more than once I've seen them run star-trail pictures because apparently neither the photographer nor the sub editors know the difference between the two

I've seen pictures of the night sky with a satellite crossing captioned as pictures of meteorites. Not at Alamy, but I haven't looked.

If you were targeting computers with a virus, which platform would you attack?

Android.

If it's just another agency, not sure why they'd be able to succeed where PhotoShelter failed (not sure how many others here joined PhotoShelter's short lived effort to be a stock licensing agency). Or why they'd be a better choice than a new agency like Stockbo (or any one of the many new entrants who show up here).

I can see a reason why they might be more successful than PhotoShelter or Stockbo (never heard of them btw!). It might not be a valid reason - but it's a reason why they might be more successful:

500px is very popular and  it has a huge presence in the social media. Eg search for 500px on Pinterest. Quite the reverse of starting a thing up and then trying to attract interest like most new stock sites. I have no doubt that they will be hoping that the existing membership will help to promote the business by liking and pinning things etc (and that a relative few will actually contribute). So their membership will be ambassadors.

There's a big difference between showing off your work to others and licensing your imagery (model releases and property releases, plus derivative works such as the infamous Obama poster) - only a subset of work from the portfolio sites is applicable for licensing commercially.

It is not a free for all. A minority of photographers are being contacted personally. So presumably any legal issues can be addressed one thing at a time. And, no doubt, the team there will include people who have existing experience of the issues around licensing images. The personal approach means that for now at least it is going to possibly be much more like a curated collection. Like say Stocksy. Though I doubt it will look similar.

As a curated collection I can see it being modestly successful enough to pay its way - but not hugely profitable in a big finance kind of a way. That makes me wonder how much money the company as a whole costs to run, what other plans they have and where they would like to go.

3 billion cameras out there and only 3 agencies.

Serious question: Which are the 3 agencies in your opinion ?

Or was that a joke ?

Seems to me that there are many more than that + all of the independent agents who are still doing well.

@Beppe Grillo

Hi - cheers.

You said previously, in the context of microstock, that you work in ProPhoto then export to sRGB. So far so good and understood.

What I am specifically asking is whether the sRGB versions which you export will sometimes have blown or clipped colors or whether you process a version where the colors all fit within the smaller gamut.

I use LR and export in the aRGB color space.  I rarely see much of a difference between what I'm seeing in LR and what the images look like on a variety of sites.  Using an iMac calibrated with Spyder 3 if that matters.
I think it has more to do with how the different agencies display the images than how we export the images.

Safari on the Mac is profile aware. Therefore you are unlikely to see so much difference between between how the images look to you and how they look online. If you upload an Adobe RGB image to SS your browser is going to know how to interpret it. People with browers which are not profile smart would potentially see a greater difference. Eg - an Adobe RGB image would potentially look dull on some browsers. Try looking at your online images in a store somewhere where they are selling Windows laptops or cheap Android tablets.

You cannot really predict how the user is going to have their screen set up therefore perhaps it is not worth worrying about too much. Most people have their screens way too bright and over saturated. So perhaps a slightly dull preview version is not going to matter anyhow.

Personally I work my images in ProPhoto RGB because it is the "wider" profile, and then, for the microstocks, I export in sRGB

When you do a straight export  - don't you inevitably then get clipped or blown out colors - where they are out of gamut ? i.e. the reds are blown for example. Don't you have to work on the image first - before the export ?

Or do the microstocks not worry about clipping etc ?

^ this is something I have long wondered. Personally I have always tried to produce final versions which do not have blown or clipped colors .... but I have never been sure that this is the best way of doing things.

I'm not sure that these extrapolations ... upon guesstimates ... upon 3-year-old data are particularly helpful anyway.

Yep. And definitely not worth paying for IMO.

These threads are a sales pitch IMO. Just like Mike's poodle pictures.

I've had images removed from pinterest quickly, but it's a hassle to keep checking.

Why would you want your images removed from Pinterest ? Don't you want people to know about them ?

I dont understand why people are so happy with Alamy, my RPI on Alamy is below 1 dollar, the RPI on SS is above 3 dollar. If you do the number crunching, it turns out that for many people Alamy is not performing well at all. The idea of getting more $$ per sale is distracting from the fact that they dont sell a lot.

The pictures which I am selling RM at Alamy would be unlikely to sell regularly. Therefore they do not make sense at microstock prices. Microstock pricing makes sense for pictures which will sell many times. Pictures which will sell fewer times only make sense if they potentially sell for more. Whist the RPI is lower at Alamy the average sale earns very much more. Another reason I am happy with Alamy is that I like them. That matters to me.

Its in the OP

Quote

At that time it was reported that 70% of all iStock sales were for exclusive images. After the end of the 3rd quarter there were reports that 75% of all downloads were for exclusive images.

It was reported by Jim but did anyone else report that ? From what I can work out nobody else made that extrapolation from the Moody's reports. And looking back I do not see it either. I think Jim is remembering his own reporting.

Except that Jim seems to be mis-reporting his own reporting. What he actually reported (and posted here) related to revenues and not to sales. At the time he said that Getty had told this to the debt investors. Since none of them are talking the origin of that figure remains unclear - it may very well be just another extrapolation. It was reported.

For more information send me money.

ETA: I see Baldrick said some of the same things whilst I was taking out the potentially libellous bits of this post.

I think is he is a douche

I think it is unfortunate that he has to deal with the sort of people who might ever say something like that.

I can understand that people get frustrated. I can also understand why people sometimes get put on silence.