|
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 - Pablito
76
« on: June 16, 2016, 11:08 »
Benozaur - my method works pretty well but your method has a number of important advantages over mine - thanks for detailing the method.
77
« on: June 16, 2016, 04:37 »
Probably the easiest way in PP is export a tiff, clean tiff in PS import it into PP, add it as layer above the clip and use a mask/matte.
78
« on: June 13, 2016, 15:01 »
I thought this collection consists of zero/low sellers, not exactly high end stuff?
Well, it could still be high-end stuff, but this is what I heard too. No best-sellers, only clips with 0-1 sale. Can a membership contributor confirm?
Yep, don't know what High End means but the membership clips are saleable and only clips with fewer than 2 sales as at August 2015
Will clips be taken out of the membership collection after a few downloads?
No. The clips qualified for possible membership inclusion by having fewer than 2 sales. Once they're chosen and in the scheme, further downloads don't exclude them.
79
« on: June 13, 2016, 06:41 »
I thought this collection consists of zero/low sellers, not exactly high end stuff?
Well, it could still be high-end stuff, but this is what I heard too. No best-sellers, only clips with 0-1 sale. Can a membership contributor confirm?
Yep, don't know what High End means but the membership clips are saleable and only clips with fewer than 2 sales as at August 2015
80
« on: June 12, 2016, 03:38 »
Stop messing about and get your IPTC data embedded ;-)
Never tried that for video, how does it work? Is there an IPTC standard for video files? Which programs can write them? Do they agencies read them?
Adobe Bridge
P5 Fotolia
Oh, and VB
81
« on: June 10, 2016, 17:29 »
Stop messing about and get your IPTC data embedded ;-)
Never tried that for video, how does it work? Is there an IPTC standard for video files? Which programs can write them? Do they agencies read them?
Adobe Bridge P5 Fotolia
82
« on: June 10, 2016, 09:37 »
Stop messing about and get your IPTC data embedded ;-)
84
« on: May 25, 2016, 11:33 »
Cheers mate,... pass the vinegar - I only need a narrow seat as I'm just a shadow of my former self ;-)
Plus, as a bonus, we'll have plenty of chances for video clips of food... [/quote] I'll whisper this 'cos you and I know it - but I don't want it common knowledge fast food sells; it makes you fat but also rich
85
« on: May 25, 2016, 08:48 »
Well guys, you are probably right: p5 (can I call them the fuckers or p5?) have killed this market.
So it is over, let's all get a job at Mc Donalds. I just thought that the video clip market coud have kept us going for another few years and slowly decade.
Instead it has been stubbed on the back by the new p5 management.
Can I just wish that p5 will suffer a very slow and utterly painful death?
How about Wendy's? Burger King?
Sorry, both those establishments have a full complement of staff due to applications from RM "macro" photographers 5 years ago - who are now living happy and fulfilling lives flipping burghers after microstock takeover.
Microstockers complaining about microstock prices - I just love this business.
And the lunch is free...
Don't worry, we'll keep a place for you :-)
Cheers mate,... pass the vinegar - I only need a narrow seat as I'm just a shadow of my former self ;-)
86
« on: May 25, 2016, 04:10 »
Well guys, you are probably right: p5 (can I call them the fuckers or p5?) have killed this market.
So it is over, let's all get a job at Mc Donalds. I just thought that the video clip market coud have kept us going for another few years and slowly decade.
Instead it has been stubbed on the back by the new p5 management.
Can I just wish that p5 will suffer a very slow and utterly painful death?
How about Wendy's? Burger King?
Sorry, both those establishments have a full complement of staff due to applications from RM "macro" photographers 5 years ago - who are now living happy and fulfilling lives flipping burghers after microstock takeover. Microstockers complaining about microstock prices - I just love this business.
87
« on: May 24, 2016, 14:57 »
Nah, not prepared to share the thread with that kind of language.
........Ah, that's better - you've reverted to a reasonable discussion and got rid of the expletives and F words - well done.......
