|
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 - loop
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 44
526
« on: June 18, 2011, 11:22 »
For istock, losing Yuri would mean losing 8000 (out of seven milion or so) files. There are other factories, exclusives, that have much more files and can upload much more weeky. Similar style. While Yuri produces nice and very stock oriented work, I think that should he open a new agency with outside contributors, he wouldn't last at IS.
527
« on: June 17, 2011, 03:50 »
Yuri will take contributors to his site, no doubt about it. He may not plan to initially, but he'll soon see the benefit.
The timing of his commitment to the project is depressing, however. I believe it confirms Yuri's agreement with what many of us have feared about the future of iStock.
I suspect he would not. I would say he will prefer contracting photographer's to wok for him on assignement and retaining copyright of their works. On the other hand, when you contract la crme de la crme of developpers, analysts, etc, you'll never have a 100% benefit, you have to pay a lot in wages, promotion etc.
528
« on: June 16, 2011, 12:46 »
"Getty letters" is the best that have been ever done in this field. Infractors can get angry, but most of them don't try it again. And it's not necessary to go to trial; one good lesson for the thieves is losing their customers, when the customer feels that has been put in trouble by the designer.
529
« on: June 16, 2011, 08:35 »
Yeah, I think that's a big reason. Most people have no idea or just don't think it's that big of a deal. That needs to change.
A friend of mine has a business partner who made the mistake of copying a Getty image. They went after her with a threat letter and invoice. They didn't tell me what it said but I'm guessing it was a pay-or-be-sued type of deal.
I would have guessed a 'cease and desist' rather than pay or be sued. they'd have to actually commit to taking someone to court to see any monetary compensation for usage.
Agree. By the way, could someone post an standar text for a Cease & Desist e-mail?
530
« on: June 14, 2011, 15:30 »
Being "part of our culture" as an artist means having the right friends and/or doing a good job of self-promotion. The quality of the artwork is a secondary factor because it's all subjective, anyway.
exactly.
And having the talent as well. Don't forget that part.
No, that's secondary.
Hum, all this reminds me a comic artist (I mean a cartoonist) I knew. He wasn't very gifted, but he used to say that should he had the contacts of Moebius an should he got paid like Moebous, he would dran like him, or even better,
531
« on: June 14, 2011, 12:54 »
Being "part of our culture" as an artist means having the right friends and/or doing a good job of self-promotion. The quality of the artwork is a secondary factor because it's all subjective, anyway.
exactly.
And having the talent as well. Don't forget that part.
532
« on: June 13, 2011, 19:37 »
I absolutely dissent. While not very stockish, photos in the Vetta collection go to excellent to very good, with, yes, some extravaganzas or flawed files now and then. But not much. I have a friend who is a designer in a publishing house and she always tells me that this collection is great for book covers, to the point that she often excludes regular colecctions when searching and, actually, she has used several for her editor's books. I see more flaws at the Agency collection, a number of run of the mill files labelled in blue and coming from "outer space".
533
« on: June 11, 2011, 09:03 »
I think ranking is the key point in this discussion. If you use the keyword "cute" in an image and it displays in the first page of results, it's a good thing to put in there. If, on the other hand, you use the word and appear on page 500 of 1.5 million results for that term, then it's not going to do you any good as buyers don't go that far. A buyer will pick up the first image that suits their needs. Time is money after all.
Lisa and mohican are coming at this from opposite ends, his images are buried on page 500 and she shows up on the first page, making you both right in your own way.
BTW, I, for one, didn't take the comments as advice, for what it's worth.
What you don't understand is that people don't look for "cute". People make this kind of searches: child blond cute", and if the child is cute and you have the keyword there, you'll be in a short list of results, and you'll be seen.
534
« on: June 10, 2011, 13:06 »
An all EL modalities EL for & 250 --comission. On one regular exclusive photo that has been several years in istock and has barely sold half a dozen times.
535
« on: June 08, 2011, 16:05 »
Yes, today is quite slow.
536
« on: June 07, 2011, 06:34 »
Well, Ive been in the main-core of the Getty-RM, since 93, both private and studio-name, your pricing is a bit off, the avarage RM shot, sell for around 200 bucks in fact. Not the point though.
My point is, there are plenty of freaking BIG names within Image-Bank and Stones, names that in fact can out-shoot the lot at IS and then the competition will be neck-breaking.
Yes, some RM shooters are already there but the whole heap of the ones Im reffering to, have not yet made their images available for micro, not yet.
Stock is not about names. It's about photos.
537
« on: June 06, 2011, 16:03 »
With IS, everything is just leading up to one thing only. When our RM shots according to the new contract by Getty finally start arriving at TS, there will later be an incorporation of IS, into TS.
Its got to be this way. Pretty pointless and down out stupid to run two gigantic micro-outfits with pretty much the same exclusives, alongside each other, spending a fortune on advertising for TS and not a penny on IS.
The competition will be murderous, especially with all the RM stuff turned into micro and many IS exclusives will be totally outmanouvered. Not a nice situation at all.
