|
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 - macrosaur
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13
176
« on: March 04, 2010, 11:24 »
software. I heard couple times from people: "I know how to read punch cards!". I do too, but how it can help now? 
don't worry, there's a chance a sort of "open source" photography is going to develop soon as people will put online all the images they can't sell or get past QC.
177
« on: March 04, 2010, 10:33 »
@Yuri :
Dear Yuri,
Reading that the world's microstock top seller is openly talking about FREE images is frightening.
As a long time RM shooter i'm really wondering where the RF is heading :
as if 0.25$/download wasn't cheap enough, are we really reaching the point where images will be
available for free in personal web sites surrounded by advertising banners or paired with discounts
and monthly subscriptions ?
p.s.
I didn't want to be rude in the other blog (Ellen Boughn), it's just pure curiosity, after all it's you
making a lot of hype about your sales stats so please forgive me if i pushed the wrong button.
178
« on: March 04, 2010, 09:00 »
Getty Images already has the top 1000 RM shooters.
maybe one day iStock will follow with the best 1000 RF shooters ?
179
« on: March 04, 2010, 08:22 »
I did have my own small very specialized agency in the beginning of the 90s, fair enough its differant today but the Admin work is still the same. Its a hellish job, no time for photography, every second went to overlooking the agency, as it grew I couldnt find time and then you have to get people and they have to be paid, etc.
Ended up selling out.
no thanks never again.
i agree 100%. it's simply cheaper and faster to join a good RM agency and give them their well deserved share. people take it too easy when talking about direct selling, they've no idea how messy is it. just for getting paid is a big pain in the ass, it's exactly like having your own small agency with just one photographer .. you.
180
« on: March 04, 2010, 08:19 »
We can't blame the sites because there is nothing to stop us creating our own site and using it exclusively. That would soon put our site at the top of the microstock poll results. We don't need to spend any money on advertising, just use twitter, myspace, facebook etc. I know people will find all sorts of reasons why we can't do it and that is a shame because I think it would be more positive than constantly reading threads about how bad the future could be for us. If it is impossible, there must be other options. I refuse to believe that we just have to sit back and watch sites cut commissions.
selling direct works fine for those selling something special, like news reportage, wildlife, rare animals, rare food, and anything hard to find elsewhere. how do you hope to sell generic microstock photos at premium price when it can be found anywhere else for 0.25$ ? it reminds me of one citizen journalism agency i joined months ago, called Demotix, they accept anyone and they think using Twitter and Facebook sales will come but despite all their bells and whistles i've got not a single sale so far ... losers ! as far as i know the only decent sales they had in 1 year were the photos in Iran taken from Twitter. and to top it off when you upload a new story they'll tell you the upload went fine and then they encourage you to link the story to all your twitter and facebook friends.. * that's the last thing i wanna hear from an agency that's supposed to sell and promote my images getting its 50% fee.
181
« on: March 04, 2010, 05:19 »
This trade doesn't belong to anyone. I believe everyone should be free to try their skills at a trade, and if they're good, they should be allowed to prosper. You can't build a wall around your little industry and kick down people as they try to enter. That's protectionist (bad) and elitist (not much better).
Everyone, ask yourself: when you started in your livelihood, whatever it is, did the veterans in your industry kick you down and say you shouldn't be allowed to prove yourself and grow your skills? Sure, you had competitors who felt threatened by your arrival, but was there a concerted effort by your peers to keep you out? That's what it feels like here.
I'm a sensible person. I'm not going to help anyone submit images in my style and in the niches I've found are successful for me. But I am going to share some common sense insights that I've figured out along the way, offer encouragement, and speak out in defense of a newbie's freedom to put his or her skills to the test. And if that scares the veterans out there, you better step up your game. God didn't grant you the position you hold today. You worked hard to get where you are, but you can't deny others the right to do the same.
