MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Art Film Stock  (Read 19092 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 23, 2011, 20:01 »
0
We are new royalty free stock site. Our idea is to focus on files which are a bit more than normal typical stock files.  Before you continue reading, I'd like you to have "open mind". Because we're a bit different.

We pay 50% of royalties to our artists from day one. There are no lockdowns, artists can delete their own images or portfolios as they wish. There's standard 30-days notice but if someone really wants to get out, were not going to keep anyone waiting. We're pretty fair comparing to other stock agencies.

We are especially looking for files in following categories:

Performing Arts
Traditional Arts
Ethnic & People of the World (Especially hispanic people)
Planet Earth
Cinema
Sports
Medical Science
Music
Aviation

We do accept all kinds of files, also renders, and stereoscopic images, but we are pretty picky on typical business photos, or photos that are too common.

We curate files based on their artistic value and technical execution.

You may call us crazy by not accepting all business handshake photos. We figure that people wanting typical business images are likely buying it from iStock.

In a nutshell, we want your most unique images.

http://www.artfilmstock.com

Here's our Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/artfilmstock


« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2011, 02:43 »
0
The upload process is not convenient for multiple uploads because you are required to choose a category before uploading. I suggest you make Categories optional. Cheers.

« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2011, 03:12 »
0
Thank you for joining our site! We've received a lot of feedback about the category issue. I understand .. We are updating the upload engine and see if we can improve the usability in this aspect.

« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2011, 06:09 »
0
Thank you for joining our site! We've received a lot of feedback about the category issue. I understand .. We are updating the upload engine and see if we can improve the usability in this aspect.

If you want to receive more uploads, you will definitely have to improve this feature. I will stay tuned.

« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2011, 12:54 »
0
We now offer FTP for promising contributors. FTP doesn't involve the category selection.
Our site pulls IPTC info from the jpg files.

In best cases, all that contributor needs to do is upload via FTP and they're done. Of course they can return to their profile to make tweaks to keywords, description.

« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2011, 17:34 »
0
We now offer FTP for promising contributors. FTP doesn't involve the category selection.
Our site pulls IPTC info from the jpg files.

In best cases, all that contributor needs to do is upload via FTP and they're done. Of course they can return to their profile to make tweaks to keywords, description.

That's great news. Where do I find the FTP info on the site?

« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2011, 21:58 »
0
We are contacting the contributors directly.

« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2011, 22:03 »
0
I've sent you email  :)

« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2011, 03:19 »
0
When photos include IPTC metadata we also accept submissions by optical discs.

« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2011, 09:40 »
0
If pictures have metadata FTP or disk submissions do not require any further work from the contributor. Our staff will select the categories and make sure files get maximum exposure.

So all you need to do is to throw the files to FTP server or mail the disk, and we'll take care of the rest.

« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2011, 14:04 »
0
Hi!

I read that in the about us page of your site:
Quote
Our site is all about what we call "artistic curation". We hand pick the files to our collection and we focus on artistic expression and value. We intend to be your "Unique Royalty Free Library" where you can get the files you can't find anywhere else. Unique files, files which are a bit more than stock photos.


Then, you check the most popular and downloaded files on your site, and it's:
http://www.artfilmstock.com/photo/white-cat-in-enoshima.html

I guess art is everywhere ;).

Where is your website located and where do you target your clients? It clearly shows that your clients who buys image are looking for something other than traditional stock photos?

Thanks.

« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2011, 19:03 »
0
what is your pricing for buyers? i coulldnt find it on the site

« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2011, 21:16 »
0
Morphart - that cat has a free download button.

« Reply #13 on: August 17, 2011, 00:29 »
0
what is your pricing for buyers? i coulldnt find it on the site

1 credit = 1 dollar (payout to artist is not any different)


Small        1 Credits   
Medium      5 Credits   
Large      8 Credits   
X Large      10 Credits   
Original        15 Credits   

« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2011, 00:31 »
0
We are based in Japan.

m@m

« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2011, 09:58 »
0
How much commission do you need accumulated before you can request a payout?...I requested this information from the site's support a couple of days ago with no answer yet... ???
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 10:21 by m@m »

« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2011, 10:48 »
0
We actually replied to you. Hmm. strange.

