|
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 - willie
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 28
426
« on: July 27, 2009, 10:40 »
After a few months I've pretty much lost interest in microstock. Subcription sales are what did it. I made plenty of sales, but at 30 cents, it's not worth the effort. Ironically, microstock showed me that plenty of people like my images and will pay for them - and this made the 30 cent commissions seem even more insulting.
I'm looking for other ways to sell photos. I guess I'd rather make a $20 sale once in a great while, than let these so-called "agencies" by loading my images into an automated vending machine and paying 20 percent commissions on sales for which they do nothing.
Yes, I know they paid a reviewer, and a web site programmer, and an ISP. At these volumes of sales, those costs are covered the first time they sell an image.
I really got discouraged after SS and DT re-tuned their searches to stop promoting new images.
So I 've stopped for now. Maybe I'll get interested again later, but I don't expect anything to change on the big existing sites. They've finished their "race to the bottom" and they'll have to decide if they're satisified with what they already have, and with what continues to be submitted at this prices.
My guess is this and it is only a guess, mind you ! At one time, many photographers shifted from selling prints (at gallery, rent a small space at tourist sites, whatnot) to stock photography (micro mostly), and made good money. Then with the digital media, they find themselves copied and cloned up to their noses by the dabblers and hobbyists . Then the death knell, with the sites all competing to be the lowest with the mostest. Literally giving away the store, in the greatest garage sell or flea mart of the micro world, with subscription .With that, the buyers have all but gathered all they could at the lowest possible cost. Much to the dismay of the contributors. And finally, with the over saturation of images , we come to the bottom of the barrel. What is there left to do? And lo and behold, we are finding that what was once an over saturated market (ie. print sales) is now the new thing , and micro is the over saturated market, in reverse. Not surprisingly, people like yourself (stockastic) are finding it more attractive to go back into selling prints on your own. I am sure many of us are, or have already begun contemplating to move back in this direction, or split it both ways... hoping to see which way the road ahead will decide for us viz back to the old days of selling our prints locally (or globally), or stay on with micro. Would be interesting to see what happens hereon. One thing is certain, micro won't die. Because there will always be thousands of photographers and vector artists who do not mind being paid 20 cents commission, simply because they see this as a golden rainbow to quitting their jobs working for a pain in the arse super anal-boss 9 to 5. The promise is the carrot, and the donkeys (me included heh!heh!) will always be lured. Plus, we have thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) in China coming in with their newly acquired DSLR... with money earned from their newly found affluence 
427
« on: July 27, 2009, 09:55 »
$400 isnt expensive for good print 
australian landscape photog ken duncan's limited edition (usually 100-500 in a run) start at AU$1800 (about us $1400-$1500) for a framed print. They sell out without a problem http://www.kenduncan.com/index.php/gallery. There are a few others I know of like him, for me my plan has always been use stock as a learning tool and build the income so that I can progress easier down this path
when you consider that the print is a lot less demanding on technical quality etc, my local shop had a special on 18 x 12" prints for $8 each so printed 20 or so. Some of the stuff that isnt good stock comes out stunning, the shop asked to print another copy of one to hang in their shop, its a 6mp image cropped to 5mp, taken with a few hundred dollar pentax *ist ds and an old tamron adaptall lens blown up to 18x12" and it looks great (obvisously if youre a real technical person, you look at it close and see flaws, but most just look and say how nice it is .
not sure if true but got told the other day that looking at 24mp image at 100% is the same blowing up 35mm frame to 2m x 1m and almost putting your nose against it.
as far as I know until istock came along stock photos under $100 was very rare (although you could buy cds of subjects with 50-100 images for around a $1000) imo istock could have charged $10 rather than $1 and I think would have made more, but I believe their aim was to get cheap images not to make photogs money (could be wrong here). Now people complain when a site puts the fees up and complain about the price of vetta midstock etc. It is much like crestock subs, and the nanostock sites why offer more when people are greatful for the little you give them?
