|
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 - bunhill
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... 62
1001
« on: November 10, 2013, 17:17 »
I quit uploading early August because of rejections and poor sales,
Shutterstock counts for 75% of my earnings
Shutterstock is 51% of my total earnings for 2013 to date .... As long as Shutterstock is going up, I am fine.
1002
« on: November 10, 2013, 15:06 »
I terminated the contract. It was my decision, not theirs. After google drive it just didnt feel right. Very professional communication with the Getty team though.
However, through westend61 some of my files will probably be going into the Getty network again. But at least I have a local partner to work with and my files might find themselves on other macro sites as well.
I don't understand why you would cancel it and then have your work uploaded there anyhow via a third party. Surely that will mean you getting a smaller percentage. What is the logic ?
1003
« on: November 10, 2013, 15:05 »
Ignore the fact that only a select group have the bridge and that no one can join these days as the program closed.
Ignore the fact that a significant quantity of the content at SS is on BS anyhow irrespective of the "bridge" because people like to compete with themselves.
1004
« on: November 09, 2013, 14:51 »
The bridge was put in place many years ago, and at the moment is no longer available. You are twisting chronological order for your convenience
The bridge was announced about two and a bit years ago, no ? Is that many ? The cut price BS subs came much later ? Chronology seems right.
1005
« on: November 09, 2013, 09:39 »
HCV talks. 
Yes. It's valuable work and the arrangements are nobody else's business.
1006
« on: November 09, 2013, 09:13 »
Actually I'd say that the people 'jumping ship' are actually Istock themselves. It would seem that they've thrown out their own rule-book in a truly desperate attempt to turn things around. When a business takes such panic actions it is always bad news ... for them.
That seems a rather OTT analysis. From a neutral and dispassionate perspective I think that many people would quietly agree that it would be stupid for any business to be arbitrarily or artificially constrained by a set of one-size-fits-all conditions put in place around a decade ago in a very different market.
1007
« on: November 08, 2013, 06:11 »
That's a lot of sites to look at. Any chance of narrowing down the selection a little - say the best selling 10 or something like that ?
Or maybe a second round of voting ?
1008
« on: November 07, 2013, 09:42 »
Totally different. A model just does a TFCD swap if she/he wants.There's a agreement on both sides. But an image stealer doesn't make any agreement with the image author. It's no a small, its a huge difference, in case you didn't notice it.
But this is not about an "image stealer". It's about someone from an agency offering an artist the chance to build a relationship in exchange for work. It's a swap. There would have been agreement on both sides but the artist declined. An artist or photographer working for tearsheets is no different from a model working in exchange for pictures.
1009
« on: November 07, 2013, 03:54 »
Sure, some people can do that, but he said its the way it should be when you are 20. I just say it shouldnt be like that at all. Can you imagine if all 20 year old graduates lived on couches and in abandoned buildings. LOL. Its BS.
Probably, with english as a 2nd language, you are misunderstanding what I mean when I say that is exactly how it should be when you are in your early 20s. It is not supposed to be literal. I do not propose that all 20-somethings live on the friends' sofas or in buildings which are scheduled for demolition. Said like that it is really only intended to imply a general sense - in this case that more people should take a chance. Equally I am probably misunderstanding your use of english when you use expressions like "bull" and BS which seem out of place in an otherwise friendly conversation.
1010
« on: November 06, 2013, 05:58 »
First the original item: I fantasise about group sex with old, obese men + comments. And now an item about the item: I do NOT like sex with old, obese men: the perils of being a stock-shot model + comments. + lots of Twitter action Re: the second article - someone remind me please ... what is the name of that thing where a thing is the thing about itself in a way which is more than just self referential ? Just like every other mass media "news source".
Yep. It's not a criticism I was making or intending although I can see it might seem like that. It's their craft and skill I am observing - their ability to engage their audience.
1011
« on: November 05, 2013, 17:03 »
another thing to look out for on eBay and Amazon is the thing which costs, say, 1000x more than it should. I have seen this a few times but do not have a current link.
