|
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 - Travelling-light
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21
426
« on: February 09, 2013, 21:30 »
Bruce would be very wise to NOT lock out the masses, but maybe take this simple approach. If joe-photographer can meet our acceptance criteria, joe photographer has two options: image exclusivity which will be put in our premium priced collection. If no, it goes into our general collection at a lower price point.
If it follows the business model that many co-ops have, there might be a financial investment required from all members to get the model up and running. I wouldn't begin to guess on a number, if that is indeed the case. But I guarantee a lot of photographers will be screened out by their unwillingness to make such a commitment.
Most people here would, I think. But I believe the discussion at MSG is by and large carried on by people in the top 20%, and many cases top 1% of contributors. The photographer not on these boards, who uploads maybe 50 or 100 images to DT or SS and then forgets about it, content to make payout once or twice a year, won't even know about Stocksy let alone have an interest in making that type of time/fiscal investment.
If Stocksy were composed of 90% MSG contributors, it would probably be the highest quality microstock collection in existence.
Good post. And I agree. And depending on the model and the buyer base, I'd be willing to invest something, say in the range of $5 to $10k. Of course I'd have to do some form of cost benefit, be privy to inside information via non-disclosure, etc.
I was wondering if a small "pay-to-play" fee approach might work. It costs a dollar to upload an image. That dollar buys a share of the co-op. The dollar would tend to discourage to many similars and other bad content. The co-op would have a supplementary income for early operations and advertising. If things go well co-op earnings can be returned as distributions later based on the shares held.
Stan, that's another good idea. There's also the possibility of taking less than the full commission in cash, and using the rest as an investment.
427
« on: February 09, 2013, 19:41 »
I don't know much about RM, but if its simply a license, someone just has to create the basic license.
Should I put an official call out there?
This project needs:
Licensing options for images. A typical default "body" of the license which covers all of the basics, plus license "modifiers" where an author can add or subtract things, making it a narrower or broader allowance. Written in plain English with legal strength. Quite possibly and RF and RM template.
I intend to have a "default settings" area where the license applies to each image uploaded, and an "override" in the image area where licensing as well as pricing can be tweaked for a given image.
I know this seems like a lot of work or deep for the customer, but we are trying to make images "Worth the trouble" as a design solution (advertising is a billion billion billion dollar business after all!) It also allows a happy face or stick figure (or an orange man!) to not be forced out at the same value or licensing as a more elaborate image which took much more effort and skill, or the artist has placed a different value on.
Leo, the license itself is not the complicated bit, it's the pricing. The Stock Artists Alliance have developed a simplified pricing system, which would be the logical way to go. See http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/pluspacks/index.htm for details. The calculator code is open source, and could be packaged as an optional WordPress plugin. PicturEngine have implemented this, and it's more straightforward to use than, say, the Alamy or Getty systems.
428
« on: February 09, 2013, 18:06 »
We have always had a joint account with the micros, and joint copyright. A couple of months before the RC's came in, IS wrote to us and said that under Canadian law, we could only have one name on the copyright. We could choose just one name, or split our portfolio and have two accounts.
We decided to put just one name on the copyright, to save them the work of doing the split.
Early last year, when we were thinking of going independent, we thought about splitting the portfolio and going independent with just one half, staying exclusive with the other. I should say that we produce two entirely different sets of images, so there would have been no chance of similars on other sites. We wrote and asked if they would do this for us.
They deleted the request without answering. So, I guess it depends who you are.
429
« on: February 09, 2013, 17:04 »
I hear you, it is pure unadulterated greed. How many millions are enough to fill the void of avaricious soul's willing to do anything to possess more than what they need or for that matter deserve? [/quote] Void is the right word. I've often wondered why they keep on. It can only be because they can't think of anything else to do. Unless it's a conspiracy by the rich to save the world  If the poor have no money, they can't spend any, so won't use up the earth's scarce resources...
430
« on: February 08, 2013, 15:50 »
You know, I really wouldn't have a problem with subs at all if they were fair for everyone involved. I will never in my lifetime agree that a super extra large vector/photograph/template should be included in a subscription equalling one credit or download. I have no issue receiving a quarter for a xs/sm and maybe even a m download but it is simply riddiculous that we are giving soooo much away for so little.
Shouldn't a subscription scheme be more of a marketing tool to bring the buyers to your site and collect great images for their magazines and brochures yet when they need a poster/billboard they will stay to purchase larger more useful files (at a price that is still incredibly reasonable if you ask me!)? Or if the sub small-buy regular theory doesn't fly, why not charge more than one of their daily downloads for higher resolution files? Seriously - what MBA thought up this great plan?
