|
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 - HermanM
151
« on: May 23, 2008, 11:46 »
The real problem is that microstock is too undervalued (as today's prices) to make it attractive to become exclusive in any way. If prices were midstock prices then one would consider becoming exclusive (image exclusive that is) with one agency. The exclusivity model implemented by IS is absurd, to say the least. They offer a less than generous comission and you become artist exclusive, which was unheard of before IS created this figure. In todays market, with low prices, and suscriptions, we rely on every single sale to make our portfolios work as a whole. To require exclusivity with today's prices is to ask too much from photographers without offering anything in return.
I agree that micros have to become more exclusive with their material buthave to pay more (way more) to attract photographers into this model.
152
« on: May 20, 2008, 16:01 »
I can tell you that my referral earnings (from an ever increasing list of referred members) keep getting better and better... My earnings from photo sales are about 30% down... So, SS is making lots of money and we are not... It was to be expected. It is "their" business and they care for "their" earnings... I can even wonder if the search engine is not biased to show first works from low earners and new members... We have to face it, it is a classic us vs them in the long run.
153
« on: May 16, 2008, 17:22 »
I feel that microstock is too young to put all my hopes of making a living out of it. I think that those who diversify will have the biggest chances of making a decent living out of stock. Yes, there are a few living from micros but they still are too few. Success stories help fuel the hype that it is attainable, but reality says that at some point saturation will appear and to rely solely on micros as an income will clearly become unsustainable.
For example: If (as I feel will happen) photographers from underdeveloped countries start to produce massive quantities of images, with lower or non existant production costs we will see stagnation of growth in our earnings as supply will overexceed demand. This is a problem compounded by the lower and lower prices of digital SLRs. Also those photographers wont feel the pressure to earn high amounts of money to pay their bills (remember that in many countries people live with less than 200 dollars a month, or less, so a 400 dollars a month income from micros will be very good money for them). Yes, it may take some time, but it will happen. Competition will be fierce and we will work harder just to keep pace... Microstock companies will be happy, since they will have an unlimited supply of images. We as providers will be the ones that suffer.
I think that most of us should recognize that micros are a part of the stock business, micros are not the future by themselves, RM still has a place in the market and will continue to have, maybe midstock will have a place eventually, and in the end those who embrace changes, adapt and seek out more money making opportunities (comissioned work, local work, etc.) are the ones who will succeed.
The best sign of the times to come is to see what Yuri is saying and doing...
154
« on: March 03, 2008, 18:04 »
mjp,
I am not at Alamy myself. I want to, but then their 40MB minimum file size is out of my reach, even with my XTi I don't get such a large TIFF file.
I have sold images taken with a 300D at Alamy, upscaled with Genuine Fractals and after 1200 images (many with the 300D and 20D) have had cero rejections. With an XTi it should be no problem at all.
155
« on: March 03, 2008, 18:02 »
Worst of all, Alamy asks you "if" the image requires a release and many times you simply dont know... Play it safe! Not sure=YES (it requires a release).
156
« on: March 03, 2008, 17:59 »
Feeling much more comfortable going with editorial than with RM for unreleased pictures, either posing or not
You should explore and read more about licences, since I perceive you still have to refine your understanding about them. You can and should use RM licences for non released material. It is by restrictions that you make them Editorial. I would advice you to avoid the micros RF Editorial model for two main reasons: the first one is that you dont control usage by any means (even worst, image history is very unlikely to be available) and that is a potential liability. The second reason is that at best, an editorial shot will we sold very few times so you would like those images to earn you the most money per sale. At micros they sell a few times, making you a couple of dollars and that's it. I consider the Editorial incursion by micros a great lie to new photographers, they will collect the money by volume, photographers wont see much out from it. I have no objections on making money from travel shots, even with people. All my unreleased material is labeled Editorial and in certain cases I have set usage restrictions for sensitive matters with the released material. PD: people shots with RF licences at micros are very good candidates for some kinds of problems. Imagine you convince your fiance or wife to pose for some shots and they end up used in a national herpes campaign... You wouldnt be able to do anything at all. It happened in the past with a photographers father, he was used in a comp staring at stripper dancers and despite his protests IStock did nothing at all... Imagine telling that to your father... His image all around the web... It is very sensitive and that is why I usually avoid using people shots at micros. Mine are all with releases and restrictions of usage, according with each specific case.
157
« on: March 02, 2008, 14:41 »
Go to Alamy and Photoshelter... Forget all about submiting editorial to micros, it is a waste of time, they will not sell enough to even cover the bandwith used to upload them.