I am fairly certain, or assume, that is down to some sort of money laundering or other funny accounting practice.
That's an interesting thought. I had assumed they were trawling for idiots or had mis-typed the price. On ebay yesterday, I saw 30.5m reels of Fomapan 100 film (for loading film casettes) offered at $800, when the true price is about $55.
Yep money laundering would be my guess. Especially on something obscure and technical like that. Easy to obscure in the accounting.
1012
« on: November 05, 2013, 16:21 »
It means that the average of all votes for Shutterstock was $413.50. $500 was selected to equal 100 in the poll so each point is $5.
How many times will Leaf have to come on and say that you can't work on that assumption before you will believe it?
Which brings us back to - why not post the actual raw data anonymised ? Then we could see the actual numbers for how many $ everyone is taking from each site. And we could figure out our own spreadsheet formulas for making sense of the numbers. It would abolish the artificial distinction between exclusives or not etc. Surely much better than arbitrary rankings and %ages which are difficult to understand or have arguable meaning.
1013
« on: November 05, 2013, 16:07 »
another thing to look out for on eBay and Amazon is the thing which costs, say, 1000x more than it should. I have seen this a few times but do not have a current link.
I am fairly certain, or assume, that is down to some sort of money laundering or other funny accounting practice.
1014
« on: November 05, 2013, 15:56 »
How did you afford it? I had to work my way through college and needed a paying job the minute I graduated. There's no way I could take an unpaid internship, which by the way is pretty common in the ad industry (and disgusting, IMO, as summer interns are treated like gofers).
I lived on friends' sofas (I paid them back later) and then for free in a building which was scheduled for demolition. I did every bit of assisting for cash which was offered and also worked at the weekends. The agency paid my travel pass and quite often someone there would feed me. I lived from day to day on very little money without ever really planning ahead - which is exactly how it should be when you are in your early 20s.
1015
« on: November 05, 2013, 14:35 »
That's never been part of my world.
My very best work experience, also many of my best life experiences and several friends for life came out of my unpaid internship at a photo agency - and the work which I got afterwards as a result of it - the next 2 permanent jobs actually. It was also my introduction to life in 2 capital cities. Wouldn't have missed it for anything.
1016
« on: November 05, 2013, 11:38 »
So this camera is over $2,700 because...
... because people will buy it. Assuming it does not turn out to be problematic like the D600 which was their first mistake in years. And then after a while it will come down in price. And it's got a lot going for it: It's 16 MP which is more than enough for a camera with a 35mm sized sensor. And being full frame it will work nicely in terms of (not too much) depth of field where you don't want it. It's fully compatible with all old and current f-mount lenses (a split screen would be nice for manual focus but the Nikon electronic rangefinder system is proven). Dials are a great way of adjusting settings. And this is not a camera for people who want a built in flash. It's good that Nikon have decided against going with an EVF. An EVF is never going to give the same sense of what you are looking at compared with a prism or an optical rangefinder. Looking through an EVF is like watching things on TV. And they suck up power pointlessly. Certainly the D610 looks like tremendous value for money by comparison. But not everyone buys on price. Some people will buy it just because they appreciate and like it. Which is a good reason to buy a thing. Me - I might buy one used in a few years time. Assuming it turns out to be a reliable camera.
1017
« on: November 05, 2013, 07:08 »
Two artists swapping services (a model needing images for their port and a photographer needing a model for their images) is different than an ad agency expecting someone to work for free. The world of advertising and the arts and photography in general is very much about people starting out, or being tried out by working for free. Whether as interns or assistants, or unpaid runners etc. You start out sleeping on a friend's sofa and getting the coffees. That's definitely one part of how people have always built working relationships. I feel that if you are making $$ from the images you should be paying the models $$. Yes I agree. But many photographers don't. Especially in the world of stock. In the world of fashion I think it is more acceptable for people to model for tear sheets - e.g. on a magazine shoot where nobody is getting paid by the magazine but, say, the clothes have been supplied free.
