Thanks,

I took them. I made them.
It is the real Draculsa castle.

Quote from: lagereek on May 14, 2012, 10:35

Well, I am a rude person and YES, I can do nicely without, pimps, pontses and panders, cheapskates, scrooges, warewoolfs and vampires,  well, maybe not vampires, they tend to live forever, suits me fine.

I always thought the ad agencies were the cheapskates because they have the budgets to pay more, but eat at the all you can eat buffet anyway.  

Actually youre right, they can be pretty mean, but even when theyre scrooges, it still results in pretty big dosh. Standard thing with AD-agencies is to make it look as if the photographer is earning a fortune, to the client, that is,  then they include their direction of the shots bill, which is just as high, making the photographer look a real greedy SOB.
Then they go for luch, liquid lunch, getting pissed.

yes it is that castle.
Vlad Draculas castle in Bran, Romania.

it is not.
Around the castle its full of trees and mountains, it is not easy to get a good shot of the castle.
The castle is a tourist attraction, well modernized and over populated. They will sell you anything vampirized and scream at you when you dont buy,.
the castle is small.
much smaller than you think. Like a house.

However, it is the real castle, and that is something.

There were secret pasages, and poles in the backyard....

As a real world example, the last image I bought was a paintbrush with paint on it. It was $3 at Canstock. If it was $50-$100, I would have just got my camera out and some supplies from the closet and taken it myself. But if it was $10-$20, I would have still bought it.

My point is that buyers will pay more for the images up to a point. I don't think there is anything wrong with the agencies increasing prices to find that sweet spot. Most images have way more value than a couple dollars, so there really isn't any reason they should cost that much.

That's what I'm trying to say to the ppl all along, XS should be sold for 5 or 10 cr, but they all start saying you're mad, no one is going to buy an XS for 50 (I guess they multiply what I'm saying 5*10), do macro and stop complaining etc.

That's what I'm trying to say to the ppl all along, XS should be sold for 5 or 10 cr, but they all start saying you're mad, no one is going to buy an XS for 50 (I guess they multiply what I'm saying 5*10), do macro and stop complaining etc.

Sorry, I must have missed the posts where people accused you of being mad. 

This thread is about Istock, and the policies they've implemented that have chased away buyers.  People are responding to that topic, and if you do read the thread, it is indisputable that the frequency and severity of Istock's price rises is chasing away a significant amount of buyers. 

The conversation you keep trying to have, about where prices should be for microstock, and whether or not there should be a joint effort at price fixing in the industry,  is a legitimate issue to discuss, but it wasn't the topic of this thread. 

Maybe it deserves its own thread?

Quote from: wut on May 14, 2012, 12:16

That's what I'm trying to say to the ppl all along, XS should be sold for 5 or 10 cr, but they all start saying you're mad, no one is going to buy an XS for 50 (I guess they multiply what I'm saying 5*10), do macro and stop complaining etc.

Sorry, I must have missed the posts where people accused you of being mad. 

This thread is about Istock, and the policies they've implemented that have chased away buyers.  People are responding to that topic, and if you do read the thread, it is indisputable that the frequency and severity of Istock's price rises is chasing away a significant amount of buyers. 

The conversation you keep trying to have, about where prices should be for microstock, and whether or not there should be a joint effort at price fixing in the industry,  is a legitimate issue to discuss, but it wasn't the topic of this thread. 

Maybe it deserves its own thread?

Read between the lines . I'm not offended though, mad ppl are usually way more interesting

You're right. But I won't open a new thread, just got from a shoot and have a ton of PPing to do

Thank you Lisa for trying to bring the thread back to the topic, which is buyers bailing on istock. It almost turned into a pimping thread there for a minute. 

You all can put down the "types of buyers" that are leaving istock all you want, but the fact is, it has hurt istock. If all istock wants is ad agencies and large companies for buyers, then they are certainly on the right track. Job well done!

Well, yes but I think even worse is the non caring attitude, they or Getty, really dont seem to care what happens, its like a happy go lucky attitude as if everything is fine, no problems in the world, we have our exclusives, vettas, etc.

