|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - SNP
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... 54
1001
« on: December 13, 2010, 19:45 »
I think they key reason for not accepting celebrities and sports editorial on iStock is that Getty already does this so well, they don't see any reason to compete with themselves on iStock. where I think iStock editorial will compete is timeless editorial like travel backgrounds, landmarks etc./ general protests etc., product and company backgrounds for new items/papers/mags...images that I see coming from shutterstock right now in a lot of major papers.
Istockphoto could lose out badly to Shutterstock if they're not going to compete those images at a similar price point. SS does a lot to help their contributors gain access to events with their 'Red Carpet' programme including press passes, etc.
I agree. they should be competing in these areas too. obviously they feel there would be cannibalization. I still think there's plenty of room for the type of editorial iStock will be offering. I'm certain they'll truck in a sh*tload of Getty images too. but I'm still very excited to have an editorial avenue as an exclusive.
1002
« on: December 13, 2010, 19:41 »
a bit off topic, but I'm amazed how many photographers consider natural light images to be more amateur. harnessing and using natural light effectively, IMO, is one of the hallmarks of some of the world's best photographers. I absolutely love shooting in natural light. properly.
That's because most shooters I see that claim "natural light", natural light means "I can't afford strobes or reflectors or anything, so I go outside and hope for a cloudy day"...
yeah, I guess. I'm talking about people who have lights/strobes etc., and CHOOSE to shoot with natural light, really beautifully :-)
1003
« on: December 13, 2010, 19:39 »
People, it's the after Thankgiving rundown till Xmas. You're probably going to have really slow sales the last week of December  .
yes. and the new search has things a little bonkers right now, but that's not widely reported. some contributors I know have basically normal sales. mine are down. week before Christmas, so I'm just not going to worry about it.
1004
« on: December 13, 2010, 17:47 »
I think they key reason for not accepting celebrities and sports editorial on iStock is that Getty already does this so well, they don't see any reason to compete with themselves on iStock. where I think iStock editorial will compete is timeless editorial like travel backgrounds, landmarks etc./ general protests etc., product and company backgrounds for new items/papers/mags...images that I see coming from shutterstock right now in a lot of major papers.
1005
« on: December 13, 2010, 17:27 »
a bit off topic, but I'm amazed how many photographers consider natural light images to be more amateur. harnessing and using natural light effectively, IMO, is one of the hallmarks of some of the world's best photographers. I absolutely love shooting in natural light. properly.
1006
« on: December 11, 2010, 14:03 »
I really didn't think they were required to even be photographers at Sears/Walmart/etc. I've never actually gone to one of those portrait studios but I know someone who worked at one and they were just a regular cashier that was pulled into the photo studio.
1007
« on: December 10, 2010, 16:57 »
I'm sure we're all quite different than who we are in forums.
Who I am online is who I am offline. Though offline (or online but off-forum) the language is a lot more colorful and "unladylike". Shocker.
I guess what I mean is it's impossible to come across the way you do in person online. without visual cues and facial expressions etc. and tone is misconstrued all the time. I know whenever I meet istockers in person, we always laugh about how different we are in person. it's hard to be who you are on one forum that is censored and another that has close to no rules. too extreme in either case to just "be" who you are.
Trust me (or don't). I've mastered the art 
It's all in saying what you mean and meaning what you say, and saying it clearly, as close to the way you'd say it in person. Or, in other words, taking care in what and how you write. You're a writer, right? Being yourself online should be easy-peasy for you.
I am who I am. you'll just have to meet me in person or not :-) forums/email aren't good media when it comes to emotion no matter how careful you are or aren't. have a nice weekend all...peace
1008
« on: December 10, 2010, 14:11 »
I'm sure we're all quite different than who we are in forums.
Who I am online is who I am offline. Though offline (or online but off-forum) the language is a lot more colorful and "unladylike". Shocker.
I guess what I mean is it's impossible to come across the way you do in person online. without visual cues and facial expressions etc. and tone is misconstrued all the time. I know whenever I meet istockers in person, we always laugh about how different we are in person. it's hard to be who you are on one forum that is censored and another that has close to no rules. too extreme in either case to just "be" who you are.
1009
« on: December 10, 2010, 14:06 »
^ yes, I actually read her blog already. there are some others too, but I'm sure you know them already.
Sean: I almost used you as an example. but decided against it. you're a quiet and super nice guy by all accounts. despite your staunch forum 'persona'...;-)
1010
« on: December 10, 2010, 13:55 »
agreed. I tend to be very blunt. I figure it's understood that I don't mean anything personal. in forums you don't have the benefit of seeing how something you've said makes someone feel. and tone is often misconstrued. I'm sure we're all quite different than who we are in forums. anyhow, for now my income justifies exclusivity. too bad you can't do an accurate projection on how you would do if you were to go independent, without any risk. but then again, where's the adventure in that?