158
« on: January 25, 2008, 01:23 »
My average per time worked is around 1,5$/worked hour/month
This number is the most important one, in the end... If the return per hour worked really worth it... That is what each of us has to figure out with our own numbers and our own data. And if that return satisfies us... Interesting...
159
« on: January 20, 2008, 23:59 »
where micros seem to be 50 cents to $1 for most people here
This is not a realistic number... It's been discussed that on certain portfolios you will make $1-2/image/year. In previous discussions it was discussed that in the long run a micro portfolio could match or even earn more than that. In reality, it varies. If it was a standard then everybody would be making hundreds of dollars per month, even thousands... In every portfolio there is about a 20% of images that make 80% of your income. I sincerely doubt that most portfolios could earn the $25 per year per photo, maybe there is one or two out there, but the real earning per photo per year is more an assumption than a real figure available for analysis.
160
« on: January 17, 2008, 23:36 »
Perhaps in third world countries where annual growth is non-existent.
Actually, money is moving to those countries that have been showing above average growth... My own little Panama has had a growth over 10% and even Venezuela, with their madman as president, has shown big growth....
161
« on: January 16, 2008, 16:07 »
What are 10 things which stock Photographer MUST DO in 2008
1. go exclusive at istockphoto.com
2. buy stock from Getty Images (A share (also referred to as equity shares) of stock represents a share of ownership in a corporation.Getty Images now is 23$ per 1 shares ) No and No... The first one needs no explanation, from the classic "all eggs in one basket" to the fact that IStock is absurdely asking you to be royalty free exclusive on an artist basis and not on an image basis. You would never be able to sell RF at Alamy, PSC, Acclaim, Corbis or whatever agency you choose for what, an extra share of a few bucks?! No way... http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GYI&t=6m Here you will see that Getty has lost about 50%+ of its value in the last months... They were at 50 six months ago, now around 23... no way... It is not a bargain, it simply a bad investment. 3. buy Canon 5D ( or Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III (22MP) )
4. buy Canon L Series lenses It could be a wise move, if you plan to sell macro stock. For micros, maybe, only if you downsize for suscription sites. 5. Move Photos from "Macrostock agancies" to istockphoto.com
6. Stop upload photos or images to the subscription-based web sites (0.20-0.30$ per image ) Point 5 is absurd. Point six, could be, but I would rather downsize my pics instead of removing them, until I figure out what the market shapes this year. 7.Stop upload photos from family , girlfriends , neighbourhoods and colleagues .
8. Start paying models to shoot . May I ask why? Many agencies, to say most, sell pics of regular looking people quite well... Not everybody has to look shiny and happy micro style all the time. The micro look is too widespread and losing ground. And the first ones are almost free. 9. Stop use F5
10. Relax
just my 2 Cent 
I agree on the relax side... For me, I would have included: 1. Diversify markets and seek macro agencies beyond the micro world. 2. Start selling content as RM. 3. Start booking assignment work. 4. Keep improving quality of your work. 5. Think out of the box, there is more in stock photography than micros. Micros are a part of any business equation, but are not the whole thing. 6. Avoid any exclusivity that goes beyond a per image exclusivity.
162
« on: January 16, 2008, 15:54 »
The problem here is not the low price, but the too low price.
I think that the casual blogger, the casual user, were among the first to use micros for getting their images, but now you see images from all micros showing on websites from corporations and on print ads all over the place. And we still get pennies for it.
Licences are too wide on what the buyer gets and we get the burden of all the legal implications, model releases and everything else associated with the supply of photos. Aesthetic requirements are up, reviewers are more and more strict and the return just does not make it worth to keep uploading photos to most of the sites.
Any serious designer, who really needs an image for a paid work, could easily pay 20 dollars for an image without problems. So I think that the midstock model is the one to embrace and support. I, for the time being, will keep uploading to Alamy, PSC and other agencies that pay more for my work.
163
« on: January 10, 2008, 23:23 »
In the ever growing trend towards suscriptions models it doesnt make sense at all. I have a 5D and hate to see my big photos being sold for several dollars in the morning and pennies in the evening at some sites... I'm talking about the same image on the same site... It simply isnt right.
164
« on: January 10, 2008, 23:21 »
why are vector graphics so expensive?....
minimum price that I see is 5 credits.
One I looked at goes for 15 credits....
This is not expensive... even at 15 credits. And yes, photographers are undervalued... But that's something we did to ourselves.
165
« on: January 10, 2008, 23:17 »
Dead, as always... 
