|
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 - cobalt
4551
« on: March 08, 2013, 18:07 »
Thank you very much for sharing your results. It is very impressive that you have recovered most of your exclusive income in a few months. And seeing the desperate threads on istock I would presume you are probably already making more money than if you had stayed.
istock must be losing tons of video customers. In January I had the free video of the month but didnt sell a single video. I havent sold any video in over three months on istock. But in January I sold 6 files on all the other sites, for my tiny portfolio it was a BME. And Feburary was slow or "normal" again, so I am sure it was istock customers that saw or downloaded my free file, but realized I am video independent and went looking for other files from the series on sites that are cheaper.
Very sad. The people from the istock video team (and the getty team as well) are just lovely. But obviously video is an unloved step child and not enough money and promotion is given to it.
4552
« on: March 05, 2013, 17:24 »
This is very exciting! In a week from now I will be uploading photos to Pond5 as well. I have been quite impressed with my humble video portfolio and I love that I have so much control over prices, mediaboxes and the portfolio in general. (just a little unhappy with the visible downloads, but I keep hoping...)
Pond5 is a true marketplace and allows buyers and sellers to interact freely. And with 50% customers can get the files for much lower prices than on other agencies.
Very good news!! All the best for the merger!
4553
« on: February 22, 2013, 03:58 »
You have to have at least two stops difference between your objects and the background. the background has to be overexposed to be pure white.
You will need to direct light from strobes or other light towards the background and then have additional light in front to light the object separately.
If you do a lot of isolations, it is wort having a dedicated work area set up just for that so you can use it all the time. Studio photographers also often have semi transparent work tables to be able to light everything from below.
And for the picture above you obviously need to do a manual white balance as well.
4554
« on: February 19, 2013, 16:56 »
4555
« on: February 19, 2013, 09:23 »
I am very sorry to hear this. I hope the learning experience was worth your time and that your next project brings better results.
4556
« on: February 18, 2013, 06:54 »
I think it can take two days before the crown is gone and the status changes. Just like any canister change when you move up the ladder.
4557
« on: February 15, 2013, 13:52 »
Its a strange article but maybe it just summaries the whole bizarre behaviour of Getty. The most unlogical accusation is that Sean was actively "recruiting" for stocksy. How could he do that if nobody knew about the project? He said himself he only signed up and looked at the place a few days before leaf announced it here on msg. It is not an active site, nobody knows when Bruce wants to take it live.
Most of us still have accounts somewhere with other agencies form pre exclusivity days. But istock never required to close the accounts, just that we dont have images for sale anyhwere else.
Many exclusives have registered accounts with Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotolia. Sometimes they use them for buying as well.
Besides we all know that Sean recommended GI Images and its 52%. He even pointed them out in the istock FB group. And Bruce certainly doesnt need any help "recruiting" people. He just has to announce it and he will be flodded by people wanting to get in.
The "explanation" seems unbelievably far fetched. By kicking him out, they are actively encouraging him to take his portfolio to the competition, including stocksy. And now everybody wants to know more about it.
Kicking out Sean and Rob suddenly makes stocksy like a viable alternative, just because Getty is so afraid of it.
But the place isnt open for business and doesnt even have any customers.
The real competition are the other live agencies with 30 000 photographers, active communities, millions of images and a growing customer base.
Why dont they focus on building the business?? What is it about "creating enemies" that is so much fun for them that they put so much energy and effort into it?
Why not focus on the REAL competition out there?
I just dont understand their actions at all. It makes no sense.
4558
« on: February 13, 2013, 19:36 »
lewis larkin,
you have summed up the feeling of nearly every exclusive contributor I know.
And I agree with others that the threat of the Getty/Google deal hasnt diminshed at all. If they want to lessen the fear, they need to provide transparent information.
This attack on Sean is just so weird. I just dont get it at all. Maybe its main function is really to divert attention away from google.
Which makes you wonder what drama is coming up next?
4559
« on: February 13, 2013, 13:20 »
stocktard,
sorry, who exactly are you seeing here that is scared?
We own the content. If getty/istock dont want to distribute it, somebody else does. We just move on, the customers are always just one click away.
Getty was never our customer. They just dont seem to understand that themselves.
Many people here do stock fulltime. Unlike the previous generation of stock shooters who always did stock as a side job between assignment work.
Because we do it fulltime, the quality is a lot better and we can supply much higher volumes on a regular basis.
4560
« on: February 13, 2013, 03:15 »
ouchie,
where have you ben all these years??
Gettyimages sold files for 12 dollars to 425 million people and stripped them of metadata. And apparently with a mysterious license that circumvents the standard model release with its limitations on sensitive use.
