|
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 - Adeptris
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 26
476
« on: January 11, 2009, 13:58 »
Cutcaster is barely 6 months old and just opened to buyers in the middle of Sept. Picturehouse, last month, was our first image buyers conference and we have set up in office meetings with over 35 publishers, advertisers and graphic designers. The conference was a great experience for us as we met over 220 image buyers in the NYC area that really were enthusiastic about the Cutcaster business model and a new challenger.
I am asking for a chance. Give me a year to host your content for free and show you results. That is all I can ask for.
Best of luck John, That is almost the same text as the Photohelters Collection "What Buyers Want", listening to NYC buyers wants and needs, the prospects for PSC and general feeling was good, but in the cold light of day and analysis of the market, the actual happenings did not live up to the hype, and the plug was pulled and the baby flushed with the bathwater, the quality of photographers content was blamed and the hands washed clean. It is ok talking to buyers but in a lot of cases thier hands are already tied with other suppliers, and in a recession they will play safe, people do not take chances and change suppliers but look for comfort and stability in a recession, often looking back to the good old times. But reading your replies they look sincere and honest, so do hope all goes well for you! David 
477
« on: January 11, 2009, 11:34 »
Yep sorry Guys my mistake no RF for Istock Exclusive only RM to other sites  . The point still stands in that at the moment, if you do some research and look at the type of images Alamy sell which are mainly editorial, travel etc: logo's and Landmarks not rejected, these are not the same as you would consider shooting or trying to upload to the microsites, you could however expand your business without hurting your Istock Exclusive Status and without feeling you are doing something wrong  David 
478
« on: January 11, 2009, 11:16 »
97%
* Adeptris do you know what the "fun" word means or you always take everything serious?
Sorry it is just the day job kicking in! If I took everything serious I would not be shooting stock, because if I added the kit cost, utility costs and paid myself the minimum wage for each hour I spent on my images I would be calling in the receivers But I would like to add in a slight adjustment, there were more like 17 working days in December 2008, and as at today 6 working days in January, with 15 days to come this month making 21, so how would you project from that base? Having been stuck on the M25 for 2 hours my brain is not back fully with me yet, but lets kick off with this! ((January Sales / 6 - December Sales / 17) / January Sales / 6)*100 Test Calculation with a good January Start January Sales 360 / 6 = 60 December Sales 510 / 17 = 30 60 - 30 / 60 * 100 = 50% Gross Increase As of today sales would be 50% up on a December base, "I can but dream" David 
479
« on: January 11, 2009, 06:52 »
I see a lot of these type of threads and they are not good formula's as there are to many variables that could distort the values, last month had less trading days in some contries due to the christmas break, the number of EL's, then there are buyers seasonal trends, and even the number of good trading days vary, a 31 day month starting on a monday will have 23 (weekdays) strong trading days, yet if the month starting day was on a Saturday only 21 (weekdays) strong trading days, then there is February to think about, and the number of images online. I work in accounting software and a lot of our retail customers in the UK use what is know as 4-4-5 accounting with good reason and most compare periods this year to last year rather than period to period, so you would compare 4 or 5 trading weeks in 2009 to the same 4 or 5 trading weeks in 2008, this would show any growth or shrinkage trends, and you would also need to factor in the number of images you had or have online at the time for a better measure. 4-4-5 accounting works by ignoring the standard calendar, so your trading year and all period types will always start on a Monday and end on a Friday and have the same number of strong trading days in each, 52 weeks, 12 periods (set as 28 days, 28 days and 35 days), then 4 even 13 week (91 day) quarters and a 364 day year. Bottom line is the only real value that matters is your yearly net profit, Sales - Costs which will also change as the cost of keeping up year on year differs. What I would be interested in as being fairly new to stock, is the difference in revenue per image year on year from a few longer term contributors. But as a bit of fun  David
480
« on: January 11, 2009, 04:46 »
I do not see you practicing what you preach, Yuri and other Istock Exclusives also upload Different Images to the traditional sites like Alamy without affecting thier status.
