|
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 - crazychristina
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 23
51
« on: November 14, 2010, 00:56 »
Hi FD-regular, as the person who first mentioned psychopaths/sociopaths in this thread I guess I feel some responsibility here. I said that in the context of people who do know better and can afford to do the right thing. Fact is, about 2% of people are psychopaths. You seem to think I'm applying this term to the whole of the third world, judging by your responses. I'm not. I too have used pirated software while a student, but when I started working in the industry I started to pay for the software I used, and encourage my students to do the right think once they get out into the real world too.
52
« on: November 12, 2010, 19:47 »
About one person in fifty is a psychopath (ie has no conscience).
53
« on: November 06, 2010, 14:59 »
It would be a problem if istock was purely micro. However they seem to moving closer to the macro business model - fewer sales a higher prices, anticipating more money overall. Remains to be seen if its 'sustainable'.
54
« on: November 05, 2010, 21:23 »
Slightly OT, but I was reading about the making of the Swedish movie Let the Right One In recently, and the director Tomas Alfredson said it was shot on film and wouldn't have looked the same shot digital.
I'm awaiting a digital MF camera, but today I hunted out my old Mamiya 645 and loaded up some out of date film I had in the fridge. I'll take it out later and see what I can find.
55
« on: November 02, 2010, 14:38 »
Perhaps they've organized a baptism by fire for the new forum moderator. Sort of like having a new recruit to the mob kill someone to cement their loyalty.
56
« on: November 01, 2010, 15:42 »
There is a community at istock. I'm part of a group of 60 odd contributors who encourage each other through friendly competition and support to achieve goals it would be very hard for most of us to reach working on our own. Perhaps there isn't much in it for you pros, but I suspect quite a few successful istock contributors (and probably similar for other sites) have found community support invaluable. Now, for how much the management supports/is involved in/uses the community, that's another question, and the answer varies over time and from individual to individual within the business.
I think the point Molka is trying to make is that while you are making a little money out of your photography, someone else is making a great deal more for doing a hell of a lot less, and you are more willing to accept this because you believe you're part of a community.
Getty, Klein, Evans-Lombe, Calvert, Catalane, Gurke, Heck, Lapham, Martin, Murrell, Peters, Rockafellar and Teaster are the biggest earners on iStock. None of them have had an image accepted or communicated with an iStock contributer. iStock is not a community.
L'etat, c'est moi.
57
« on: November 01, 2010, 03:31 »
There is a community at istock. I'm part of a group of 60 odd contributors who encourage each other through friendly competition and support to achieve goals it would be very hard for most of us to reach working on our own. Perhaps there isn't much in it for you pros, but I suspect quite a few successful istock contributors (and probably similar for other sites) have found community support invaluable. Now, for how much the management supports/is involved in/uses the community, that's another question, and the answer varies over time and from individual to individual within the business.
58
« on: October 30, 2010, 18:50 »
I think most micro contributors have a hard time realizing just how much some people are willing to pay for an image. In fact some buyers prefer to pay more. Especially if it's not their money.
59
« on: October 25, 2010, 18:02 »
Well I think if you post on a microstock forum, full of microstock contributors, and make a sweeping claim that too many contributors fake their releases, you are indirectly pointing the finger at the contributors on this board. I don't see where it is being "overly aggressive" if we ask you to back up your claims with some data. If anyone is being aggressive, it is the poster who enters this forum and suggests we are faking our releases.
I haven't felt accused by anything Jonathan has written. In the context of a discussion on why buyers might be wary of microstock, and what the purpose of istock's legal guarantee is, to raise the issue of false model releases is entirely appropriate. This forum has only a tiny fraction of total microstock contributors, and I don't think he's pointing the finger at anyone here, just a general discussion.
60
« on: October 23, 2010, 19:57 »
^^Thanks for that info, good to know what the real score is. I have several Chinese students who tell me that downloading is not illegal there for personal use, but perhaps they have as little understanding of the real state of affairs as most westerners seem to have.
61
« on: October 23, 2010, 18:17 »
Are you sure that people from China and Eastern Europe are actually breaking the law by downloading software? They are governed by the laws of their countries, and I believe that copyright laws in some of those countries don't offer the protection that US copyright law does.
62
« on: October 22, 2010, 19:35 »
Thanks for detailed answer Jonathan. I guess it's just good business sense - go with the money while maintaining the flexibility to change if necessary.
63
« on: October 22, 2010, 19:23 »
I don't think that 2007 bust involved ratings. The scam was that a group of contributors would all buy each others recent uploads at XS size (a relatively small outlay). The resulting high dls/day and dls/view figures these files got would put them at the front of a best match search. The positve feedback loop (buyers buying off the first page) would keep them at the front of the best match and rapidly repay their investment. I think they were mostly Christmas themed images, so lots of people were grabbing the first thing they saw.
