|
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 - Black Sheep
76
« on: June 02, 2011, 10:10 »
nothing new.
if you read any webmasters forum there are endless discussions about how to monetize images "found on the web", articles scraped via rss, auto-blogging (by someone else's rss), repackaging open source scripts and templates and reselling them as commercial, and the list goes on .. most of these guys are only after the money and couldn't give a crap about actually producing something on their own.
parasites, leechers, if not plain thieves.
77
« on: June 02, 2011, 02:12 »
Let me clear some things. I understand that some photographers are furious when they found a website which offers pictures for free. The same thing happened when traditional photographers found out about microstock.
I was surprised that we received an email from cclapper who was furious when she found that we advertise her pictures. She is the only entrepreneur I know who hates free advertising. Anyway, we managed to add her to our block list so good for those photographers who fill her positions.
It's true that we are paid by the agency but it's coming from agency's share not yours. There is only one occasion which affects your commission and it's when a customer uses a discount code. (which we don't provide)
I would expect appreciating our work with converting people who search for free images to become paying microstock members but some people simply don't see it.
You don't produce any photos on your own and none of the images on your site are either free or public domain. Fact is, you're a crook, and you do it in the vain hope of monetize someone else's work.
78
« on: June 01, 2011, 21:30 »
shutterstock has a no-frills web site and is doing more than fine without all the istock's bullsh-its.
79
« on: June 01, 2011, 13:03 »
i don't, because what sells on Alamy is unpredictable to say the least.
never sold any pattern or still life or typical micro stuff there.
on the other side all my sales are about obscure and hard to find subjects and all RM.
80
« on: June 01, 2011, 12:58 »
they should close the forum and only use it for tech support questions etc as Alamy does.
it's simply unprofessional, and while they are at it i they should redesign the whole layout of their site
and remove all the cluttering (stars, icons, and other crap) that makes it look like a blog or like Flickr.
it's a BUSINESS, it's not facebook or a photo-sharing community, but now it looks half-baked so we will
see what they have in store.
81
« on: June 01, 2011, 00:14 »
i want to try Fotomoto in one of my travel sites but the first impression is it takes a huge load on the page speed, a lot of real estate in the screen (every photo will have links on top) and it's quite cumbersome to say the least, what about licences for instance ? can i specify RM or RF ? again, i've yet to put my hands seriously on Fotomoto but it's seems too simplicistic to add a link "download" without any warning about licence type and much more, it looks perfect for people making a site with stolen images rather than for professional photographers.
82
« on: June 01, 2011, 00:11 »
most of the "public domain" sites are full of stolen images, in the past they used this trick to cover their ass in case of copyright infringment they could say they fished the images from the public domain and provide the URL.
it's a sort of "copyright laundering", completely illegal.
i remember years ago TemplateMonster did the same and Getty sued their ass off winning a multi million $ lawsuit so all this BS has no legal ground at all at least in the USA.
83
« on: June 01, 2011, 00:02 »
well i'm not interested in stirring up a rant about violent crime in south america.
suffice to say when i was in colombia the headlines in the news where about a guy being beheaded, and i met so many people warning me about thefts and robberies, especially the locals themselves.
maybe Holgs was shooting with a point&shoot, but to me is not easy to keep a low profile with a big zoom and big flash and despite i never had troubles everybody was always staring at me and often foaming from their mouth looking at my Nikon, a few taxi drivers called me "loco" for walking around alone like i did in suburbs and favelas ...
84
« on: May 31, 2011, 23:58 »
hahaha i would love to walk in the street and meet somebody wearing an istock t-shirt .. i could take a photo of him and selling it as editorial ... who knows maybe it could even make a few sales ? 
85
« on: May 31, 2011, 23:57 »
i recently joined Photographer's Direct...
http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/microstock_sites.asp
Just another antique, clinging to old ideas and misconceptions about microstock. Good luck with that one.
i just received a request email from them, a client needs RM images of saudi arabia (taxi, public lights, road signs, people, etc ?) he pays 50 UK pounds/photo, unfortunately i've nothing about saudi arabia but i'm glad there are agencies like this offering a kind of alternative to automated stock. as far as i understood their cut is just 10-20% of the sale in case the clients like your photos and judging from their recent sales quality is really of secondary importance...
86
« on: May 31, 2011, 20:22 »
I should probably come clean and say that photos don't really do it for me as art anyhow.