but then how many people give their images to newspapers / calendar companies etc for free happy just to see it published
Lots of fine points here, phil, congratulations. One thing I learn from being on both sides of the fence is that we assumed that buyers of gallery are checking out your gallery prints with a "fine tooth comb", expertly inspecting your work like atilla does with our stock submission. Ironically, it is not always the case. I quote an associate, " many times, I spend hours eyeballing my work . and many times, my life partner who is not a photographer nor a painter,etc... keeps telling me that whatver I am looking for , the buyer probably would not be checking out. Buying the prints simply because it looks great hanging in his new luxury condo, or office. They are not so concerned about CA, fringe, the slight noise,etc... as we have all been so obsessively cured to look for in our work" I am always sitting on the fence with this afterthought. So, maybe perharps, I am a bit over obsessive with looking for the bandings, subtle fringe, CA, pincushion, barrel,etc.. When we pose that to the layman, they look at us strangely like... "what are you talking about? "
428
« on: July 21, 2009, 17:56 »
Im guessing quicker review times probably have a little something to do with the fact BigStock recently started restricting uploads.
Upload limits = people are submitting less photos
Fewer photos to review = Faster review times
Look at it this way. Fewer photos to upload means more critical selection to submit Faster review time means (hopefully) faster downloads results If this is what it's going to bring to BigStock's contributors, I 'd said, "Go for it , BigStock !"
429
« on: July 21, 2009, 10:07 »
Great quote Perseus.
Best,
Jonathan
Not at all Jonathan Ross, just doing my part to keep this gem of Ernst Haas alive
430
« on: July 21, 2009, 08:41 »
There is only you and your camera.
The limitations in your photography are in yourself,
for what we see is what we are.
Ernst Haas
431
« on: July 19, 2009, 17:10 »
Ah, that was simple enough. Yay.
Hi All -
It's become clear some are confused over the Veer Marketplace launch phases, and when you'll start seeing royalties on content uploaded this week.
Some of you have asked: "my content was approved yesterday. why can't I find it when I search for it?"
Veer Marketplace is being rolled out in 3 major phases:
Phase 1: The current customer-facing Veer Marketplace is still the Phase 1 preview version - with a static collection of content transferred from SnapVillage. [launched in February, - content was rolled over from SnapVillage over the past few months]
Phase 2: We've just launched the contributor ingest workflow so you can submit your portfolio ahead of the customer release. [went live earlier this week]
Phase 3: A customer-facing launch that unveils a credit-based system, and connects all the pieces and make Veer Marketplace truly and fully live from end to end. [late July]
The sales and royalty reporting tools will be added as we get closer to the Veer Marketplace customer-facing launch (Phase 3).
Content uploaded to Veer Marketplace now cannot be searched or licensed until that launch.
The customer facing launch will include many important elements:
- a switch to a full credit-based purchase system with credit-based subscription and extended-license options
- a brand new watermark for all Veer Marketplace content
- search and sort mechanisms for buyers
- a robust collection to satisfy Veer customers hungry for great content: all the new images you are uploading into the system now, plus all of the content transferred from SnapVillage.
Hope this helps.
- Brian
Yay? You mean Veer, doncha? heh!heh! just joking  Fine piece of memorizing there, whatalife . Jolly good show !
432
« on: July 19, 2009, 09:55 »
Incidentally, has anyone seen a change to the no views on newest images? None yet on my most recent batch that was approved 3 days ago, but 3 views on a single editorial image approved on 06/27/2009 and some (2+2+1) views on a batch approved 06/26/2009. I'm not sure whether it's not my own views. Did they filter out Google traffic and self-views?
In view of this, holding your uploads at DT is a bad strategy since a picture can only get older when it's online. Just my 2 cents.
So you think it's better to continue uploading? Wouldn't no views on our newest images be detrimental to our portfolio as a whole?
433
« on: July 19, 2009, 09:43 »
 Send every one a V mask Read the book / watch the movie Apply it to microstock. Ironic, V ? Could it be V-eer? 