1011
« on: December 10, 2010, 13:42 »
I recoil for a while after a good smackdown. I'm opinionated but non-confrontational. figure that out!!! I just read until something pops up that I have an opinion about.
1012
« on: December 10, 2010, 13:38 »
four years! you'd think I would have acclimated.... 
1013
« on: December 10, 2010, 13:29 »
I'd love to see concrete numbers to support that, not just anecdotes. my husband is so worried I'm going to decide to go independent. my income is fairly good on iStock. not bragging, just relevant to what we're talking about. but the perks are so few and far between now, I sometimes think about how nice it would be to sell anywhere I want. unfortunately many people I've talked to say not to go non-exlcusive. that's why real examples would be great.
1014
« on: December 10, 2010, 13:23 »
well, it's not unconditional. I don't think there's any point in arguing with someone's perception. I can see why that perception exists. I'm just as up and down as everyone else. in fact an admin accused me once of going back and forth. the thing is, every issue is different and I tend to approach each issue individually. I don't think it's black and white. that makes it seem in a forum like I'm in love with iStock. so be it. I'm in love with how iStock has changed my life. but I'm not an ostrich by any means. I see the writing on the wall too and question it as much as you do. I am a bit of a Pollyanna admittedly. I like to see happy endings. so I can't argue that one ;-)
1015
« on: December 10, 2010, 13:18 »
Yes, it can be jarring to travel between "you've developed something you should've already had and made us dig through the forums to find it, wooyay!" and "those koolaid-drinking pom-pom-waving corporate c**ksuckers!!!" I am easily confused and disoriented.
Jen, welcome. it's a tough crowd here. but you get a good dose of reality too if you can handle terms like c*ck sucker being thrown around, which I find unprofessional and borderline abusive. it's the way it is here. I can't always handle it. I migrate between lurking and posting depending on the issue, but I read a lot here. there are some really knowledgeable people here if you don't mind wading through negativity.
1016
« on: December 10, 2010, 13:11 »
There is just no security or stability in having to hit a constantly moving target. And for me, that kind of pressure is totally demotivating, not to mention smothering to creativity.
Precisely.
Not to mention the fact that I don't shoot for microstock because I want to work for someone else. In fact, quite the opposite. The agencies are supposed to be working for me! And in return, they take most of the money!
If I only want to shoot part-time, I accept the fact that I'm not going to make the same amount of money as someone shooting full-time. That's my choice. But to impose goals on me like I were an actual employee of Getty just goes a little too far for my taste. And if I don't meet those goals, my images get sent to the back of the best match, regardless of how successful they have been in the past?
Totally. They've transformed a great company and something that was a lot of fun for pros and amateurs all into a run-of-the-mill factory or sweatshop. They'll get a lot of hot new shots out of it, to be sure, but more than that they'll get a glut of average files that will pass inspection but just clog up and bog down the collection, and search. Not to mention piss off and (at worst) lose once loyal (exclusive) contributors and buyers both, in the process.
I agree with some of this. I don't think it's a sweatshop YET...but it seems to be heading that way, sadly. the analogy I used while chatting with my husband last night about this was that I feel like a Walmart supplier. They brought me in, made me feel important, I decided to sell exclusively through them and jump enthusiastically into all their programs, and now I am bound by my income, I'm over a barrel and they keep modifying the playing field more and more to my (our) detriment. the perks of being exclusive are being whittled away. I guess the income is the main thing holding me on board. the income is good and has doubled for me every year. golden handcuffs.
1017
« on: December 10, 2010, 12:20 »
Lisa - my support has never been unconditional. it's just been gossiped about in that vein. if you were to actually go back and read my posts over the years, you'd see many issues I have with iStock, and you know about them because of our personal discussions. I was pegged a cheerleader the day I expressed anger at the opt-out campaign badges. period. and the clique that created that character out of me just likes to toss it around for laughs. so go for it. it's of no consequence. to be honest, I've gotten as many calls from admin as the rest of you. I just stay out of the heavy discussions now on the iStock forums for the most part.
I certainly wouldn't have pegged you a cheerleader or koolaid drinker though. not sure why you read my post that way. I would hate to see you dump your istock income out of spite, that's all. for your sake, not theirs.
1018
« on: December 10, 2010, 11:57 »
I don't know if there's anything you could do to boost sales at IS as an independent, except to go exclusive.
(SNIP)
Lisa, in your shoes, I don't know what I would do. what's left for you at iStock? it's awful for independents.
Right on both counts - no way to boost sales as independent, and it is awful for independents these days.
I stopped uploading for awhile, which had no effect on TPTB apparently
I have been re-evaluating my relationship with Istock, and have had to be pragmatic about it. The fact is, I still make a significant amount of money there. Not being independently wealthy, I can't afford to just throw that out the window. I can't very well tell my daughter: Sorry Honey, no college for you because Istock are dicks and I am stubbornly adhering to principle...