When did Yuri go exclusive? And what other exclusives are you talking about?
Sorry rephrased, "Yuri and some Istock Exclusives", Yuris does contribute to Alamy, and so do some Istock exclusive contributors, and many non exclusive, I will not name anyone as some use different names on Alamy, but a search of the forum here and at Alamy will return some answers. It is not against Istock exclusive policy to contribute images to other Traditional agencies just not other microsites, it is not even against Alamy terms to put the same RF Miro images on thier site and similars as RM, but is not welcomed by other and could lead to crediting back a sale. Also Alamy sales are 75% editorial and 78% RM, and as they do not edit content therefore non RF images of buildings and people without releases will not be rejected as they may have editorial use, this reduces the micro vs macro conflict of interest, an example is the "London Eye" main focus in an image is restricted, and would get a rejection on Istock, Istock 216 images, Alamy 9365 Images. The point of my reply was that even as an Istock Exclusive there are other types of images and Macro sites where you could upload to, rather than putting all eggs in the one basket, then any sales variances could be balanced by other types of sales. It is confusing to some Photographers as they think that it is Micro or Macro, but as a vendor you should supply your goods to any outlet you are comfortable with, you will find the same day to day branded goods in low and high end outlets at different price points. David 
481
« on: January 09, 2009, 00:54 »
I have the same problem with my Marx Bothers and Charlie Chaplin D.V.D's. It could be if the T.V. set is old and getting on a bit, that it is getting confused and thinks you only have a B&W licence. Maybe your toner catridge in the TV is getting low, so only outputting in B&W, pop down to Curry's and ask if they have a colour refill for your TV, don't get the cheap ones off Ebay the clog up easy. Play the D.V.D's on your PC is an option, but that may impact on your forum use  Last option pop into your neighbours house and use thier DVD player, I am sure they will be glad of your company and quick wit. David
482
« on: January 08, 2009, 15:32 »
good point hoi ha,
as well as the fact that 25 cents a pop may sounds silly to someone living in N.Am or UK, you'd be tempted to forget micro stock and simply go out to squeegee cars at the traffic lights
but to others where the standard of living is much much lower,
getting a cheque for 50 bucks each month is like getting a decent job.
the supply will not dry up , coming from those countries.
The supply from these countries will be so small that it would not make a bit of difference, look at a couple of things. Getting the money to purchase the kit is beyond most where $50 a month is like a decent job, and if they had the sort of money to get started they would already be earning very well or have other disposable income. It is also hard in these countries to produce standard stock images with people due to the differences in look, location dress etc:, so this leaves generic stock product style images, editorial and travel, you can often see the difference between a lot of UK, EU and USA people shots, not counting the white dental smile, but location, dress or general features of a person in an image that often may have cost a sale. This may change as new markets evolve but I am sure the images will already be avaliable. David
483
« on: January 08, 2009, 14:38 »
Happy with what i get payed for my sales and already this year had 5 large sales ranging from$2.90-$3.50.
What contributors don't realise is a sale for us is the end product.
A sale for a buyer is probably at the beginning of a project and alot of buyers WONT be buying everyday as they will be working on said project/design.
