|
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 - Sean Locke Photography
6701
« on: August 05, 2009, 17:53 »
Sorry. There's a difference between an Apple commercial naming Vista, and actually naming your product to include a trademark. You can't call the new Pepsi 'Not Coca-Cola' any more than this situation here.
6702
« on: August 04, 2009, 22:12 »
I will be doing some experimenting over the next 12 months with some macro images, but it is experimenting as there is so little information out there and may well cost me potential income based on what I could have got from the micros. I respect your opinion and we get someone here every few months saying the same thing. But the message is always the same "just dont do micro", there never is any 'hey go here for info', 'no have a look my portfolio', 'no heres how much people are making (whole portfolio, not one image)'.
Basically if you want to change what people are doing, you have to show them a better way, not just tell them to stop.
Well, they won't. Traditional guys want to keep their numbers to themselves. I want to keep my numbers to myself. It's all cool, but certainly don't expect to find it all laid out there like here.
6703
« on: August 04, 2009, 22:03 »
Ok kids, everyone to bed. No radios, no comic books. Lights out!
6704
« on: August 04, 2009, 20:56 »
It actually looks very nice. I'm not crazy about the 100% crop, as most of them that I've seen don't show anything but areas of nothing interesting. But the site layout and functionality seems to be mostly there.
I would change the terminology "Buy Now" and "make an offer for this photo" as this draws the buyer away from the notion of licensing and towards "buying" - ownership. I would also beef up the RF license detail page as it seems a bit light.
6705
« on: August 04, 2009, 20:52 »
I'm actually starting to get annoyed at this weird language a few here are starting to speak in. It certainly doesn't contribute to the threads, and most of it makes no sense.
Nobody ganged up on Lisa. She elicited opinions from everyone on the site, both with her copy and pasted rant repeatedly, and her insinuation that no one here knows what they are doing. If anyone agreed with her, they were free to post as well, although posting in nonsense talk normally doesn't help make a cause.
6706
« on: August 04, 2009, 17:56 »
And we've made it back around to the normal "You guys are shills for the sites" post, which means this thread is complete. Thanks for playing Lisa, and off with you to your "stupid big money" shots.
6707
« on: August 04, 2009, 17:13 »
I don't have to run numbers, Lisa, because I worked on my portfolio 10-15 hours a week after my regular job for almost three years before I went full time photog. I'm sorry if that doesn't mesh up with your lifestyle of shooting vegetables or whatever 30 year German veteran 'still life' photogs do, but there you have it.
So, why don't you apologize nicely and move on?
6708
« on: August 04, 2009, 16:51 »
It is sad to sea, how many good phptographers are so bad economist.
Every new 1 dollar selling is another >1 dollar killing. Thats the problem here. And if you make hundret photojob-killings, you made 100 dollars.
It is also hard to see how average photographers can also be such poor debaters.
6709
« on: August 04, 2009, 16:46 »
Lisa, trying to make yourself look all smart by typing a bunch of numbers and then insinuating he does his stock work while he is doing his other job, not only makes you look dumb, but also childish and catty. I suggest you go back to your still life work and stop trying to edjumacate us.
6710
« on: August 04, 2009, 13:52 »
Nope, Italian.
And as for trademarking, Apple did a good job with a common English noun. 
We were just making fun of the press release linked above where it said it was Irish. Thus, my thoughts the whole thing is a joke. Man, I have never seen such sour grapes and whining. You guys are all really bitter today.
6711
« on: August 04, 2009, 13:51 »
I doubt IStock has been able to trademark an Italian noun.
I'd check the (TM) by the collection name in the June 24th press release: http://www.istockphoto.com/press_release.php . I'd guess the lawyers would not let them do that without it being ... correct. Does that help?
6712
« on: August 04, 2009, 12:27 »
If it isn't a joke, all it will do is 1. Get them in trouble with istock who, I am sure, has the name trademarked or something, and b. Send people out there wonering what 'Vetta' is, only to find a source of previously unseen content.
