|
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 - louoates
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 31
226
« on: December 28, 2010, 10:26 »
A year from now we all will look back on this thread and wonder how woefully shortsighted we were. Or how stupidly farsighted we were to ever think that THAT could actually happen.
Anyhow, here are the first of my predictions. Feel free to jump in with yours.
1. Lens-less cameras will either be on the market or hints will be flying in the blog-o-spheres. Sorry, lens makers, get your research folks working on those logarithms now if they aren't already.
2. The remaining film and chemical based school darkrooms will shut off their safe lights for good.
3. Kodachrome processing technology will return from the dead. Some entrepreneur will buy rights and equipment to continue the processing for another few years.
4. Micro stock photography will enjoy an upswing in sales due to the current upswing in the economy and the outsourcing of more image resources.
227
« on: December 28, 2010, 10:07 »
The pace of change is indeed breathtaking. It's like someone from the year 1700 standing in front of a speeding truck reasoning that it was impossible to have something moving faster than a horse.
The future of digital photography is so exciting I think I'll stop here and go start another thread about predictions for 2011 and beyond. Come join the fun. And happy new year to all.
228
« on: December 28, 2010, 09:59 »
I knew it was just a matter of time before X will be able (and allowed) to transfer files to Y. But if contributors are Z, will X pay Z or will X retain fees from Y? Or if Z performs this transfer at Z's option will it cost Z a fee to either X or Y?
229
« on: December 27, 2010, 20:40 »
I remember the last roll of film I had processed at a supposedly good film lab. I was so shocked at the result I asked the lab manager if he had to teach the technicians to throw the film on the lab floor and drag it the length of the building. It actually had bits of dirt embedded into the film to say nothing of the huge scratches throughout. He offered to "rewash" the film. I told him, no, just keep it as a reminder of why digital will eventually put him out of business.
Kodachrome film and its processing at one time was the standard by which photography output was judged. You knew that a perfect exposure would yield predictably perfect results. The proliferation of outside (of Kodak) labs seriously degraded Kodachrome and other film results. I see slide film of all kinds with failing chemistry after 10=15 years, mostly from non-Kodak labs. I think the Photoshop auto color control was designed to correct those film processing defects as much as the effects of aging.
I won't grieve the passing of Kodachrome any more than I did for glass plates. We're way beyond both.
230
« on: December 25, 2010, 14:34 »
I'm really po'd that I'm not on the list. I had total sales of 1 in 2010. I should be on the list as the most patient of contributors -- sort of like a lifetime achievement award during the Oscars.
231
« on: December 24, 2010, 12:06 »
It must be a truly great interview because I can't find anything about it to criticize. *!
232
« on: December 23, 2010, 10:35 »
as economy crumbles, I think we will see more and more companies viciously using non productive means trying to get their hands on the remaining few extra dollars going around, as compensation. Capitalism is going to be showing it's worst face - expect that in microstock too (just look at istock)
Quite a leap of reasoning equating Kodak's exertion of their perceived legal rights to a condemnation of Capitalism. And how exactly is istock lumped in with the alleged sins of Kodak?
233
« on: December 22, 2010, 23:08 »
One of the reasons I read Parade is to look at all the stock pics used there. The advertisers seem to gravitate toward the old standard images that have been used forever. Maybe the older age demographics of Parade preclude other approaches. At least they look old to me -- and I'm over 70.
234
« on: December 21, 2010, 21:24 »
Similarly, if the agency collects money in 2010 and does not pay out commissions on those sales until 2011 they can't claim that commission as an expense in 2010 and thus must pay more in taxes for 2010.
235
« on: December 21, 2010, 10:34 »
Nothing surprising in the lack of complaints. We are in the midst of an entitlement period whereby anything on the internet is fair game to use.
236
« on: December 21, 2010, 10:30 »
Nope. You are all looking at this incorrectly.
The meaningful calculation is this:
Total dollars earned in micro minus total dollar outflow for newest Photoshop version and newest digital camera and lenses. It you still have money left over you are doing very well. Merry Christmas all.
237
« on: December 19, 2010, 14:31 »
I read the info as mainly for the video users, finally offing 35 mm film. I can envision a smaller and lighter model competing with Canon and Nikon for us static folks. Even then it seems like overkill for the foreseeable micro market.
However, the play value seems irresistible.
238
« on: December 17, 2010, 09:37 »
Race...great idea about unsold images and I like the name Cobweb Images. It congers up old dusty out-of-the-mainstream stuff you might find in am attic in a long abandoned house. I've got loads of them also but no desire to put any more work into them. Do you accept donations? How about exclusive donations?
239
« on: December 11, 2010, 20:18 »
I just knew this topic would get political real fast. Social security is going broke unless fixed with a sensible solution. It was the world's largest Ponzi scheme at the beginning, middle, and fast approaching final stage. Time to pull the plug on it.