It's 50 dollars.

m@m

« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2011, 10:54 »
0
Yeah, that is strange, I never received any correspondence from you guys... ???
Anyhow, thanks for the info.

« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2011, 15:42 »
0
Gosh.. that was mail client glitch.. Sorry to keep you waiting.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 15:44 by artfilmstock »

m@m

« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2011, 16:15 »
0
Isn't $50 kind of high for a starting stock site, one with only a hand full of contributors and images?... IMO, even though I personally don't know the amount of buyers you guys can generate,(in this new market format you're creating) that amount of money sounds kind of unrealistic for a new agency, don't you think?...sounds to me that it would take years for anyone to reach payout there, if ever... Not good news. ;)
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 16:39 by m@m »

« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2011, 16:47 »
0

1 credit = 1 dollar (payout to artist is not any different)

Small        1 Credits   
Medium      5 Credits   
Large      8 Credits   
X Large      10 Credits   
Original        15 Credits   

Not attractive for me. On Pond5 I price most of my clips at 50 USD or 70 USD.  And they do sell well enough.
I don't want to cannibalize my sales there.
Yawn... Please wake me up when I can earn money on your site.
Sayōnara :)

« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2011, 16:58 »
0
Hey those are for photos not videos.

« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2011, 17:01 »
0
Isn't $50 kind of high for a starting stock site, one with only a hand full of contributors and images?... IMO, even though I personally don't know the amount of buyers you guys can generate,(in this new market format you're creating) that amount of money sounds kind of unrealistic for a new agency, don't you think?...sounds to me that it would take years for anyone to reach payout there, if ever... Not good news. ;)

I understand. You're right. We took this into consideration and we now start making payments at $25. We can even do at 10 if artist so desire. Just let us know your pay point and we'll take care of it.

« Reply #23 on: August 17, 2011, 17:03 »
0

1 credit = 1 dollar (payout to artist is not any different)

Small        1 Credits   
Medium      5 Credits   
Large      8 Credits   
X Large      10 Credits   
Original        15 Credits   


Not attractive for me. On Pond5 I price most of my clips at 50 USD or 70 USD.  And they do sell well enough.
I don't want to cannibalize my sales there.
Yawn... Please wake me up when I can earn money on your site.
Sayōnara :)


In this video you can see the standard video pricing:
http://www.artfilmstock.com/video/9452.html

But the thing is that we're not 100% online with video yet.

« Reply #24 on: August 17, 2011, 17:11 »
0
Hey those are for photos not videos.

Ah, ok, thanks for waking me up :) I just saw "film" in the site name and assumed you deal with videos only, didn't read the whole thread.
Footage prices are ok, images as well. I will have a look at your site when I have some more time and will consider signing up.
Cheers :)

m@m

« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2011, 19:33 »
0
Isn't $50 kind of high for a starting stock site, one with only a hand full of contributors and images?... IMO, even though I personally don't know the amount of buyers you guys can generate,(in this new market format you're creating) that amount of money sounds kind of unrealistic for a new agency, don't you think?...sounds to me that it would take years for anyone to reach payout there, if ever... Not good news. ;)

I understand. You're right. We took this into consideration and we now start making payments at $25. We can even do at 10 if artist so desire. Just let us know your pay point and we'll take care of it.

Thank you Jaakko.
The fact that a contributor can request a payout with such flexibility may be a plus for attracting some more contributors to join Art Film Stock...now all you need are the buyers...LOL ;D...good luck on your venture guys.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 19:40 by m@m »

« Reply #26 on: August 18, 2011, 06:55 »
0
Sure!

Yes indeed, we are seeing surge of new contributors now.
I want to say personal thanks to everyone who has joined. We really appreciate your time and effort to upload to our site.

We will do our best to advertise your files so that they will get maximum exposure.

m@m

« Reply #27 on: August 18, 2011, 08:03 »
0
Great!...BTW I've also joined the site and have uploaded some photos already, and will keep on doing so as the site develops and sales start coming in... ;)

« Reply #28 on: August 18, 2011, 08:25 »
0
Thank you!

