|
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 - RT
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 77
526
« on: February 23, 2011, 04:16 »
I love the way you can't hide your smile when you're firing off those strobes, now that's what I call a fast recycle. I'm insanely jealous.
527
« on: February 22, 2011, 06:15 »
"When microstock photographers produce images of the lowest common denominator they widen the gap between the quality of budget pictures and the excellence of the kind of images offered by the professionals on Photographers Direct. Chris Barton asks why Time magazine would pay more when a cover image is available for only $30 but very few of the images being offered for $30 are worthy of being Time covers."
Makes you wonder why Chris Barton keeps bleating on about microstock then doesn't it.
IMO Photographers Direct is a site that's slipping away ( although I've never heard anything positive about it in terms of sales) and rather than do something proactive he chooses to sit in the corner and blame the competition.
528
« on: February 21, 2011, 05:53 »
Is Dreamstime the only one selling RAW?!
Yes probably because the other sites realise nobody in their right mind would want to sell their raw files.
529
« on: February 20, 2011, 10:40 »
I use Morgan Richardson.
The other cover you're referring to is 'professional indemnity' insurance.
530
« on: February 18, 2011, 16:16 »
Thank you this helps. I use the curves adj layer and than the white eye dropper- it really makes it white.
Doing it that way you'll run the risk of burning out the subject, better to overexpose the background 'in camera'. There are dozens of ways to get a white background and each person has their own preference, do what works best for you.
531
« on: February 18, 2011, 06:18 »
Is it okay to have over exposed White Backgrounds?
Yes that's the whole point, if it wasn't over exposed it wouldn't be white it would be grey.
532
« on: February 17, 2011, 14:02 »
Does anyone think the current Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover would be rejected for lighting if it as submitted to microstock sites?
No there's nothing wrong with the lighting.
533
« on: February 14, 2011, 05:01 »
Hello , here are some simple steps we do to divert traffic from istock and fotolia to smaller sites.
Thanks, have you got any more tips to help me lose money.
534
« on: February 12, 2011, 04:53 »
Hiii. No 'we' don't. I couldn't really care who buys my images as long as they continue to sell.
+1
535
« on: February 10, 2011, 18:57 »
Do they all ride little ponies to work?
Yes their eyesight isn't good enough to drive a car 
536
« on: February 06, 2011, 09:00 »
So the client payed $3.09 for the rights of a microstock Extended License. Good job.
In November I had some RF shots licensed on Getty by buyers who paid $0.35 , $0.80 and $6.40, there were some more sensible rates as well but it goes to show it's not just Alamy that will virtually give our stuff away for less that microstock agencies.
537
« on: February 01, 2011, 12:59 »
Interesting results Tyler, it may me conduct a small test of my own regarding which site sells the least proportion of my files, I've started a poll called 'Unsold files' maybe include something like this in next years survey?
538
« on: February 01, 2011, 12:55 »
Just out of curiosity I did a check today to see which sites out of the top 4 had the highest of number of unsold files from my portfolio, I was surprised to see that Fotolia had three times as many unsold files compared to iStock and Dreamstime.
How about you?
I've only included the top tier sites and Shutterstock has been omitted because I couldn't find an easy way of doing the test, plus I'm pretty confident most of my files have sold on SS.
Edited to now included Shutterstock based on Pixarts suggestion for checking the unsold files.
539
« on: February 01, 2011, 08:17 »
There's lots of misinformation here:
Fact - You can use a trademarked product for commercial usage, it's how it is used that is the issue.
Fact - You do not commit any offence if you take a photograph of a trademarked product, or by uploading that image to a stock agency (depending on how you license the image).
Fact - Stock agencies do not control or monitor how an image sold under their RF license is used (not withstanding their individual license agreements), and that is why the majority of them do not take images with trademarked products in them.
Fact - Microstock reviewers are not trained in IP law by the agencies and base their decisions on general guidelines supplied by the site.
Fact - Information regarding copyright and trademarks that you see on stock agencies should be read as their own interpretation of IP law, some may be true some may not.
Fact - A lot of contributors do not understand IP law (copyright,trademarks,patents etc) and read things they see on agencies and forums as law.
Fact - Arguing "Yes but" or "What if" is a futile waste of time.
Understandably microstock agencies have adopted the policy that it's easier not to accept these type of images, and the majority of us who have been doing this for a while have adopted the policy that time is better spent just getting on and shooting stuff that we know we can upload.
540
« on: January 28, 2011, 15:18 »
No I don't think you have to "accept" their targets, but you do have to accept they have set them and choose to either work with them or around them,
Oh, okay. Fair enough. So I adjust to circumstances. But it doesn't mean they get more work out of me, the way a boss setting a target likes to. They are actually pushing me into exploring different ways to market my work.
Exactly
541
« on: January 28, 2011, 12:44 »
You really think I am seriously planning to get back to 20% at iStock, from my present 17? You think that is a "target" I accept, and that if I don't do it, my "business model" is to make less money than before?
No, go back and actually read and try to digest what I wrote. I'll break it down using myself as example: I run my own business producing stock, obviously as part of that business I have targets to reach based on various factors including running costs, depreciation, wages etc etc and of course I want to make a profit, basing figures on previous years I get an idea from the production rate what sort of profit I should be running and what to aim for this year taking into account what I have planned. As part of my planning I have to take into account the targets that iStock and Fotolia have recently set to receive the commission rate I got last year, now I can either do that by way of working to reach their targets OR I can look at other ways to reach my targets without involving them, either way the targets they have set have a direct result on the targets I have set my business. Back to your answer: No I don't think you have to "accept" their targets, but you do have to accept they have set them and choose to either work with them or around them, either way if you sit back and take the self denial route then you will find you're making less money than before, whether that was your business model or not. And yes you are getting scr*wed by the agencies like everyone else, and if it makes you happy OK they haven't given you any targets, instead let's just say - "they've given you a sales figure you need to reach if you want receive a certain level of commission" - there's a word we could use to describe that sentence but I can't for the live of me think what it is. 
