|
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 - PeterChigmaroff
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... 72
976
« on: July 01, 2010, 22:57 »
It's an unusually drab way to enter the micro market for Masterfile. I guess it was cheap.
977
« on: June 30, 2010, 13:05 »
Deal closed now and money on the bank. I took bits and pieces from the contracts I got from friends here and some I found out myself. Tiny easy to read contract. Customer must be pleased to not get a giant contract.
So much for that though...They send ME a two pages contract with amounts of $1000000 here and there. working conditions bla bla. I breathed heavy one time and signed it  USA...
I obviously haven't seen the contract etc but be warned sometimes you get ahead by not making a sale.
Not ? Ive got the money already, Or what do you mean?
Big long contracts that someone else writes with expensive clauses in them are too scary for me. Especially if you see things where they transfer liability etc onto you. Again I haven't seen the contract so obviously shouldn't speculate but have heard enough things about those types of contracts; if it is indeed such a thing. Which of course it may not be. Congrats on the good sale by the way.
978
« on: June 30, 2010, 11:52 »
Deal closed now and money on the bank. I took bits and pieces from the contracts I got from friends here and some I found out myself. Tiny easy to read contract. Customer must be pleased to not get a giant contract.
So much for that though...They send ME a two pages contract with amounts of $1000000 here and there. working conditions bla bla. I breathed heavy one time and signed it USA...
I obviously haven't seen the contract etc but be warned sometimes you get ahead by not making a sale.
979
« on: June 29, 2010, 13:07 »
2/14 accepted on my last batch, annoying as it seems that they want all the picture to be in focus.....
Will resubmit these pics in few months I guess.....
Cant see the point in re-submitting really, once its a reject, thats it as far as Im concerned.
Successive edits can go a couple of ways. If you took the selects of an edit and gave them to another editor then those selects to another editor etc. It's only a matter of time before no images were selected. Second way is to take the rejects of an edit and pass those to another editor and then take those rejects and pass them to another etc. It is only a matter of time before all the images are selected. This guy is working the second method. I've known agencies to use the first and they are a real pain in the butt.
980
« on: June 29, 2010, 13:05 »
2/14 accepted on my last batch, annoying as it seems that they want all the picture to be in focus.....
Will resubmit these pics in few months I guess.....
Cant see the point in re-submitting really, once its a reject, thats it as far as Im concerned.
Successive edits can go a couple of ways. If you took the selects of an edit and gave them to another editor then those selects to another editor etc. It's only a matter of time before no images were selected. Second way is to take the rejects of an edit and pass those to another editor and then take those rejects and pass them to another etc. It is only a matter of time before all the images are selected. This guy is working the second method.
981
« on: June 28, 2010, 13:25 »
I already gave them my feedback by closing my account.
Idem ditto amen! 
Ditto the ditto for me.
982
« on: June 28, 2010, 10:58 »
and if Fotolia acts on the suggestions.
Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahha!
983
« on: June 27, 2010, 10:10 »
It doesn't imply anything. It states what states for the dates and shoots listed. Whether any specific agency has more requirements is up to them. The risk is that you use their likeness in a way they don't like or weren't expecting.
Point being, you might as well get the thing properly detailed for the most rigorous agency you might try and work with. Why do anything less and find your self with a batch of images you can't submit? You don't need to use the standard Getty release, you could work with a 70's edition release that would stand up in a court of law but...
984
« on: June 27, 2010, 09:59 »
I sent you a sitemail here. Found the Word doc and can email to you. You will have to do some customizing, as my contract was not for transferring copyright.
Oh, thanks. Well Im not planning to transfer copyright. They are only gonna get full rights to it.
Thanks again for the doc.
I actually got
a few now from nice members. Well see wich one I use 
At some level it amounts to the same thing as far as future earnings go. Is that full rights for ever?
985
« on: June 26, 2010, 15:55 »
Currently, and this has changed, a MR is used for that shoot of that model for that day only. Although I have used releases dated over as long as a whole year, most agencies won't accept those anymore.
986
« on: June 26, 2010, 10:58 »
Not be an ass, but i really can't relate to this thread... to me it always seemed reversed. My somewhat more 'special' stuff gets easier accepted than the typical stock things (which often come back as LCV, probably true these days too)  I feel like now more than ever they ("they" being SS,iS, DT) like the stuff that is a bit different.
My latest 4 accepted at SS are pretty dark and/or B/W stuff and you see enough others in newest too... strange everyone else seems to have such a different experience.
