|
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 - gostwyck
4476
« on: October 28, 2009, 20:38 »
I'm starting to think that this move has nothing to do with "cleaning the database" and everything to do with building DTs offerings of free images to compete with Fotolia, seeing as they've also been putting pressure on people to donate images.
Very good point Holgs. I've got to say I'm disappointed with DT for trying to pull a fast one like this __ to say the least.
4477
« on: October 28, 2009, 16:12 »
All said and done these charges are pretty reasonable...have just spent the best part of 3 weeks keywording, retouching, uploading etc 350 images to 13 sites to see how MS works for us...and would gladly pay someone to do all that...but what about the returns in the present economy...is the present RPI enough to justify anything but doing it yourself?
I hope this works for Lookstat...it's a great idea...
I guess it depends to a large degree on what you shoot. If you invest in high production cost shoots with correspondingly high sales potential then these costs are tiny in comparison to the overall outlay and the time saved might be more profitably used. If you're one of these 'photo factories' then it is probably cheaper and certainly more flexible than employing your own staff.
4478
« on: October 28, 2009, 15:09 »
Interesting article __ thanks.
4479
« on: October 28, 2009, 13:08 »
I think I'd be suspicious of the $10 item but the $30-50 options should be fine __ just give it a few thorough 'shake tests' before you start to trust it. B&H wouldn't sell them if they were rubbish.
4480
« on: October 28, 2009, 12:27 »
^^^ Thanks Rahul. That's exactly the information I was looking for and it seems very reasonable for the service being offered.
4481
« on: October 28, 2009, 05:18 »
That's a generous offer but I really wish they'd provide proper details of how this service works and especially how much it would cost after the initial offer on their website.
Obviously different images are likely to have very different requirements in terms of the work/time involved but it should be possible to break it down and give some guidelines or price bands. At the very least they should be able to reference historic data of how much they have charged in the past.
What if the image is rejected? How you do work out who is to 'blame' when that occurs and therefore who bears the cost of any re-work or refund.
I've got a reasonable idea of how much my images earn and I don't want to waste their time or mine exploring an avenue which may turn out to be completely uneconomical for my type of work.
In my experience whenever a service provider is extremely cagey about how much their service costs then it usually turns out to be far more than it is worth.
4482
« on: October 27, 2009, 18:19 »
Lots of changes in the best match all the time, including lately.
For example today I noticed a lot of my new files with 0 downloads are in the front of my searches and lightboxes, far ahead of slightly older images with DL's. Clearly "new" just got a substantial boost.
Exclusive images now appear to be boosted roughly double over those from independents too __ I noticed that just in the last few days. Maybe it was Istock's reaction to FT's bribe? Of course the best match is supposed to be about the relevancy of the image's keywords but that seems to have been dropped in importance (if not entirely) in favour of whatever whim they fancy at any given moment.
4483
« on: October 27, 2009, 16:03 »
I'm not sure I buy into this 'picture of model holding a release' jazz, and I don't plan to do it anytime soon. I feel the new convention of a dated release with shoot description is plenty. As I recall, no one took a photo of me signing my mortgage, or any other legal document, ever.
True enough! However adult film-makers always video new starlets holding up their ID to prove they're 18, I think it's part of the records they have to keep. Maybe that's where it came from.
4484
« on: October 27, 2009, 15:02 »
Been stable for a while now....so its not like they are going aroudn changing every week
That might be enough reassurance for you to base your income on but it's certainly not enough for me.
4485
« on: October 27, 2009, 14:58 »
If Dreamstime start offering images for free on a default basis after they were originally uploaded for sale, they're on pretty shaky ground legally. You can't have someone upload something on the basis of one legal set of conditions, then turn around some time later and "default" them to be given away for nothing. Its actually a breach of copyright if they do. Just because someone becomes inactive, doesn't mean they give implied consent to have their images used without payment of a royalty.
If they haven't run this past a lawyer, maybe they should.
That's a good point Holgs. If someone discovered one or more of their images had been put into the free section without their express consent, which subsequently had hundreds of downloadeds (from what I read the free images are very popular), would DT then offer (or be liable) to pay a reasonable royalty per download? There can only be one reason why Serban has elected to make 'Donate to Free' as the default option __ because he's hoping to get a windfall of free images from contributors who are out of touch with what is going on. What about the case of contributors who have died and whose portfolios are providing an income to family members who perhaps don't keep fully up to date with the microstock world? Seems very harsh to send their inherited images into the free section if they don't respond quickly enough.
4486
« on: October 27, 2009, 08:50 »
Even though I don't want to offer MY images for free - I am still reaping the benefits of the Dreamstime free collection (which brings in buyers), which will be built upon the lazy people who don't want to disable their images.