434
« on: July 19, 2009, 09:34 »
I just had my first Premium Subscription sale from FT.
It was an XLarge image (12 MP) for which I received the whole sum of...
drum roll please...
$0.36!
Previous to the new "Premium" Subscription, I normally made $1.92 from that size sale.
What a disappointment!
Congratulations! You are now the lowest paid worker in the business. It used to be the coffee bean picker in Latin America. I just paid $5.50 for a cup of cafe latte. I wonder how much the cafe latte cost at Fotolia !
435
« on: July 19, 2009, 08:44 »
I had a few dls (thank goodness) although still only the older images.
Incidentally, has anyone seen a change to the no views on newest images? I stopped submitting for a bit already, as I didn't want to waste my time getting new images up when no one can find them. No point.
I 'd love to know if DT actually did amend this problem so I can resume submitting new works.
436
« on: July 14, 2009, 17:45 »
Well don't depend too much on my translation job, but it is sad the piece is so short. That's the news for you, wrapping a big topic into a soundbite. Now if only Panther could come up with a TV cooking-show format for photography, Germans would watch it 5 nights a week.
By the context of your translation, I am pretty sure you did well. Or else you would have told us they were talking about the price of vegetables in the supermarket, lol. Seriously, is the German TV that boring? Not surprising, after all I don't watch TV at home either. Does panther have such clout that they can come up with a TV cooking show format for photography? If so, then I should pay more attention to what Panther has to offer to contributors Keith, I want to say how good it is to see you get involved in this forum, even taking part where other sites are concerned. This is very pro-active of you. Kudos !
437
« on: July 14, 2009, 15:14 »
What I mean is the narrator asks a question, and was not answered. Instead the editor inserted some thing about IP, which sort of left the viewers hanging to the unanswered question, "it becomes clear that it is not such a simple thing."
Bad editing, I suppose.
438
« on: July 14, 2009, 15:11 »
Cheers Keith for the translation.
Is this all that was televised? If so, it seems a bit fragmented. It really doesn't do much to promote micro stock or anything. The script could have been more useful , as it lacks direction or purpose. Sort of hodge podge.
439
« on: July 14, 2009, 15:00 »
yep, got that this morning too. I had some questions and Jan answered me in about 2 minutes by email. I thought about it seriously because some of my images will be locked in for 1 year. Finally, I decided to join and wait til next summer to decide if I want to go exclusive with IS. It will give me time to evaluate Veer's performance and maybe get some good sales through that Yay partnership.
Did I misread you, you said "finally I decided to join". So you said yes ? How is this quoted part of the agreement going to affect you if you go exclusive with IS next summer: --------Some images might be included in a more EXCLUSIVE RF offering, where prices are considerably higher. This also includes distribution of RF CDs and DVDs------------ If your images get included in this MORE EXCLUSIVE RF OFFERING. From what it reads, the tie up is 3 years. Not one year. It never mentioned anything about what happens to the Exclusive offering. It only says at the end that it's a 3 year agreement NON-exclusive. It's a bit vague , isn't it?
440
« on: July 14, 2009, 14:47 »
dragon_fang, you love DT but if this persists to become Irreconciable Difference, would this mean soon there could be a Trial Separation between you and DT ?
441
« on: July 14, 2009, 10:56 »
In fact there is NONE really good and reasonably priced basic zoom on APS-C Canon but psst - everyone knows they are the best  I have crappy Olympus so Im completely mad when I have tiny noisy sensor and everyone knows that Oly has no really good lenses and even those "not-good" are only few
touche ! Well, look on the bright side, basti. You can travel all over the world with your Olympus, and won't get robbed. Nobody wants a "lousy cheap" Olympus. Seriously, Olympus has been making some of the best and lowest priced cameras and lenses. Even the dedicated flashes are underpriced compared to the Big 2, or even Pentax. We all pay for the advertising, or the symbol. Zuiko has been producing optics for scientific instruments long time. I guess it's not good enough for photography FWIW, somehow Canon cameras have the most trade-ins, even with cameras that are hardly used. The owners tend to keep looking for next year's model, much like xbox or ps,etc.. enthusiasts look for the next game. The users of other makes tend to hang on to their camera longer regardless of next year's model. not sure if there is a significance or not.