It's like an inside joke, but the buyers aren't in on it.
6713
« on: August 04, 2009, 12:01 »
"Irish for mountaintop"? Cmon, that reads like an Onion news story...
6714
« on: August 04, 2009, 11:18 »
I thought it was supposed to be a joke post. No one else read it that way?
6715
« on: August 04, 2009, 08:00 »
Lisa from Germany, please don't start posting your lengthy rant in every thread you don't like. It is annoying.
6716
« on: August 04, 2009, 07:48 »
Any post that tells others not to join the micro model, I give thumbs up to. I don't need the competition.
6717
« on: August 03, 2009, 16:40 »
Although I'm obviously not a big fan of IStock, that wasn't really the point I was trying to make. IStock did introduce a second tier of pricing with Vetta, but it's of no use to me, because I can't choose to sell my images that way - only they can, and only if you're an exclusive.
So, the point is valid, it just doesn't apply to you. Sorry.
6718
« on: August 03, 2009, 10:24 »
But what about images that have limited appeal - there are a small number of buyers that want them, but they'd probably pay a few dollars?
That's the point of Vetta...
6719
« on: August 02, 2009, 06:40 »
Maybe it's me, but if you can't figure out how to copy and paste two images together, you should read up on PS a little more before submitting.
6720
« on: August 01, 2009, 22:13 »
Yes Laflor,
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Jonathan
Then you're losing your edge! 
6721
« on: July 31, 2009, 21:38 »
I see you attacking a valid point, but I don't see you saying you are personally making enough. Do you? How much are you making on microstock? Is it enough to cover your cost of doing business? Enough to pay your models? Or do you just figure models should work free? Enough to cover the cost of necessary equipment repairs, upgrades, props? Or do you work a day job to fund it. Do you even know your cost of doing business?
If you aren't able to make it work, then you should find a job that allows you to live as you like. Why the hostility? Why the attack. I think the earlier poster that she thinks some of the commenters work for microstock agencies must be correct. I can see not other reason why you would insist photographers should work for peanuts. Which of the agencies do you work for?
Always the last resort of someone with no real argument. It's a conspiracy! There's hidden agendas!
6722
« on: July 31, 2009, 19:13 »
Not a game I will play and I do speak out against injustice.
What color is your cape ? Seriously, if you're so offended stop selling micro and get a job you can afford to live on.
6723
« on: July 31, 2009, 17:15 »
However, if everyone becomes IS exclusive, meaning total monopoly of IS, I doubt if that would make you happy, Mr SJ, lol.
No, I certainly don't want that. However, dropping whatever site we're discussing does not equal going exclusive.
6724
« on: July 31, 2009, 16:55 »
I see you think .17 cents for your work is fair. I hope one day you learn what you are worth.
Not to worry! My minimum for an XS on iStock is $.19 .  You're the one with the agency that pays an amount you aren't happy with. That's why I said maybe you should revisit who you are playing with.
6725
« on: July 31, 2009, 16:48 »
I do know some guys are making extremely good money at microstock...
Well ... look and learn from them and you'll be making good money too. Simples.
See my earlier post, these guys are finding it less than a picnic now too... $40,000 to produce 2000 new images in three months and have NO INCREASE in sales is not exactly the right direction!
Just because Yuri spent $40,000 on his work doesn't mean A. it's a smart move, or B. you should either. You're right - it's a perfectly good shot of a guy on a rock. But that's all it is. I'm not seeing any concept, like hope, or exploration, or freedom there. And if said agency has 2000 other shots of guys on rocks, they may be a bit tired of just seeing guys on rocks. They may be trying to push the collection a bit. The fact that you get $.17 or $1 from a licensing doesn't affect the direction they want to take the collection. Or it could just be a persnickity reviewer. You can take the opinion or not - I don't care.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
