And as a non-exclusive it will not help to post it on their forum. All reaction that it will have is a swarm of golden crowns that will rush out of the castle in defence of their queen (her name is "artifacting"). 

I find the decision of iStock to sell its content on photos.com and JU very strange. Why risk the reputation of IS with something that can only be perceived as lowering the value of its exclusive contents?

As a non-exclusive I will definitely opt out of this deal. I am contributing to StockXpert and my images are already on photos.com and JU. The big difference is that I have downsized my images for sites that offer subscriptions, while IS have my highest resolution images. I will definitely not allow my high res images on $0.30 subscription sites.

If Getty would like to utilize the potential of the newly acquired photos.com and JU, why not develop StockXpert further for this exact purpose. Open StockXpert (and thus photos.com and JU) to IS exclusive photographers, but keep it separate from IS. I don't know how they are going to avoid duplicates from IS and StockXpert. I also don't know how they are going to incorporate the unconventional keywording of IS with the more conventional keywording of photos.com and JU.

   

Quote from: lisafx on March 27, 2009, 19:27
Not saying it isn't happening, but so far the only example given is one unfortunate person who hasn't been paid.  Any more situations like this?

Sorry Lisa, but this problem is not a new one and not restricted to one person only. I am now waiting 2 and a half months for my payment and this is not the first time. Read this:

http://www.crestock.com/forum/general-help/Updates-regarding-Crestock-payouts-via-Moneybookers-5063.aspx

and you will see that there are many more with similar problems.

I actually like Crestock, but lately I must say that I am very disappointed in the way that they deal with problems like this. Communication is poor and the impression is created that they don't take this problem seriously. Not being able to pay contributors is VERY SERIOUS in my opinion, and the problem cannot be excused due to the fact that some contributors are actually been paid. It just seems logical that this should be dealt with as a matter of priority.  Apparently not.

Not sure if I will be able to join, but for nature and wildlife I can offer help and advice on where to go what to do. I know the area pretty well.

Right now I am busy packing for Sunday I am leaving for a 2 week photographic trip to neighbouring Namibia. Now there is an amazing country with some of the best opportunities for nature photography anywhere in the world. I am very exited because it will be my first long trip with my new 4x4 truck that I have equipped with everything required to live out in the wilds where there is no facilities.

Still waiting for my Moneybookers payment. It is now 2 half months. 

Quote from: leaf on March 26, 2009, 12:56
I dream of buying something like the 500mm f/4 some day but it will be a while before I can rationalize that I think

Yes, that is a huge investment, but probably one the best investments that can be made. Compared to camera bodies those types of lenses keep their value extremely well.

In any event, you cannot go wrong with the 100-400. It is one of my most used lenses and a large part of my MS portfolio was shot with that lens. It works equally well on a crop or full frame digital body.

I have owned or tried all the lenses mentioned above. For wildlife the 100-400 is the best choice. Here are my findings:

70-200 /2.8 non-IS is sharper than the IS version, especially wide open @ 200mm (I have not upgraded to the IS version for this reason). While I own the 70-200 /2.8 I do not use it for wildlife.

The 100-400 IS is not as sharp as the 70-200 (but close). With the 1.4x on the 70-200 the 100-400 is marginally sharper. I will never recommend the 2x TC on the 70-200. Compared to the 100-400 that combination is very soft. The prime 400 /5.6 is marginally sharper than the 100-400, but in the real world I obtained more sharp images with the 100-400 because of IS.

My current wildlife setup comprises three camera bodies: 1Dmk3 with 500 /4L IS, 1Dsmk2 with 100-400 IS and 50D + 1.4X TC for extra reach on the 500 /f4 IS.

Quote from: sharpshot on March 24, 2009, 20:34
Or perhaps they have seen how another site does it and we will be informed after it happens

You mean after they LOWERED the commission

Thank you fotografer

Quote from: fotografer on March 19, 2009, 16:27
Wow, I see that you know what you are talking about. I just looked at your portfolio, beautiful.

Name me an area in MicroStock that is not over saturated.  Fact is that if the images are good or better than other images of the same subject they will sell.

There is a common believe that because nature subjects are easily accessible they are easy to photograph. This opinion is probably only held by those who have never tried nature/wildlife photography. Excellent wildlife and nature photography requires good equipment, a lot of patience and an intrinsic knowledge of you subject.  And they sell, especially EL's because these are the type of image that many customers will put on a product.

