|
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 - heywoody
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 58
651
« on: May 27, 2013, 12:53 »
I'm a literal type of individual so I take "completely different" to mean "completely different".  It ain't, collection is a slight variation on a theme, a nice approach but nothing startling or ground breaking..
652
« on: May 26, 2013, 05:33 »
when iS runs a promotion and discounts their credits, WE pay for the discount.  you just have to trust them to report correctly.
You do realize that pretty much all the sites do that.
From one of the Shutterstock investor calls:
Andre Sequin - RBC Capital Markets
"Great, thanks for taking my question. I was wondering how do you think about then the approach to pricing on your enterprise contracts? Do you feel you have to give them a pretty big discount and if so, are you able to flow any of that through to your contributors?"
Thilo Semmelbauer ( President and Chief Operating Officer of Shutterstock)
"And as our contributors are paid in percentage terms, if there are discounts that will flow through to the contributors as well but the higher price points flow through to the contributors. And actually were getting great feedback on what theyre starting to see in terms of their payouts, much higher dollar per images."
From Seeking Alpha
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1214061-shutterstock-s-ceo-discusses-q4-2012-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=6&p=qanda&l=last
Wrong. SS (and even FT) has different buyer pricing depending on volume but contributors are paid the same. The quote refers to higher price points, presumably SODs, which pay from a few bucks to $120 and thats perfectly fine.
653
« on: May 25, 2013, 18:46 »
In fairness, Stocksy seems to be taking an approach that requires judgment on the holistic merits of an image rather than the very narrow is it technically good and forget about the rest approach that IS uses and monkeys could be trained to do other than that, hard to see how the offering differs from micro.
Do you honestly think that most of the results on the search for 'bird' have 'holistic merit'?
Just tried to see but search doesn't work on IE8 (work laptop) - will definitely check it out on another one tomorrow. This in itself is not great as the folks I'm contracting for at the moment are a major financial services player who presumably would be a big consumer of stock images 
654
« on: May 25, 2013, 11:42 »
So, while many of you are criticizing the image and the agency that licensed it this particular buyer found that, among the millions of images available to him, this is the one that best suited his needs/wants and he paid to license it as a result. I thought that's why we, as contributors, were 'doing stock' in the first place.
Kudos to the photog and the agency.
The only thing being criticised is the notion that we are seeing something exceptional - someone used a stock image on a website - wow that's just extraordinary
655
« on: May 25, 2013, 04:46 »
there's really little sense to comparing the way an image would be treated in micro; Stocksy isn't trying to be micro.
In fairness, Stocksy seems to be taking an approach that requires judgment on the holistic merits of an image rather than the very narrow is it technically good and forget about the rest approach that IS uses and monkeys could be trained to do other than that, hard to see how the offering differs from micro. there are so many great things about that front page photo. her expression is so genuine, it's warm and feel good, the red glasses are in the perfect spot IMO. and that the shot is at eye level as though you're seated right in front of her makes it really easy to connect with. completely different type of imagery, that's kinda totally the point.
All true but the concept is just about as hackneyed as you can get probably better than many girl with laptop shots but probably not as good as others nothing completely different here. it's just bad manners to so dismissively cut down another photographer's work with such trite comments.
I see nobody cutting down the work I do see folks reacting to the look at this, isnt it wonderful vibe when, at the end of the day, its a nice, good stock image but nothing wonderful.
656
« on: May 24, 2013, 12:38 »
The company could have just gone to the local park with an employee and laptop at sunset with an iphone to capture this image.
"How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb?
50.
One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that!""
- Anonymous
Probably 10,000 or so have actually changed that particular light bulb
657
« on: May 19, 2013, 11:34 »
For anyone who has a similar port size on the other top 4 sites, 123 is unlikely to compare well given the low prices and where there is not volume or occasional SOD / EL type sale to bring them up. Possibly viable for those with several thousand images who get 50% commissions or those with lots of rejections on top 4 and benefit because even a bad market is better than no market.
658
« on: May 19, 2013, 04:41 »
400 - 500 sales with a 250 port on SS / FT (beyond exceptional) with zero on DT just does not compute
659
« on: May 17, 2013, 17:03 »
Yawn....
Business is business, if a deal is mutually beneficial to both parties there is a high likelihood "rules" will be bent - happens all the time
660
« on: May 04, 2013, 17:40 »
I was an Industrial Photographer and Photojournalist from 1968-1980 and now that I am retired from another industry would like to get on the stock market trail. I realize the digital game has changed everything, so without any digital equipment, I am trying to find out if there is any bridge or used DSLR (w/lens) under $300 that is good enough for stock work.
Getting into stock will take more of an investment than that. Micro (and macro) stock shooters are using top of the line pro-sumer cameras, like the 5dMk3 which make it easier to get great quality images. You're going to need to be at that level to compete. Plus, you'll need Photoshop or similar, and a good, fast computer.
"Good enough" isn't really good enough. Unless you want to shoot with your phone and go for the mobile look.
"That's a really good photograph, you must have a good camera". An old joke but very true in the stock world. Isn't it an indictment on the industry that the kit is more important than the eye?
661
« on: May 04, 2013, 17:25 »
No idea how much an EL would pay on IS but we're talking $28 on SS and less on DT and lawyers charge how many hundreds an hour?