A buyer may download a small image for a composite at the begining of a project, medium half way through for a publication, and an EL later a the campaign takes off, so not always the end product, that is the image not the revenue. Rather than photographers complaining about poor sales they should look at why they could be poor, the recession, changes in the types of images buyers are looking for, old tired images in thier portfolio, to many similars, to many seasonal images, not enough diversity, buyers not purchasing so many images, buyers finding cheaper images, changing trends, sites marketing not as aggressive, market dilution. Shanks old mate I see you have achieved one of your targets, Istock Exclusive, all eggs in one basket comes to mind. If your exclusive and want more sales make your files available to a different group of buyers. eh duh ( those that don't buy from istockphoto ) stupid. I do not see you practicing what you preach, Yuri and other Istock Exclusives also upload Different Images to the traditional sites like Alamy without affecting thier status. Then you could have your income from the micros supplemented by a traditional sale, my last sale netted me a mere $85.00. Now then lets also take the perspective of the Site Owners that are trying to make a profit and keep the sites running they are also affected, the recession, changes in the types of images buyers are looking for, photographers uploading tired images and to many similars, to many seasonal images at the wrong time, not enough diversity being uploaded, thier buyers not purchasing so many images and finding cheaper images, changing trends, marketing budgets cut, market dilution and price undercutting by other sites, never really hear them complain, they have a look and adjust thier business to suit. So the time to complain is when you are sure you have done everything you can to maximise your sales, and the poor sales can be attributed only to the way a site is managed, then you still do not complain, it is thier business you are just a supplier, if you are unhappy you just stop supplying your images and move on before the axe falls. David
484
« on: January 02, 2009, 15:21 »
As for Alamy and RM as Editorial, the reason is simple cost!
A newspaper not like advertising often just require a small spot size image for a single topical use, and RM often works out "cheaper than RF" for the specific use.
Alamy sells about 76% RM and 78% Editorial so uploading as RF could lower the chance of a sale at the moment, but this may change over the next 18-24 Months.
Alamy are opening a US office and are looking at the US advertising market, even though Alamy is not know well in the US at present 30% of Alamy Sales are to the US and 21% of photographers are US based, the editorial US market is tightly sewn up already, and Alamy will be moving to Photographers uploading model releases this year sometime, this is to cater for the USA Commercial marketplace.
David
485
« on: January 02, 2009, 14:56 »
Yep, sorry I went off thread, it was just "e-person" attacking the contributors of JPG, of which I am not one, it is a pointless response and just rang a bell like the traditional "them and us" photographers that often post similar comments, could be like this when a microsite fails: I am glad they go, I hate amateur photographers supplying photographs for cents, almost free photos to clients, and microstock sites taking advantage of that.
Now I hope all microstock sites, go down the same path. Back to the thread, there were a few sites that went under last year, traditional and micro, I was affected by two Oliver and PSC, and I am sure there will be more this year, there is different demand and room for all types of Photography and Photographers, and we should I.M.H.O. support anything including the free ones like Flickr that promote the use of still images, and we should also be aware that dispite the hype every stock site is not social network community but a merchant business which needs a margin and revenue to survive, the revenue pool will shrink and other sites will struggle and try to cut the cost of Image supply. David
486
« on: January 02, 2009, 09:29 »
I am glad they go, I hate amateur photographers supplying free photos to magazines, and magazines taking advantage of that.
Now I hope all microstock sites, other than SS and IS, go down the same path.
Having seen IS go from 1st of the "Big Six" to 5th I would be more concerned about that! I remember when "safe" stores chains that have now gone into liquidation were the pride of the high street David 
487
« on: January 02, 2009, 03:49 »
Greeted with more evidence of the slowdown this morning Today is a particularly sad day for all of us at JPG and 8020 Media.
We've spent the last few months trying to make the business behind JPG sustain itself, and we've reached the end of the line. We all deeply believe in everything JPG represents, but we just weren't able to raise the money needed to keep JPG alive in these extraordinary economic times. We sought out buyers, spoke with numerous potential investors, and pitched several last-ditch creative efforts, all without success. As a result, jpgmag.com will shut down on Monday, January 5, 2009.
The one thing we've been the most proud of: your amazing talent. We feel honored and humbled to have been able to share jpgmag.com with such a dynamic, warm, and wonderful community of nearly 200,000 photographers. The photography on the website and in the magazine was adored by many, leaving no doubt that this community created work of the highest caliber. The kindness, generosity, and support shared among members made it a community in the truest sense of the word, and one that we have loved being a part of for these past two years.