240
« on: December 09, 2010, 11:53 »
Just got this. Sorry I won't waste my time commenting further. Hi lou , My name is Noah and I am the marketing manager here at AudioMicro. We currently specialize in stock music and sound effects sales and licensing. Over the course of the past 2+ years we have built a very successful business in this market and have just begun development on a new site for stock photos. We love your work so just wanted to reach out to see if you would have any interest in contributing to the new site/platform? We will handle all of the ingest/uploading of your images and pay out directly to paypal once live. The site is currently under full steam development and we expect to be in operation and ready to sell stock photos by February. We have a vast amount of experience in SEO, developing web traffic etc, and are confident that if we get some great contributors we will build a very successful stock photos site. Let me know your thoughts/if you would be interested in contributing to a new stock photo site, and at any rate thanks a bunch for taking the time to read this. I hope all is well for you and yours. Cheers, NB -- Noah S Becker Manager, Marketing ___________________________________ http://www.AudioMicro.comemail: [email protected]aim: falcon2noah Google Talk: [email protected]Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/audiomicroBe a fan on Facebook: http://bit.ly/2Vh9dU
241
« on: December 08, 2010, 17:51 »
DT is much better for my type of images than FT. More sales + higher per image earnings. It seems like DT is increasingly pulling away from FT for me. I've been on both for 5+ years.
242
« on: December 04, 2010, 09:38 »
What's super potential? If I had to guess what my best 5 sellers would be before I uploaded them I would be dead wrong. I'd put my very best seller (29/mo on IS) way down on my list. Best advice, put 'em all on as many decent sites as you can and let the dollars vote.
You could always post the image here and have us judge what's super. That would also be a crap shoot. We'd all be wrong too.
243
« on: December 01, 2010, 17:08 »
Not unless it would do any good improving the sites. But I doubt that's possible given the importance paid our opinions.
245
« on: November 26, 2010, 12:26 »
Years ago I decided not to worry too much about this whole topic. The fact is that if you have images on the internet they will be stolen by those who simply are thieves and by those with no clue about copyright.
I believe the sites are well aware of the magnitude problem and choose not to do much because the legal expenses would be prohibitively high. They probably have a form email they send out with a warning but that's about it. If it is a hugely visible theft by a large entity they might make a phone call. I think they will only get legally involved if the thief is in a business directly competitive with them, such as a microstock wanna-be well aware of the legal situation.
As for them spending much time defending a single image for a single replaceable contributor don't hold your breath.
DISCLAIMER: Much of this is speculation on my part borne out by what I've read here or experienced myself.
246
« on: November 25, 2010, 14:24 »
The reason that images used to cost a lot more is due to the technology of the day and the highly restricted marketplace with most potential suppliers effectively excluded. Nowadays the technology is absurdly cheap and the suppliers are producing far more than the market actually needs. But at least it is now largely being governed by market forces.
Absolutely market forces are the governing factor. Lots of supplies, lots of demand, lots of providers, easy access for buyers, easy access for sellers. Let's have at it! I love it. And I love the preposterous ramblings of critics.
247
« on: November 24, 2010, 16:10 »
Looks like they embedded your image into theirs and formed one file for their header (use view info on mouse-over with a right click) the same as they did with the ribbon used with the CVS logo. To me it is just embellishing their logo with your graphic for this site. So the gray area is if whether or not that embellishment constitutes use as a logo. I'd side with the logo use if they used it like this in other sales material as well.
I don't think this this would be an issue if the image was placed a bit farther from the logo. Just like nobody would think the palm tree image would be considered a logo use.
248
« on: November 24, 2010, 14:26 »
I have 330 images there with a 94% acceptance rate. I like the look and navigation. I hate the long queue times and the long time it takes to even begin to get views. There seems to be another bottleneck after acceptance in getting the images on line and search-able. I think also sales there have taken way too long to materialize but they now belong to the middle sales tier for me as well as others. For me they're selling more than FT but less than DT, SS, and IS. The key with Veer is patience along with a great deal of hopeful anticipation.
249
« on: November 23, 2010, 21:18 »
I doubt many businesses believe they are buying crap images. They are buying images good enough to fill their needs. The people who are viewing the end product aren't purists and have very little image sophistication. The end "consumer" is thinking little of the artistry of photography. To most of them it's a pretty picture that suits the product. Will all of microstock go out of business? No way. The dumb ones will. The smart ones will prosper.
250
« on: November 19, 2010, 11:32 »
Very interesting idea using the search words to search multiple sites. I like that the photographer is credited. It seems to let the buyer quickly see if the site they have a contract with has the image they like without having to open those other sites directly and searching. Nice tool that seems very accurate as to the search words.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 31
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