ShadySue

« Reply #29 on: August 18, 2011, 08:34 »
0
I just looked at this site out of curiosity.
Do you require model/property releases? Are you selling for commercial use?
I ask because I found a photo of a horse race where the colours/patterns of the silks can be clearly seen and I'm well impressed if the photographer managed to get property releases from all the owners and model releases from all the jockeys. I guess the tog might have changed the colours of the silks, but the particular pic I'm talking about would need model releases on other sites nowadays.
The 'related items' are hilariously random.  :D
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 08:36 by ShadySue »

« Reply #30 on: August 18, 2011, 14:49 »
0
We do require releases.

What comes to horse race thing, yeah, we are having ongoing debate about this. Same thing goes for any kind of sail ships or nautical vessels which design is very recognizable.

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #31 on: August 19, 2011, 05:53 »
0
Just to make sure I understand your USP (Unique Selling Proposition):  You sell stock imagery that's decidedly more artistic than what's generally available on the big 4, am I correct?  If so, then the inspection process would even more subjective, would it not?  I mean, how would one recognize an image that's more "artistic?"  What would it look like?  What inspection criteria would be applied?  And does it mean that you don't accept an image which would be accepted on the big 4 sites?  Please understand that I'm not trying to be difficult - just trying to clarify.  I don't think I would be a good match for the site because I'm all about furthering my technical knowledge and abilities while creating commercial imagery that appeals to the broadest clientele possible.  If that means an image of shaking hands that's evenly lit and sharply focused, I'm more than happy to do it.  I'm not the stereotypical artist with a superior attitude; neither do I feel like I have to prove anything to anyone.  I do have to balance my creative itch with my empty stomach!   :P

« Reply #32 on: August 19, 2011, 17:56 »
0
How do I upload videos?

Also I have to mention, you may want to upgrade the upload system, including a kind of unfinished files section. It's just boring to wait every 10-20Mb file to upload and then categorize, etc.

Also I have the same doubts as csproductions, how do I decide if an image it's enough artsy for you. Technically speaking there are some exact things, like size, noise level, subject, cropping/composition, keywords. But if I find art an old, dusty paraffin lamp, or a very old man's portrait, not all of us will find attractive or good photo. Except uploading 100 files and watching the rejections, there are some other fixed points?
What about video content?

« Reply #33 on: August 20, 2011, 22:36 »
0
Just to make sure I understand your USP (Unique Selling Proposition):  You sell stock imagery that's decidedly more artistic than what's generally available on the big 4, am I correct?  If so, then the inspection process would even more subjective, would it not?  I mean, how would one recognize an image that's more "artistic?"  What would it look like?  What inspection criteria would be applied?  And does it mean that you don't accept an image which would be accepted on the big 4 sites?  Please understand that I'm not trying to be difficult - just trying to clarify.  I don't think I would be a good match for the site because I'm all about furthering my technical knowledge and abilities while creating commercial imagery that appeals to the broadest clientele possible.  If that means an image of shaking hands that's evenly lit and sharply focused, I'm more than happy to do it.  I'm not the stereotypical artist with a superior attitude; neither do I feel like I have to prove anything to anyone.  I do have to balance my creative itch with my empty stomach!   :P


Carl, thank you for reply. Yes, that's right. But truth is that we do have to get some volume and we are currently accepting even these what we call "safe images" which mean more mainstream things (as long as they are not handshakes!). Sure, we understand that we need that kind of weight to get moving. And if the photos are well took, I can't see why we should reject them. We highlight best (and most artistic) of these in a kind of spotlight thing and they form the backbone of our site.

For example, we have stuff like this:
http://www.artfilmstock.com/photo/cabin-boy.html
and
http://www.artfilmstock.com/photo/woman-shooting-photo.html

We'd love to have these kind of images more.

Also what we do differently from others is that we understand the difference between film grain and sensor noise. What that means is that we really embrace film photos and we think grain is part of the visual delight of a film image.  So you don't have to worry to get obscure noise rejection when you upload that perfect film image which you've worked super hard with.