We wish we could have found a way to leave the site running for the benefit of the amazing folks who have made JPG what it is, and we have spent sleepless nights trying to figure something out, all to no avail. Some things you may want to do before the site closes:
- Download the PDFs of back issues, outtakes, and photo challenge selections. We'll always have the memories! www.jpgmag.com/downloads/archives.html
- Make note of your favorite photographers. You may want to flip through your favorites list and jot down names and URLs of some of the people you'd like to stay in touch with. You may even want to cut and paste your contacts page into a personal record.
- Catch up with your fellow members. Our roots are in this humble flickr forum and we recommend going back to find fellow members, discuss the situation, or participate in another great photo community. www.flickr.com/groups/jpgmag/
- Keep in touch. This has always been much more than just a job to each of us, and we'll miss you guys! We'll be checking the account [email protected] in our free time going forward. We can't promise to reply to every email (since we'll be busy tuning up our resumes) but we'd love to hear from you.
- Stay posted. Although the magazine is ceasing publication, we'll be updating you on what's happening with your subscription early next week.
We're soggy-eyed messes, but it is what it is. At that, JPGers, we bid you goodbye, and good luck in 2009 and the future.
Laura Brunow Miner
Editor in Chief David 
488
« on: December 22, 2008, 19:24 »
Hi, If any of you use SlideShowPro I have been developing a bit of software, to help me learn some new software and, I have just uploaded a free small windows application that will allow users to manage SlideShowPro Galleries without needing Flash or PhotoShop, one again it is free to download and use, it is in Alpha release so any feedback is most welcome You can find the Online Manual here: http://www.adeptris.co.uk/SlideShow/SlideShowManual/tabid/142/Default.aspxYou can download it from the downloads page All the best for 2009! Regards David
489
« on: December 01, 2008, 17:08 »
I do not contribute to either site so do not have a weighted opinion, but as suppliers you are thinking along the lines that a fall in your sales means that Istocks revenue is down as well. Looking at Alexa statistics, visitors are down 4% is that a fall in customers or a fall in photographers checking thier statistics? On the other hand we can see that Shutterstock visitors up 16%, is that again customers? Then the unique page views per visitor tells another story, Istock is up 15%, and shutterstock down 7%, is that buyers at Istock using the new best match search finding what they searched for so loading more pages, then over at Shutterstock buyers loading pages seeing that the images do not really match the search or they have seen them before, and leaving the site? I know it is hard to take another perspective when you have a lot at stake, but we do not know if the Istock revenue has fallen in line with yours, or it has just been moved about, if it is that latter then there will be no change in the best match, they would not change the best match for fun if it was working well before, it is not a game but a business, if thier revenue has been hit then there will be another change in the best match, that is the simple logic. I know that the "Istock Community" ethos is used a lot, and a community soccer team will use all it's players to give them a level playing field, and not reall win anything, but there are ruthless teams that will collect the trophies, that do not go out in the first round, and they will play thier to thier strengths at the expense of the rest of the "team" (suppliers of skill) Just another view! David 
490
« on: November 24, 2008, 17:52 »
491
« on: November 15, 2008, 03:18 »
Real easy, those of us who have used Lightroom, will find the fact that it alpha sorts the words when you drag them in from a collection, frustrating!
This was stated over on the Alamy Forum, and these replies may help you adjust your workflow to solve it! In my experience, CS3 Bridge arranges keywords alphabetically when you add keywords from your own pre-determined keywords and word sets (ie by clicking on keywords for inclusion), but does not do so if you keyword images manually. If you click on just one pre-saved keyword, the whole set will then be rearranged alphabetically (including all manually typed words).