I don't actually believe I'm getting sales because of the search engine giving me preference. That's because what I shoot generally only has 1 page of results - often only 1/2 page - so placement doesn't matter. The competition tends to be pretty weak as well.
If you're still shooting ducks or very common, not-in-demand subjects or 1,000s of similars; then the search engine is going to sink you - even if it didn't there's only slim pickings there anyway.
Love your figure estimates - you must think I do nothing but answer your questions. $1000 a month sure isn't going to keep anyone in business - my cigar bill is higher than that (that's a joke by the way - I don't smoke)
I do agree this whole membership is a risk - I didn't dream it up - I'm just a RM stills photographer who found his income hit by RF then microstocking part-timers, then microstocking full-timers.
But now the shoe is on the other foot. The scheme was happening - I had a choice to be part of it or not and see what happens next. You weren't offered it - have you wondered why that is? You of course, would have refused, but the point is: why weren't you given the choice? I know and you know.
I learned long ago that trying to get stock producers to form a cartel is like herding cats - it ain't gonna happen; so one might as well make the best of what is happening.
I still believe money in my bank right now gives me more options than faith, hope and charity.
I agree with you on many aspect and as I said I never posted in forums, but rather spend my time shooting and uploading.
The only reason why I am speaking out now is that this membership thing in p5 is making the video clip market crash too early, to soon to $6 for a clip.
200.000 hand picked, good quality clips at ten clips for the price of one is really a lot.
There are a bit more than 5 million clips on the pond. If you take away the bad ones, you are left with less than a million good quality clips. If you take away the repetitions, than you have about that number of good, non-duplicated clips. Basically the membership area is all a customer needs, plus it is much easier for them to find what they want, avoiding repetitions.
I am pretty much sure that in a couple of month, once all customers will be aware of the scheme, there will be no more sales outside the memberhip. At the same time a lot of customers will move from SS, FT and VB to this place and sales will dry up for all of us. All sales will be in the membership area where royalties to artists are not paid.
I guess SS, FT will have to react to this state of things very quickly and bring their prices for clips to single digit. They just have no choice, they cannot compete selling clips at $70 against $6.
Probably P5 will be the first to die in this war price, as they rely only on clip sales, while the other also have photo.
I know that artists cartels have never worked before, but such a dumping never occurred before, even in still images, the prices dropped at a much slower pace, not from $70 to $6 overnight.
And in this case all is needed is that artist get their clips back from the membership. Then we can probably enjoy a few more years doing what we like
First of all thanks for a well constructed resume of how you think things could pan out. Yep, lots to agree with there - logic stacks up pretty well IMHO. Except logic often doesn't come out in the wash - but there again it might. A couple of points you made are not quite correct: <<<All sales will be in the membership area where royalties to artists are not paid.>>> I don't repeat what's in a contract except Pickerell stated this in another thread here (on P5 membership) so this is only a repeat of what's out there already. Participating artists will be paid a 50% cut once a certain threshold is reached. This may or may not be significant - but in the "worst case scenario" you're portraying, then it would be. <<<but such a dumping never occurred before, even in still images, the prices dropped at a much slower pace>>>> Yes it has. Photographers were earning large amounts regularly (over 4 figures was largish, 3 figures average) and absolutely no very small amounts ($50 was a small amount) and along came RF where sales were by the pound (or pixel) and prices dived. That was nothing compared to when microstock arrived - contributors actually accepted amounts less than $1 for a sale (or download as they called it) I was earning on average $100 per sale and microstockers were getting less than a $1. Now that's dumping. But we still had editorial sales - many into 3 figures - then along came microstock editorial - you guessed it - contributors accepting less than $1 per download when US textbook sales were going for $250. Now that's dumping. I sure hope you're not accepting 25c or 38c for a download whilst many full-timers at other agencies are still looking to $100 from a sale. You're gonna have to explain to me why 25c/38c is not wrecking the market. Could it get worse for the macro photographers? Could anything force prices down more? Oh yes it can. Alamy are soon to open the way for microstockers to pile in by starting an RF editorial collection. Actually anounced by Alamy here on MSG - here's where I found out - they didn't say a dickie bird on their own forum until a guy from here innocently brought it up there and all hell broke loose. Did I whinge when all this first started to happen years ago? You bet and big-time. We had a lot to lose - like a good living for a start. The professional RM guys have spent a not inconsiderable time in the past on the telephone into the small hours to each other wondering what the heck we could do about it all. As it turned out there were three things to be done: plod on, retire or join in. So to the here and now - after considerable reflection on the membership scheme - my advice is to either: plod on, retire or join in.