In any case, you are more than welcome aboard if you like.

« Reply #34 on: August 20, 2011, 22:44 »
0
How do I upload videos?

Also I have to mention, you may want to upgrade the upload system, including a kind of unfinished files section. It's just boring to wait every 10-20Mb file to upload and then categorize, etc.

Also I have the same doubts as csproductions, how do I decide if an image it's enough artsy for you. Technically speaking there are some exact things, like size, noise level, subject, cropping/composition, keywords. But if I find art an old, dusty paraffin lamp, or a very old man's portrait, not all of us will find attractive or good photo. Except uploading 100 files and watching the rejections, there are some other fixed points?
What about video content?


Framing is first we look at and all the basic rules of photography apply there and you know that I'm sure. We are not very big fan of isolated objects on white background although we accept some of those if they are unique.

For example this one:
http://www.artfilmstock.com/photo/10333.html

The subject is just a tomato but this is interesting because it looks also.. hmm.. all kinds of things! The photographer discovered unique way of portraying a tomato, and it works.

We have accepted over 90% of submitted images and we continue doing so. Please try us.

We are working hard with the upload system. If you don't want to mess with the categories, just put some there and inspectors will take care of it. No worries.

« Reply #35 on: August 20, 2011, 23:01 »
0
How do I upload videos?

We're still working with video system. We let you know as soon as we start to accept them.

« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2011, 17:42 »
0
Unable to connect

Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at www.artfilmstock.com.

« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2011, 22:48 »
0
We had a server issue. Now we're up again.

« Reply #38 on: August 24, 2011, 04:56 »
0
We are currently working with a major update for the site. Mainly this means that we're changing into a new platform that is much more flexible. I tested the new java uploader which allows files to be dropped to it, imports metadata automatically and works much faster than the current one. This should beat FTP by all means.

I really want to say personal thanks for all of you who have taken time to send us feedback of the site. We are listening each of your comments and we take them into careful consideration.
We will announce timetable when this major update will go live.

« Reply #39 on: August 24, 2011, 08:26 »
0
...This should beat FTP by all means.

In my opinion no browser source uploader beats FTP. FTP is fast, reliable and not prone to crash, and can easily pause and resume download.

Will give you JAVA uploader a try but I am not sure a browser uploader will as easily support a 6 gig of files upload as FTP would?

Thanks for listening to the comments, it can only draw more contributors to your site!

« Reply #40 on: August 25, 2011, 03:45 »
0
We are contacting the contributors directly.

Please contact me also, I want a ftp account. Do you sell only jpeg illustrations, or I can upload vectors also?

Thank you

« Reply #41 on: August 25, 2011, 08:38 »
0
No imprint, no physical address, no telephone number?

« Reply #42 on: August 27, 2011, 01:08 »
0
We are contacting the contributors directly.

Please contact me also, I want a ftp account. Do you sell only jpeg illustrations, or I can upload vectors also?

Thank you

Sure, we will contact you shortly. Our team is now moving all files to the new system.
We plan to go live next week with it. Can we ask you to wait until then?

« Reply #43 on: August 27, 2011, 10:07 »
0
>>No imprint, no physical address, no telephone number?

This is from Domain Tools:
---
.. admin edit:
  contact details removed as they were the private address of the owner.  They have since updated the details on their WHOis data

---
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 04:24 by leaf »

« Reply #44 on: August 30, 2011, 16:47 »
0
Our new site is live now. Thank you for all your positive feedback.
http://www.artfilmstock.com

Please, welcome to the site!

« Reply #45 on: August 31, 2011, 10:31 »
0
We are contacting the contributors directly.

Please contact me also, I want a ftp account. Do you sell only jpeg illustrations, or I can upload vectors also?

Thank you

Sure, we will contact you shortly. Our team is now moving all files to the new system.
We plan to go live next week with it. Can we ask you to wait until then?

Sure, I'll wait. No problem for me.

« Reply #46 on: September 01, 2011, 08:18 »
0
I sent you the FTP info by email.

