|
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 - BaldricksTrousers
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 206
951
« on: October 29, 2014, 04:00 »
The point, surely, is size and weight? I'm seriously considering getting the A7r in the not too distant future.
952
« on: October 29, 2014, 03:57 »
"Our expectation is that the test will yield a more positive customer experience and increase their purchasing of your assets."
Buyers don't care about the titles and descriptions. They don't even care about keywords anymore than they allow them to find what they are looking for. Automating some change on 19,000 images to the titles and descriptions isn't going to make buyers happier.
Missing the point, Sean - if the search throws up better results the customers will be happier. If it just promotes irrelevant files, they won't.
953
« on: October 27, 2014, 15:02 »
You get automatically paid on Alamy when you reach $75, so he must have been caught before reaching the threshhold.
All the effort of uploading there, for nothing 
954
« on: October 26, 2014, 20:04 »
It would be far more constructive, to band together and seriously address the issues that the sites have created for us, in lieu of bashing contributors who are attempting to find ways to survive in this business.
To be fair Yuri tried the above and failed. If we want things to change, we need to step up to the plate in mass.
To be fair, we really don't know what avenues he has explored and whether they have failed. If "stepping up to the plate" is code for a sort of unionised action, it isn't going to work. Even an outrage like the DPC only saw about a quarter of files pulled - probably the best quarter, but not enough to close down the site.
955
« on: October 26, 2014, 16:06 »
The random file I clicked on opened as a large jpg - I don't know if it is public domain or a stock image, but it sure looked stocky. A banner for Deposit Photos popped up at the same time but it wasn't a link to that image.
956
« on: October 25, 2014, 08:01 »
There's no pleasing some people.
If you open a thread about one issue in every single forum you end up with a completely fragmented conversation. Maybe it would be OK to post a thread redirecting to this one?
957
« on: October 25, 2014, 07:34 »
Looking at IS, his latest work includes looks of images of arrows on white and about 500 similar and near duplicate mages of a pretty blonde model topless and in a towel and in active wear on white. I'm not sure how hard to reproduce that is.
It looks as if he has responded to the difficulty of recouping shooting costs by switching to simple vectors and isolated-on-white, which makes sense. It's what microstock should be, really.
958
« on: October 25, 2014, 07:28 »
Actually, it's a pity this was the thread with follow-ups and the Alamy thread was garbaged, because there isn't much chance that anyone from Alamy will look at a thread on the SS forum.
Agree! Looks like some do not want anyone to know. Even aggrieved contributors responding this thread complained about duplication on Alamy thread.
Sorry, didn't realise they were in different folders. Maybe this entire thread could be transferred to the Alamy forum.
959
« on: October 25, 2014, 04:24 »
And, BTW, The average price for one of my photo shoots is around $4,000, Arcurs said. But on a $4,000 shoot, were currently looking at about three years to see a return of investment.
http://digiday.com/sponsored/003-243-istockbcs-in-age-instagram-what-designers-need-from-stock-photography
That's way too long. I seem to remember him talking a couple of years back about microstock becoming unsustainable because it could take several months - maybe six, I'm not sure - to recoup shooting costs. If current sales suggest four years to recoup costs, within another couple of years that might have stretched out to eight years, it's an elastic calculation and I don't see how you can run a business with that sort of uncertainty on recouping costs... you've also got to look at the potential interest you lose (or have to pay, if borrowing to pay for shoots) by having your money tied up for that time.
It's nothing I'd consider, even briefly, but I'm particularly risk-averse. Maybe Yuri is particularly risk-embracing.
I suspect he is simply stuck. I haven't noticed him doing risky things, on the contrary he goes out of his way to ensure that what he does is a success, but isn't the situation that he either carries on doing what he does and hopes to cover the costs or he stops production and lives on the considerable proceeds of his portfolio? He's already negotiated his faux exclusive deal in response to the problem of falling return per image, what more can he do? BTW, it was interesting to see the marvellous new look of microstock in that article you posted included simply slapping a cross-processing filter over an image and calling it cool. I wonder if iStock would accept that from ordinary mortals. Maybe I'll send them a few to see what happens.
960
« on: October 25, 2014, 04:13 »
I wonder how many other places he has this collection of 4000 stolen pictures. I hope Alamy sends him a bill for a refund. We need some laws to stop this.
A bill for a refund would simply leave Alamy with stolen money - a refund followed by a payout to the owners of the copyright would be appropriate - perhaps the collection could be kept viewable so microstockers could lodge claims for any sales of their images by submitting the file numbers. It's not going to happen, though, is it? More likely, if Alamy want to clean their hands of this cash they will just give it to their charity. Or maybe they will just keep it. The sales must have amounted to thousands of dollars a month.