88
« on: May 23, 2016, 16:59 »
Nah, not prepared to share the thread with that kind of language.
........Ah, that's better - you've reverted to a reasonable discussion and got rid of the expletives and F words - well done.......
I don't actually believe I'm getting sales because of the search engine giving me preference. That's because what I shoot generally only has 1 page of results - often only 1/2 page - so placement doesn't matter. The competition tends to be pretty weak as well.
If you're still shooting ducks or very common, not-in-demand subjects or 1,000s of similars; then the search engine is going to sink you - even if it didn't there's only slim pickings there anyway.
Love your figure estimates - you must think I do nothing but answer your questions. $1000 a month sure isn't going to keep anyone in business - my cigar bill is higher than that (that's a joke by the way - I don't smoke)
I do agree this whole membership is a risk - I didn't dream it up - I'm just a RM stills photographer who found his income hit by RF then microstocking part-timers, then microstocking full-timers.
But now the shoe is on the other foot. The scheme was happening - I had a choice to be part of it or not and see what happens next. You weren't offered it - have you wondered why that is? You of course, would have refused, but the point is: why weren't you given the choice? I know and you know.
I learned long ago that trying to get stock producers to form a cartel is like herding cats - it ain't gonna happen; so one might as well make the best of what is happening.
I still believe money in my bank right now gives me more options than faith, hope and charity.
89
« on: May 23, 2016, 04:30 »
Post deleted
90
« on: May 23, 2016, 03:44 »
The membership program has been bad for contributors. I we are making less money, Pond5 must be making less money too. It's a stupid program.
I love your insightful analysis
So dazzle us with your insights.
I think you have to pay for that because he/she is so smart.
You are correct, show me the money
As Tom Cruise once said
91
« on: May 16, 2016, 03:41 »
.
92
« on: May 15, 2016, 09:03 »
The 50 cents a month rent price for all downloads, is what pond5 said publicly.
That statement is not actually 100% correct - it's close but no cigar.
Contributors can only discuss what the agency and the participating contributors tell them[/color].
It's a pity contributors are discussing - quite vehemently - without the full facts.
If there is more to the deal and contributors get additional income depending on sales, it will change the discussion[/color].
It would, but things haven't panned out yet so it's not yet a game changer that's missing - just accuracy and knowledge of all the possibilities.
But you cant blame contributors if pond5 spreads misinformation about their new project[/color].
People, even those who've signed the membership agreement, haven't bothered to read it properly. P5, to my knowledge, have not spread any misinformation. Just ask the people who've given you the information, to have another read of their contract and this time to pay attention. As I say, this is not - yet anyway - much of a game changer but it is a facet that the screamers on the forums haven't paid any attention to.
The fact remains, that the membership program is a "6 dollar per download" club and that is what will affect sales behaviour and has all non participating contributors rightly worried about an abrupt crash in stock video[/color].
Sure does and it has changed things, and redistributed money.
I was there before, during and after the good times of the stills - it will be the same with video: only the time-spans will be much, much shorter.
The good times of video are still here right now - obviously not by the guys who post on the forum but certainly by some who don't. Next year - who knows. Could this membership scheme have hastened undesirable effects in the marketplace? I would tend to say probably and feel for the guys whose sales have plummeted - it was abrupt and brutal.