« Reply #47 on: September 01, 2011, 19:47 »
0
We are starting a new collection in our site. In lack for a fancier name (Vetta?) we are just going to call it Exclusive Collection for now.

Here is the idea: We accept most unique and artistic and strange images, especially full size film scans that can be very large in size. We hand pick these. Only thing we require from artist is individual frame exclusivity. We don't require photographer exclusivity.

We only sell one size, the original size, and each of images will cost $300 which artist gets half from.

These images will get priority in our site over the standard royalty free images.

In a nutshell, this is our version of Rights Managed files.

If you are interested, please sign up on the site and submit your work to our site. Then shoot us email at: support@artfilmstock.com with subject field "Exclusive Collection" and our editors will review your images.

« Reply #48 on: September 02, 2011, 04:08 »
0
I like the idea of exclusive images but I see two big problems.  Lots of people think they can take 2 fairly similar photos and have one as exclusive and the other non-exclusive.  I think it will be hard to police this, how are you going to stop this happening?

Perhaps the bigger problem is building up a big enough exclusive images collection on a new site that isn't going to have many sales yet.  I really think you would have to pay for people to lock in their images exclusively for 1 year.  It would have to be at least $5 an image to make me think about it.

« Reply #49 on: September 02, 2011, 09:36 »
0
I'm in. I have, for many years now, seen the more or less constant reduction in royalties from most of the microstock agencies. The upload process at artfilmstock has been simplified and the owner seems to be listening, and acting upon, contributor recommendations. Just because this agency is new is hardly reason for me to put them aside - at one time, albeit a very very long time ago, I took my first photograph, I was new.

I have no direct control over this ventures success but I will at least support them as well as I can - and, even though it will obviously take quite some time, a single $300.00 sale (and even 50% of it) will beat most of the 'low tier' agencies that currently have my images.

Image exclusivity is acceptable to justify the price for the buyer - all my images that are LCV because I took too much 'artisric liberty' in their creation for RF will now find a home - at least I hope   :)

« Reply #50 on: September 02, 2011, 15:32 »
0
I like the idea of exclusive images but I see two big problems.  Lots of people think they can take 2 fairly similar photos and have one as exclusive and the other non-exclusive.  I think it will be hard to police this, how are you going to stop this happening?

There's going to be contract and yes we have some mechanisms we can use to detect such thing.

Fundamentally however, and what we've seen so far, is that most artists are honest creators. We start with that thought.

« Reply #51 on: September 02, 2011, 17:05 »
0
To specify what I wrote earlier about "individual frame exclusivity", it should be "photo series exclusivity" or something along that line. So we are going to require that all photos from a certain photo shoot with same setup, model, etc. need to be exclusive. Of course artist can choose what to upload.

Anyway thank you for your suggestions.

« Reply #52 on: September 03, 2011, 05:07 »
0
Just a question:
Do you planning putting advertisements somewhere to promote your site???
As you're in Japan, what is your selling strategy in your country???
I see you're promoting on facebook, that's ok for fun, but facebook isn't a professional media!!!
regards

« Reply #53 on: September 03, 2011, 08:40 »
0
Of course. We have had trial run of ads in various medias, banner ads, and google adwords. We are now planning something bigger and are preparing for it by analyzing the data we've got.

Let me just say, we are taking this really seriously.

« Reply #54 on: September 03, 2011, 09:57 »
0
The problem is going to be getting enough images to make the buyers interested.  I don't see any point in advertising when you have a tiny collection, that's a waste of money.  I would like to see a site get past this problem but if we aren't paid to upload, what's our incentive?  I like giving new sites a chance but there's already so many selling the same stuff.

I remember albumo promised a big marketing campaign and it never happened.  Others have spent money on marketing but they can't offer as good a collection as the big sites.  They just don't get enough buyers to make it worth us uploading our portfolios.  Why would buyers move?  I hope you can be different to all the failed sites of the past few years but you will have to come up with a way to avoid the problems they have all encountered.