How do you know this Leaf? Have you got any data on the scale of these benefits that you believe you are reaping? Maybe you could interview Serban and ask him to divulge some statistics to prove his case? Personally I'm sceptical. People who go hunting for free images are unlikely to be big spenders and the availability of free images just undermines the entire market and furthers the assumption of many that anything on-line is public-domain anyway. Note that IS and SS, the two biggest selling (note the word SELLING) microstock agencies, don't have free sections. In my view 'free' images are a desperate measure by smaller agencies to hoover up the crumbs left by more professional agencies.
4487
« on: October 27, 2009, 07:39 »
I just got my email saying I have some old images without sales.
Just a note as well, that if you do nothing to these images they will go into the free section.
I clicked on the link to see the images (and remove them) - but it returned a blank page. Perhaps they are still working out a few kinks in the system - or everyone trying to access the same page is causing problems.
Same here. I get a blank page too. I am really annoyed that the default action is to send them to the free section __ this is not what I agreed to when I signed up to the agency. If they don't want to sell the files then that's fine with me but they should seek our confirmed acceptance before awarding themselves the files for free. Taking them without our confirmed consent is basically theft as far as I'm concerned. What if you don't get the email for whatever reason? They could be giving away your best-sellers on other agencies for free.
4488
« on: October 26, 2009, 19:09 »
Interesting. Seems that the other sites are following Istock/Getty's lead on this.
Hmm __ agreed. Judging by the rapidity with which this is spreading suggests strongly to me that the interest might be customer-enquiry driven.
4489
« on: October 26, 2009, 17:41 »
Wow __ that must have been a bolt out of the blue! I guess as far as the witnessing is concerned it emphasises Jonathan's recommendation to also photograph the model holding up the MR.
I trust the issue has been resolved now? Is the model unhappy because he thinks he should have been paid more for being on a cereal pack?
4490
« on: October 26, 2009, 06:16 »
Browsing mevans portfolio, his work really is incredible - it blows my mind that his renders aren't actual photos. I can't even imagine how much time and effort he must put in to them.
The guy definitely deserves his black diamond status!
+1. Incredible portfolio. I'd have thought many of those renders were simply too good and costly in time to produce for microstock but it does seem to be working for him
4491
« on: October 25, 2009, 06:57 »
I only 'fix' rejects for IS and only then if I think it has the potential to reasonably sell well __ it's unlikely to be worth the time to do it for any other site. Mostly the 'fix' consists of shrinking it down so it just qualifies for Large size.
4492
« on: October 23, 2009, 20:16 »
^^^ Richard __ understand your frustration mate but leave it out, for your own good. You'll get nowhere and all you to stand to 'gain' is to get kicked out of FT. Potentially very expensive in the long run unless you are going ex with IS.
4493
« on: October 23, 2009, 10:48 »
Fotolia PR say Jim did his press release by himself, but that they knew about it and when it was coming. So it seems it was all planned this way.
Don't you have to give 30 days notice to drop exclusivity? If so this deal was presumably agreed at least a month ago. FT would therefore have had plenty of time to produce their own press release extending the offer to others. The way it came out only after it was discussed on this forum does suggests that the deal with Jim was originally a one-off arrangement and possibly intended to be private. A plausible reason for the delay would be if they wanted to use Jim's example as publicity to launch the scheme but they haven't done that.
4494
« on: October 23, 2009, 07:18 »
I think the scroll thing is a non-issue. I would think that the majority use the wheel on a mouse and a simple flip of the wheel will get you 20 new images. Many stock sites have enough results that you have to scroll down to see page one anyhow and in addition - click page 2. Dreamstime has simplified that and just shows a never ending page 1. When I do image searches i always put the image count to the highest possible number so that I have to click 'next page' as few times as possible.
In regards to a point of reference - the images themselves are very good reference objects by their nature. They are quite large and easy to identify from the next row. I think most people have decent enough tracking skills and scroll on enough websites to combat this.
Lastly, if someone was searching for images, they would scroll to the bottom of the page to see what was there. When I read a forum thread, or a blog post, and it interests me, I make sure I have seen the whole content before I moving on. The only reason, I feel, someone would ONLY view the content above the fold is if they arrived at a page and could determine at quick glance that it was not what they were looking.
I'd agree. It works well for me. I think it is a feature that will appeal mainly to the regular customer and subscriber although I'm not aware how DT are informing buyers that the facility exists. If they are sending out emails I've never received one.
4495
« on: October 22, 2009, 17:41 »
I'll read up on it and see if there is a solution I haven't thought of. Off the top of my head the only I've come up with are upload more and/or upload better quality.