64
« on: October 22, 2010, 17:43 »
Hi Lisa,
I am not an exclusive at this time but if I could do it I would drop the other Micros in a heart beat right now. Being owner of another agency is not a breech in the contract as I know it. It has to do with having RF at other agencies copy written in your name.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Jonathan, not so long ago you were dead set against exclusivity with any agency. I'm wondering what's caused you to re-evaluate that position.
65
« on: October 22, 2010, 16:14 »
Ratings have been a feature of sites with user contributed content for years. Youtube for example. Anyone familiar with any of these sites would exptect some kind of ratings/popularity mechanism to be in place. And they probably didn't read about that in a book.
As far as ratings on istock are concerned, two people are responsible for half my ratings. Both of them have images in the highest rated images list. They probably keep an eye on newest uploads and click on anything that looks vaguely interesting.
66
« on: October 21, 2010, 06:47 »
Hi CClapper,
Nope! Have to do that homework on your own for this one. This might make a couple people happy on this site but I don't share everything till I put it to use myself. I am very sure that things are not what they seem. Sorry to be so mysterious but the writing is all over the wall if you spend hours on the internet tracking info or hear it from a very reliable source. Isn't this career awesome 
Good Luck,
Jonathan
On a completely unrelated note, do you anticipate having any files in the Agency collection (via Getty) Jonathan?
67
« on: October 16, 2010, 23:13 »
This is why I think it's better to think about whether one has learned anything about photography from shooting stock rather than getting bogged down in discussion about what is or isn't 'good photography' and, by extension, a 'good photographer' or a 'better photographer'. The human capacity to misunderstand, evade or subvert a simple discussion shouldn't amaze me by now, but it still does.
68
« on: October 16, 2010, 18:15 »
If I was to answer the question 'Have you learnt anything about photography by shooting for microstock?' then I'd have to say yes, I've learnt something about photographic styles and also composition and lighting.
69
« on: October 16, 2010, 17:24 »
Definately not. If someone grew up having art training, especially if in an enviroment that had a lot of influences toward good taste and aesthtetics, it's just a pain in the ass. It's likely to be pushing anyone away from what would make photography actually great. It's not hard to deliver what they want, but it's severily restrictive without those restrictions having much point - more freedom wouldn't get in the way of business at all, actually it would improve it because it would improve real quality and variety. The whole things screams of being created by blockheads, who's closest experience with visual creativity before getting into managing images, would be something like watching barney the purple dinosaur : )
Microstock photographers tend to shoot what buyers buy. Perhaps you could direct your comments to the buyers. Photographers who wish to produce more artistic work are probably exhibiting that in galleries rather than in stock portfolios.
I am a buyer.
Do you buy micro? The equation most photographers here work to is $/dl x dls = $. When $/dl is low the dls need to be high to generate reasonable return, ie, generic imagery. If work is more unique then the dls will be low so the $/dl needs to be higher. Macro is a better place to look for more unique imagery. Of course some photographers place work in all markets, depending on the production values and likely sales of any given image. If a buyer want unique imagery at generic prices however he/she may be out of luck.
70
« on: October 16, 2010, 16:56 »
Definately not. If someone grew up having art training, especially if in an enviroment that had a lot of influences toward good taste and aesthtetics, it's just a pain in the ass. It's likely to be pushing anyone away from what would make photography actually great. It's not hard to deliver what they want, but it's severily restrictive without those restrictions having much point - more freedom wouldn't get in the way of business at all, actually it would improve it because it would improve real quality and variety. The whole things screams of being created by blockheads, who's closest experience with visual creativity before getting into managing images, would be something like watching barney the purple dinosaur : )
Microstock photographers tend to shoot what buyers buy. Perhaps you could direct your comments to the buyers. Photographers who wish to produce more artistic work are probably exhibiting that in galleries rather than in stock portfolios.
71
« on: October 16, 2010, 16:26 »
The biggest change for me, going from amateur to microstocker, is making images rather than taking images. My understanding of lighting and composition has improved enormously.
72
« on: October 12, 2010, 15:13 »
It's a while since I was on DT but I believe you can deactivate a fraction of your images at any time. If you deactivate the most recent uploads then the waiting time may be reduced as it will be taken from images still online.
73
« on: October 09, 2010, 16:30 »
I will sit here and take it... since i will be one of the very few that will go up a level. Doesnt mean that i like or agree with the changes
Let's hope I'm not right, but I think the commission cut was the smaller part. The real spanking will come from the search results
the search results (best match) is a zero sum game. meaning for every loser there is a winner.
In terms of dls maybe (unless buyer goes elsewhere). Not in terms of $ though. istock gets more from some sales than others (ignoring size).
74
« on: October 02, 2010, 16:54 »
Files approved a week ago are still not showing. Are you sure other sites are the same?
75
« on: October 01, 2010, 08:28 »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
