Author Topic: Agency collection? oh! boy! (Read 34000 times)

molka · « **Reply #50 on:** December 01, 2010, 09:56 »

Quote from: Perry on December 01, 2010, 09:23

Quote from: molka on December 01, 2010, 09:14
Quote from: Perry on December 01, 2010, 09:12
Quote from: molka on December 01, 2010, 09:01
okay, estimate the cost of this: (and effort? - what is that?)
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPpONUfCOI/AAAAAAAAAF4/HEJvnGM81rY/_MG_7541.jpg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPo13gs9kI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hlDk1wl__PU/_MG_7540.jpg

"effort" is how much work, time, skill, patience, photoshop work is needed for creating the shot.

I'd say your images may be in the highest category (at least in the medium category); released model, outdoor location with lighting and a classic car. Requires scheduling, planning and time.

that's your cost estimate?

it's cost and effort. It may not have cost you $$$ if the model is your friend and the car is yours. But it clearly has taken you much more time and effort to create these images than shooting an isolated apple.

It's also very much about perceived cost/effort. "How much money/work would be required if I shot a similar image myself?".

I only wanted to address cost, because affort... honestly I can't even comprehend that. F.e.: I remember once i wanted to shoot some christmas baubles because other than a few packshots at work, I hardly done any object shots, I wanted a little training for myself. It was very hard, became a total mess with the setup, trying to hang stuff, akward reflections.... It got me totally pissed and I gave up. : )) Compared to that, this was easy. See? If you had that job of setting an initial price upon inspection, you'd be the most hated person on earth : ) If you had a phone line ppl would be screaming at you 24/7 "do you know how * hard it is to set this up?

?" : ))

SNP · « **Reply #51 on:** December 01, 2010, 11:51 »

@ shady: IMO, it doesn't matter how many miles you travelled to shoot the image. the quality of the end result is what matters. your comment only makes sense if those miles travelled added aesthetic value to your shot somehow, but of course they don't.

@ cathy: this isn't a schoolyard. you don't get a pat on the back and the same loot bag as all the other kids for shooting with crap equipment. I would also suggest that there is a strong relationship between the attitude of professionally ambitious photographers and their choice of equipment. that doesn't mean everyone needs to be shooting with $10K cameras....but to suggest that a buyer should pay the same for a point and shoot image versus something shot on a pro camera with pro glass is ridiculous. if it were that easy, none of us would have bothered upgrading our equipment. instead I'd be spending those thousands hiring pro models and sets and shooting it all on my iphone.

ShadySue · « **Reply #52 on:** December 01, 2010, 12:04 »

@ shady: IMO, it doesn't matter how many miles you travelled to shoot the image. the quality of the end result is what matters. your comment only makes sense if those miles travelled added aesthetic value to your shot somehow, but of course they don't.
[/quote]
I was only talking about the 'cost' of the shoot.

Quote from: SNP on December 01, 2010, 11:51

@ cathy: this isn't a schoolyard. you don't get a pat on the back and the same loot bag as all the other kids for shooting with crap equipment. I would also suggest that there is a strong relationship between the attitude of professionally ambitious photographers and their choice of equipment. that doesn't mean everyone needs to be shooting with $10K cameras....but to suggest that a buyer should pay the same for a point and shoot image versus something shot on a pro camera with pro glass is ridiculous. if it were that easy, none of us would have bothered upgrading our equipment. instead I'd be spending those thousands hiring pro models and sets and shooting it all on my iphone.

But here's the thing. Your iphone pics would probably be rejected. Doesn't mean the buyers wouldn't choose them. My BS was shot on a G9. Subsequent G9 shots have been rejected, and I don't try now.
Later in my top 10 are pics shot with a 350D, and scanned slides taken on Pentax Super A and MS5N. The scanned slides certainly wouldn't be accepted nowadays, yet they by far outsell shots taken recently on the 5D2. One of my auto-designated 'most popular files' is a scan of a slide shot with a compact film camera. (It had one early dl, then sat 13 months before it got another, yet it got to be a mpf.
For most purposes, the camera doesn't matter to the end user, only the image. What will be accepted on the sites is a totally different ball game.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #53 on:** December 01, 2010, 12:15 »

Quote from: Perry on December 01, 2010, 07:57

...I really can't see why images for web/mobile etc. should be cheaper than for print.

There are a number of pricing models around. Cost plus some profit; regulated in some way (like power or water utilites); subscriptions; value based pricing (and probably others).

The size model is value based pricing - IOW you don't base the pricing on your cost to produce or deliver the image, but on the value it represents to the buyer. Print costs more than web because typically the expense (and budget) for print materials is much higher than that for web sites which in turn are higher than for a typical blog.

