|
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 - ShadySue
13451
« on: July 17, 2011, 19:59 »
I am also going to be buying Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom soon to help aid my photos.
Although if you're a student you can get these at a great discount, seriously consider buying Elements and using the savings to add to your camera/lens fund.
13452
« on: July 17, 2011, 19:56 »
Also it seems that selling microstock photos mainly evolves around what the industry wants and less what you want to shoot, but that is fair enough.
Yup, that's the Alpha and Omega of stock, especially with the micro model which need to you sell images in bulk to be viable. For stuff you actually like to shoot, there's always Flickr, personal websites etc.
13453
« on: July 17, 2011, 19:32 »
Hope contributors are still adding all the same keywords to a series and picking maybe one/two for exclusive+.Looks very professional to a buyer when they show up in there search !
It would be unprofessional to use the wrong keywords, but most of us already knew that. Your point was ... ?
13454
« on: July 17, 2011, 18:11 »
Well Jam must be a fan of his. 7 posts on msg and 5 deal with the shank...
WE just have to wait for him to become a self-confused fan.
13456
« on: July 17, 2011, 08:20 »
My 2p on the advice you've had above:
"Aesthetics and commercial" - in stock, commercial trumps aesthetics, but of course, some aesthetics matter, in particular, not cluttering your image.
"Camera clubs" - I'm actually a happy member of a camera club, but they're all about aesthetics/pictorial, so I show the photos I love there, >80% of which I wouldn't submit to micro. They generally don't obsess about really nitpicky technical issues, so you can get a shock when you hit micro and get rejections for things you didn't even know existed! Once we had a speaker didn't turn up, and the chairman grabbed me as I went in the door and asked if I could talk about 'something photographic' - well, with no warning and no slides or powerpoint, all I could think of was iStock, so I blahed on about that for about 20 mins. The next week, several members said, more or less, "I had a look on iStock and the pics there that sell well wouldn't do well in competitions". I had to say the vice was also very much versa.
Camera: buy into Canon or Nikon second hand for more flexibility later on. You need a 'decent' camera body, but the quality of the lenses is even more crucial. It's hard to know what your first lens should be. Many people will tell you to get something like a 50mm f1.8, so I'm guessing many people use that sort of lens, but it would be almost useless to me. If I had to have only one lens for myself, it would be a 100-400 zoom, but for micro, I use my 24-105 most. YMMV.
13457
« on: July 17, 2011, 06:30 »
^ I think that is a valid observation and probably happens quite a bit.
If so, it is a sad reflection on the herd behaviour of photographers.
I don't think people always remember they're photographers in the iStock forums or any forums for that matter. forums thrive on reactive behaviour, so I think Sue's point is a good one. I hadn't thought of it myself, but now that it's been pointed out I can see some contributors not posting for fear of how it would affect their image. I think you might be underestimating how many contributors are intimidated by the forums.
I've heard exactly that said by people in my CN in the past. Also, here and there, there have been instances where someone posting e.g. with lower sales than is the general forum thread being jumped on by others, e.g., "You need more people pics", "you're not shooting what the buyers want", "you need to upload more", and if someone posts with better than average trends, certain people jump on them with comments like: "You're exclusive/not exclusive", "You're high cannister/low cannister" etc. Which is bound to discourage others from posting. I accept that Alexa etc are showing a worrying downwards trend.
13458
« on: July 17, 2011, 05:23 »
Your mixing my comments up slightly.The RC's decision was made for the business as a whole.The way it was communicated to the artists via the forum was inept, to say the least, and caused alot of bad feelings.It could have been handled so much better and even if they had sought advice from a third party on how to communicate that difficult decision to the artists.
That bad feeling has yet to subside from what i read on the MGC forum.
I don't give a FF about how they communicate 1 their business decisions. Crap ("we want to reduce your share and we don't GAD about your sustainability") wrapped in a sugar coating is still crap. Lies ("you will be grandfathered in") in flowery language are still lies. What makes you think the bad feeling will - or should - ever subside (apart from what Kelly said in that interview)? No-one in their right mind will trust them again. 1 Communication has long been a major iStock failure. Their provider and user contracts are totally ambiguous and many phrases have been debated in the forums for ages without any definite conclusion. I've long called for them to consult the Plain English Society, but that's fallen on deaf ears. One has to assume it's deliberate.
13459
« on: July 17, 2011, 04:57 »
I do not have any files in exclusive + or ever will !
Never say never. However, what you are saying loud and clear is that you think none of your photos are worth E+ prices, but you're happy for buyers - in big commerical companies - to be able to aquire large copies of your images for peanuts at Thinkstock. You need to place more value on your time, equipment and skills. Your call, of course, but remember there's room for a diversity of views.