If the nature images are really good there are no better place to put them than right here on the big 6 MicroStock sites.

I am with Crestock since March 2006. It is thus not a case of jumping on board every new site that came along.

Just looked at my e-mail archive and the problems with Moneybookers and Crestock go as far back as August 2007 when I had the very same problem than now. In more than a year and a half Crestock did not make one inch of progress to resolve the Moneybookers problem or put an alternative it its place.

I feel your pain Lizard. I am now waiting two months for my Moneybookers payment and I have also heard the "within a week or two" promise several times.

There is one thing that stock sites should not mess with, and that it is payment of contributors. Surely they must realize that this mess is seriously hurting their already cloudy reputation. Why they don't simply offer cheque payments as an alternative is beyond my understanding.  This Moneybookers payment problems comes a long way and despite regular assurances this problem remains unresolved.

Well, I am a South African nature and wildlife photographer. You can look at my portfolio by following any of the links below. As you probable have noticed, South Africa is a large and diverse country, and it is possible to pursue any one of a large number of photographic subjects. South Africa is of course best known for its scenic beauty, national parks and diverse cultures.

What to photograph will all depends on where in South Africa you will be, how much time you have and what your photographic interests are. After 30 years of being a very active nature and wildlife photographer I still have some places on my wish list yet to visit in South Africa.

You are welcome to contact me for more specific advice if you can provide me with more information on what region of South Africa you will be visiting.

Will Veer Marketplace be truly open to photographers from around the globe, or will they also limit their contributors to those few countries that are supported by PayPal. I joined SV right in the beginning, but had to delete my images when I realized that SV have no intention of paying contributors in countries not supported by PayPal. I still have an account at SV, but no images. I will be interested to contribute to Veer Marketplace, but only if I can get paid.

This post now takes on the likes of the useless Canon vs. Nikon debates on another well known forum. The pro SS crowd vs. the pro IS crowd, along the lines of my daddy have a bigger, faster car than your daddy. All we now need is to involve some of the active Alamy forum members that despise microstock in all its forms to demonstrate to us with "facts" how microstock has killed the stock industry. 

I think it is time to lock this ridiculous discussion.

A quote from the Alamy forum:

"I have noticed over the past few months that the average sale at Alamy has, for me, been getting lower. No great concern but never the less a fact. However, yesterday I made two sales for use on a Calendar for sale worldwide. This was an Alamy sale not through a distributor and the "on line" pricing module on Alamy priced each image at £325 or around $433. Each of my images was sold for only $10 each! By my reckoning this works out at around a 97.5% discount."

It turn out that this person was not the only one. There are numerous others with the same experience.

After months of trying everything in the book my account was also recently closed. What a relief.

If I think of all the time that I wasted on this site: deleting one image a day for months, sending them several requests every week asking them to close my account and eventually changing all my descriptions and keywords to direct potential buyers to Dreamstime. 

I think Leaf should consider another section on the right. Those of "Black listed agencies". Albumo should be a proud number one on that list. They deserve to go under and it is our moral obligation to warn everybody to stay away from them.

Very interesting post. My personal observation is that while there are still some people opposed to selling the same image at different price points (me included), this practise has become more acceptable in recent times than what it was a year ago. 

I think a lot of this is got to do with the fact that micro is gaining more acceptance among serious buyers and photographers alike, resulting in a narrowing of the gap between micro and macro. Micro prices are rising and macro prices are declining. In recent times the difference in AVERAGE prices of micro and macro images are much smaller than some of the examples quoted in this post. My prediction is that this difference will narrow even more in the near future.

Gone are the days that a buyer will have to use a macro agency if he/she is in need of quality images. RT, you are 100% correct. In the end the difference in price will be reflected in the conditions and restrictions of the usage licence and not so much the image itself. The RF licence of a macro agency is quite different than the RF licence of most microstock agencies. The most important domain of the macro agencies will continue to be RM editorial images.

This is the problem: "5,660,112 photos available for download, 69,570 new photos added in the past week".

The number of images submitted by photographers every week far exceeds the growth in the number of images downloaded by buyers.  Despite constant uploading of new images your portfolio will comprise an ever smaller percentage of what is available to buyers on SS.

I agree with you all regarding subs. I hate them, but they are reality. Their very existence all got to do with a simple business principle that determines the price of any commodity in the commercial market: supply and demand. 

