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 - JPSDK
Pages: 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 70 ... 74
1601
« on: August 29, 2012, 08:48 »
Thriving coops have hired staff, that are paid by the surplus.
There is nothing wrong in hiring a over energic salesperson and put him on straight commision.
1602
« on: August 29, 2012, 03:06 »
you are free to not participate, and sit and polish your crown instead.
1603
« on: August 29, 2012, 02:50 »
first you need to establish a platform for communication. Then an adress, and a legal entity, based on a foundation paper.
1604
« on: August 28, 2012, 18:24 »
the pictures are allready hosted, - we are connected to the net.
1605
« on: August 28, 2012, 14:22 »
yes RUX, you weld cast iron by glowing it, so the heat does not float away from the place you weld. That means red hot.
1606
« on: August 28, 2012, 14:14 »
a ham sandwich is a ham sandwich, and it does not involve tomatoes and especially not mayonaise. Ham and onions only. to that milk.
1607
« on: August 28, 2012, 14:08 »
It is not impossible. Crowdsourcing is many things and the net connects people.
Over here in Denmark we had great many cooperatives in the last century. Typically within the distribution of milk, butter and meat. They were not small. They worked, they were a lifestyle and they were GOOD at competing with sheer capitalism.
The financials we typically arranged this way: People bought small shares. Fx a farmer bought a share in the butchery. Loans from banks.
The producers then had a stabile distribution channel, and depending on the market prices, the surplus was delivered back to the contributers as dividend or bonus. Production greatly benifited from cooperatives, new livestock races were bread and perfected, new techniques were implemented. The result is, that Denmark today, has an advanced diary industry and is market leading in many ways.
All it takes is a dedicated group of people, who can come up with well working business plan and a description of the cooperative. I think it can be done i 2 ways: The slow approach, where many little fish work together, there are many contributers who are also buyers. Or the coup dtat approach, where a packet of money headhunts some of the key customer relations people from well funktioning agencies. It is obvious that prices would be competitive.
1608
« on: August 26, 2012, 13:15 »
But Rux, you fail to recognize, that their upload procedure is a brilliant piece of work. We contributers, want to think that the agencies appreaciate our pictures. The agencies on the other hand, have a message to tell us. And that is, that they do not care about us, and they want us to do all the work, and they show us that every time we upload a file. Like they say: "Lets see how an annoying process you can deal with".
So Rux, take it for what it is: a user interface, with a purpose. To humiliate us, to keep those contributers who let themselves become humiliated.
1609
« on: August 25, 2012, 06:57 »
I know people who started a COOP photograph distribution agency back in the 1980 ties. It worked well and had a surplus for many years.
It is possible to do, also on the internet.
But since we had the debate a couple of times, I have begun to think it might be better to make a MARKET place, for both buyers and sellers. My guess is that the buyers are equally tired of the middlemen.
1610
« on: August 23, 2012, 03:32 »
I have given up on the following: Stock expert Scandinavian Stock Bigstock Crestock yaymicro zoonar stockfresh mostphotos and probably others.
they could not deliver
1611
« on: August 20, 2012, 05:23 »
I cannot understand their partner program. What are they? an agency with a pool, or a distributing agency?
1612
« on: August 20, 2012, 05:20 »
Are you guys really discussing if it pays to have an education or not?
Really? Dont you know? If not, then just imagine that you coldnt read. Being able to read comes from education, it can be stepped up to more.
Bla. bla, you will say. But there are many people who cant read. And speaking of it, how is it with the degree of alitteracy in the USA?
1613
« on: August 11, 2012, 09:58 »
The logical move in a world of crowsourcing, when you step up and hire personel, is of course to crowdsource the personel also at world market prices. Wages are not the same at different places in the world, whereas picture prices are the same, and they are low. We all complain about that.
Its amazing that Yuri could build such a succes out of the high costs in Denmark in the beginning. He is now doing what we all need to do if we want to expand: hire cheap hands to produce cheap pictures.
That just gave me an idea: To outsource my photography and send my camera to a guy in Africa, and have him photograph elephant feet, African landscapes and broken down landrovers. I could then sell the pictures and he could get 20 % of the earnings.