13460
« on: July 17, 2011, 04:52 »
India is on hold until i see if my name is picked for the Milan Lypse.
Grief, Shankie - India vs MilanLypse. That's a no-brainer, though you seem to have made the 'odd' choice.
13461
« on: July 17, 2011, 03:53 »
I have an acute ability to see into the future,read the present and understand the before and i no for a fact buyers believe they are getting screwed for more money by this collection.
If you don't feel that your images are worth the premium, don't label them as E+. In my case, I have some groups of 'similar-ish' pics some E+ some not, and the E+ pics always outsell the not, sometimes by a long way. I'm sure if the buyers were feeling 'screwed' they'd buy the 'non's. You can't possibly speak for all buyers, though you are a master of the 'sweeping statement'. There will always be buyers, of any product, who want to screw the producers for as much as possible and complain loudly about prices.
13462
« on: July 16, 2011, 19:00 »
Someone forgot to turn on the PP switch before leaving HQ on friday.Pfffff.Come monday it will be some lame excuse... sowwwy it's the internet and things break !
Nothing really surprises me anymore when it comes to IS. In fact I'd be surprised if it happened on time.
But I'm not bothered with it anymore. It's a pathetic agency, delivering worse results (for me and the majority of contributors) every month.
How do you have access to information about the 'majority of contributors'?
There are only a tiny proportion of contributors, many with a 'good' or 'bad' axe to grind, posting either here or on the iStock forums. We can hardly regard either as fully representative.
(I'm not saying that you're wrong, only that you can't possibly know that you're right.)
That's how polls are made, aren't they? They ask a few hundred/thousand ppl for which party they're going to vote and present the results. Or even a better example they're doing that on the election day throughout the day and when they're over (at 19.00 in my country) they present the results on the news and they're never far off from the official results. They're usually just a few percents off, e.g. a party gets a seat more or less in the parliament. So my method must be very good and proven as well 
In this case, there's an extra factor. If most people are posting good/rising sales, others may not want to post poor results as they might feel it would be seen as a bad reflection on them/their port. If most people are posting poor/fallng sales, others may not want to post good results in case they're seen as boasting.
13463
« on: July 16, 2011, 16:02 »
However, Lobo explains it thusly: "It's summer, there are more contributors, there is more content". Note, no mention of 'more buyers'. 
13464
« on: July 16, 2011, 13:42 »
Someone forgot to turn on the PP switch before leaving HQ on friday.Pfffff.Come monday it will be some lame excuse... sowwwy it's the internet and things break !
Nothing really surprises me anymore when it comes to IS. In fact I'd be surprised if it happened on time.
But I'm not bothered with it anymore. It's a pathetic agency, delivering worse results (for me and the majority of contributors) every month.
How do you have access to information about the 'majority of contributors'? There are only a tiny proportion of contributors, many with a 'good' or 'bad' axe to grind, posting either here or on the iStock forums. We can hardly regard either as fully representative. (I'm not saying that you're wrong, only that you can't possibly know that you're right.)
13465
« on: July 16, 2011, 12:34 »
I'm guessing that the summer slump won't be so slumpy on subs sites, if buyers are trying to max out their subs.
OTOH, so far, this year's iStock summer slump is nothing like as bad for me as last year's. SO FAR.
And won't a lot of 'seasonal' sales now be for autumn?
13466
« on: July 15, 2011, 20:17 »
What sells well on Alamy? Is it still the general lifestyle, models and market trends that we see on microstock sites?
Can't work it out at all. Looking at my own (meagre-ish) (RM) sales, there's no pattern that seems to make any sense, at least to me.
13467
« on: July 15, 2011, 16:11 »
Let's be honest, non exclusives don't give a dam about Istockphoto for the most part, so they use an outside forum to belittle the company at every opportunity.
And iStock love their exclusives so much that they kick us off the forums at the random whim of a moderator.
13468
« on: July 11, 2011, 14:02 »
I want to buy a dairy cow for the back garden.Fresh milk on my cornflakes ever morning would be bliss !
If you'd saved your 1000, you could have a mini-herd of dairy cows and sell the milk: that way you'd be quids in.
13469
« on: July 11, 2011, 13:59 »
Photo iStockalypse Milan Italy
Video iStocklaypse NYC, USA
Brazil Minilypses x 2 (Sao Paulo and Rio de Janiero)
News coming soon.....
You'd better get your round the world ticket booked.
13470
« on: July 10, 2011, 16:16 »
Lypse costs 1000?!?  For group shooting of something anyone can do by himself?!? Lol! I wouldn't say there were models, lighting; MUAs, stylists, but shoot editorial with zero cost and charging a grand? Wow!