662
« on: May 02, 2013, 12:34 »
Depending on what you do different sites may have a "mental block" / be out of step with their competitors. I find FT accepts practically everything but my experience with IS is similar to what's outlined here. After a while you get a sense of what will potentially be accepted and just cut the site out of routine uploads and just give them the occasional one you think will fit.
663
« on: May 01, 2013, 16:42 »
Easiest solution is not to upload there  That said, if you use iptc, they have the most painless upload process.
664
« on: April 26, 2013, 16:38 »
Ah. Silly me. I looked for this topic but didn't think to look under the title "do I have to worry".
Would be lovely if people could title threads in a way that gave at least a clue what they are about....
That makes too much sense. Congrats on a good day.
Thanks Tickstock. Take a heart
No problem, without Ponke around it might just stay there.
BTW, what happened to ponke?
665
« on: April 23, 2013, 17:06 »
March, 0.168,
April, 90% of downloads are 0.216
It is still more than 0,08$ with iStock, rigth?
But, to be serious... this is some joke! Are we talking about earning money or sth?
True but all downloads on IS are not 8c while all 123 are for pennies. Business is business so no hard feelings but haven't uploaded anything since October and have no intention of doing so.
666
« on: April 21, 2013, 13:05 »
In other words, size is more important than what you do with it....
667
« on: April 21, 2013, 13:01 »
to shady sue: I guess the bird photo is an example of the human factor. The reviewer found it not worthy to be included and pressed just one button. I wished the agencies would purge older photos that wouldn't be accepted nowadays..
I don't think it would make any sense for them to do that as they can still sell well or even very well. The technical standards in general are far too high for any real life use anyway. And some are just plain wrong, so you see e.g. shade-loving flowers 'flashed' to 'acceptible' lighting.
I'd love to see them expunge all spammed and wrongly-tagged images, but at micro prices and their desire for high profit margins, that isn't going to happen either.
Amen to that
668
« on: April 19, 2013, 13:43 »
Confused  - Is this thread about IS, SS or FT? @Ponke - just put everything in a single generic category, no problem
669
« on: April 07, 2013, 17:25 »
670
« on: April 07, 2013, 17:02 »
Why would someone need to be a black diamond to make a living as an Istock exclusive? At $9 RPD you would only need to sell 4,000 images to be making an above average income in the US and to do that you don't even have to be a gold level contributor.
Seriously?? a) Equates to < 28,000 - not great money b) 4,000 images annually - doubt many make that year 1 so would pretty much have to be gold at least
671
« on: April 07, 2013, 07:44 »
^^^ You do what's best for you.
What I can tell you is that the People who "have success at IS and Getty" are becoming a minority.
With all due respect, what I can tell you is that the photographers who have success with stock photography are the minority. There are not that many that are fortunate enough to make a full time living shooting stock only. My guess would be less than 10% of the stock shooters could rely on stock photography alone - regardless of where they market their work. If you are one of them, count your blessings 
% might be slightly higher here but, based on FT rank achieved with very low numbers, I suspect that <5% overall make a living from stock
672
« on: April 06, 2013, 17:28 »
You did all notice this is from The Onion, right?
+1
673
« on: April 02, 2013, 12:15 »
DT are a steady #2, they don't have the volumes that SS has but RPD is good (compared to SS, FT and 123 at least). Uniquely, DT makes it possible to go up the levels with a small port as it's based on image performance instead of the brute force and ignorance approach everyone else uses.
That's a nice way to look at it. They used to have 50% for all sales now they start your files at 25% and you can work all the way up to 45%, thanks Dreamstime for making that possible.
Never said they dont have flaws. I tend not to look at %, just on what I get paid and its the only place I get $5 for an extra small.
I wasn't saying just look at the percentage. You said Dreamstime "makes it possible to go up the levels", they made it possible by cutting royalties in half and now you can go up to 45% instead of starting at 50%. The money is the important thing not moving up levels like some kind of game isn't it?
The money is the important thing isnt that pretty much what I said? I cant comment about historical commission rates as I wasnt around but I get a distinct impression that they all pretty much start off with 50% and then reduce it. The point though is that all sites have mechanisms to increase RPD based on sales mostly brute force and ignorance (10,000 images will get you to the higher RPD values even if you produce crap). DT is the only site offers folks with small ports the opportunity to get to the higher RPD levels and, thus, more money.
674
« on: April 01, 2013, 18:34 »
DT are a steady #2, they don't have the volumes that SS has but RPD is good (compared to SS, FT and 123 at least). Uniquely, DT makes it possible to go up the levels with a small port as it's based on image performance instead of the brute force and ignorance approach everyone else uses.
That's a nice way to look at it. They used to have 50% for all sales now they start your files at 25% and you can work all the way up to 45%, thanks Dreamstime for making that possible.
Never said they dont have flaws. I tend not to look at %, just on what I get paid and its the only place I get $5 for an extra small.
675
« on: April 01, 2013, 16:14 »
DT are a steady #2, they don't have the volumes that SS has but RPD is good (compared to SS, FT and 123 at least). Uniquely, DT makes it possible to go up the levels with a small port as it's based on image performance instead of the brute force and ignorance approach everyone else uses.
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