It was brought up before that when SS started their subs venture photographers only had 4 or 6 mpx cameras and yet today we are giving away 21 mpx photos today for what - 13 cents more per download?
Exactly. Having been exclusive for several years at IS, it's obvious that these companies are leaving so much money on the table. Instead, they scrabble around on the floor, trying to grab market share from one another, and we suffer the consequences in reduced earnings. Of course we are to blame too, by uploading to the cheap cheap sites when they open their doors. It's a pity IS has gone the way it has, we were very happy there for a long time. But it is what it is.
431
« on: February 08, 2013, 15:40 »
How depressing that they come out with the same sorry story we've heard so many times before. Any incremental value in this will only benefit SS/BS.
I think I feel more depressed about the insulting way they spin this to us than I do about the actual fact of yet another company reducing commissions.
I can quit BS, but I still resent being taken for a fool.
432
« on: February 08, 2013, 11:35 »
Currently are only rumors and conjecture ( with high percentage the RC system will be implemented on SS).... If SS will implement the BS like system than our only chance will be that Yuri opens Peopleimages.com to the general public. If this will happen I believe we will see another leader in the forum Top Tier - Big 4 section in max. 2 years.
There are several other options. Look around!
433
« on: February 07, 2013, 21:34 »
What about the timing of any future action?
Seems to me that it should be in a month or two - after the change is implemented. Unlike with the Google/Getty giveaway, we have no huge risk of one of our images getting caught in the giveaway where there is nothing we can later do to retrieve it.
If the subs on BigStock fail completely but credit sales continue, then we just let them bump along the bottom as before.
If the subs on BigStock take off like a rocket and SS subs sales drop by seemingly comparable amounts, then we at most loose a month or two of the difference in royalty by waiting.
How about the ides of March (March 15th)?
Sounds like a plan. I actually wrote out our quit email earlier, but decided to think before I act, so haven't yet sent it. I like the idea of the Ides of March, very symbolic! We have already quit Deposit and 123, adding BS to the list won't much matter. Don't do this to us, SS!
434
« on: February 07, 2013, 20:36 »
I just received a reply from BigStock:
" Hello,
We understand your concern.
One of the reasons behind this change is to provide our contributors with a higher chance to earn higher royalties. Subscriptions can allow more downloads, and higher total earnings, and you will still make the current amount from downloads made using credits.
We encourage you to stay, allowing the chance to see your earnings grow.
Please let us know how you would like to proceed. "
What a ridiculous reply. Where do they think these buyers are going to come from? Do they think we are incapable of working out the answer to that? I will definitely pull my port from BS. The greater the number of people who quit, the less likely they are to follow through at SS, so yes, I think it's time for D-Day 2.
435
« on: February 02, 2013, 21:58 »
Looking good, Leo! We're keen to have a go at this.
436
« on: February 01, 2013, 14:33 »
No, the difference is that Google is now showing the full res on THEIR search engine. You no longer have to go the website. Its taking traffic away from sites. And traffic is the life line of a website. Google is messing with peoples livelihoods once more.
The only people who will suffer are the ones who build websites where they give away images to attract views to ads. Sounds like a good deal for us, as if those sites go out of business we will have less free competition. If Google have a business end in view in these changes, it may be to hurt companies which sell advertising on a pay-per-view basis.
437
« on: January 31, 2013, 19:51 »
Price is important, but so is the client program. If you're uploading a lot of stuff you'll need a smoothly functioning client piece on your end which will handle it all automatically, in the background, over a period of days or weeks if necessary. And it will need to detect changes and additions and keep the backup current.
I don't think Photoshelter can do that, can it?
The PS uploader can't do continuous backups on its own. For initial upload I would just put maybe 100 files at a time into Filezilla and FTP up direct from my local server. For easy updating I would run a scheduled weekly RoboCopy job on my local server to put all files with their archive flags set, in a given set of folders, into outbound folders, then run an automated FTP transfer of those folders to PhotoShelter.
438
« on: January 31, 2013, 17:22 »
A Pro Account at PhotoShelter will cost you $50/month with 1TB of storage, plus a portfolio website and a direct sales channel. More storage is available, and PS take care of backing up across multiple storage sites.
439
« on: January 29, 2013, 22:02 »
I don't think that's correct, I just put 29 images on my free account. Besides the 'artist site', it's not yet clear to me what you get for the $30.
You can put as many as you like up, but you shouldn't be able to price more than 25 at a time on a free account.
