|
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 - PeterChigmaroff
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 ... 72
1276
« on: June 22, 2009, 21:37 »
Prior to buying my 1Ds I bought several bricks of film thinking I would slowly transition to digital. Ha, I didn't shoot a single roll from the day I unpacked the Canon. I was very surprised at this. Still have a couple hundred rolls of film in the freezer.
1277
« on: June 22, 2009, 20:47 »
None for me as well.
1278
« on: June 20, 2009, 12:30 »
Ok. It sure make sense what almost every of you say, and i will follow your advise.
Thank you
Honestly, don't be afraid to quote a proper fee. If the guy is at all a professional they will understand and pay you what you ask and simply charge the end user accordingly.
Hell probably do that either way...
Its a tuff question. Buy a ready print T-shirt in a shop for 14.95$ or 380$ for a custom printed in same store. Would you do that  No! But in this case I hope so.
People do just that all the time especially with photographs. You can't expect to get custom work at micro prices. Working for $10/hr is equally silly.
1279
« on: June 19, 2009, 12:13 »
Ok. It sure make sense what almost every of you say, and i will follow your advise.
Thank you
Honestly, don't be afraid to quote a proper fee. If the guy is at all a professional they will understand and pay you what you ask and simply charge the end user accordingly.
1280
« on: June 19, 2009, 10:52 »
I would charge a base rate (creative fee) plus an hourly for the job. $150-$250 plus $75/hr
1281
« on: June 18, 2009, 11:28 »
I accidentally pushed a set of 20 images through without attaching release. Is there a way to retrieve them or do I wait for rejections on all of them and then resubmit?
1282
« on: June 17, 2009, 21:21 »
Hard to beat a 70-200 for versatility. I've not owned an 85f1.8 so can't compare side by side. Certainly both are worth having but would go for the "more useful in more cases" one first.
1283
« on: June 17, 2009, 21:00 »
Can't see a reason to continue. You only have to look at the sales distribution to see that soon the income will be way down. Perhaps for some of the big guns who like to upload everywhere but not for me.
Little income is still better than no income 
True, but not enough to offset upload time etc. I'll leave the current images up and see how it shakes out over the next 6 months and go from there.
1284
« on: June 17, 2009, 17:09 »
It was actually 688 x 459 pixels for $50. I just wonder why they ask for 48MB files if they sell only post stamp size images :-)
You will eventually see sales for all sizes. My best was for $640 for a full size RF. Not sure why such a high price for RF but I wasn't going to call and argue about it.
1285
« on: June 17, 2009, 15:36 »
Can't see a reason to continue. You only have to look at the sales distribution to see that soon the income will be way down. Perhaps for some of the big guns who like to upload everywhere but not for me.
1286
« on: June 16, 2009, 11:11 »
I was looking at the incomes from Photos.com and JIUnlimited and can't see why I would continue to submit to StockXpert after the images are removed from these subagents. The income level would be too low to bother. One of the top 6 quickly becomes also-ran.
1287
« on: June 16, 2009, 09:15 »
Hi bobkeenan
Remember that you can extrapolate but generally in a non linear method. Images will probably die off faster than you will like on some sites.
1288
« on: June 15, 2009, 12:44 »
okay so it sounds like opting out was the right thing to do, thanks.
1289
« on: June 15, 2009, 11:47 »
Just saw this on SX. Not 15 minutes ago I opted out of the deal on IS because I thought it would be stupid to have the same images going to Photos.com and JIUnlimited . Back to the drawing board.
As we phase out Stockxpert images on Photos.com and JIUnlimited, the plan is to introduce images to Photos.com and JIUnlimited from the iStockphoto collection.
1290
« on: June 15, 2009, 11:43 »
It's weird, since I deleted my entire portfolio at FT my sales there are nil.
1291
« on: June 11, 2009, 17:16 »
After a year at this I'm dropping the poor performers. 4 or 5 is a lot to deal with.
1292
« on: June 11, 2009, 16:37 »
from a business perspective Getty is not worth it in my opinion.
you better shoot more pics that sell on the cheap rather than waste hours on each image with Getty.
For sure Sergey, why would you want to include images in the portion of a company that generates 80% or more of that income when you could get way less? Is this some kind parallel universe I woke up in?
1293
« on: June 11, 2009, 12:06 »
well clearly dunsmore knows more then me... but that still doesn't answer my questions.
Are the only/main two ways to get accepted on Getty:
1. Be exclusive and at least Silver in IS
2. Register on Getty and give them the link to your Flickr website (in this case, make sure to only have your best photos on flickr?)
Essentially, yes.
1294
« on: June 11, 2009, 10:23 »
Norebbo,
Just as well. I "banned" myself from FT a month ago. They are too dictatorial for me.
1295
« on: June 11, 2009, 09:36 »
Now it is clear why SV was a failure. Corbis wanted it to be a failure to proof a point. Lets hope Veer will not be subjected to the same ignorance.
Ummm, Veer is 100% owned by Corbis guys. Do you think Veer runs 100% autonomously? I personally don't think so. I think in order to make a decent inroads with micro right now the collection had to be attached to a brand with a large customer base. As for the comments, they are very accurate. Again there seems to be little desire among "pure" microstock photographers to look at the market as a whole and how it is being affected. The opposite is true as well. Even Getty with iStock is only projecting an overall earnings of 25% from micro by 2012.
1296
« on: June 10, 2009, 17:21 »
Yes , all two bit sales.
1297
« on: June 09, 2009, 19:11 »
Congratulations Warren, 50 years? You'll want wide and something to 200mm preferably with a IS.
1298
« on: June 09, 2009, 16:58 »
There seems to a be a genuine pride in selling images at a low a price as possible. Can't figure it.
1299
« on: June 09, 2009, 15:07 »
You used to be able to get $10,000 for a decent picture of clouds and sky about 12 years ago. Then $5,000 then $2500 then... now $1.00
Well that was clearly an absurd situation. For $10K you could probably have commissioned Picasso to paint you an original 'clouds & sky' in whatever colour you chose (as long as you like square clouds).
gostwyck, Not really, there was a cost of doing business and the picture existed for the client to see ahead of time exactly what they were buying. Do you think they had no knowledge of commissioning a photographer?
1300
« on: June 09, 2009, 14:23 »
$5k is nothing fancy?! I'd consider spending that sort of money without a commission very 'fancy' indeed. I could fly to the other side of the world and have 6 weeks travelling and photographing in relative comfort for that. I'd still expect a payback of 1-2 years too which is reasonable for most business propositions.
It's just a question of what market your after.
Of course every business invests in it's future and takes a risk in capital outlay but that to me is the extreme end of the scale and obviously not practical for the microstock model. It is also unnecessary to spend anything like that to produce 99% of the images that the market needs.
As Lise has said microstock is all about the photographer using their guile and what they have available to produce images that the market wants inexpensively. Nothing wrong with that __ most businesses I know are ruthlessly efficient in their spending and the value they add to their product. Clearly that wasn't happening historically in the macro model which is why it has been left so high & dry. Did they reduce prices when digital lowered the costs of production and the internet lowered the cost of distribution? No, because there wasn't a genuinely competitive market. Well there is now and things will never be the same again.
Sure the prices came down then and quickly, it's just that the prices are still so much more than micro. You used to be able to get $10,000 for a decent picture of clouds and sky about 12 years ago. Then $5,000 then $2500 then... now $1.00
I'd agree that it would be good to have the ability to set prices according to production costs though __ then the market would tell us how much they were prepared to spend and in what volume.
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 ... 72
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