Quote from: caspixel on May 14, 2012, 09:58

Quote from: lagereek on May 14, 2012, 09:50

You seem to be under the impression that if micro ended, everyone would go out and take their own shots or stop buying, the entire globe would stop buying, right, pics would just fall from the sky and free of charge. I suppose if the entire car-business collapsed, yeah, right, people would ofcourse start building their own cars. I forgot,  silly me.
Nah,  youre dreaming mate, dreaming.

I'm under the impression that people would just go back to what they were doing *before* micro. Remember those times? And I never said I thought pictures would fall from the sky free of charge. That's in your own imagination. Nor do I expect people to start building their own cars. You seem to be the one with reading comprehension problems. Besides, taking a photo is a far cry from building a car. LOL

It really looks caspixel like you think ppl would start using horse carriages again if the car industry went bust...

Actually, that is a good point. They might not go back to horse and carriage, but they might start using more public transportation, car pooling, walking, or biking. In fact, when gas prices go up, that's exactly what they do. So you see, you are right, they will look for alternate methods. Just like people will do if buying photos gets cost prohibitive.

And I still don't understand why those who are bitching the most about "cheap" buyers are submitting to microstock. When you submit to a business model that sells things at low prices you are going to get price sensitive buyers. If you do not want price conscious buyers, submit to macrostock. If you can get accepted that is. NO ONE is forcing you to sell microstock, so you are free at any time to pull your portfolios to avoid having to deal with cheapskates and scrooges. And then you can sit around and dream about submitting to the magical mid-stock agency that is going to materialize and make everything better. LOL

I can understand to a point some of your philosophy, I would also welcome macro, midstock or whatever yoju might call it. The thing is, we are not alone in micro. many years back, yes, micro photographers. Today!  I can assure you, most, even famous photographers, getty RM photographers are supplying micro and all under different pseudos, etc.

Seriously though, you can not think that people would stop buying and use what?  they havent got the time for alternative methods or whatever, they havent got the time to rig or shoot pictures themselves. Thats why they buy! No matter how much governments are rising prices on booze, ciggies, petrol, people are still boozing, smoking and driving.

Do you really think photos are as important to people as fuel? And booze and smoking are addictive, so once people start, they can't quit. The parallel just doesn't work. Sorry. You, of all people, who have been in the industry for so long, should know what people did before microstock. Though I've already explained it countless times. Some *might* start taking photos themselves (after all, that was how iStock started - designers were taking their own photos because they couldn't afford macrostock prices and decided to trade them), others will do without photos and will simply find other solutions to take their place. Photos are just one tool in a designer's toolbox. As for the people who aren't designers - churches, school teachers, bloggers, etc - they may just steal photos or not use them at all.

It's weird how people seem to have forgotten the origins of microstock and the pre-microstock days aren't really ancient history. I bet you can find a lot of designers who would tell you what they did before the advent of inexpensive photos.

Quote from: lagereek on May 14, 2012, 16:02

I can understand to a point some of your philosophy, I would also welcome macro, midstock or whatever yoju might call it. The thing is, we are not alone in micro. many years back, yes, micro photographers. Today!  I can assure you, most, even famous photographers, getty RM photographers are supplying micro and all under different pseudos, etc.

Seriously though, you can not think that people would stop buying and use what?  they havent got the time for alternative methods or whatever, they havent got the time to rig or shoot pictures themselves. Thats why they buy! No matter how much governments are rising prices on booze, ciggies, petrol, people are still boozing, smoking and driving.

Do you really think photos are as important to people as fuel? And booze and smoking are addictive, so once people start, they can't quit. The parallel just doesn't work. Sorry. You, of all people, who have been in the industry for so long, should know what people did before microstock. Though I've already explained it countless times. Some *might* start taking photos themselves (after all, that was how iStock started - designers were taking their own photos because they couldn't afford macrostock prices and decided to trade them), others will do without photos and will simply find other solutions to take their place. Photos are just one tool in a designer's toolbox. As for the people who aren't designers - churches, school teachers, bloggers, etc - they may just steal photos or not use them at all.

It's weird how people seem to have forgotten the origins of microstock and the pre-microstock days aren't really ancient history. I bet you can find a lot of designers who would tell you what they did before the advent of inexpensive photos.

In that case, before the invention of the picture, (the  photograph)  what did businesses use for promotion, advertising, etc, ?