« Reply #55 on: September 03, 2011, 18:40 »
0
The problem is going to be getting enough images to make the buyers interested.  I don't see any point in advertising when you have a tiny collection, that's a waste of money.  I would like to see a site get past this problem but if we aren't paid to upload, what's our incentive?  I like giving new sites a chance but there's already so many selling the same stuff.

Let me say again, this isn't "hobby project" for us.

We are going to do "Featured Photographers" thing soon. The idea is to promote photographers works and also help them in their own career, for example wedding photographer, sports or studio photographers. And we are going to get some serious traffic to their pages. If someone wants, we're happy to interview him.

We are well aware the most microstock photographers are probably not interested about such thing and prefer to remain anonymous. That's ok. But then, we are NOT just another microstock agency.

Everything we do is based on the thought that we are not selling the same stuff. We are all about unique shots with artistic twist, and we don't especially care about "micro masses" of isolated objects, ordinary smiling people, etc. Sure at the point we do accept such to our RF collection and we sell them, but our featured photos or exclusive collection is all what we are about. That's the core of our thinking. Our niche is art that goes into photos.

We know people who want to get that business handshake shot, he can go to iStockphoto and then the problem is solved.

If person wants well executed, artistic photo and the original large film scan of it (what he can use for big print advertisement, for example), he can come to us. We're going to have tons of these.

We didn't put "art" to our name just for decoration. That's what we're all about.

« Reply #56 on: September 04, 2011, 02:45 »
0
I hope your strategy works and I will be watching to see how you differentiate the site.  We really need sites that do things differently.  Photocase seem to be doing a good job selling more artistic images, so there might be a market for art in stock.  Many people have said that art and stock don't mix but there is some art selling well with the big sites.

« Reply #57 on: September 08, 2011, 04:21 »
0
I hope your strategy works and I will be watching to see how you differentiate the site.  We really need sites that do things differently.  Photocase seem to be doing a good job selling more artistic images, so there might be a market for art in stock.  Many people have said that art and stock don't mix but there is some art selling well with the big sites.

Thank you for your comment. I also want to say thanks for your uploads. You have great technical execution and skill.

« Reply #58 on: September 08, 2011, 04:26 »
0
We have released our Spotlight Blog.
http://www.artfilmstock.com/spotlight/
In this blog we feature our contributors and their works. We will also feature some insider tips for stock photography.

« Reply #59 on: September 11, 2011, 22:57 »
0
We are now accepting editorial images.
Only exceptions are sports or famous people, and sensation photos just after some big accident.

« Reply #60 on: October 01, 2011, 01:08 »
0
Starting from today, we are only accepting and selling monochrome images. So that's our niche.

It's much easier to market our site now that we have a very concrete / visible difference to other stock sites, we're monochrome! I know you probably think that now we're totally lost our marbles and that might be so.

But we think this will work for us and our contributors, since customers are likely to notice our new theme, and it's pretty good thing.

We're sorry for those whose (non-monochrome) images got rejected/deleted, but we welcome you to do some monochrome mixing in your best shots and reupload if you so choose.

« Reply #61 on: October 01, 2011, 01:19 »
0
What?

« Reply #62 on: October 01, 2011, 02:22 »
0
Wow, that has to be the biggest risk I have ever seen a site take.  You would be much better off converting all colour images to monochrome and giving the buyers a choice.  The monochrome market is going to be tiny in comparison to the colour market.  You might have a nice niche but I think it will be really hard to get enough content.  Are contributors really going to upload to a new site that only accepts monochrome?  You're also going to annoy the people that have spent time uploading colour images so far, luckily I only uploaded a few but if I had spent hours uploading, this would be really frustrating.

« Reply #63 on: October 01, 2011, 06:44 »
0
!!!!!!!!!
Ok, so bye!!! I've sent you 350 pictures in the beginning!!! And now i have a blank portfolio!!!
Good bye and good luck, i will look how to disabling my account.

« Reply #64 on: October 01, 2011, 06:55 »
0
That's interesting. I wonder how many people have any idea about how to convert digital to B&W. It's not just about desaturating. Even Nik software's Silver Efex Pro program doesn't seem to get the same tonal range that a good B&W neg will provide, so maybe you should be looking at going the whole way and stipulating film only.