What do you think of that? It sounds like a free give away of many peoples best images. And they have the nerve to proclaim they want to continue doing this!!
So ouchie - how many files are you volunteering for the getty/google deal?
How many of your bestsellers do you want them to send over?
What about your whole portfolio? What if they handed it all over or just your top 100 bestsellers?
How does the deal make you feel?
Do you have many images with people in them? Your children perhaps?
How do you feel about the deal?
You see, that is the issue.
People didnt need Sean to deactivate files.
It was Gettyimages that decided to give people files away in a free deal without a regular license and who made it clear they want to continue doing it.
Sean wasnt "leading" anything. Gettyimages is the one who decided they place no value on our content.
So the people who do this for a living pulled their files. Action by Getty. Reaction by the Artists.
Sean is just being made a scapegoat, probably by the exact same manager who gave all those files to Google without metadata and is now desperatly trying to save his head by finding an outsider he can blame.
And since Jonathan Klein obviously doesnt read msg himself or checks the facts by reading up on the situation which is easy enough to do, Sean and his portfolio got kicked out.
But the problem is - the Getty/Google deal is still in place.
And now Seans portfolio is on his way to the competition - Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime. You know the companies that have been taking all that market share away from istock. The companies you would expect the managers to fight against. Not encourage by sending them one of the most commercial portfolios on the planet.
As an istock contributor, I believe that to send Seans portfolio to competitors is actively damaging the company in a big way. Thousands of customers have these files in their lightboxes. Once the portfolio is gone they can only find these files elsewhere.
But apparently growing the business and fighting the competition is not what Gettymanagers do. It is the only conclusion I can draw from their actions.
4561
« on: February 11, 2013, 15:09 »
I am just stunned. Sean is one of the most respected members of the stock community and we all admire his brainpower.
And his portfolio has incredible commercial value, whatever agency can sign him up, exclusive or not will be lucky to have him.
The only people benefitting from this strange decision is the competition. It is a direct gift for them.
Like Joe says, if the threats started before the stocksy announcement then it has nothing to do with it. stocksy is anyway a non existent entity without customers.
Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime - that is the real competition, especially Shutterstock.
But the biggest enemy of business success for Getty are their own decisions. First they create a terrible situation with the Getty/Google Deal and now they crash their reputation even more by kicking out Rob and Sean with 30 days notice.
They seem to spend a lot of energy into looking for "enemies" outside that they can blame.
Why dont they just focus on their company instead and grow the business?
Sean didnt send over files for 12 dollars to 425 Million people on Google without Metadata. This was the decision made by Gettyimages.
I am really sorry Sean. Even with your resources, 30 days notice must be difficult to manage and your family depends on your full time stock income.
4562
« on: February 10, 2013, 18:35 »
Admins are part of the whole stock scene. I dont believe in banning people (no irony intended).
I was a moderator on istock and I was still actively posting here. FWIW I have worked with Lobo as a colleague and thought he did a his job as "bad cop" really well. The forums are an unbelievably rough place to work and what you see on the forum "stage" is only a small part of the picture.
But like he says moderators are only human and they make mistakes. And it is especially difficult for an admin to communicate if you dont even have more information yourself about a new situation or have been given conflicting directions from those higher up. Moderators dont work in a vacuum, they are employees and have to follow directions.
For those who would like to have sitemail or posting privileges back, I would take him up on the offer to just site mail him or write to support.
He must have amazing inner strength to be doing his job for so long. But from the new threads about forum discussions, new language forums, editorial questions it looks like he is genuinly making a much stronger effort to engage the community. I also wouldnt be surprised if he had to fight to get that going.
Like he says, he is part of a bigger game and can only work within the space he has been given.
Ultimately the forum quality and the relationship between admins and the community is decided by Getty. What kind of community life do they want? They are the only ones who can make that decision.
Any admins who want to work actively with the community will need professional training to learn how to communicate effectively via social media. Especially because a very large part of the community does not have English as a first language.
A lot of nuances of English are simply not understood by a huge number of people. I used to point that out many times when I was working with the German language forum.
It looks like 2 years and various s**storms later suggestions by Michael and me are being read with a more open mind.
So I hope the forums will improve because the old istock community life was a great way to attract new talent.
Right now it is just a shadow of what it use to be.
4563
« on: February 09, 2013, 17:57 »
I uploaded files yesterday but had to do it several times, kept getting error messages.
4564
« on: February 08, 2013, 20:59 »
Warmpictures, Blend images, various photography groupings on Photoshelter come to mind. Also all the smaller webshops were two or three artists pool their content to sell together but also send content to other agencies.
A coop of course will have people working in administration, but why would they have their portfolios deleted from other sites?