Not quite. If you check out the Milan Lypse thread, you'll see that the actual cost of attending the lypse was $500, but what with travel, accommodation etc, Shankie had paid about 1000, which interestingly was the price I worked out I'd have had to pay had I gone. Also that 'lypse did have studio model stuff with all the expenses you suggest. Plus the staff were staying at a 'relatively' expensive hotel in London - exactly double the price of the place I stay in London when I go.
13471
« on: July 10, 2011, 15:11 »
Seems like the connector,the system by which our nominated files are migrated from Istock to the Partner Program, is now working....
I can now see another 40 of my images for sale on the PP sites.That's 1010.Still another 30 waiting and my London Lypse content will be added in due course.
I can see how excited you are that the photos you paid 1000 to take will soon be on sale for 40c a whack, at any size.
13472
« on: July 09, 2011, 12:20 »
Not many direct flights from the north east coast of england to Milan although a return flight is looking at 170-200.Hotels are not badly priced either 30-40 a night.
Need to know what the ticket price is going to be.It was $500 for the London Lypse.My ticket cost me 430 and the whole 5 day event cost me 1000 !
You wont see an instant return on your money via sales but well worth it IMO.
330 members put there names forward for the London Lypse.I will be interesting how many wish to participate this time.
Hmmm, I'm going to Florence for a week for c625, not including lunch or dinner. I wonder if I could really learn $500 worth more by going to these talks. Sounds like I'm better with my three Good Books on photojournalism - plus I don't have to promise that all my photos taken during that period will go to iStock. That's fair enough where they providing sets, props, models, lights etc, but not otherwise. That would mean that if iStock folded or you left iStock, your photos would be dead. And that's over and above the Thinkstock issue already alluded to. But 300 willing attendees mean they won't change any of that.
13473
« on: July 09, 2011, 12:07 »
From what I gathered from others, the editorial slant was more on 'journalistic storytelling', thus the emphasis on getting permission and releases, which of course, would affect any real newsworthy editorial shooting.
this is true and though I enjoyed looking at the reportage style slideshows, to be frank I didn't learn much about editorial in London. in fact, I disagree with this approach. I don't typically engage with editorial subjects when shooting journalistic images and what we were told to do goes well against anything I've learned about shooting journalistic images. I have no ambitions to be an embedded journalist in a war zone spinning a story with images that I pseudo-orchestrate. I prefer to shoot real life, unimpeded by me asking questions before capturing an image. depending on the sensitivity of an image, I don't have a problem approaching a subject after the shot and gaining more insight, but I certainly wouldn't involve my subject in planning a photo essay beforehand.
I learned much more about creative shoots in London. far less about editorial.
ETA: unless the context allows for an exchange with my subject, which is often the case at celebrity events etc. But I wouldn't consider those shots 'journalistic'.
Thanks for that, Stacey. I agree with you on this. Except that personally I don't like the way they announce lypses as editorial then suddenly shove in studio work. While that's a big gap in my skillset, there would be no point wasting people's time showing me how to use all the equipment, direct models etc. when I'll never use the knowledge in real life. Interesting about the war thing - I just heard recently how the reporters/photographers have to stick to the story their country wants to put over, and if they don't, they're sent home and their publication or agency gets, in effect, Lobotomised, for a period of time. And they often do their shoots as 'set up shots' with soldiers who aren't needed for a couple of hours. That was even worse than discovering Cartier-Bresson allegedly sometimes paid models to go round and round into a scene until he got his 'decisive moment'. Clay feet! I guess there is a sound case for building up a good relationship with your subject if you're doing an extended photo-essay, "A day in the life of X" or "The wide variety of work that organisation Y does". I love that stuff, but it's hardly relevant to iStock.
13474
« on: July 09, 2011, 11:51 »
No mention of editorial on the Milan Lypse.Looking like a combination of photos and videos.
I can see the content generated from the Milan Lypse going to the Partner Program.If you dont understand the reason that happens now i doubt you will ever understand the connection between Istockphoto/Getty.
Puppet/Puppeteer?
13475
« on: July 09, 2011, 11:47 »
I'm going to be in Fiorenze late Oct/early Nov, so that'll be a miss. Can't believe the short notice they always run these things at.
Ali, what did you learn specifically about editorial? (That's really all I'd be interested in).
Approaching the subject/person.If they give you there name,jot it down and post it in your description.The knack after getting permission is to not get a 'staged' shot.
Quite. I was at the Tall Ships Race today, and everyone I actually asked permission of stood to attention and smiled broadly. The language barrier was too much to communicate that I wanted them just to go on as normal. With the ones who spoke English, they went on, but they stiffened up very visibly. Certainly didn't make for good stock.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