It doesn't make sense. Having two brands in a saturated market is far better than having one. Specially if one of them has been the reference brand for years, and has been able to raise prices and go on selling. TS is there to compete with Shutterstock and other subs sites: the concept is totally different; simplicity (like Shutterstock), low maintenance cost and low prices that produce low benefits with each sale. Beggining with simplicity, all the rest is different at Istock.
No, IS, will cease to exist, its been a thorn in the side of Getty, since the very start. Competition is healthy, yes, but in this scenario, How does Getty eventually sell a business with two compeeting micros, same shots, same people, same exclusives??
The RM side needs looking after, its far, far more valuable then micros for pennies. As far as they are concerned.
The above scenario is what Getty have done ever since 93. Nothing new.
most unfortuantely.
Content between TS and IS barely overlaps at about 10%. And Getty owns another microsite,, photos.com. And finally, good or bad, RM is every day more marginal, dying an slow death.
538
« on: June 06, 2011, 13:07 »
With IS, everything is just leading up to one thing only. When our RM shots according to the new contract by Getty finally start arriving at TS, there will later be an incorporation of IS, into TS.
Its got to be this way. Pretty pointless and down out stupid to run two gigantic micro-outfits with pretty much the same exclusives, alongside each other, spending a fortune on advertising for TS and not a penny on IS.
The competition will be murderous, especially with all the RM stuff turned into micro and many IS exclusives will be totally outmanouvered. Not a nice situation at all.
It doesn't make sense. Having two brands in a saturated market is far better than having one. Specially if one of them has been the reference brand for years, and has been able to raise prices and go on selling. TS is there to compete with SS and other subs sites: the concept is totally different; simplicity (like SS), low maintenance cost and low prices that produce low benefits with each sale. Beggining with simplicity, all the rest is different at Istock.
539
« on: June 01, 2011, 17:27 »
No, you dind't say it and I didn't say you said it. But it was almost suggested in the tone.
Old timers were there opening the way while other "professionals" were making fun of them. Being the first (on buying google shares, or on opening a RF site) always will have some advantges, in this and in any other field.
Added, while editing the spelling: Rigth, ShadySue.
540
« on: June 01, 2011, 16:39 »
Nor agreeing at all with this aeonf idea that, althoungh no expressed in this way, seem to suggest: "old timers are bad, amateur and lazy, new ones are great and professional". Nothing more wrong, it can be easily seen looking at the different portfolios.
541
« on: June 01, 2011, 15:37 »
Actually, during these days I've been selling daily more or less the same quantity of Vetta and Agency I used to sell before. New files sales have decreased, and old sucess files have resurrected, many of them coming back to the dynamics of several downloads a day.
542
« on: May 28, 2011, 05:09 »
Agree. Best sellers, even if from 2003 or 2004, are best sellers for a reason, and it's good to have them again well weigthed and positioned in the best match.
543
« on: May 27, 2011, 19:31 »
I have lots of photos accepted at ISO 400 and more. I usually use that in good light conditions, just to shot with a faster speed and freeze movement.
544
« on: May 27, 2011, 04:44 »
Is "Sorry, good luck" really that offensive? Customer service is really bad in the UK but I think we prefer a bit of honesty to words that mean nothing. I really don't like it when people are trying to be nice but they don't do anything to fix what I'm complaining about.
Obviously, it is not... unless you are determined to feel offended no matter what they tell you.
545
« on: May 26, 2011, 03:50 »
At admission test, they are a bit lenient with technical aspects (noise, artifacts etc), and pay more atention to concepts and angles. Even so, you should go on working before trying it again. By the way, pn a different topic, I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect.
Ok, so now my confusion has returned. I got home this evening, waited for the right kind of light and tried to reshoot the little girl drinking. Then I come back to the computer and read this and I don't know what "I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect" means.
Sorry, I just meant that is the kind of shot that could be photoshopped in something disgusting, propably just personal paranoia. Never mind.
546
« on: May 25, 2011, 18:38 »
At admission test, they are a bit lenient with technical aspects (noise, artifacts etc), and pay more atention to concepts and angles. Even so, you should go on working before trying it again. By the way, pn a different topic, I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect.
547
« on: May 25, 2011, 10:39 »
I think that when customers say Istock is greedy, they are also saying we, photographers, are greedy as well. Very few of them show concern for what commision we get; most of them only mind the price they have to pay. And there are different kinds of clients. Well, I prefer to be "greedy", sell my files cheap but no so cheap at the price of selling less. Consider that I would need about 688 subscription sales (at average of 0.30) to match what I've done until now today just with Vetta and Agency files (all larger sizes, all 20% discounted).
548
« on: May 20, 2011, 06:12 »
This week will be very good, considering Vetta and Agency royalties from Getty, but general sales have decreased a little bit, and the photos I'm selling are quite old and inusual. I suspect a best match change.
549
« on: May 18, 2011, 15:28 »
well, actually you already included a link to the photo, and so, to your portfolio in 123rf in one of your first posts
550
« on: May 17, 2011, 12:47 »
You have dedicated time and effort to grow a portfolio there, the site has benefited of that. Now, you lose all. Read your contract with Shutterstock; if there says that they can sack you with no need for a reason, or if you see you have really broken some written rule, there's nothing to do. In the opposite case, you would have grounds for suing.
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