Are images uploaded to stocksy more dangerous than images uploaded to shutterstock?
You would think istock/getty are concerned by losing all the marketshare to Shutterstock. I mean there are even customers on the forum openly talking about it.
Why would they be so scared of a coop that is not even open for business?
Bruce is a clever man, but he cant create miracles.
stocksy will take years to build and might never ever become a real threat to anyone.
4565
« on: February 08, 2013, 20:31 »
Maybe they know something we dont. But the site hasnt even opened its doors yet.
But from what the site says it is just a coop, not a regular stock agency. And what has been shared so far is that it is going to work on an image exclusive basis, so all the contributors will probably still be uploading to all the other sites as well.
But looking from the outside this seems like a knee jerk reaction without considering the effect on the companies reputation.
4566
« on: February 08, 2013, 20:12 »
?? So are they going to ban all the contributing members of the stocksy co op?
Why do they allow the photographers from Blend to upload? They also sell from their own site.
Very strange.
I will miss him. Rob Sylvan did so much for the istock community. It is hard to imagine they kicked him out.
Really bizarre.
Do they have any idea how this will backfire? A lot of people are still under shock from the getty google deal.
Something like this really makes you wonder what is coming next???
4567
« on: February 08, 2013, 16:50 »
From the little info listed, you would think it is more a modern version of blend. A group of photographers who work together to sell their files. I wouldnt be surprised if macro agencies approach them to license the content.
If they just sell directly from their site, it will probably take 2 years before they have enough customers to pay out large amounts of money.
Id love to learn more about it, but for all those looking for a simple alternative to the micros, this probably isnt it.
4568
« on: February 07, 2013, 06:15 »
Interesting. I guess "cool" has come back to stock.  Lets see what he does.
4569
« on: February 05, 2013, 02:14 »
So now instead of selling my content, getty will rent it out?
Sounds like a great business model for getty, but not a good one for me.
I see a real use for this approach for editorial images that have a very short shelf life and must be monetized instantly.
But why should somebody be allowed to rent my files in a pay per view model for advertising?
Why should I supply my files to become "click bait"?
And no numbers provided.
The 25 cent subscription sale is beginning to look really attractive.
4570
« on: February 04, 2013, 14:40 »
Any kind of co-op or photographer held agency needs leadership and excellent management to make it thrive.
So - who is going to run the place??
The people at the top will make all the difference, they have to basically forgoe being photographers and focus on the business only.
Otherwise they have no chance of attracting customers.
Like any entrepreneurial endeavor - it is the entrepreneur that makes all the difference.
4571
« on: February 04, 2013, 04:42 »
Cool! Maybe someone active with the flickr group can let the community know? Ill post it on the facebook groups that I can see.
4572
« on: February 03, 2013, 04:53 »
Michael when a company licenses files for their team, it is a simple multi user license, it doesnt mean that everyone in the team will use it immediately, but the files are available for them to use. It is the same with google. Maybe not all of the 425 million will chose my file for their first document, but they have the right to do so.
The 9 million accounts on istock dont have the right to use my files. They need to buy a license first.
4573
« on: February 02, 2013, 16:50 »
Here are my results for January:
I earned a total of 118 dollars, Best Month Ever in video.
Pond5: 2 sales, 64 Dollars in total
Shutterstock: 3 sales: 52 Dollars in total
Fotolia: 1 sale 2.60 Dollars
istock: ZERO, not a single sale although I had the free video of the month.
I havent uploaded anything new, will now focus uploading to Shutterstock, Pond5 and Fotolia.
Everywhere else, when I have the time.
4574
« on: February 02, 2013, 16:36 »
12 Dollars divided over 425 users would be 2.8 cents per license.
12 Dollars divided over 425 MILLION users is...0.00000028 USD per user for the license.
Even for a thinkstock file, this is just completly insane!
This is a free promotion that basically puts your file into the public domain. It just doesnt make any sense.
But if someone had told me before that they are looking for free files to be available online to anyone, I would have still chosen something to support my agency.
Thanks to the Microsoft deal, i know that a file that is widely distributed can be killed by it. Like I mentioned before - I had a file with 655 000 downloads, i.e. it was popular and well used, but 0 Downloads on istock. Not one single user thought they might need it in a larger size or a designer that saw it used by a friend for free thought it was worth buying this file for a client design.
4575
« on: February 02, 2013, 12:50 »
I have always supported promotional deals, well at least before the current Microsoft/Google Fiasco. I am sure i would have donated several useful images for a project if someone I trust had explained to me that this would be important for the business.
Ive had a free image of the week and in January also the free video of the month. As long as it is my choice, I am always supportive.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