961
« on: October 25, 2014, 04:08 »
It would be helpful if the agencies would set up a database of stolen images that automatically flagged up any image going through inspection that had previously been identified in an account full of stolen material. Some agencies already identify and automatically reject duplicate uploads, so it's perfectly possible to do it. It would be a very imperfect way of catching thieves but at least it would prevent people like this guy from repuloading the same files and would catch anyone else trying to steal the same files (it looks as if these may simply have been sorted by most popular and then downloaded - if several thieves use that technique then it might be possible to identify or deter a number of them and make them resort to more time-consuming methods of harvesting files).
Whether any of the sites love us enough to make what would probably be a fairly modest change to the approval process is questionable, but it would help their image and save time for their reviewers if they did.
962
« on: October 24, 2014, 18:36 »
And, BTW, The average price for one of my photo shoots is around $4,000, Arcurs said. But on a $4,000 shoot, were currently looking at about three years to see a return of investment.
http://digiday.com/sponsored/003-243-istockbcs-in-age-instagram-what-designers-need-from-stock-photography
That's way too long. I seem to remember him talking a couple of years back about microstock becoming unsustainable because it could take several months - maybe six, I'm not sure - to recoup shooting costs. If current sales suggest four years to recoup costs, within another couple of years that might have stretched out to eight years, it's an elastic calculation and I don't see how you can run a business with that sort of uncertainty on recouping costs... you've also got to look at the potential interest you lose (or have to pay, if borrowing to pay for shoots) by having your money tied up for that time.
963
« on: October 23, 2014, 18:59 »
Probably won't be a Nikon full frame. 
"The photo gear maker also points out the advantages DSLR cameras bring to the table, including improved AF speed, tracking and a reliable life cycle."
Advantages that wouldn't apply if Nikon would invest in improving mirrorless cameras' AF speed, tracking and reliable life cycles. That quote actually reminds me of the long-forgotten British camera manufacturer, Ensign, who believed in the advantage of folding 120 rollfilm cameras over 35mm right up to when their market disappeared around the time the Nikon F1 appeared.
964
« on: October 23, 2014, 18:37 »
"Adolf 34" - the year Hitler became Fuhrer, presumably the thief is a joker.
965
« on: October 23, 2014, 09:32 »
Only thing is that we don't know what his deal is with Getty. He is probably on a quite different commission structure than I.S. exclusives since they are using his "brand". He also may have positioning search favoritism over exclusives. He is allowed to sell on other micros as an exclusive, too. So I bet he is better off than we might think.
Well, it's not doing the sales of his "Yuri" persona on iStock much good even if he is getting special placing. The figures for the last year show an average sales rate of something like one sale every two years for that identity's images. That doesn't look like a good return on effort.
966
« on: October 22, 2014, 04:03 »
I think they should sit down and talk to a bunch of the clients who are defecting and ask them what they can do to make things right. Stop tossing pasta at the wall to see what sticks, to put it very nicely. I hate to see them collapse, but honestly all it means for me, as an indie, is that those sales move elsewhere. SS earnings are now up 32% for me over this time last year.
They have conducted tons of surveys and research and even had Yuri fly in and advise them -- and they STILL MESS IT UP... 
And it's so easy to get things right, all you have to do is sit down and think through how your customers and suppliers will react to a change. If the reaction is going to be positive you're on to a winner if it's going to be negative you're going down the drain. If you think it through like that, then when your new MBA-holding manager rushes in and says "Hey boss, I've just worked out that if we double the prices and halve the commissions we'll make four times as much money" you don't swoon with delight over the brilliance of the conception and award the MBA an annual bonus, you kick her up the backside and tell her to get real. I once met a high-flying business consultant who had worked in Margaret Thatcher's private office. She told me that the secret of consultancy was to get people to tell you what everybody in the business already knew and then tell it back to the boss, who knew it anyway but didn't like it and wasn't willing to listen to anybody else who told him. It does seem that ever since Bruce left wishful-thinking management has been in place, and the only thing being listened to is "we can squeeze them here", "they won't notice if we do a deal behind their backs", "we can hide the true percentage we'll pay them like this", "the customers will swallow the price rise...", "they've got nothing to gain by quitting if we cut commissions" ....
967
« on: October 21, 2014, 09:02 »
I can see that there are lots of advantages of mirrorless.
How is battery life with these? I have doubts about that as the sensor, processor and lcd/evf have to be working all the time when you compose and change settings.
When traveling with my DSLR I'm sometimes on the same battery for several days. I love it that the camera doesn't even have to be tuned on to look in the viewfinder and check how a scene looks through your lens.