440
« on: January 28, 2013, 14:48 »
Besides, from time to time I need to pick up older images and reprocess them, and the RAW ones are great because the conversion programs are so much advanced nowadays that the reprocessed images are incredibly better than the versions converted 6 years ago. My first hundreds DSLR images that were shot in jpeg will be forever poor and hard to correct...
Yes! When we gave up our iStock exclusivity and started to upload elsewhere again, we looked at our older images and realised we could do a lot better now. Back to the dng's to reprocess them, and with several years experience and tools development the new pics are enormously improved.
441
« on: January 27, 2013, 23:39 »
I ran head first into a heated debate on the best way to WB. I use 'M' on my camera and do custom later on in Raw mode. I was told that I lazy and should determine the light source and set the camera to that type of light. Also why do I shoot RAW instead of Jpeg- they feel that RAW is way to big and once again I am lazy to use RAW mode since Jpeg you must get it right in the camera which makes you think!
Your thoughts on these MSG folk?
Thanks
Tom
There are a few of these sad cases around. They tend to be hung up on rigid process and have no real feel for image quality. We've had 5 DSLRs (6 if you count a Panasonic GH2) and never taken a single shot on any of them in jpeg only. We did that with our first digital camera, (a Minolta Dimage 7, 13 sec to save a RAW!) and wouldn't make that mistake again. In the film days, slide shooters had to get everything right before they pressed the shutter button. Their job finished there, then it was up to Kodak/Fuji/whoever. B&W film types (like us) were only taking the first step towards a photo. Maybe the jpeg/RAW thing is like that. We see shooting jpeg only as making do with second best for your photos - OK for happy snaps, but looking at the embedded thumbnails in a Canon cr2 raw file is enough to disqualify jpeg for anything serious. YMMV...
442
« on: January 26, 2013, 20:50 »
Cool Idea.
Question.... Why wordpress? there are some open source galleries ( Gallery 3) that would just need a decent payment moduale?
Because with all these gallery apps (Gallery, Coppermine, Zenphoto...) you have to throw away the display side and build your own from scratch to get anything remotely presentable. WordPress is far easier to customize on the standard setup. Try duplicating Leo's site with Gallery.
443
« on: January 26, 2013, 20:27 »
Hi Leo, this sounds interesting and we'd like to get involved. We've set up quite a few customised WordPress blogs, but serious back-end hacking is probably a bit beyond me these days. Happy to do beta testing and the like, and we've got some spare hosting capacity based in Australia.
We're currently exploring all avenues to make a bit of cash without Big G, so put us down as highly interested.
444
« on: January 16, 2013, 21:31 »
Getty may have disappeared from FAA but they're still at greatBIGcanvas, a CafePress offshoot, with what looks like a Flickr sourced collection. They seem to be selling canvas prints at about FAA's cost price! I wonder who makes any money... http://www.greatbigcanvas.com/search/gettyimages/
445
« on: January 14, 2013, 13:36 »
That's 104 gone, including all model released pics and others we wanted to protect from being given away.
446
« on: December 15, 2012, 19:39 »
I suggest that you don't hotlink to other sites as well because it may get you punished by google..
Do you have a reliable source for that ? As far as I've been able to find out, Google still sees it as a good inbound link to your site. However, if you don't want that, no problem, we'll still give you a link. We're also giving a text link to the sites' home pages, anyway.
447
« on: December 15, 2012, 14:35 »
OK, we have a good collection of links here, so this is what we intend to do to help promote them. We'll put each in a blog post at blog.travelling-light.net with a hot-linked image from the site, posting one every couple of days. We've started with Cory, and we'll work down the list in order. If anyone objects to us doing it this way, shout up now. Anyone wanting to return the favour, feel free to link us however you like.
448
« on: December 13, 2012, 16:38 »
May as well include our mainstream site as well: Name of Site: About PhotoStock URL: http://images.aboutphotostock.comOwner/Artist/Photographer: Colin and Linda McKie A brief one or two sentence description: Mainly travel/scenic and food stock photo images direct from the photographers. Rights Managed and Royalty Free. Colin
449
« on: December 13, 2012, 15:43 »
Travelling Light ... catchy name. I like that.
Indeed, and we've had that domain since 2002. It's pretty embarrassing looking through the site archives now...
450
« on: December 13, 2012, 15:26 »
Here we go then! Name of Site: Travelling Light URL: http://images.travelling-light.netOwner/Artist/Photographer: Colin and Linda McKie A brief one or two sentence description: Mainly travel/scenic and food images direct from the photographers at microstock prices. Time to update the blog as well, I see...
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