Time to dig the Tri-X out of the freezer?

« Reply #65 on: October 01, 2011, 09:14 »
0
Wow, that has to be the biggest risk I have ever seen a site take.  You would be much better off converting all colour images to monochrome and giving the buyers a choice.  The monochrome market is going to be tiny in comparison to the colour market. 

Surely we can't touch or convert the original images uploaded by our artists, that just wouldn't be right. We leave that choice for our artists.

The market might be tiny in comparison, but even if we can get to 1% we're pretty fine with that.

It's better to have that 1% of 100% than nothing.
Plus, there's going to be much less competition between our artists when the amount of images stay lower.

« Reply #66 on: October 01, 2011, 09:16 »
0
That's interesting. I wonder how many people have any idea about how to convert digital to B&W. It's not just about desaturating. Even Nik software's Silver Efex Pro program doesn't seem to get the same tonal range that a good B&W neg will provide, so maybe you should be looking at going the whole way and stipulating film only.

Time to dig the Tri-X out of the freezer?

Exactly, and that's why we're going to educate our artists about B&W conversion, tone mixing, etc.

Tri-X sounds great, dig (and scan!) them by all means. We also support very high resolution film scans, higher than our competitors.

« Reply #67 on: October 01, 2011, 09:36 »
0
Do you have a market for this? It's not going to fly with any traditional design house or publisher, you would really need to be developing the market for print sales and there are precious few of those around.

The stuff I've seen left on your site isn't going to win any awards, either.

That said, it's new and different so I'll give you a bit of a chance. Who knows, it might work. Japan may be more amenable to monochrome images than the US market.

« Reply #68 on: October 05, 2011, 06:38 »
0
I ,almost, don't mind your change of heart as I had only uploaded a few images to you.  BUT, what I do mind is no warning.  Suddenly I can't log in and my email address is unknown to your system.  i want to know that my images have been deleted and an explaniation of why my account no longer exists.
I sent you a site mail regarding this, hopefully I'll hear back soon.

« Reply #69 on: October 17, 2011, 19:24 »
0
It's a little bit off-topic this B&W stock-art thing...
I must say, I was wondering where the heck my files were gone. Did you developed a newsletter system? I didn't received anything about the changes. Anyway...
I'm sorry about the time selecting "artsy" images, managing and uploading them. Now I see my 5 most unusable files in the gallery.

Nowadays it's a big challenge to sell the stock images with the most potential, not narrowing down the collection to art-like stock... In top of that, the B&W thing narrows down the collection beyond any usability(?) Please tell me, I'm wrong...

« Reply #70 on: October 18, 2011, 17:17 »
0
I can't help wondering if people have simply being scammed into handing over full rez files.

« Reply #71 on: October 18, 2011, 17:23 »
0
^^^Not likely, they wouldn't put people off uploading if it was a scam.  I would think switching to a black and white site is going to cut their uploads by at least 99%.

« Reply #72 on: October 18, 2011, 17:26 »
0
True, but they pretty much seem to have abandoned the site. Strange.

« Reply #73 on: October 19, 2011, 00:28 »
0
And now i have a blank portfolio!!!
You're still on their front page as featured photographer. :-\ Maybe they should rebrand the site as Flying Dutchman (for the culturally differently-abled : an unmanned ship roaming the oceans).

« Reply #74 on: October 20, 2011, 07:17 »
0
I can't help wondering if people have simply being scammed into handing over full rez files.