I remember way back in 1999 when I bough my Canon 400 /2.8 L lens, every person at my local camera club looked with awe at that lens and the images that I was able to produce with it (specifically wildlife and sport). Today in our club there are so many members with "L" lenses such as big 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4 lenses that no one is taking any notice of them any more. Not only do they own these lenses, but with fierce competition and critical reviews their technique has improved to the point that they are able to produce excellent images with their equipment.  No longer am I king of the hill simply because I own equipment that allow me to take pictures that few others were able to produce. This was not all bad because it forced me to become even better. I would still like to believe that today my wildlife images are better than most, but gone are the days when the bulk of my work are one of a kind.

My point is that no matter how good your images are, there will be somebody that can produce similar images, and can produce them in bulk. That "once in a lifetime" image (or so you think) that you are so proud of may not be so unique and valuable after all. A commodity that is common will have a low value, while a scarce commodity will increase in value.  No matter how good you are, your images individually are worth less today than they were a few years ago.

The only thing that will drive the price of Microstock images up again is when the submission of new images started to slow because people feel it is not worth the effort and cost anymore.  Microstock are still in a growth period, but as soon as earnings started to seriously decline more and more of the serious contributors will start to look for alternatives.  This shift in supply will once again drive the prices up. My prediction for the future is that with the exception of a few specialized agencies, Micro and Macro stock will meet in the middle with more realistic price for buyers and more realistic earnings for photographers. The key today is to diversify, because we may predict future trends, but not which agencies or models will make it into the future.

Sean, it is a bit like sport. We all tend to defend our team, even if they are losing or playing badly. I am only stating my view and if you do not agree it is fine with me. I have nothing to gain or lose by "proving" anything. Enough said.

Madelaide got it right. Best match should essentially be employed for the benefit of the BUYER - to get the most relevant picture for the search term(s) used. IS apparently see best match as a tool to benefit CONTRIBUTERS and in its latest incarnation openly and undeniably to benefit their exclusive photographers.

Personally I have no problem with that as I can also become an exclusive IS photographer. I choose not to because I am not willing to sacrifice 80% of my monthly income, which can in no way be compensated for by increased sales at IS as an exclusive photographer.  My question is this: for how long can IS continue to benefit their exclusives at the cost of their BUYERS. When will the buyers get fed up to wade through pages of irrelevant images which are placed before more relevant images just because they are from exclusive photographers. In the end this can only have negative consequences for everybody when buyers start to leave for other agencies. There are indications that this is already happening as indicated by a dramatic drop in IS traffic.

I have done some experiments of my own and I concluded that a buyer at IS I will really be frustrated with the poor results of the current best match results. If I was an exclusive photographer at IS I will be nervous because it is clear that IS is gambling with their current good fortunes.

QuoteWhats the best way to do best match?

Thats an easy one. The best one will be the one that puts all my images on the firts page of every search. Anything less is simply not fair or in the interest of the buyers.

Let's argue this objectively. What can a new agency possibly offer a customer that they cannot find at one of the big 6 sites? I often hear the comment that they must spend more money on marketing. "Marketing" - that magic word that can cure everything. What can a new agency advertise in a marketing campaign? "Come to us. We offer you a FRACTION of the images that you can find on all the major sites at the same or higher price point". 

What an agency needs to succeed are long term, regular, bulk buyers. Unfortunately these buyers are all INFORMED buyers who are not going to fall for these new agencies since they know a new agency can offer them nothing. In this regard the well established agencies are now just too far ahead in terms of contents and reputation and informed buyers will always use one of the more established agencies. At best a new agency may attract an occasional buyer who is not well informed and who may accidentally stumble open the site. These types of buyers are not enough to ensure their long term success.

Unless a new site can come up with something really radically unique FOR THE BUYER, in combination with a fair deal to the photographers, they don't stand a chance to make it in this industry. Sorry to say but an easy upload system and a good attitude are not enough to ensure success. Of all the new startup sites I would say that Vivozoom appears to be the only new site that maybe onto something new to buyers - warranting that the buyer won't get sued. This is based on a requirement of many potential buyers as established through actual marketing research. Only time will tell if this strategy will be enough to attract bulk buyers.

If I extrapolate the statistical curve fitted to my sales data at BS I will probably have to pay them in a few months.  .  With regular uploads and more than 1150 images online it is very disappointing. Fortunately DT, FT and StockXpert grows almost exponentially leaving BS in a distant 7th position.