Pretty much any pricing model has some inequities or odd behavior, but I would really, really oppose a flat pricing model. I do sell quite a few XL and up and wouldn't want to give up the XS sales (which you'd price out of the market by raising to the flat level) or the huge $$ boost of the XXXL sales. You'd also have a problem moving to a flat pricing scheme with other big agencies keeping tiers as you'd likely lose a lot of the blog customers to other sites.

cthoman · « **Reply #54 on:** December 01, 2010, 12:30 »

Quote from: RT on November 30, 2010, 15:10

Quote from: sjlocke on November 30, 2010, 15:02
What's the answer?

42

I knew that was coming and I still laughed.

ShadySue · « **Reply #55 on:** December 01, 2010, 12:34 »

It really doesn't matter what model you choose: there will always be anomlies and images/contributers whose production model will be unfairly disadvantaged. And there are always unintended consequences. I have often thought that agencies should pay more (e.g. an extra 5% at (e.g. 100) sales etc. Not customers, agencies. After all, that file has long paid back its inspection and storage costs.
A good side effect might be that people would be more selective, not having their 'similars' putting the bonus at risk.
BUT who can guess which from a shoot will sell best: I can't - not for my own and not for others'. I often see similars where one has vastly outsold the other and I can't imagine why. So we might put up the 'wrong' one. Also, the buyers get less choice (the lower selling similars also sell, so some buyers prefer them and would lose out).

SNP · « **Reply #56 on:** December 01, 2010, 12:40 »

@shady:

mostly agree. however, I think Agency prices (in general) are justifiable (in general) because of the inspection standards that files are required to meet in order to be included in Agency. and that's the context of this discussion. Agency files are not all great. some are real head-scratchers just like some Vetta, but it's also the beginning stage of image absorption into the Agency collection. like Vetta, they'll overturn some of the acceptance/rejections into the collection in future to ensure the overall quality criteria are met (as advertised to buyers).

bottom line, buyers decide what works by buying. but it would be a fairly poor business model and recipe for disaster if iStock were truly trying to screw over buyers by offering sub-standard products at higher prices just for the sake of it. that argument in here is simply wishful thinking.

ShadySue · « **Reply #57 on:** December 01, 2010, 12:46 »

My take is that some of those 'forced into' the Agency collection were of a pretty 'average' standard. I don't really follow doings in Agency closely as it's not relevant to me, but most of those I've seen getting in from iStockers have been good, though some seem to me 'average' - but what do I know.
Vetta is all smoke and mirrors. At one time, wrong keywords seemed to be almost a necessity, but it's not so bad now.

donding · « **Reply #58 on:** December 01, 2010, 12:51 »

It doesn't matter what size MP camera you have.....it's the ability to capture that selling shot. It's in the eye of the photographer where the good shot comes into play rather it was taken with a 10MP or a 24MP. Just because the equipment is expensive and the best doesn't mean the photographer has the eye for selling shots. If I inherited a million dollars and went out and bought the biggest and the best, it still doesn't mean I can shoot any better than someone with a 10MP camera.

SNP · « **Reply #59 on:** December 01, 2010, 12:56 »

^ that's only partly true and it's an oversimplified argument. again, if it were that easy, none of us would be wasting money on good equipment. there's always someone in any industry who wants to make the same money as other suppliers without the same investment.

donding · « **Reply #60 on:** December 01, 2010, 13:11 »

Quote from: SNP on December 01, 2010, 12:56

^ that's only partly true and it's an oversimplified argument. again, if it were that easy, none of us would be wasting money on good equipment. there's always someone in any industry who wants to make the same money as other suppliers without the same investment.

I agree with you but what I'm trying to say is that it's in the photographer's eye. Yes you get better quality technically, but that doesn't always make a selling shot. It's in the eye of the photographer, and the photographers knowledge of composition and lighting. I'm not saying it's easy...

SNP · « **Reply #61 on:** December 01, 2010, 13:31 »

the best equipment doesn't buy you talent. but if you have talent to begin with, chances are you're going to evolve in terms of your equipment and invest in the improvement of your product. that investment should be apparent.

donding · « **Reply #62 on:** December 01, 2010, 13:36 »

Quote from: SNP on December 01, 2010, 13:31

the best equipment doesn't buy you talent. but if you have talent to begin with, chances are you're going to evolve in terms of your equipment and invest in the improvement of your product. that investment should be apparent.

Exactly.....

SNP · « **Reply #63 on:** December 01, 2010, 13:37 »

helix7 · « **Reply #64 on:** December 01, 2010, 16:47 »

A lot of the arguments in this thread in favor of midstock pricing (equipment costs, production costs, travel costs, etc) sound an awful lot like the arguments in favor of RM and traditional RF pricing a bunch of years ago.