542
« on: January 28, 2011, 08:26 »
Right, that's the same issue with people submitting same photos to micros & macros too
No it isn't, well not as long as they keep the same license type and abide with the sites policies.
543
« on: January 28, 2011, 08:02 »
I can't see any microstock site selling rights managed images anytime soon, at least not at microstock prices - too hard to administer and too confusing for the occassional buyer(not to mention contributor), another issue is all that what would happen is a lot of the people already submitting images to microstock would just choose the RM license for the same type of content they're selling as RF which would be a negative issue for the sites concerned.
Microstock (and most probably iStock first) may come up with their own alternative but it 'won't be rights managed as we know it Jim'.
544
« on: January 27, 2011, 17:55 »
If your name appears in their credit line, the image would not have been provided by us.
Do you wipe the EXIF data, if not the copyright name would appear in the EXIF (well at least that what happens with Canon cameras if you set it up to do so) and maybe that's where the credit line was obtained from.
545
« on: January 27, 2011, 15:46 »
An employee with "targets" to meet has the team leader breathing down her/his neck demanding more effort because the company wants those targets met. The micros simply say - "do what you like but if you want more cash this is what it will take to get it". It's completely different.
We're not employees but if you run your business correctly you will find you have targets to reach, whether you like it or not agencies like iStock and Fotolia that have recently changed the commission structures have by the very way they've done it changed your targets for you, unless of course your business model is to make less money than you did before. The old argument "if you don't like it walk away" is a naive one, of course we could all walk away but then again so could an employee, the result is the same for both - no income. You can dress it up however you like it, but the fundamental fact is agencies set targets.
546
« on: January 27, 2011, 09:20 »
They can't tell you......what your targets are........
Well except for telling you that despite your sales numbers going up in order to get the same percentage of commission that you did last year you need to sell 500%+ more, now there's a target 
If you don't like it, you have the free choice not to work with them, and doing so does not require sacrificing your entire income as it would if your boss in a 'real' job was a four-letter-word.
Agencies ARE business partners, if you're not happy doing business with them, then don't, it's as simple as that. You are the market (or at least one side of it), and the market ultimately decides
My comment was to point out that agencies can and do set targets, not quite sure why you pointed out the obvious fact that we have a choice to sell there or not.
547
« on: January 27, 2011, 07:06 »
They can't tell you......what your targets are........
Well except for telling you that despite your sales numbers going up in order to get the same percentage of commission that you did last year you need to sell 500%+ more, now there's a target
548
« on: January 27, 2011, 06:58 »
I can appreciate the frustration of those that were impacted by the recent changes. I have some strong opinions that are <big shocker> not very popular with the majority of microstock photographers but I believe the low prices and the low commissions are a direct reflection of the lack of any loyalty by photographers with the desire to spam the market with images everywhere that will take them. If photogs picked their horse and stuck with it then the sites would be competing to get the best photographers. As it is, they all have most of you and as a result buyers have the luxury of choosing a site based on price structure rather than the quality of the images. They can get the exact same images pretty much everywhere! As a result, the sites then must cannibalize each other to attract the buyers along with an increase in spending to recruit buyers they have to squeeze more out of contributors while charging less. It's logical but it sucks none the less. I don't foresee any drastic changes to the mindset of the masses here any time soon to change that so I can't help but think it's only going to get worse in the industry  Especially for non-exclusives.
Good luck all,
Mat
There are some very good points there, and to one extent I agree that non-exclusivity is probably the cause of how some agencies can almost treat their suppliers like dirt. The reason I place my images with agencies is to use them to market my images, I agree that total exclusivity would mean the sites would compete to get the best, however for me personally (not that I'll ever go exclusive) a big concern with Fotolia is that they don't place any value on exclusivity, and that's not just my opinion that's come from the management. Not so long ago after iStock announced their greedy commission cuts structured commission rank I contacted Chad at Fotolia to discuss a couple of things amongst which was that I was thinking about supplying Fotolia some images on an exclusive only basis and my concern was why they didn't promote exclusive images, now I think he misunderstood my question but his reply, which surprised me, was that Fotolia do not want to promote exclusivity of any shape or form, or in other words exclusive images do not get any type of marketing advantage on Fotolia over non-exclusive images, and the same goes for contributors your work as an exclusive gets the same treatment as mine a non-exclusive. The appeal to anyone for exclusivity be it totally or image only is to increase sales and therefore increase revenue, Fotolia allow you to increase your prices but don't do anything to promote your work over and above the rest of the stuff on the site, as Tyler (leaf) pointed out a while ago there's an unknown equation for whether an image takes off on Fotolia, to go exclusive there is just too much of a risk IMO, iStock has many many faults but one thing you can't knock them for is their constant promotion of the exclusive content. Edited to add: Another reason I would never go exclusive with Fotolia is my disgust over the fact that someone who sells less than me gets a higher commission rate because of the unjust ranking change last year.
549
« on: January 26, 2011, 04:17 »
He reckons he can't produce images for less than $20 a pop......
I think he's done well to produce any images for $20 a pop, taking onto account how much it costs to run a studio plus the associated work involved and $20 per image is a very good production rate.
550
« on: January 26, 2011, 04:11 »
No of course not, but it's changed what I shoot and sell via microstock.
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
