill, contacts and recomendations, a world which, and I say "fortunately" is closed for neewbies, competitors, etc, and where these little 20MP cameras dont count for very much.

I don't agree with this, it use to be but unfortunately nowadays the majority of commissioned jobs even from blue chip companies couldn't care less what equipment you use, the very high end advertising stuff may demand it but unless you've got a good agent or you're shooting a niche industry with little competition you're not even going to get a look in. I hardly ever quote on commissioned work now because experience tells me that when it comes down to the final decision I'll be hit with being asked to compete with some wedding/family portrait snapper that has quoted at a quarter of my rates, and I have NEVER been asked what camera I use, just like the stock industry these days anybody with a camera can set themselves up as a commercial photographer and for some unknown reason they seem willing to do it for peanuts.

lagereek · « **Reply #72 on:** July 04, 2011, 06:11 »

Quote from: RT on July 04, 2011, 05:53

Quote from: lagereek on July 04, 2011, 01:22
Stock however is just ONE way of commercial photography, most tend to forget there is a gigantic world outside stock-photography. Im talking about dayrate work, assignments, commissions, journalism, Advertising, fashion, Industrial, etc, photography.

I agree with this.

Quote from: lagereek on July 04, 2011, 01:22
This is a "word by mouth" world based on skill, contacts and recomendations, a world which, and I say "fortunately" is closed for neewbies, competitors, etc, and where these little 20MP cameras dont count for very much.

I don't agree with this, it use to be but unfortunately nowadays the majority of commissioned jobs even from blue chip companies couldn't care less what equipment you use, the very high end advertising stuff may demand it but unless you've got a good agent or you're shooting a niche industry with little competition you're not even going to get a look in. I hardly ever quote on commissioned work now because experience tells me that when it comes down to the final decision I'll be hit with being asked to compete with some wedding/family portrait snapper that has quoted at a quarter of my rates, and I have NEVER been asked what camera I use, just like the stock industry these days anybody with a camera can set themselves up as a commercial photographer and for some unknown reason they seem willing to do it for peanuts.

Hi there!

Yep! youre right in a sense, although when it comes to advertising, pr, even some annual-reports, middle spreads, etc, I must say the majority of ad-agencies or at least the ones Im working with, well, they dont stipulate make of camera but they certainly demand enough to dig out the MF and backs, etc.

However, with time that might change as well, leaving nothing over for us that do comissioned work.

Willing to do it for peanuts! yes and you know why, simply because they dont know or have never experienced the differance.

RT · « **Reply #73 on:** July 04, 2011, 06:15 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 04, 2011, 04:48

We are not employees or workmates in a co-operative; we are all small, private businesses in competition with each other. That's a fact, not a point of view.

Absolutely correct and it's exactly why I laugh every time I see posts about forming a union, we don't work together we work against each other.

The problem is a lot of people here aren't running a small business they're earning pocket money from their hobby, these are the folks that see some top stock shooters "sharing" and don't understand that they're using that to promote themselves and their business not because they want everyone to become more successful. They're the 'caring, sharing, baby kissing, hand shaking politicians' of the stock photo industry

RT · « **Reply #74 on:** July 04, 2011, 06:19 »

Quote from: lagereek on July 04, 2011, 06:11

Willing to do it for peanuts! yes and you know why, simply because they dont know or have never experienced the differance.

I can understand wanting the experience, what I can't understand is how these guys can afford to do it so cheaply or why the clients would accept the quality folks like that pump out.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

Do you believe in sharing your knowledge or keeping it secret?

Author Topic: Share your knowledge or keep it secret? (Read 26551 times)

lisafx

madelaide

Jonathan Ross

Slovenian

Sean Locke Photography

BaldricksTrousers

luceluceluce

lthn

Slovenian

Sean Locke Photography

Sean Locke Photography

cthoman

Jonathan Ross

Sean Locke Photography

lthn

luissantos84

lisafx

luissantos84

lagereek

BaldricksTrousers

Sean Locke Photography

RT

lagereek

RT

RT

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors