|
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 - fotoVoyager
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 23
326
« on: October 11, 2013, 15:37 »
That's pretty impressive in such a short space of time. They've obviously got a team that knows how to sell as well as great content. Well done.
327
« on: October 09, 2013, 13:53 »
I don't think Getty liked having their library filled with content they didn't control, so they put a stop to that scheme. I wouldn't expect to see it return any time soon.
Ironically, when you look at Getty now it's filling with endless amounts of Flickr junk.
Putting stuff into the E+ collection at Getty was the last remaining positive and financially rewarding option left to Exclusives and now that's gone too.
328
« on: October 03, 2013, 04:59 »
You have some very nice work - keep it up!
329
« on: September 20, 2013, 11:10 »
They need to do something quick - I've never known a September as bad as this one.
330
« on: September 20, 2013, 09:42 »
I think there's some confusion between 'non commercial' and 'editorial'. Newspapers, magazines, brochures and websites are usually commercial, but editorial images are fine for use there.
In my understanding an editorial image should be accompanied by some text in an article format to be okay. Although this is a 'non-commerical' use in that the subject is a charity, government or non-profit organisation, it's still an advert in the widely understood sense. It's the sensitive use clauses in the licence that will be the problem for the design agency. Obviously they should have taken more care with such sensitive subject matter.
I guess the lawyers will win no matter what.
331
« on: September 19, 2013, 09:47 »
Having everything I produce approved is what I always wanted but I didn't want it for everyone else.
Ha! Me too!
332
« on: September 19, 2013, 04:09 »
Yes, the lowering of inspection standards is a big step backwards.
One of iStock's great advantages was the quality of the inspection process. It made for a better collection and better photographers.
I'd understand if they were loosening the standards to accommodate aesthetically pleasing but technically dubious images, but it seems to be a much broader remit than that.
The entire object is to build the biggest, hugest, most humungous pile of images possible. That's not a sustainable way to develop and nurture photographers or the business, because soon enough the lack of sales volume for individuals will make professional quality images uneconomical to produce so buyers and artists will have to move to places like Stocksy.
333
« on: September 17, 2013, 15:11 »
Perhaps the gig is really up this time.
It's beginning to feel like it might not pull up enough to prevent a hard crash. I used to sell 150+ images a day, now I regard 20 as a normal day with three times the number of images. Some of the problem is dilution of the library, that's been inevitable for years. We all saw that coming. But I do think a big problem is the destruction of the company as a trusted, desirable brand. I think they greatly underestimated how much cross over there was between buyers and contributors, if not directly then through a shared experience of the creative industry. Treat contributors badly, squeeze them until they squeak and customers leave in droves, as we have seen. The new logo is good, but it'll take a concerted effort and real rewards to return the trust of designers and artists. iStock's dead in the water without them.
334
« on: September 17, 2013, 11:49 »
Hmm, the whole 'you can't talk about your business with anyone you like' thing seems a bit draconian to me.
335
« on: September 16, 2013, 15:01 »
Was there any more information in this disappearing post?
336
« on: September 12, 2013, 17:45 »
No I just have the one set of Feisol carbon fibre legs, the leveller and a Gitzo ball head on top. And a bad back.
338
« on: September 12, 2013, 14:10 »
I hesitate to write this because I do not want to undermine the sterling work done by so many for a very worthy and useful cause, but as a graphic designer I cannot get past the ugliness of it. It looks amateurish and I wouldn't want to display my pictures in that context for that reason. Compared to something like this: http://graphpaperpress.com/themes/sell-photos/ it doesn't look great, even if the underlying functionality and 'symbiosis' idea of artists sharing data is miles ahead of everything else. We're selling in a visual field to design professionals and the vehicle for supplying our images needs to reflect that. I think that's why iStock succeeded so well in the beginning, because it looks like it's by designers for designers, whereas ShutterStock and Dreamstime looked like a programmer had done the layout (I realise they've been reworked since). Designers are a very picky bunch. I really am very impressed with the efforts and teamwork that have taken Symbiostock this far - but you've got to make it look professional to attract professionals I think. Does that sound familiar? I'll just apologise here in advance to those that disagree.
339
« on: September 10, 2013, 08:36 »
It's no better on the photo side - sales have catastrophically crashed, for me at least.
340
« on: August 20, 2013, 03:15 »
Ricoh GR. Fantastic lens, great chip, superb light, pocketable camera. Highly recommended if you're happy with a 28mm fixed focal length. Otherwise go for a Sony RX100 if you want zoom. Not quite as good lens or chip but still remarkable.
so you ended up with that? Did you try the nikon too?
For the op a lot of compact cameras will work. I've used the sony nex ans samsung mirrorless ones but leica makes a nice mf. I personally wouldn't use anything less than aps sensor though.
It seemed the Nikon and Ricoh were essentially the same camera, but the Ricoh was cheaper. Amazing the difference removing the AA filter makes - it seems much better than my big Nikons and zooms at 100ISO. The RX100 is the only other camera that I considered at this size. Very nice, but the APS chip and lens of the GR swing it. Not much point in having a compact camera if it doesn't fit in your pocket. I also have a X100 but it's not pocketable, so never gets used.
341
« on: August 19, 2013, 12:43 »
Ricoh GR. Fantastic lens, great chip, superb light, pocketable camera. Highly recommended if you're happy with a 28mm fixed focal length. Otherwise go for a Sony RX100 if you want zoom. Not quite as good lens or chip but still remarkable.
342
« on: August 12, 2013, 06:32 »
Since the collections change farce, it seems that only the 'in crowd' get their files made Vetta or S+ - there are a lot of complaints about it over on the iS forums. So if you are already in that group, fair enough; but it's unlikely a new 'real' exclusive would get these promotions. The new faux-exclusives have their own deal.
So mathematically possible, maybe, but very hypothetical.
Then there's the question as to whether your one's higher-priced files would sell.
Your personal experience doesn't appear to be the norm for posters here or over there; I accept that there are plenty of iS exclusives at all points on the scale who don't post to forums.
I'm certainly not part of any 'in-crowd' at iStock but I'm still getting a few Vettas and S+ images in. It feels like the Vetta / S+ criteria has returned to normal (i.e. your best images in great light of interesting subjects) to me. Since they removed the Vetta limits I'm also bolder in selecting images to be judged for those collections too. None of this diminishes any of the other problems there, but I don't think this is one.
343
« on: July 30, 2013, 17:10 »
I tend to pay kids $25 flat rate for about an hour. If it's more like 2 hours, maybe $40.
Under no circumstances are you to mention that to my kids!
345
« on: July 26, 2013, 02:50 »
Seeing a great image, controlling light and being in position are pro photographer skills that are never going to go away, irrespective of the camera used and I for one would be grateful if I didn't have to carry 7kg of kit up Himalayan peaks any more!
You havent had to for years, point and shoot has been around forever. Whats the difference with a camera phone?
Sorry, I meant a small camera with DSLR-like quality, not necessarily a phone. I've experimented with various stupidly expensive compact cameras and they're not quite ready yet I don't think, but they will be soon I'm sure.
346
« on: July 26, 2013, 02:20 »
Will the Cell Phone Replace the dSLR? Never
Its the same with everything, really. MP3 still hasnt replaced the CD.
Not for our generation, but my kids will never buy physical media for music. They want their tracks as files.
347
« on: July 26, 2013, 02:19 »
Unfortunately it was overnight for me so missed the chance to join this conversation - an opportunity to question Yuri about his predictions for the future is not to be missed whether you agree with him or not!
I too strongly dislike the subs model at such low royalty rates, nothing has done more to commodify photography. I know some of you do well at SS, but I imagine diminishing returns are just round the corner.
Unfortunately I cannot place the trust in Getty that Yuri has done, even though they are my agent. Their actions towards their exclusive photographers have never been positive since they bought iStock, from the Vetta royalty rate cut, the RC system that's designed to limit the number of artists receiving semi-reasonable royalties, destruction of the referral system, flooding the library with wholly owned content and making new uploads worthless by skewing best match.
I guess Yuri may have negotiated a deal that overcomes some of these obstacles to success there, so good luck to him.
The real problem in this industry is low royalty percentages, they should be up at the 70-80% mark as they are in the Apple App Store to make a sustainable, healthy business and profits for everyone, agencies and copyright owners alike.
I'm not as sceptical as some of you about phone cameras. If tech-change over the past decade has shown us anything it's that disruption and amazing advances can and do happen. Who'd of thought I'd be shooting with a 36mp D800 a few years ago?
Seeing a great image, controlling light and being in position are pro photographer skills that are never going to go away, irrespective of the camera used and I for one would be grateful if I didn't have to carry 7kg of kit up Himalayan peaks any more!
348
« on: July 19, 2013, 14:26 »
" if I have this right? How can this not be a huge revenue hit for them"
They'll make it back next year when everyone drops 2 royalty levels.
This is unfortunately true. It'll be touch and go whether I make my RC target this year, whereas 2 years ago I tripled it. A royalty cut will be the last straw for me I think - finally spurring me into decisive action.
349
« on: July 18, 2013, 07:06 »
Scoopt wasn't a failure for the people who started and invested in it before it was sold to Getty for big bucks.
350
« on: July 16, 2013, 10:51 »
Ah, but flipping the company to the next investor who doesn't believe that does...
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