442
« on: July 14, 2009, 10:43 »
443
« on: July 12, 2009, 23:23 »
There is an old Hebrew saying: "Who is wealthy? He who is satisfied with what he has"
and its corollary: "Who seeks more than he needs hinders himself from enjoying what he has."
The problem, if you want to call it that, is that humans always strive to have better, if not for themselves then for their children. This is what drives us to discover, to explore space, to invent new technologies etc, etc.
The sword cuts both ways. It makes us dissatisfied with what G_d gave us and at the same time drives us to make ourselves and our world a better place.
How profound. We've gone slightly OT but how profound ! One step forward two steps backwards. Is anyone here old enough to remember when mainframe first came out? They told our elders that it would eventually do away with wasting paper so we won't need to have journals and ledgers. Even cutting our work days to 4 , or even 3 days a week. By the time we progress to micro computers, we were making hardcopy backups every weekend, and we had to work 7 days a week - in at 8am out at 11pm, right through Christmas and New Year. Simply because our Data System needed to be revise, rewritten, tested and implement, continuously. Then only a couple of years ago, one of my financier's specialist joked about how he has become so important to the company that he was given the prestigious blackberry . Her colleague laughed and said, "You mean we all became so important that we are demoted to become slaves to the organization . We report in 24 hours, and if they call us and we don't respond even if we are in the toilet, and they lose an investment , we take the blame. What a status symbol, huh?" This is much like our top performers in micro stock: "You have all been promoted to be superstars and now we pay you a commission of 30 cents per download. Congratulations on making our company one of the best. " Double edged sword, did you say? It's gotten so out of hand, the only way to cope with this outrageousness is to laugh at it because complaining is only going to get us all a CVA or triple bypass . As Bobby McFerrin said, "Don't worry be happy!" or better still, for the older crowd, "Let's go get stoned".
444
« on: July 12, 2009, 21:48 »
Fine points. Harsh but true. And while we are talking about skin color, here's the irony to ponder. White people pay money to get sun baked, even going to tanning studio to look like the oriental , latino, and other dark skinned. The white kids dress and talk and walk like the black gangsta. White girls dress like Britney but look for black and coloured boyfriends to look cool. Meanwhile, the orientals and other darker skin people, pay money to get their skin procelain, even bleach their lovely black or brown skin to look white. We are never satisfied with what we are born with. Crazy lots us human beings, aren't we?
445
« on: July 12, 2009, 21:04 »
Dodging is destruction. Layers can be tweaked later on if there is an issue.
Yes, I agree with sjlocke. It's just as fast using layers and just sliding the highlight levels to white out the background. Another equally faster method is to use replace colour. Then you can fine tune to touch off the edges. Either way the whiting out is uniform .
446
« on: July 11, 2009, 15:38 »
It's like this in any art form. Like music, the best musicians talk about music, the rest keeps writing about how many pedals and sound effect gadget they used. Real drummers talk about rhythm and syncopation, the rest talk about what brands they have and which snare rules. when it all comes down to rhythm, the best drummers were the african tribes and baiano percussionists that bang on archaic and no name boxes, even tin cans.
The instruments and the brands are irrelevant.
447
« on: July 11, 2009, 09:16 »
I don't view it as a forced lock-in. They are saying that the customer who has the image in their shopping cart, or the customer who has already purchased the file, will be able to download it from the site for 60 days. They are saying that images may appear on partner sites for up to 60 days. I think this is reasonable because they are not able to guarantee that the partner sites will pull them down immediately. I could be wrong but the wording to me reads very differently in tone and intent than the DT agreement.