166
« on: January 10, 2008, 23:13 »
The stupidity of IS Exclusive program is that it is the only agency that demands that the artist should be exclusive, when the usual is that images are the ones to be exclusive (you usually cannot sell similars on other sites under those terms). You dont see "Corbis exclusive artist" or "Jupiter exclusive artist"... You usually see "images exclusive" whoever... So you end up being a RF prisoner of IS for an extra 10%... NO WAY! And about what to expect from microstock... You should consider it a part of your stock business and not the business. Prepare to work hard, to define your style, to build a portfolio, to see sales go up and down according to season and to seek other venues for selling images beyond RF. It is a wild ride that, despite all advices that you can receive, you have to figure out for yourself after a while... 
167
« on: January 10, 2008, 23:08 »
StockXpert has been receiving the bashing since they are the latest in getting into the subscription model, after being very very succesful in the credits model. How can they justify giving away my images for 0.30 cents when the same day the same images earned the maximum...? They (despite being nice and everything) deserve some bashing. This is wrong.
Micros are not wrong setting affordable low prices for buyers. The problem is that those prices are too low for what they are demanding from photographers. They incentivate the buying of better and bigger equipment promising higher returns for XXL and upper sizes images, and then give us the cold shower of introducing subscriptions and giving away those images for pennies.
Then, what will follow? I would hate to see Fotolia, where I have a lot of large size sales, go the same way pressured because about everybody else went subscription.
168
« on: January 08, 2008, 22:41 »
we just sold a photo on a trad ...We have only 4 photos on this particular site, and they have been there for three years, but none of them would ever have been accepted on the micros, and they sure would not have sold.
Would you mind sharing the site...
169
« on: January 08, 2008, 19:11 »
I see that almost nobody talks about Diversification, except Andres and a couple more.
About three months ago I hit a wall in my earnings, despite uploading moderate numbers of photos my income did not grow accordingly. It happened at the same time Alamy started to allow web uploads and a bit later PhotoShelter Collection was introduced.
Just since September my earnings have doubled thanks to Alamy (and there I have less than 1000 images, about half of what I have in the micros) and things are improving as more and more images are added. When Photoshelter starts selling it should be better and that is just for a start, as there are many more agencies, macro and midstock all around.
We should do all that has been stated before (i.e. bye bye StockXpert subs) but we should start looking outside of the box and start submiting work to midstock and macros and consider to adopt more and more the RM licence scheme for a more unique kind of images. It is rather stupid (to say it lightly) to sell editorial images as microstock, the couple of downloads an image will have along its useful life wont compensate the effort put in even opening it in your computer. It is a bad move that SS and DT introduced and that many fell into.
And the comment about the "buzz" of seeing ones image is just... well, that. I feel no buzz unless it comes with a check. I once sold an image that I was about to post as micro to Samsung Electronics for more than three months earnings of all my micros combined... It was an eye opener... Not that micros should be dropped, but we have to be more selective what we send and where we send it.
And my name goes into the list!
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Batman2000
170
« on: January 01, 2008, 02:08 »
I must admit I have been very very lucky at Alamy 3,470 successful submission without any rejections. Unfortunately I had my first failed image when I had probably my biggest queue of nearly 600 images (3.75 GB uploaded between 13th and 26th of November) whilst on the road all rejected.
Not too impressed with this site no sales since the beginning of October despite dutifully disambiguating all my files.
You should edit your collection, since the amount of images you have should account for at least 3-4 sales a month. I have seen many posts about the number of images on line and the number of sales and the average shooter should expect a sale per 1000 images on line. A specialized collection will sell more, with quality being very important. Also the keywording has to be good (there is no disambiguating) and avoid having too many images of a same theme. I started uploading in August with a big pause in october and mid november, 800 images on line and a sale a month (the first one in november and the second in december). The return is more than my 1200 images at SS combined, that sell quite well. Both sales are RM, by the way. I will focusing on Alamy and PhotoShelter Collection for the next four to six months since the return promises to be far more than returns at micros without the usual problems with reviewers.
171
« on: October 09, 2007, 14:26 »
They are a total waste of time. I have around 400 images there that have sold many times elsewhere and zip at ML. I participate in a forum where there are at least 15 people submiting there and the most successful one has sold two images. They keep sending strange and worthless requests and the quarterly report is filled of vague "we had record sales" or "we surpassed the previous quarter" but with little or no numbers at all. Consider yourself lucky if they rejected you on whatever reasons, the have just saved you a lot of precious time!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