OTOH, the fun and community aspects of the site are pretty much dead. So going forward I will have to regard it as just another site. No more or less important than the others. I will continue to make money there until/unless I don't.
Believing that a sale is imminent, there is still a chance that a new owner might try and rebuild relationships with suppliers. I want to still be on the site if/when that happens. And if it doesn't, then quitting is always an option. Just not something to do hastily in my situation.
I think most importantly, rather than re-evaluate your relationship is to stop thinking of it as a relationship. and think of it as business. keep your files there, not out of loyalty but because they bring you income. in my opinion, loyalty, courtesy and friendship are all two way streets. I've never viewed iStock as my friend. I never view companies I work for with as friends. Business comes first, no matter how much you love being somewhere. I have great respect and a certain amount of trust invested. And as I've said, some wonderful friendships with fellow contributors that I hope will last well beyond iStock. But the income and future prospects are the big carrots and that's where you should focus, removing the emotional stuff like loyalty and even anger. do what's best for you because leaving there out of anger most likely hurts you way more than them.
1019
« on: December 10, 2010, 00:31 »
your post made me think of a question we were asking today, no one knew the answer. RC credits earned...are they the same for independents versus exclusives?
I'm not sure I understand the question - are the credits the same? How could they be different? The only difference is price -- obviously an exclusive image at a given size costs more RCs than an independent image at the same size. But, an RC is an RC, it isn't affected by what kind of image it is applied to.
hmmm, reading this I'm trying to explain it better...the point we discussed was basically that non-exclusives will get less RCs per same sized sale as exclusives would receive, which you've stated well...thank you :-)
1020
« on: December 10, 2010, 00:24 »
Pixel, your sales to file ratio is astronomical. 19K dls on just 173 files, which is incredible. just imagine, you could be black diamond by now if you had just worked harder that was a joke before you jump on me. by the way, thanks for the cup of coffee ;-)
1021
« on: December 09, 2010, 20:32 »
I don't know if there's anything you could do to boost sales at IS as an independent, except to go exclusive.
as an exclusive, the community is nice, but the motivating element for me is sales. a sale is better than reviews, than acknowledgment. a sale means someone put their money down on the table for my work. as long as the sales are happening, I'm motivated.
the illusion of community is being slowly disintegrated. some of you might say it's happened faster, or it happened a long time ago. but we all have different iStock timelines. I've watched the community change, and the distance between HQ and contributors growing for two years now and as much as I personally like so many of the istockers I have met or interacted with; contributors, some admins, inspectors etc. in the end it's about work and the individual friendships we've built. I value those friendships and the education I'm receiving. I'm not overwrought over the gap widening between us and HQ. iStock is where I want to be until it isn't and presently sales have been really good this year as an exclusive.
Lisa, in your shoes, I don't know what I would do. what's left for you at iStock? it's awful for independents.
1022
« on: December 09, 2010, 20:04 »
Lisa - FYI, I didn't bother saying it before because you already know I think you've been royally kicked in the arse as an independent and I hope you already know how much I value your friendship. but you responded negatively to my first post, so...I wasn't saying anyone wasn't working hard enough, least of all you. I do feel quality and quantity of uploads are going to be even more important now though. as if it wasn't already. but more so now with performance evaluation adjusted every year with the RC system. THAT is the crux of my posts.
as for independents, I think that's a completely different scenario. I can't begin to comment on what indies are facings.
your post made me think of a question we were asking today, no one knew the answer. RC credits earned...are they the same for independents versus exclusives?
1024
« on: December 09, 2010, 18:12 »
^ hmm, I don't think so. I would be really careful about deactivating images these days. I did that once at the beginning of my second year. I deactivated tons of images. best match tweaks that favoured anything older killed me. I'm not saying that's concrete, but it was my experience. I don't see any reason to deactivate images. for example just yesterday I had some first time downloads from 2007. the new search seems to act like a revolving closet. everything keeps getting slightly shifted around and around and it's just a matter of whose looking at what when. I know customers might sort and see some of my earliest, not so great shots. but I doubt that happens frequently enough to worry about it.
I'd leave your images up. I think there's more disadvantage to taking them down. get seasonal images in there too, and portfolios are somewhat covered to weather best match storms here and there. that is my approach to building my portfolio. and constantly improving/evolving is key.
1025
« on: December 09, 2010, 16:30 »
I think that's exactly it. I don't shoot a lot of typical stock. I wish I had now. I think the only thing that saved me is having a huge port and no niche. I have a bit of everything because I take my camera everywhere I go. That's all I meant in terms of volume. Of course increasing quality of images has been a major focus do I have been spending money on shoots. But that's only over the last year as my income has allowed.
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... 54
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