Sorry, I have to step in here. The owner advertised on my blog briefly. I believe that the guy is genuine about setting up a niche market place. He was/is a successful footage contributor at a couple of sites we all know. I'm more inclined to believe people who themselves are contributors and not simply businessmen who come in to the market wanting to grab some of the microstock pie. I'm sure he's been on a steep learning curve, as I don't imagine it is easy to set up a microstock site, but a lot of the microstock sites were in the same position when they started. He decided to take a different direction and if that was what he determined was the best direction, it was better he did it as soon as he did instead of a waiting a year or 2. We may not agree with this decision, but I'm sure the images he attained for his previous concept have been deleted.  
« Last Edit: October 20, 2011, 08:51 by Microstock Posts »

« Reply #75 on: October 20, 2011, 07:57 »
0
It's a bit strange that there are so few images on the site now and no sign of him posting here.  Perhaps he just gave up on the idea?  I doubt many people are going to upload just B&W, especially after having their previous images removed.  The name isn't that good for a B&W only site, something like blackandwhitestock.com would be better

« Reply #76 on: October 22, 2011, 01:23 »
0
We are sorry. But as of October 22, 2011, we are out of business.

We want to say special thanks for our artists who took their time to upload images to Art Film Stock and our partners and colleagues all over the world.

We are deeply sorry that we wasted your time. We really are. It aches my heart to see how many of you uploaded GREAT photos and took a lot of time to point us the bugs in the site, and yet getting no sales.

The reasons for this are various, economical situation is one thing and market is another.
But honestly we lack resources as well as the necessary business network to make this thing tick.

So we thought it's better to raise our hands at this point, before we waste more of your time.

It was honor to collaborate with you and I want to say personally thanks for you.

We have securely deleted all your photos and personal data.

If you have any questions or concerns contact me personally by DM.

« Reply #77 on: October 22, 2011, 02:44 »
0
I think that's a sensible decision.  It's too late for sites to enter this market with a similar strategy to the other sites.  B&W only was too radical and I really couldn't see it working.

Thanks for trying, I wish you better luck with your next business venture and I hope you have learned some valuable lessons from this one.

« Reply #78 on: October 22, 2011, 07:37 »
0
quite sad, I havent upload much I guess but I do remember finding some bugs but yes it havent picked up, wish you the best

RacePhoto

« Reply #79 on: October 23, 2011, 10:50 »
0
Better to have tried and decided to drop the project than never to have tried at all!

In hindsight it may have been a difficult niche market and to add to that what Shapshot wrote, the photo market is over-saturated.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2011, 10:53 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #80 on: October 23, 2011, 13:40 »
0
Perhaps the lesson for the future is to establish a market first, then go global later.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #81 on: October 28, 2011, 04:48 »
0
I'm reading this topic for the first time now, and I almost choked on my breakfast of laughter. The sudden decision to jump into the monochrome "niche" market has to be one of the most horrible business decisions ever. You'd effectively scare away 99% of your audience, you'd get less uploads, less money, less everything, only for some images that could be bought in color and then converted to b/w!

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #82 on: October 28, 2011, 04:50 »
0
Better to have tried and decided to drop the project than never to have tried at all!

Not if you waste time and resources of contributors, not knowing what you're doing.

« Reply #83 on: October 28, 2011, 18:32 »
0
Better to have tried and decided to drop the project than never to have tried at all!

Not if you waste time and resources of contributors, not knowing what you're doing.

I am sure they have lost more money than you :)

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #84 on: October 29, 2011, 07:46 »
0
Better to have tried and decided to drop the project than never to have tried at all!

Not if you waste time and resources of contributors, not knowing what you're doing.

I am sure they have lost more money than you :)

That's completely irrelevant.

Besides, I haven't uploaded anything, I was just speaking about those who did.

« Reply #85 on: October 31, 2011, 18:25 »
0
 
Better to have tried and decided to drop the project than never to have tried at all!

Not if you waste time and resources of contributors, not knowing what you're doing.

 i uploaded to artfilm and have no regrets - i knew the chances for succes were small, but they made it simple to submit, so i gave them a try.  i probably lost about 1/2 hr of my time in total.   


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2565 Views
Last post October 10, 2010, 21:10
by RacePhoto
15 Replies
5485 Views
Last post June 28, 2016, 03:43
by Phadrea
13 Replies
3086 Views
Last post November 23, 2016, 09:03
by thepokergod
0 Replies
920 Views
Last post February 07, 2017, 11:10
by dragonblade
6 Replies
1711 Views
Last post September 20, 2017, 09:29
by epixx

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results