1018
« on: November 05, 2013, 07:05 »
I noticed that (somewhat bizarre) article in the Guardian only yesterday! I'm sure the model would have been delighted to see herself 'in action' in a national newspaper. Tear sheets like that will be good for her career.
Here's a link to the article itself. The comments below it are well worth reading if you fancy a chuckle;
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/14/fantasise-group-sex-old-obese-men
The Guardian is posting these sorts of articles precisely to drive the mostly Mike Giggler-esque comments which account for much of their traffic. It is all about advertising. They are also peppering the online edition with increasingly deliberately inflammatory articles headlined so as to attract controversy and therefore comment attention (e.g. opinion pieces written by commentators and correspondents with relatively hardline political and social opinions which are likely to divide and upset the readers). It's all about the comments.
1019
« on: November 05, 2013, 04:41 »
Not much different from photographers trying to get away without paying models for commercial work.
1021
« on: November 02, 2013, 14:34 »
Given that the data is submitted I wonder why not post the complete raw data anonymized. Even if that means in a format which needs to be processed to be useful. I am sure we could quickly come up with spreadsheets to make sense of it. Then we could see how many people voted and how much they were actually earning at each site.
It seems to me that at the moment the data is made less useful by the way in which it is converted into rankings which are difficult to make sense of.
1022
« on: November 01, 2013, 07:43 »
If you have a RAID or similar mirroring system alone and there is a power surge or a strike you can potentially lose both drives simultaneously. Not just the controller. Do not rely on domestic surge protectors.
Also - batches of drives with problems very often fail in batches. So if your RAID system contains two identical drives from the same batch there may be a great [EDIT: I mean greater] chance of them failing than two drives from different makers or made at different times.
If backup matters you definitely need another swapped out copy.
1023
« on: November 01, 2013, 07:03 »
Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.
How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.
I would be astonished if more than 10% of contributors at any site make a monthly payout. There are probably 150,000 contributors to iStock, if each of them made $50 a month the site would be paying out 7.5million a month and, iirc, they are only paying out about a quarter of that, ergo more than three quarters of contributors don't hit a monthly payout.
I am guessing $10 per download for an exclusive. So 3 sales per weekday is $650. Sue says half that. So $325. Lets go with her number then (though I think it seems low). How many downloads per day on average to earn $325 at SS ?
1024
« on: November 01, 2013, 06:24 »
I see a new web design, I do see more active advertising for istock and I see less choices for contributors.
I also see the 50% price drop on the indie files. Is that for you a change in strategy? Well it is clearly connected to an evolving strategy. Corporate culture by contrast is something which evolves over time. Clearly it is not something that anyone can impose or invent artificially. There is clearly a great pool of talent across this industry in general. Getting back to the numbers as expressed in $. I am estimating above than an exclusive selling only 3 images per weekday at iStockphoto is making $650 per month on those very few sales. I am guessing that a person would have to sell many many more than that to make the same money at SS even accepting that not all sales are less than 50c subs. I chose a small number because I think it reflects the typical scale of things here. Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.
1025
« on: November 01, 2013, 05:47 »
over on istock all your results are public, so if you have reached a certain level on the success ladder your data is being included anyway.
Exclusives are probably averaging something over $10 per sale. A few sales today is equivalent to many sales how things once were. An exclusive selling 3 images per week day is making about $650 per month [EDIT: some] are very probably making that much again from GI. The numbers here would make more sense in $ than % Getty has had the same manager for 20 years with Klein at the top. He won't change and Getty's corporate culture won't change just because the company is no longer owned by H&F. I cannot detect any difference in how they are doing their business.
How they do business and corporate culture is quite different from strategy. Corporate culture is a fairly nebulous idea and gradual thing. I would not expect any sudden changes there. But strategy has clearly shifted. If nothing else a year of significant changes makes that obvious.
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... 62
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
