|
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
7651
« on: June 02, 2008, 14:43 »
Giving away 25 "L" images for $10 a day is an absolute scandal. Fotolia should be embarrassed.
7652
« on: June 02, 2008, 10:49 »
Do traditional agencies have 40,000 contributors, many of which may not care to follow the letter of the law since it is just a hobby?
7653
« on: June 02, 2008, 06:34 »
Remember when various traditional microstock photographers like Ian Murray were saying that Microstock would result in a "race to the bottom"? That is, the agencies would undercut each other until the price dropped to almost nothing. Looks like they may have been right after all.
Don't let him see you call him a "microstock" photographer 
7654
« on: June 02, 2008, 06:33 »
I can't see a good reason why we are not allowed to have exclusive images, like lots of other sites do. Until that happens, istock will not be able to dominate the market and I see that as being a good thing.
Because you'd shoot one image, and then another vertical for another site, and say "Well, that first image is only on iStock, the second one is different". As for the wife thing, they're not stupid. That's just avoiding the spirit of the rule, and iStock isn't the police. If they figured out your game, they'd probably cut you off.
7655
« on: June 01, 2008, 22:15 »
iStock exclusivity is only about selling images royalty free. It has nothing to do with shooting weddings or selling RM.
7656
« on: June 01, 2008, 19:14 »
I also donate prints to charity auctions such as RMCC and others. That's the real kicker. I can't even give away a print that I own. That's just wrong.  =tom
The exclusive contract has nothing to do with prints. You can give away prints to the entire print loving USA, and that's fine. The exclusive contract says you cannot sell imagery royalty free anywhere else.
7657
« on: June 01, 2008, 09:13 »
And yes, the number one photographer in the world does complain. Not over picky stuff, but like many of us, he speaks up when he feels strongly about something. Recently he had a thread here in on MSG complaining about subscriptions. And he also complained on SS's boards over the low raise they just handed out.
Shows the "number one photographer" may actually need to do something, instead of complaining.
7658
« on: May 31, 2008, 17:03 »
Ummmm... there's nothing larger than XXl ?
7659
« on: May 31, 2008, 07:21 »
Next step is to farm out all the photography work to China, just like like the manufacturing industry is doing. That'll drop the prices - but they may have to allow for substantially lower quality.
Except for the fact that Americans and Europeans don't want images with chinese people in them.
7660
« on: May 30, 2008, 15:28 »
That's called iStockphoto, 2003. Guess what happened... It had to evolve to what the market wanted.
Offering crap images for a $.25 is no way to start a business. Unless he's just looking for a way to lose some money.
7661
« on: May 30, 2008, 13:17 »
Maybe it's referring to the new pricing structure?
7662
« on: May 29, 2008, 06:06 »
Wow, Captain Obvious hung up the superhero belt to go work for SnapVillage. Another big part of getting sales at a microstock site is to move out of beta at some point and start attracting buyers.
Ha! Good one...
7663
« on: May 28, 2008, 16:38 »
" People go to microstock photo agencies because they are looking for images to buy. Your job is to create images that are commercially in demand."
That's a newsflash?
7664
« on: May 28, 2008, 12:23 »
No, there's no easy way.
7665
« on: May 28, 2008, 05:19 »
Why convince him of anything Helix? I think you already said it best yourself. There is no need to attract more competition. The fewer people who know, the more money you make.
Yeah, really. Cut it out
7666
« on: May 27, 2008, 19:34 »
Typical weekend holiday behavior. Sales down somewhat. Otherwise, biz as normal.
7667
« on: May 27, 2008, 10:37 »
You either get about the same, or more than you would have. (per image)
7668
« on: May 27, 2008, 06:21 »
Actually, PD is the anti-thesis of fair trade sales, since they attempt to restrict their supplier base, based on their random rantings.
7669
« on: May 25, 2008, 06:22 »
I don't worry about isolating anything that wasn't originally shot to be isolated. It's just too much trouble, and I don't know if it is worth the return.
7670
« on: May 23, 2008, 22:19 »
Unfortunately not, but that's exactly what you're up against. It's only one or two like schlocke, thesentinull and others that take enormous delight in discovering these sort of threads.
Again, yawn... Almost, slightly, humorous.
7671
« on: May 21, 2008, 09:16 »
Man, that is a poor composite. Same people repeated, each person with different lighting, and the aforementioned floor issue.
That's the problem with letting the work out of your hands.
But........it sells 
Isn't that what people do on SS, though? They just download whatever catches their eye?
7672
« on: May 21, 2008, 08:49 »
Man, that is a poor composite. Same people repeated, each person with different lighting, and the aforementioned floor issue.
That's the problem with letting the work out of your hands.
7673
« on: May 20, 2008, 20:56 »
Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. Give me a break.
7674
« on: May 20, 2008, 16:14 »
http://www.istockphoto.com/kim258I swear she had one just like that, but the silhouettes I remember there aren't there now. Sorry. It does look a lot like generic's though.
7675
« on: May 20, 2008, 15:33 »
re: 3 wise men
That looks exactly like kim58(?)'s work. I feel no pity. Sorry.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