Whatalife is spot on: images will most likely be removed quicker than that in most cases - but this segment of the agreement covers several "worst case" scenarios: customer leaving an image in their cart for an extended length of time, or the possibility down the road of collaborations with partner sites that may require extra time to pull a file. We're certainly not out to hold any images hostage, but want to be up front that in certain situations it may take a bit of time. Hope that helps clarify.
Brian
Fair enough. Much like BigStockPhoto, who gave me the same reason. I have no problem with that. Slightly off topic: Whatalife, what happens after you disable your Dreamstime images? When are you allowed to delete them? I don't see any buttons. I like to delete my images that have been disabled. Do you know how?
448
« on: July 11, 2009, 07:39 »
Some interesting ideas but you're thinking like a contributor not a stock agency business owner. If you were on the other side of the business you'd feel differently.
There's the rub !!!
449
« on: July 10, 2009, 20:36 »
It's good to see a friendly thought provoking discussion with lots of brainstorming and ideas shared in a respectful way. I love the quote about mutual interest--that is the key--success comes when something is "win-win". I am part of an established 3D (expanded into 2D) resource web site business. I have been reading this forum to become more familiar with the microstock industry. We are trying to make changes in how we handle stock images and you all have some good ideas that might be able to help us improve more quickly. Hopefully some of you will join us now or later, but that's not my reason for posting.
From the business standpoint I see a problem with some of the suggestions. They are nice dreams but to put them into practice would mean someone is going to be doing a lot of work for free which usually wont last long. Competition is not a bad thing though I am not sure Mr. Sears and Mr. Penney would agree. If the new clones dont offer what the market demands, they wont be around very long but you never know when one of them might be the next Google! Low prices and great products are good but excellent customer service (whether the "customer" is the buyer or the seller) is key. I dont think that many buyers are looking for totally unique productsthey want quality products, good value and good service.
For anyone who says "great idea, start that site and I will put my photos on it", remember that someone has to run a business and that's a big job. Even though Perrykudos to him for sharing his dreamssays he isnt planning to start that dream business, theres always someone who thinks it would be nice to have their own agency and doesnt realize the time and money involved. Not only setting up the business entity and web site but the day to day operations and ongoing costs for merchant accounts, business banking fees, data servers, hardware, etc. Even suggesting that photos be exclusive on one site means someone has to police it. A person with good photography skills may not have the time and/or skill set to make a go of running a business in addition to taking photos.
Puravida is right about the buyer connectionthe double edged sword: is it more important to work on increasing artists/photos or buyers? Both, of course! But in any business it takes time to build up a customer base as well as merchandise. Theres no point in having the ultimate collection of exclusive images if no one comes into the store to look at them. And if buyers flock in but we dont have the merchandise to meet their needs, were sunk.
We continue to grow our business by paying an above average royalty, offering fast and personal customer service and working every day to steadily increase both buyers and sellers. Weve done it with 3D over the past 14 years. During that time our business changed and evolved to meet the needs of our artists and buyers. We dont make money unless our artists make money but we still work every day to improve and upgrade our web site and our business. We are not alone in valuing a mutually beneficial experience--others also value what we value.
Thanks for sharing your dreams and ideas. And please continue to share concrete suggestions and things you want to see in that ideal stock photo agency!
Bravissimo LisaAnderson , such a well written and I feel very objective yet sincere roundup of all that ensued aforementioned. I think Perry did a wonderful job as MC for this brainstorming , even if he said he was not planning to start a new agency.
450
« on: July 10, 2009, 10:07 »
That being said, it's not to say that there aren't innocent bystanders. I had recently emailed a young person who thought anything with the words "royalty free" means you can download and use it without paying any mechanical royalty,etc..
It was understandable too, as many teenage magazine freelance writers are spreading this misinformation re: music, TV, film,etc.. so naturally stock photos "RF" falls into this dome of free use without pay.
I think the stock agencies should change the word Royalty Free, or make it more explicit . It 's obviously needed when editors of magazine do not even catch this misinformation from their publications.
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 28
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