The membership scheme has indeed affected sales but I am still getting plenty of full sales from videos that are in the scheme - I'm pleased about that and surprised.
But with all the other abrupt changes, 100% rejections, widespread reported drop in downloads, the new "impress our employees policy" etc...it is just one more abrupt bizzarre strangeness that makes it feel like the pond5 that we knew has disappeared[/color].
That's for sure. I think some of the rejections I've read about have been bizarre - but - can all these contributors look themselves in the mirror and say "All the clips I submitted were well shot, stabilized, without unnecessary similars, properly color-balanced, exposed and focused in the correct place, saleable subjects shot better than present library ones, safe colors, good quality without artifacts and uprezzing and from a camera sensor that's capable, etc, etc.
And the old pond5 is hard to replace, it will take time until another agency takes the position of pond5 in the marketplace. But somebody will do it, and for many it is a wake up call to explore more agencies and diversify[/color].
This has happened since time immemorial in stock photography - you need to develop strong business strategies.
Diversification should be done at the beginning of ones career not as a late crisis management. This is a business after all - adapt or die; that goes for quality of videos and selling strategies.
93
« on: May 15, 2016, 03:45 »
<<<At the moment apparently all customers are buying clips in the bloody membership area of p5 and those sale don't generate any royalties for artists (just half a peanut a month for clip, regardless of the amount of downloads).>>>
Just for accuracy's sake - it isn't 'regardless of amount of downloads'. There is another facet to the "deal" but it's up to P5 to tell none-participating contributors the facts - not me.
I'm not advocating for or against the "deal" I'm just advocating accuracy; which seems to be the first casualty on the forum.
Having said all that you have made a reasonable resume of the situation; except that some people are doing very well from the scheme - there are always going to be winners and losers. The winners in this case - so far -are the bigger producers who have put the most effort and money in to making quality video. How long this situation will last - who knows - just like with VB, how long will that last? I've been a full-time stock producer for 30 years and it's quite a merry-go-round - but I've always managed to make a good living.
94
« on: May 14, 2016, 07:34 »
Look at the pond5 membership sales page.
They offer over 400 000 files, including over 200 000 videos. Maybe they now have more.
I know the numbers and where to get them from. I was just interested where Brightontl had got 300,000 - as they're not the figures.
95
« on: May 14, 2016, 05:08 »
if customers can have 300,000 very good clips covering most subjects for about $6, why on earth should they be buying anywhere else?
Could I ask where the number 300,000 came from?
96
« on: April 07, 2016, 01:18 »
Thanks for the replies.
I've had two video sales - which isn't bad considering I don't have many up there and they only started accepting video a few months ago.
Curation has been pretty fair except they've tended to reject even distant city skyline clips - and then I look on the site and they have loads of them; so a bit inconsistent.
97
« on: April 06, 2016, 07:48 »
Just wondering if video sales have started to take off and if it's worth uploading.
98
« on: March 17, 2016, 10:10 »
OK, just had big-time call with Paypal.
Without going in to too many details - this has absolutely nothing to do with us.
This Rick guy at Paypal customer relations who sent the message to VB saying the recipients need to check what is blocking the account, got it wrong.
It was a VB/Paypal mass mailing problem. Nobody's fault really.
Anyway, my Paypal guy is shooting off messages to the US Paypal guys to get it sorted.
I'm off for a coffee.....
99
« on: March 17, 2016, 09:05 »
I didn't receive the payment on Paypal.
I rang Paypal and they told me there is no problem with my account and they haven't refused any payments into my account.
I checked my settings on my VB account and see it says "no payment method selected".
So my payment method changed from "Paypal" to "no payment method selected".
Could I ask that everyone who has failed to get their money into their Paypal account - check your setting on your VB account.
Could that be the problem?
100
« on: March 16, 2016, 07:57 »
I mean on Payoneer.
Do you mean you receive payments into Payoneer from VB and they didn't arrive either?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