I am working on improving quality, but as a one-woman-show I don't see any way to significantly increase quantity. And I have ZERO desire to expand and take on employees.
Of course instead of 'dealing with the issue' we could count our lucky stars and be happy with our lifestyle and what we've achieved. Five years ago __ even 3 years ago __ most of could scarcely imagine where we'd be now in microstock. Back then the thought of being able to live off it seemed barely more likely than winning the lottery. Earnings are amazingly stable considering the recession; we get to choose when, how and where to work and, as far as I've heard, no microstocker is being threatened with redundancy. It sure beats working for a living.
4496
« on: October 22, 2009, 11:59 »
I don't know the answer to whether or not this option is open to existing contributors. I doubt if it is as I don't think it would make a lot of sense from a business standpoint but that is an uneducated guess. You are mistaken as I'm not an employee of Fotolia. I have been a member there since the beginning and had taken an active role in the forum years ago. It (the forum) was essentially un-moderated and got a bit out of hand so myself and another active contributor Christina aka Kerioak from the UK volunteered to moderate the forum. I have always been a glass is half full kind of guy. Lets be honest, pretty much any time any change is made people tend to immediately freak out rather than think it all the way through and view it from all perspectives. Just because it doesn't necessarily benefit me right now doesn't mean it won't in the long run. If more high end, professional stock photographers are recruited to Fotolia that would serve me by increasing traffic from buyers as the FT reputation will continue to grow and pick up more momentum. That is good for me, good for all at FT.
It's easy for you to see a positive side in this Mat because you yourself have benefitted from a similar artificial boost in your ranking and therefore your earnings. I suspect if that had not happened, and you were still a couple of years away from Emerald, then you might have thought differently.
4497
« on: October 22, 2009, 09:51 »
Growth still reasonably steady for me within the constraints of seasonal variation. Well on target for a BME this month, IS and FT are doing particularly well.
You're right though, it is getting tougher almost on a monthly basis and obviously that trend will continue.
"What kind of pictures is it worth uploading nowadays?". The only answer is 'good ones' __ anything sub-par and you are most likely wasting your time.
IMHO to succeed in microstock today you need to specialise. You need to find your own niche(s), then get the props and the equipment to enable you to do them well and then practise, practice, practice until you have refined your technique to the point where you images are amongst the very best out there in your subject. Then you need to do it over and over again, examining your work and continually seeking to improve upon it with each shoot.
If you want an example of someone who does just that then check out Liliboas at Istock. She does Christmas decorations. Nobody does Christmas decorations like Liliboas or in such quantity. If you want images of Christmas decorations then you'll probably end up buying them from Liliboas. What is she producing at the moment? Christmas decorations and similarly themed images of course.
That is basically the way I see microstock going in the future __ niche subject images being produced in exceptional quality and high volume by specialists. There will always be a market for the lucky grab-shot or 'found' image but it'll be increasingly difficult to earn a living from those alone.
4498
« on: October 21, 2009, 21:22 »
I left because of their shenangens and if I wasn't already exclusive and still submitting, i would be gone now.
istock is huge, and I absolutely hate how FT runs their business.
As for consolidation, its going to happen, and the small useless players will disappear while the mid-players get bought out. The writing is on the wall
Hmm __ historically we don't agree on much but I think you're probably spot on here! My guess is that FT will buy DT. After that Corbis, if they want to stay in the game at all, will pretty much be forced to buy FT at a very high price. Within a couple of years there will be only 3 major players.
4499
« on: October 21, 2009, 21:00 »
I meant in the context of signing up Istock exclusives - it would be quite ironic if the result was a whole lot of independents did exactly the opposite. IS is actually growing quite strongly in terms of and is dangling a lot of quite attractive carrots like the Getty contracts.
Unlike 6-12 months ago I just don't get the sense that there is much of a push from many people to drop IS exclusivity - more the opposite, that the ship has steadied and is steaming ahead.
... is the right answer. IS are looking frighteningly secure and now, with the guarantee bit too, look poised to grab most of the important corporate accounts (if they haven't got them already). IS exclusivity has never looked more attractive or affordable and maybe FT have just delivered the final push we needed.
4500
« on: October 21, 2009, 20:17 »
I respectfully disagree. I think exclusivity would be the last thing I would consider now. With everything so volatile and companies being devoured by bigger companies, the last place I would want to be is exclusive with the last man standing. If there's no competition, there's bound to be a lot more abuse of the contributors. They won't have the choice of taking their toys to another sandbox if they're being bullied. Just my take. And hopefully we won't ever have to worry about that.
It seems to me that we independent contributors get bullied far more, more often and more severely than our exclusive counterparts __ and almost all of it comes from Fotolia.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