Anyway, with the reduced weight and price of using a mirrorless you can afford to carry a few extra batteries.
And what about lens selection?
If there would be full frame mirrorless which I can use with all EF lenses I would try that.
But as I see, Sony's lens selection is getting better.
Some mirrorless cameras can be used with EF and other SLR lenses via an adapter, but you presumably lose autofocus so the EF lens needs to be one with a decent focusing ring. Because there is no mirror the mount to sensor distance is shorter than on an SLR, which means there is always room for adapter to mount SLR lenses.
968
« on: October 21, 2014, 04:37 »
I've little doubt that mirrorless is the way forward - the mirror is only an inconvenience put there to allow you to see what the lens sees, anyway, so if there is a better way of solving that problem than having a cluncky, heavy, mirror box then it's bound to win. I'll probably switch next time I buy a camera, maybe a couple of years from now. That will give time for a wider range of models to become available and for any issues with viewfinder lag to be overcome and for many more (probably superfluous) bells and whistles to be added.
969
« on: October 20, 2014, 12:37 »
I thought it was interesting that one person said it was hurting TS downloads which are their major source of income from IS. Because for me, TS is a minor source of income and Getty or IS DLs are the majority.
Meaning, we aren't all gaining or losing from the same IS sources, and the new pricing might have different effects on various people.
It's possible - indeed, probable - that different types of portfolio will be affected in different ways as will exclusives compared with independents. However, the most recent TS info we have only covers the first week of the change, it seems unlikely that anything meaningful and observable would have happened to TS immediately. Partly used subscriptions wouldn't suddenly be abandoned because of some changes in a different Getty website, it wouldn't make sense.
970
« on: October 20, 2014, 05:43 »
Looking at my sales, things are still slowing down. That's not surprising if people are using up the New Credits they got issued and then going away. The shocking thing is that I just checked my records for April 2004 and it looks as if I will have fewer sales this month than I did back then - my first file was accepted on April 1, 2004 and I had about 100 files online by the end of that month, compared with almost 5,000 now. If you take my average portfolio size for April 04 as 50 files, and the sales volume for this month as likely to just about equal what it was back then, that means my sales rate has fallen 99% and earnings per file per month has fallen about 95% since 04.
This is not good for me.
971
« on: October 19, 2014, 14:41 »
You can bounce light in all sorts of ways, it's trial and error, the best lighting will vary from subject to subject. If it pleases you, it is right (or, at least, as right as you can manage with yout current vision).
Oh ... just read a previous comment, the sun is a very harsh light, a point source. Diffuse light is usually more endearing. Bouncing diffuses.
972
« on: October 19, 2014, 14:30 »
Sorry for any misattribution. I try to get the quote things right but at the same time it is the points being made, not who said things that is important. The discussion matters more than the personalities. (I've put it right now .... and therefore made mockery of all the outraged comments! Sorry, chaps)
973
« on: October 19, 2014, 09:12 »
If growth, by whatever measure, is the only thing that matters then I think that starting on the back foot may end up being to their advantage. Especially compared with other companies which may have less room to increase the number of subscribers at a time when markets are looking so very uncertain.
That could apply to a company with a clean slate wanting to get sold on to the next lot of investors, I'm not so sure about a company that is up to its neck in debt with ratings agencies giving it a pretty dodgy grade. As I understand it, Getty's ability to service its huge debt is rooted in the idea that it will have been growing its income steadily for the last couple of years, whereas the reverse seems to have been happening. It's hard to see how they can afford to have any of their main businesses going further and further onto the "back foot". In my case, the first 16 days of this month saw just 25% of the downloads and 50% of the earnings of the same period last year, compared with Sept 1-16 last month (and ignoring an EL which would make it look even worse) sales are down by more than half and earnings by more than a third. My returns may be particularly hard-hit because I've always regarded microstock as being for people who want small and cheap files and shot accordingly, for the sort of bloggers and small businesses whom istock apparently no longer wants as customers. (edited to try to sort out my mess with the quote system -- goodness knows if I will get it right this time!)
974
« on: October 18, 2014, 05:37 »
Just reviewed my stats. The revenue for this September on IS site alone (without GI and complete PP) was better than the combined total in September 2013 (my WMY). So yes, I have seen an increase. The question is how much.
Only the last 10 days of September were on the new system, you need to look at the last week of September and what you have sold this month to get the comparison.
975
« on: October 17, 2014, 06:02 »
I think there's a difference between interesting documentary "street photography", and "here's the fence down the road from me, and this is the building next to it, and here's another, and here's the sign on the building" that some Alamy contributors do.
I dunno, Sean, it's all high art, you know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentysix_Gasoline_Stations
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 206
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