The trads must be laughing their asses off at us while we cry "Photos are too expensive to produce to sell them for just $1!"

SNP · « **Reply #65 on:** December 01, 2010, 16:53 »

1. your comment has already been made three or four times, hence the discussion
2. TRADS and microstock contributors are arguably no longer mutually exclusive. there's a whole lot of overlap. I shoot both, I know lots of colleagues who do too...what's the big deal....

molka · « **Reply #66 on:** December 01, 2010, 17:18 »

Quote from: helix7 on December 01, 2010, 16:47

A lot of the arguments in this thread in favor of midstock pricing (equipment costs, production costs, travel costs, etc) sound an awful lot like the arguments in favor of RM and traditional RF pricing a bunch of years ago.

The trads must be laughing their asses off at us while we cry "Photos are too expensive to produce to sell them for just $1!"

it took something like 3 years for reality to pop up from behind the forced fanboy yipee attitude while getting totally ripped of. I saw how the bunch was prone to even lie about how things are going just keep the face, playing the lameass wow-imkool-sellingmypicturz character even picking on people who bother with flickr and real citique community sites, when I first started to investigate them on a photography forum (not this one). It was a very tarnsparent act, wouldn't fool a blind 5 year old, and being the no bullscheise guy, when I did more than schratch the surcface they suddenly turned into hissy little vampire chimpunks in an instant, full of pent up frustration : ) It was kindergarten without the cuteness...

molka · « **Reply #67 on:** December 01, 2010, 17:29 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 01, 2010, 12:46

My take is that some of those 'forced into' the Agency collection were of a pretty 'average' standard. I don't really follow doings in Agency closely as it's not relevant to me, but most of those I've seen getting in from iStockers have been good, though some seem to me 'average' - but what do I know.
Vetta is all smoke and mirrors. At one time, wrong keywords seemed to be almost a necessity, but it's not so bad now.

Agency simply comes from getty's executive order that istock do not dare to try to sell their pics at dollarbin prices. Vetta is a childish joke, I just browsed into it from the front page advertising that rouge lightbox in it. Wonderful stuff. It's 'artistic level' with that kitschy plastic appearance and infantile oversaturated my little pony colorpalette is almost on level with a village fairs shooting gallery visually. Just almost, not there yet. : ) There were two really cool shots on two pages, but the rest would make anyone not raised in a * barn wanna poke his own eyes out with a couple of crowbars.

lisafx · « **Reply #68 on:** December 01, 2010, 17:50 »

Quote from: SNP on December 01, 2010, 13:31

the best equipment doesn't buy you talent. but if you have talent to begin with, chances are you're going to evolve in terms of your equipment and invest in the improvement of your product. that investment should be apparent.

Absolutely. Good equipment doesn't buy talent, but if you have talent, better equipment makes it a whole lot easier to make your artistic vision a reality.

When I started in stock, using my 10D and hot lights, it was really difficult to create the images I wanted. I had to shoot twice as many pictures as I do now in a given session, because chances were that motion blur or camera shake would ruin many of the shots. I also had to do a lot of work in post processing because the exposures and focus on the 10D and 20D were all over the place, plus it was impossible to get a stark white background out of hot lights. Can't tell you how many hours I spent dodging vast areas of gray out of backgrounds. What a nightmare!

Good equipment has made my life so much easier!!

OTOH, I think a lot of the pricing schemes suggested in this thread are staying too far from the mantra of Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS), which I firmly believe in. I can see a couple if different pricing tiers, but the differences between Agency/Vetta prices are so high in comparison to the rest of the collection, I worry that it confuses buyers. I think the price difference is greater than any perceived added value, in many cases.

nruboc · « **Reply #69 on:** December 01, 2010, 18:07 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 01, 2010, 08:35

Quote from: cclapper on December 01, 2010, 08:04
Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on November 30, 2010, 23:07
snip
Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?

Because it shouldn't matter whether an image was taken with an expensive camera or a cheap camera. If the image is good, it shouldn't matter whether an exclusive took it or a non-exclusive took it. If it is a best-seller and it's making money, THAT's the deciding factor. If the image bombs, then by all means it should be eliminated from the collection. And the determinations about who gets to contribute should be all about the image, not about what camera that person shoots with or whether they are exclusive or not. My image that has sold 1,000 times should be worth just as much as an Agency image that has sold 1,000 times. Just as my image that has sold 0 times should be booted, just like an Agency image with 0 downloads should.

All images should be valued on how many times they have sold. Period. But exclusives aren't going to like that because human nature tends to make people think that they are better than someone else and they will constantly try to find someone who is lower in class than themselves. This is a business, not a human nature study.