when i started years ago there were no forums nor blogs nor fast internet connections. agencies required an initial batch of 500 edited pictures sent on CD and it took ages to get a reply from them and month to see the images online. and i had no one teaching me the trade as anyone here were doing weddings or assignments, never heard of photographers selling stock in my town apart for news with getty/ap/afp/reuters. so i can tell you, years ago it was much tougher than today and yet there were plenty of photographers doing it anyway. this was good because only the ones really wanting to do this job were applying to agencies and getting their foot in the door. nowadays it takes a few holiday shots and in a few hours you can join many agencies and start selling right away. of course now there's too much people and too many images and sales fall down, they destroyed the eco-system and i can't see how it can fix itself ... it's broken and it's too late now. if anyone can be a photographer and if anyone can sell photos, THEY WILL. multiply this for tens of thousands of newbies and you get the actual scenario. and i'm seeing the same dark situation in journalism and photo journalism where they lowered the bar so much that the big question is if there will be still full time journalists in 10 years from now. there are plenty of interns and temps in national magazines in europe getting paid as low as 500 euro a month, yes it's less than grilling burgers and they all have degrees and post-degree accreditations. at the same time a good wedding photographer can make 3000 euro in a day and have a good lunch and dinner included. it's gonna be very tough from now on for those shooting very generic images. and in my opinion microstock has not yet hit the rock bottom, this is just the tip of the iceberg as the getty guys are only after the money and couldn't care less if their contributors are starving, for them is the more the better...
182
« on: March 04, 2010, 05:09 »
every RM agency accepts requests by phone and email.
in the old days that was all they were doing full time.
some charge some money for the service, others do it free.
183
« on: March 04, 2010, 05:06 »
as i see it, it's a complete waste of time to deal with second tier agencies.
i would focus mainly on istock and go exclusive.
the days of these third rate agencies are numbered.
184
« on: March 04, 2010, 05:01 »
If you're really desperate then by all means switch to Flickr and sell directly, or Photographer's Direct.
I mean, the ONLY reason to join an agency, any agency, is for them to bring us the buyers.
If they don't, we better find the buyers ourselves and sell the pics at 100 or 200 $ each.
Sheila Smart in the Alamy forum is very successful at this, she sells everywhere, macrostock, microstock, flickr, fine-art galleries, word of mouth ...
185
« on: March 04, 2010, 04:58 »
Excuse me guys but ...
BLOGGING free images ??
Twittering ??
If this is the future you better grill burgers and fry chips at mcdonalds.
You've no idea how much time it takes to really promote a single site
in all forums, social networks, newsletters, mailing lists, blogs, and newspapers.
It takes AGES and the more you give out for free the more your readers will
expect from you, GIVING NOTHING BACK apart a click-thru-rate of barely 1%
on your ads and buying the odd e-book if you can write one.
120K from blogs ? yes if you're in the world's top 10 blogs, but if not...
186
« on: March 03, 2010, 18:37 »
Actually, this thread wasn't directed at you Dook.
then maybe me ?  but let's look at it from another perspective : there's a whole "newbie" section in this forum, so they have plenty of space already. i don't blame newbies actually, i blame agencies for ripping them off with the illusion of getting rich quick. it should be written on the stone that joining an agency (RM of RF) without at least 1000 photos will lead you nowhere. instead here there's plenty of newbies talking about selling their 50 holiday snaps. who's gaining from newbies ? no one, and first of all not the professional photographers. canon and nikon are already doing their best to sell the myth that all you need to take goos shots is their latest cameras, why we should encourage new amateurs to join the market when the marker itself is goign down the drain even for the top sellers ? there's a place for newbies, and it's called Flickr .. and photo.net, and many other less known sites. sorry for being harsh but it just makes no business sense to teach newbies our trade.
187
« on: March 03, 2010, 18:30 »
if i was a buyer i would stick with iStock.
188
« on: March 03, 2010, 15:34 »
can you define "newbie" in 3 or 4 comments?
anyone with less than 1000 saleable images.
LOL... There is people with a portfolio of 250 to 400 images that have more than 10 000 sales. That's probably more than you, but we can't see your work. The problem to me is the portfolio with more than 1000 unsellable images, not the ones with small sellable portfolio... Seriously
fine, but can you call a pro stock photographer somebody shooting 200 photos in 3 years ? i mean, this is stock, it's all about volume, it's not art.
189
« on: March 03, 2010, 15:33 »
Now aren't you setting the bar a bit low. Isn't the final goal of any Photographer to have a one man show in a fancy Soho Photogrpahy Gallery selling a print for $5000 (with or without art groupies), or the cover of Vogue?
Its good to have aspirations, n'est pas
it depends, there's people on Getty making big bucks with just 2-300 photos. others selling travel with 70.000 photos, but they all have two things in common : 1 - they did their homework and decided to go pro 2 - they're able to make profesional photos in good volumes with no questions asked.