RacePhoto, Some good news for you, at the Contributors meeting 7th November, they said the new Contributos Tool will be released first quarter 2008, this will allow you to edit and assign values to similars in blocks, they also spoke about a template for Adobe that would allow you to split the keywords for alamy, so it will embed in the files xmp data a section just for Alamy, also they are looking at populating the date etc: Other Points: Also they are looking at several other area's like uploading model releases for a commercial collection, and ranking on a per image basis, so all positive and in the right direction. The move into the US, the office will open in January, at present 30% of Alamy's sales are to the US, with 20% of photographers US based. The editorial market in the US would be hard to break into, so it looks like the commercial market will be targeted, Alamy is self financed by organic growth so there are no investors to pull the plug. David
492
« on: November 14, 2008, 17:38 »
Quite simple with alamy, "Less = More" Keywords should be relevent to the image, keyword spamming hurts you rank and you will slip down the search results. You have three boxes for keywords, essential which are the most important ones, then main which are your secondary ones, the rest go into general and figure low in the search formula, a lot of photographer do not use the general box at all. I average about 12 keywords in total, and use short captions. Captions in the search are middle ranked but this is due to change soon according to the meeting last week, they will move the caption down the priority below the main keywords, as images are still coming up in searches they should not. Alamy Ranking and BHZ, with BHZ I am in the last 10%, but in searches where I get views my images are in the top 8% "go figure", so do not take the BHZ to heart, where your images fit in is easy to find out on any site, do a search using two or three keywords for your image and look at where the come up so if a search returns 1000 images and your is positioned at 123 then just calculate Position / Total images times 100. 123/1000 = 0.123 * 100 = 12.3 so you are in the top 13% Do this on several images and keep a note then you can search again in a month and see if they have gone up or down. One thing I will say about Alamy, every photographer and image is treated the same, there are no gold stars or pats on the back, commission is the same if you have 10 or 100,000 images with them and the whole system is so transparent. Alamy supply a bit of data, you can look at all search terms for any day since April 2008 and return the statistics. I have summerized the data into days weeks months and quarters if you want a look here is a link: http://www.instancesintime.co.uk/AlamyData/tabid/65/Default.aspxUCO = Unique Customer Occurences Views = where an image has appeared as a thumb nail Zooms = where one of a group of selected customers has had a closer look CTR = click through rate which is the percentage of zooms to views, normally about 1.3% (my personal CTR is 1.1%) David
493
« on: October 29, 2008, 05:52 »
Hi Leaf,
I think the difference is who was driving the company, Lucky Oliver and PhotoShelter Collection did not get themself in the same position as DRR and pulled the plug themself, the receivers were not called in, and they were able to operate a timely withdrawal from the market.
But I think that DRR were hanging on in hope for a buy-out from another site or new venture capital, and left it all to late to announce the failure, so were forced into receivership and liqudation, the job of the liquidators is to save as much as they can to sell off and pay thier fees and give something back to the creditors, so another month of expence was not really an option once all avenues of a rescue package are exhausted, the liquidators would have pulled the plug and this would have been outside of control by DRR staff.
David
494
« on: October 29, 2008, 03:44 »
Vincint Laforet wrote a strongly worded blog post about the subject...
[Vincent Laforet]
This was my reply on his blog: lets be fair to DRR staff and look at things from a different perspective. DRR staff would not just shut down the site if they had a choice, and I would think that they would have given more notice and wound down if they had a choice, but if you turn up to work just to be told your job has gone what choices do you have. The liqiudators, receivers and maybe outsite hosting companies would want to stop any more financial drain to give the best return in the $ to the DDR suppliers, and are the ones that would have taken this action without a thought to subscribers, we do not know if the DRR servers were leased through another company, if they are shut out of thier offices, and a fact of life is if there is no money to pay the bills the plug gets pulled. We are all in the hands of many service providers, for our daily life, water, power, banks, insurance, mortgages, credit, and also our virtual life, stock images, websites we own and use, email etc:, and we just assume that these companies are sound and we have to put our trust in them, what else can we do. David
495
« on: October 28, 2008, 15:21 »
Not sure if anyone here uses DigitalRailroad, they have gone under and have a notice when you log in saying that you have only 24 hours before they pull the plug, so if anyone here has any images over on DigitalRailRoad it is time to pull them, or they could get sold with the servers who knows?