We live in a crude world of capitalistic competition, and the wages we are used to in the rich western world are under pressure. We microstock photographers should of all know that.
1614
« on: August 11, 2012, 02:14 »
Raw is nothing special, and copyright can just as easily be proven with a jpg.
I always take jpgs, and almost never raws, and IF I take raws, its for the fast unimportant shots. Also many people suffer from the misunderstanding, that their postprocessing is better than the automated jpg production in the camera.
Better or not, it certainly is time and space consuming.
1615
« on: August 09, 2012, 05:33 »
Interesting. I have been thinking of doing such things. How long did it take? it both opens and closes. A whole day. What was your inteval between the single photos?
1616
« on: August 09, 2012, 05:25 »
there is such a thing as information entropy.
If all information( pictures) are mixed chaotically they become meaningless, and worthless moneywise. I think the biggest treat to microstock are the search machines and the keyword spamming.
That is why a simple search, like newest first, or most popular, is better than all complicated and tweaked searches. Out of ten new pictures from the buyers search, one is likely to be relevant. If you mix that up in second order searches its more like 10 times less everytime you put a digital intrepretation on things. Most popular would probably be the most precise search, because it shows what other people found relevant. witk h20 mill pictures and 50 times the amount of spammed keywords chaos is just around the corner. I think a large stock agency can die within a month, if there is chaos enough.
1617
« on: August 09, 2012, 05:16 »
ja IS is paranoic.
I had pictures rejected there for flaws, and yes there were small flaws, and I corrected them. BUT, first after a year or so, when I saw the potential of the picture. And in the year the pictures earned a lot of money at other places. Money that IS did not earn in that period.
Is that smart doing business? Its like they play poker, instead of trying to get business in the shop. Im not the only one.
1618
« on: August 09, 2012, 05:07 »
Im not ever going to pay for my photos to be marketed.
People should be happy to represent them.
1619
« on: August 09, 2012, 05:00 »
its because of windows 8 and whitish backgrounds.
We need to produce a whole new set of images. If we havent already. ;-)
1620
« on: August 09, 2012, 04:43 »
If I had some power in this world I would make it illegal for the agencies to have secret search machines. For both contributers and customers it is important to see how the good is delivered.
Like in a shop, we can physically see the goods and if the goods are in the shop and not in the backroom, and also where they come from. If I were a seller of packets of oatsmeal, I would not do trade with a shop that placed the packets "on sale" in a dark room in another building.
I would be able to see that, physically, and I want to know the search machines.
The agencies want profit, and I quarantee you, they do everything to not pay out money. Search machines might actually be HIDING machines.
1621
« on: August 09, 2012, 04:32 »
Now, find old Johnny Cash and listen to "16 tons"
exclusivity = dependency
1622
« on: August 09, 2012, 04:30 »
Im adapted to shutterstock, and I know what they will accept. I think they are easy. My postprocessing is adapted to shutterstocks "pop and shine" policy. Same with Istock, they are consistent, and difficult. Postprosessing must be perfect. DT and FOT are less predictable, they reject half of the images shutterstock accepts.
Lately I have uploaded hundreds of my ss pictures to minor agencues, practically without rejections.
In short: Istock worst FOT second worst DT easy enough SS very easy
I have the feeling that IS would take my pictures straight out of the camera, but they dont like "pop and shine"
1623
« on: August 09, 2012, 04:15 »
They will sell. They are rare and bright and shiny.
I looked at one in 100% and its not really really sharp enough. But he could always downsize it or put 4 together in for example "An areal autumn composition)
I can se he is one of thes shapes and colour guys, and he does it well, artistically.
However the pictures would sell MUCH better if they were precise on keyword and concept, like classic stock photos must be. Now can you imagine how well a nuclear plant taken from above would sell. or a tanker, or a traffic jammed motorway, not to mention a prison.
1624
« on: August 06, 2012, 02:36 »
Let us hear what happens.
1625
« on: August 05, 2012, 19:00 »
Sometimes they even use pink or blue monarchs in Europe.
Pages: 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 70 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|