They are "of" something that has already past, and therefore fundamentally dead. They are a pale imitation of life.
Paintings are something not of something so have a life of their own.
Photos are great for selling stuff with though, thankfully.
(Stand back and let the fireworks begin)
Many great artists use photography as a tool, no different to a paintbrush. Some have even used camera obscuras or just painted over photos. I really don't see why any one form of art should be thought of as superior to another.
The point is, conceptual "art" is something so obscure nowadays that almost nobody can understand what their so called concepts are all about. With this illogic logic anything can potentially become art, go in any art fair and see what i mean ... But it all starts when the art critics start praising an unknown guy and calling him a 'rising artist', to me it all looks like a Ponzi scheme no matter what they say, and that's nothing, i've seen people shooting their dog in their garden winning fat art contests so i really can't understand how this business works, talking with art galleries it all become even more nebolous to me ... recently i shown some of my ethnic portraits to a gallery owner, he said they look, then he's already selling some similar crap for a few grands probably shot with a polaroid or canon powershot ! what ! ? His answer was that the artist is notorious and blah blah blah and i should first find a gallerist and run an exibition to taste the waters, if i sell at least 40-50% of my works it means i've some chances in the art market so we'll see how it goes.
87
« on: May 31, 2011, 20:15 »
Nobody - let me repeat - NOBODY is complaining about $1-$10 prices.
I've actually been complaining about the $1-$10 price point. I'd actually like to see micro move into the $10-$50 price range.
Ah yes. That's a different matter 
I believe BS's comment was about buyers (or as he refers to them "cheapskates") complaining about $1 - $10 prices. Which they never have.
Yes, i was referring to buyers. Well, up to you, there's space for anyone in this business, micro, mid, macro, and anything in between. At the moment i'm exploring other sources of income, merchandising, art galleries, assignments...
89
« on: May 31, 2011, 13:13 »
I had to go all the way back to January 2007 to find a month with earnings as low as they are this month on IS. Earnings keep falling and falling with no end in sight.
microstock is reaching the point of non return, it will be soon impossible to make multiple sales so the whole point of doing micro RF ceases to exist. the odds are all against photographers, even Yuri said his sales keep falling every despite doubling his portfolio.
90
« on: May 31, 2011, 01:12 »
There are dead tourists almost every day in south america, but maybe you only stick to the safe touristic areas ?
91
« on: May 30, 2011, 23:19 »
Yeah best not to travel anywhere. Its expensive and full of killers just waiting for you to turn up with things they can rob.
Traveled in more than 50 countries so far and still alive, thanks.
92
« on: May 30, 2011, 23:16 »
From my experience it's often a matter of authority : Trying to hide and keeping a low profile only got me in troubles and unwanted attentions. Working like a professional street photographer instead will still bring unwanted attention but nobody will also make a fuss about it, the worst it can happen is some local camera freak asking you boring technical questions, but in most of the cases if people recognize you're a photographer they are happy about it and let you take good photos or simply say no and you shoot the next interest subject. So, how to be recognized as Pro ? Ironic but in my case all it takes is having a huge battery pack and a big flash, don't ask me why but that's probably what people instantly think is a pro shooter instead of yet another tourist with a DSLR. Thinking about it, there's a flood of tourists with their canon rebel or entry level nikons, but none of them have external flash and certainly not battery packs, and finally they don't look around like a photographer nor they are firm in replying to complaints nor they engage in any "shoot and run" activity as i do
93
« on: May 30, 2011, 22:12 »
So for those making the case that your work is undervalued - you're right! But for the most part it is the agencies and not the buyers who are undervaluing it. Higher prices are useless to me if my royalty % and over all income are dropping.
There's too much oversupply at the moment, and it was predictable from the start since the bar to join IS has been low for a long time. On the other side the earnings from micro RF cannot justify big investments in production, for instance nobody would sell aerial photography on micros. The more they cut royalties the more the "perimeter" of microstock squeezes leaving us flooded by millions of similar photos about the same subjects over and over and it can only go worse unless Getty moves the low-earners in a different collection thus making space for new submissions. If you look at search engines like Google they have the same issue and they're dealing with zillions of web pages all looking similar and apparently serving good content. The solution is the same : the "sandbox", meaning the crap goes in page 100 or 1000 and therefore doesn't exist apart for a few obscure "long tail" keywords, so no matter if their database is so big they need a stack of data centers, the average user will just see the first 30-40 results and be happy with it, same should be done with stock. The problem in this case is HOW a stock photo search engine can rank properly good photos from bad photos ? Will they implement users' ratings ? stars next to every images ? new popularity algorithms ? I mean, i wouldn't be surprised if 20% of the images on sale at IS make up to 80% of the sales so who cares about the photos who never sold once in a few years ? Less competition == Higher sales
94
« on: May 30, 2011, 21:53 »
The licensing is the problem and my question was serious. What's the solution for contributors? Higher prices? New license model? Quit and let micro go back to amateurs with point and shoots?
It's too late now for microstock to go back to its roots (point & shoot, awful quality, etc) but Getty seems to be excited in moving to new horizons : they're actually creating a sort of mid-stock and finally doing something against oversupply (moving low-sellers to thinkstock). Talking about licences of course RM is the most photographer-friendly licence but how many buyers agree nowadays ? Most of them are in a tight budget and on a tight deadline, they need a quick solution for their photo needs, they couldn't care less about the RM mumbo jumbo and RF gives them complete freedom.
95
« on: May 30, 2011, 21:49 »
Why . are some of you so intent on sending our microstock customers to Flikr? I prefer them to stay right where they are - on the micros buying my images.
It's bad enough for some Istock admins to be giving out the "don't let the door hit you in the back" attitude, but it's just insane for microstock contributors to be handing that out! Anyone trying to send customers to Flikr is, to put it as tactfully as possible, unlikely to be someone who is reliant on any microstock income.
It's simply a well known marketing technique, leaving the bad apple to the competition. Do you really want to base your business on cheapskates complaining that 10$ or even 1$ is too expensive ?
96
« on: May 30, 2011, 11:31 »
These clients are the same folks that pay for wedding photos that are noisy with bad white balance and just plain crappy, so image quality isn't their top priority. It seems like many people look at things from their own perspective only. They think (and may be correct) that they produce quality images and should be compensated adequately. The problem is that there are a huge number of people that need photos that can't tell the difference between a good photo and a bad one. They simply want a photo that illustrates a concept or service. Microstock is perfect for those people and if it isn't available, they'll seek out alternatives. IMHO there's still a large market for shots that don't cost so much to produce.
Good, so why don't you fish images on Flickr instead of paying IS ? I'm of your same opinion that there's a huge potential market for bad noisy lowres awful photos but who's gonna take the time to keyword properly and upload if the payout might be a miserable 0.30$ ? I mean, microstock itself started as a place for crap free images, the natural selection began later, but now the bar is as high as joining Getty RM and even the worst micro agencies will reject images with noise or bad lighting.
97
« on: May 30, 2011, 11:22 »
Interesting discussion. I don't really find this photo interesting but I think it's an offbeat sort of portrait that captures something about being a child, in a sort of retro orange-y glow. I've never heard of Cindy Sherman.
I always liked what Warhol did - when I was a kid it seemed very fresh and original. The mind of the 'collector' though is something different. The collector will pay a huge sum to own and display an original and imply a personal connection with the artist. We need rich patrons or there's no art. But this price strikes me as way, way over the top. There just isn't that much content, craft or even effort in this photo.
Collectors are not crazy as it seems. From what i have understood they're rich people willing to find an investment and eventually a profit. They usually invest in many fields, including art and they don't stick just with photography. Before buying someone they think twice and they ponder accurately if the artwork is worth or not. If they bought this crap for 3 millions it means they "know" sooner or later they can resell it for 4 millions, that's the logic, especially if the artist dies and you have a large collections of his works.
98
« on: May 30, 2011, 08:25 »
I've never been to South America,I heard some great and some not so great stories relating to security.
The scary thing is almost all south americans after they finished telling me how good south america is they recommend me to not even think walking alone with my camera on my neck in their own cities. Said that, never had troubles so far nor robberies or aggressions.
99
« on: May 30, 2011, 08:20 »
There's no guarantee a photo will ever sell.
But if it does i prefer a single sale for a decent price rather than the hope of multiple sales for 1$.
Some failed designers complain 10$ is too much, well guess what i earn only 1.5$ from it on IS, now find me a job where they pay less than 5$/hour ... i can tell you the answer : microstock photography.
If getty raises the bar clients will be forced to pay more and shut the f.. up, as simple as that.
IS created microstock, and IS can kill it if they want.
100
« on: May 30, 2011, 08:12 »
Even a dog could take that shot with a mobile phone.
Conceptual my ass.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