David
496
« on: October 05, 2008, 04:46 »
Typical Media,
Every 20 something with a P&S that reads this story will think "Easy Money" or more likely "EZ $" beliving it will be all so easy as well.
It would be nice if they balanced reports like this by including how much work is involved and a more typical story, Microstock and places like the late PhotoShelter and Alamy, have libraries full of images that will never sell but pad out the collections, also loads of other images that will sell from a small Photographers portfolio that may never reach a payout limit.
It is a bit like American and UK football, you read about the top super-stars and what status thier "hobby" can bring, that justs feeds on the perception that it will all come easy, but never about the crocked and failed wannabee's playing part-time and struggling along, and the hobby players just doing it for fun.
David
497
« on: September 29, 2008, 03:16 »
Double Post
498
« on: September 29, 2008, 03:07 »
Wow, they sure picked two low-ballers to profile in that article - makes me think that someone with an anti-microstock bias pitched the story to them.
But are these not the typical Micro and Macro Photographers, and that this is the reality of shooting stock and the normal experiences of the masses? You Guys the dedicated and keen posters here, likely are not a true representative section of microstock photographers, as has been reported before 76% never make a payout, so those two guys are not really typical but would represent the experiences of a lot of others that make payout, the guys that upload a dozen images, find that the pennies do not fall out of the sky and leave are the typical microstockers. It's is like US football and UK Soccer, you read about the Yuri's, 'Super Stars' ones that make it big on a daily basis, these are the stories that draw people as they try to aspire to be the same or better, rarely you get the stories about the part timers 'like me and the two low-ballers ' that aspire for better things and often spend more than thier part time income taking part in thier aspiration/hobby/sport, and then there are the real hobby players that do it just for fun. I would settle for a download for every post I have read, where a first post by a new forum member was asking when they could expect the first payment or how many images to upload so they can retire on thier portfolio. David
499
« on: September 19, 2008, 17:06 »
Scott (and everyone else),
What program do you use to upsize? This is opening up a whole new world now, and I know nothing.
Thanks,
Karen
Karen, Just visit the alamy forums; http://www.alamy.com/forums/, search for upsizing, the question has been asked thousands of times, and you will find lots of tutorials and information, even google "upsize for Alamy", then do your research you will learn better that way, all you need is PhotoShop or Lightroom and to be able to follow readable instructions. Do not be put of by the 50mb file size, that is the pixel count and not the pysical file size, the physical size on your hard drive will be about 6mb - 10mb, as a guide I resize the longest side of a 6mp or a 10mp image to 5100, and save as quality 12 in photoshop, the only other thing is to select size, uncheck resample and set the ppi to 300, all that is for is to embed metadata which will tell the printer that the image will print an A3 size at 300 points per inch. I only have 80 images live but at least 50% of these started life as 6mp files, don't crop your images, process from the original or a copy of the original and never from a saved file, only submit nice sharp images and do a minimal post process, maybe just levels or curves, and also remember that 78% of images sold on alamy are for editorial use, and 76% of sales are licenced RM. David
500
« on: September 18, 2008, 10:22 »
Hm. Interesting to see that the number of views has nothing to do with the number of sales:
"Russia" has 46,957 and 0 sales, while "Orkney Island Doug Blane" has 17 views and 3 sales.
So it doesn't really matter how many views an image gets when it comes to sales.
That means the search "Orkney Island Doug Blane" only returned 17 thumbnail views which produced the 3 sales, where Russia had 46,957 thumbnails. So the views are only thumbnail views, and the zooms are where the buyer has had a look at the image, so the views could be 1020, zooms 10, which would mean the buyer clicked (zoomed) or had a closer looked at 10 images over 10 pages. David
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