190
« on: March 03, 2010, 15:26 »
Last week in Scotland:
Newish kilt chain Slanj (joke spelling) sells tshirts with the slogan "World Cup: anyone but England" playing on the old tradition that Scots will support anyone other than England in any sports event where they are not represented. And thankfully, we didn't qualify for the World Cup.
Policeman goes in and warns them that it might be construed as racist.
Company gets tons of free publicity out of it, including about five minutes on BBC Scottish News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8533791.stm
how can that be racist ? Gordon Brown is scottish by the way.
191
« on: March 03, 2010, 15:25 »
besides, as a european i really wonder what's this superbowl all about ... watching that stuff makes me sleep.
This can be said of all professional sports. There is no bigger yawner in the world.
i'm starting to love Curling, funny stuff there !
192
« on: March 03, 2010, 08:45 »
$40 to go. Good for you. I guess you are preparing a press release and a big party. Though I don't think you will invite me. 
there. exactly what i was trying to say. anyone can make few good shots and make 40$ but this doesn't make you a pro. when you'll make let's say 4000$/month with your photos then we'll talk about it.
193
« on: March 03, 2010, 08:43 »
so what is the problem of being a newbie? like I have always read from pros, is they saying that are building up a good and saleable portfolio!..
the problem with newbies is that they should stick to Flickr instead of polluting the pro's market with their tiny portfolios. pros and competition is more than welcome, but we should close the door to the horde of 1000s of newbies with 30-40 photos each. and about learning : after a long time you reach a point where you know exactly what you're doing so where's the problem in proving a few hundreds image to apply with an agency ? there's nothing wrong in being a newbie, just don't dream of selling photos. that's something pro do, not newbies.
194
« on: March 03, 2010, 08:39 »
can you define "newbie" in 3 or 4 comments?
anyone with less than 1000 saleable images.
have you started RM with 1000 saleable images? microstock is just like photography, learning everyday and trying to make better photos etc.. so what is the problem of being a newbie? like I have always read from pros, is they saying that are building up a good and saleable portfolio!..
yes, i started with 500 images, as it was the norm years ago and frankly i don't think it's so hard to make 500 good images if you want to be a pro. i can do it in few dats, while for a newbie it could take 1 year... to each his own.
195
« on: March 03, 2010, 08:04 »
It is funny to see that to fight spam they use spam
in serious agencies anyone spamming would be booted out without any further questioning. DT is obviously not a serious agency.
196
« on: March 03, 2010, 08:03 »
i disagree.
there's plenty of photo forums where the newbies can found hints about shooting better photos, selling photos, agencies, etc and finallt there's Flickr.
it's just too easy for newbie microstockers to get a foot in the door, to have critiques on their photos, to spy on other users' sales and views, to find any sort of help in forums and blogs.
the good thing about RM is that there's almost no help whatsover and to make a single sale it takes a long time and lots of images just to start.
this way there are no newbies around and the few ones who get in are dismayed by seeing no sales and then move to microstock.
197
« on: March 03, 2010, 04:31 »
besides, as a european i really wonder what's this superbowl all about ... watching that stuff makes me sleep.
198
« on: March 03, 2010, 04:27 »
I think someone in this thread asked for a definition of "newbie".
Here are some characteristic to recognize a "newbie":
1. They are microstock cheerleaders telling everyone how great this business is.
2. They still earn $0.25 at Shutterstock
3. They support Thinkstock. And of course, they think $0.25 is ok!
4. They do not yet qualify to be IS exclusive. Even though it's only 250 images required.
5. They celebrate every single sale they make.
6. They make statistics with small numbers.
What else? Mmm... Ah!
7. They get angry when they read something they don't like.
hahaha excellent !
199
« on: March 03, 2010, 04:21 »
can you define "newbie" in 3 or 4 comments?
anyone with less than 1000 saleable images.
200
« on: March 02, 2010, 18:32 »
yes, lots of newcomers in micros but where are they heading with their 50 images collections ?
and how much are they gonna earn from this ?
will it be enough to keep uploading in the long term ?
because actually i think it's getting really tough for newcomers to make money with micros.
can I say that you are 50% agree?.. it maybe be tough (not that much I guess), but is it possible of course a lot of work, but IT IS!
of course anything is possible, but than even applying for Getty straight away instead of wasting time with IS and SS. i mean, considering the effort needed and the falling sales in micros is there really a good reason to join a micro nowadays if you're a newbie with a small portfolio ? in my opinion newbies should be banned from IS and SS, and left to the third rate agencies.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