I am all for raising contributor's prices but a whole bunch of exclusive contributors think that that they should be treated special just because they decided to go spend $5 or $30k on a camera. This business is about selling images, not about who has the biggest and best toys and who can play the game better.

I don't EVER expect to see my image which has sold over 1000 times move to the back of the sort just because I made a choice to stay independent or because I am not willing to keep spending tons of money on equipment or models or whatever. But that's what a whole bunch of exclusives at IS are on board to see happen. And really, Getty/IS themselves!

Now the game is all about who has what, not about how the images are selling. Like jsnover mentioned earlier in another thread, the eyes aren't on the ball anymore. They are on things like who spends the most money buying equipment or who sucks up to the IS admins the best.

As I mentioned, ultimately it's about the buyers perceived value and photos should be priced accordingly. How that pricing gets established is still up for debate.

For whatever reason you seem to be one of the people with a grudge against all exclusives and paint us all as self consumed. Your words shape your credibility.

There is favoritism everywhere in life. Human nature drives business and it affects everything and everybody, including exclusives. I've had zero Vetta images approved although at least a handful are as good or better than some people who seem to have been born with a Vetta spoon in their mouth.

Well, I gotta hand it to you, with zero Vetta's and then seeing an admin with so many Vettas like this, I commend you on not being "bitter":
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=709242&order=6

cathyslife · « **Reply #70 on:** December 01, 2010, 18:15 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 01, 2010, 08:35

For whatever reason you seem to be one of the people with a grudge against all exclusives and paint us all as self consumed. Your words shape your credibility.

There is favoritism everywhere in life. Human nature drives business and it affects everything and everybody, including exclusives. I've had zero Vetta images approved although at least a handful are as good or better than some people who seem to have been born with a Vetta spoon in their mouth.

Au contrare, Paulie. I shoot with IS exclusives. They are in my CN (or Friends, whichever you prefer). I have NO grudge against exclusives at all. I do have problems with exclusives who think that having a $10k camera means that their image should be worth more just because they have a crown by their name, whether the image is good or not. Again, it's all about the image. If it's good, it will sell...doesn't matter what or who shot it.

You are the person who said "Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?" If the brick wall image sells, what do you care what it was shot with? I might think from your statement that you hold a grudge against people who have best sellers and have spent less money than you on equipment. And I don't really care whether you think I'm credible or not. Too bad you made that remark because on the whole, I really think that most of what you say is spot on.

Quote

There is favoritism everywhere in life. Human nature drives business and it affects everything and everybody, including exclusives.

You are correct sir. That's exactly what I was pointing out about SOME of the exclusives at IS, except I used plain, everyday words. Words that you didn't think credible.

ShadySue · « **Reply #71 on:** December 01, 2010, 18:34 »

Quote from: SNP on December 01, 2010, 12:56

^ that's only partly true and it's an oversimplified argument. again, if it were that easy, none of us would be wasting money on good equipment. there's always someone in any industry who wants to make the same money as other suppliers without the same investment.

And if they succeed, their business model is superior.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #72 on:** December 01, 2010, 18:47 »

Quote from: nruboc on December 01, 2010, 18:07

Well, I gotta hand it to you, with zero Vetta's and then seeing an admin with so many Vettas like this, I commend you on not being "bitter":
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=709242&order=6

For whatever reason, the editors seem to enjoy those simple headshots. I don't get it, but there you go.

nruboc · « **Reply #73 on:** December 01, 2010, 19:23 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 01, 2010, 18:47

Quote from: nruboc on December 01, 2010, 18:07
Well, I gotta hand it to you, with zero Vetta's and then seeing an admin with so many Vettas like this, I commend you on not being "bitter":
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=709242&order=6

For whatever reason, the editors seem to enjoy those simple headshots. I don't get it, but there you go.

It wouldn't have anything to do with said contributor also holding the position title of "Content Administrator" at IStockphoto, would it?

loop · « **Reply #74 on:** December 01, 2010, 19:31 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 01, 2010, 18:47

Quote from: nruboc on December 01, 2010, 18:07
Well, I gotta hand it to you, with zero Vetta's and then seeing an admin with so many Vettas like this, I commend you on not being "bitter":
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=709242&order=6

For whatever reason, the editors seem to enjoy those simple headshots. I don't get it, but there you go.

Another fact is that customers seem to enjoy them as well. They sell from consistently to very well.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Agency collection? oh! boy! (Read 34000 times)

molka

SNP

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

cthoman

ShadySue

SNP

ShadySue

donding

SNP

donding

SNP

donding

SNP

helix7

SNP

molka

molka

lisafx

nruboc

cathyslife

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

nruboc

loop

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors