|
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
7726
« on: April 03, 2008, 06:57 »
Its likely too that that would soon get you to 5000 dls at which stage I think you can apply to Getty also
Just FYI, gold level is 10000 dls, and that is the Getty submit level. iStock exclusivity would not be a good option. They are not into these heavily photoshopped images that he produces so much, which would probably cause a SS-like reaction. Better they can be submitted where they will be accepted.
7727
« on: April 02, 2008, 14:18 »
The problem with iStock is the percentage period exclusive or not, 40% max. is insulting considering most other sites give a min. 33% and more at 50% and some %70%....
Tough call. 70% of no sales is zero, but maybe you feel better. 20% and up of some $$$ might upset you, but at least it buys a value meal  ...
7728
« on: April 02, 2008, 07:49 »
sjlocke I didn't ask for any suggestions from you. Least of all you.
When you become an expert in this game I play it's time for you to move on.
I'm not even sure what that means.
7729
« on: April 02, 2008, 03:56 »
Take the monetary value of the cash I earn away and I would still play this game as long as
the money were replaced with a points system. Being happily retired, digital art has now
replaced the hum drum work routine I once slaved over for 35 years with a more willing
and happy work enrivoment at home.
No I don't miss SS and I still make close to $1000 a month even without them. ($965.00 for March.
So I can't play the game on SS's field anymore so what. I still play the game all the same
and have carried it one step further to art galleries during the Summer months.
So can we get back to the original thread now?
The MIZ
Then, #1, just post your stuff on flickr if all you want is points and love, and #2, if you don't care, why the OP in the first place?
7730
« on: April 02, 2008, 03:38 »
I agree, it wasn't particularly funny, as it wasn't over the top exaggerated, and there wasn't any notice anywhere about it being a joke.
7731
« on: April 01, 2008, 11:22 »
I wouldn't pay iStock prices if I could get the exact same thing in a SS subscription.
7732
« on: March 30, 2008, 20:04 »
Are they doing it just to get women half or fully naked?
Yes. This is really what MM is all about for 90% of the photogs, no matter what they say.
7733
« on: March 30, 2008, 08:20 »
... or making tutorials.
7734
« on: March 30, 2008, 07:15 »
7735
« on: March 28, 2008, 14:01 »
Duh. So the buyers buy at Istock. So the buyers don't leave Istock.
Well, duh, we've all been told repeatedly that buyers are price conscious and will leave to shop elsewhere for the same image if they know it exists elsewhere.
7736
« on: March 28, 2008, 11:14 »
When buyers can get those contributors' images at any number of sites, at cheaper prices, what good would it do to flood the site with them?
7737
« on: March 25, 2008, 21:29 »
mmmmm..... burger....
7738
« on: March 24, 2008, 14:48 »
Opted out in January -> thread "Are things going well in microstock?"
Might have worked if the person that started the boycott stayed out, eh?
7739
« on: March 20, 2008, 09:50 »
I found one of mine among the istockphoto ones, but I don't see the point. No one is going to use a watermarked thumbnail for anything, and as far as orphaned works, well, it's pretty obvious where to find the real owner. Why would someone upload all those?
7740
« on: March 12, 2008, 19:39 »
There is no magical 3 month period. If your stuff is good, it will be found.
7741
« on: March 11, 2008, 14:35 »
Here's hoping, although 15.3 is too small for an istock XXL.
7742
« on: March 10, 2008, 13:24 »
Why would exploded pieces be so smoothly beveled? It isn't a very convincing effect with the bevel used so extensively, imo.
7743
« on: March 06, 2008, 18:41 »
We do hire photographers from time to time but have our own dedicated pool. The costs are beyond just the photographers as we set up a majority of the shoot. I was trying to illustrate that most macro stock photography goes beyond the camera size and cost.
So, sorry - are you saying you expect contributors to foot a tens of thousands of dollars bill to be able to submit there?
7744
« on: March 06, 2008, 16:17 »
Our shoots cost tens of thousands of dollars to plan, cast, locate and pay for locations, travel, style, light, produce, and edit. Once the image return we send them through postproduction and key wording and finally ship out to our distributors. The shoot cost does not include the costs of marketing our images, setting up and maintaining distributors and hardware, and long-term storage.
So, you provide the financial backing for photographers to do these tens of thousands of dollars shoots?
7746
« on: February 27, 2008, 14:43 »
I like this place -- a neutral haven to talk stock! Seems rather relaxed here too. Even with Sjlocke around! (Hehe, had to raz ya sean).
I was just looking at your port yesterday - real nice series lately with your guy. You're like the what's-his-name-with-the-3d-gold-guys of 2d vector.
7747
« on: February 27, 2008, 12:52 »
You can get your entire portfolio from iStock for a size based fee. Contact support.
7748
« on: February 27, 2008, 11:47 »
Yes, Yuri is quite a phenomenon. I would not judge istock's best match performance by Yuri though. He is the exception to the rule.
Why not? He is subject to the same treatment as everyone else. Because people may hunt him out does not affect his Best Match behavior.
7749
« on: February 21, 2008, 07:26 »
Sorry to hear that. I think they're being pretty inane on this subject.
7750
« on: February 19, 2008, 22:01 »
Glad to see the OP has kept us up to date on whether or not all the help posted in this thread has helped.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