I think the point is people ARE trying to get non typical images through. They just can't get them past the reviewers. Most recently I had many rejections for not indicating a picture as an illustration. So the reviewer doesn't have the ability to distinguish a photograph from a illustration. Then there is the group of 4 images where the first two get rejected for noise and the second two get rejected for too many similars. Sorry I don't understand that at all. Many rejections for focus, on limited focus images where there is in fact a focal point and that focal point is where it should be. But the guy with the button went to the school of f/64 and couldn't image such a thing.
987
« on: June 25, 2010, 16:30 »
Just had a batch where I had a 25% acceptance rate. Rather dismal I think.
988
« on: June 25, 2010, 11:25 »
FWIW, which admittedly isn't much, I canned my account their recently.
989
« on: June 25, 2010, 11:19 »
See, that's the thing. If I upload people isolated on white, nothing "fancy", no shallow DOF, no special lighting, they snap it up. Objects, too. The problem with these is they don't sell this days - there are way too many of the same style and theme on every agency. You would think they would want to diversify their collections with more interesting shots - that, by the way, if you manage to get them through, sell like crazy. But no. They want the same stuff they have already crapload of. Why? - beats me, no logic here. They also lose customers looking for higher quality work to the "traditional" stock agencies. It's almost like they consciously decided they they will have only mundane, simple-to-shoot stuff, all-in-focus, straightforward lighting. I am getting more and more fed up with this myself - being selective what to upload to them is a good idea... Maybe I should concentrate on building up my Getty RM portfolio - never had a rejection there by the way, not even once. Plus you can get really creative with that, which is way more fun... Hmmm....
See there's a reason why you are called the-wise. I couldn't agree more.
990
« on: June 25, 2010, 10:28 »
They may indeed be more relevant in today's market but historically they have always been behind the times. Spending more time arguing against the evolution of markets than trying to attain highest possible prices. There is little historical reason for agencies to have set 20% as the standard RF payment to photographers. Or images in micro could just have easily attained pricing 5 times their current levels. They just needed to be guided there. When this was all happening SAA was issuing a white paper on why RM was so much better and why it should prevail blah, blah. I love RM, I've seen some great sales lately, some nearing the 5 figure level but RF is, well, like Paul Simon said "slip sliden' away".
991
« on: June 24, 2010, 19:10 »
Well, you can't take it out of circulation, since you've already sold it.
If they're willing to pay 2 grand for a ( photo or illustration ?) you lucked out.
I don't see why you can't do a "From this day forward..." deal.
992
« on: June 24, 2010, 16:26 »
also consider how long it took you to create the image - if you ask too much, they can probably do better by hiring someone to duplicate your image.
steve
How long an image took to create is irrelevant when pricing for stock. One has to consider that many images never sell or sell very few times.
993
« on: June 24, 2010, 12:10 »
I'd go even higher, go for low 5 figure rates if you have to take the image off the sites and grant exclusivity.
994
« on: June 23, 2010, 19:04 »
What do you consider a good seller? How many DLs per day would you need to see for you to consider an image to be a good seller for Shutterstock?
995
« on: June 21, 2010, 23:13 »
Why would a flickr user want to lose 80% of the profit when without this, people just contact them by email and work it out?
It's possible to get buyers that don't want to deal with amateurs. It's possible to get amateurs that don't want to deal with buyers. From forums I see lots of folks who agree with you and will not opt in.
996
« on: June 21, 2010, 23:02 »
[I know what you are saying. It would make more sense to rebuild with new motherboard, cpu and ram rather than trying to just replace the cpu. I know it would be much cheaper to do it myself than to go out and buy a new computer and wonder if it has quality components in it. At least if I rebuild I can go for faster cpu and more ram for better performance for a whole lot less money.
There is a lot more on those boards than a CPU and some RAM. Usually a bunch of the ICs are soldered on and near impossible to replace and they could just as likely be dead as the CPU. If it's dead, give it a nice burial and move on.
997
« on: June 21, 2010, 14:36 »
Silicon is highly susceptible to any over voltage condition. And of course silicon is everywhere in a computer, motherboard, RAM, hard drives, video card etc. Overvoltage protectors and spark arrestors just don't work fast enough to overcome the intensity of a lightning strike. In my past life I worked in an area of high voltage power supplies and it didn't matter how we protected. Sparks often led to dead electronics. These sparks would max at 300kV, small by lighting comparison. Sorry to hear about it, maybe your house insurance will cover it.
998
« on: June 20, 2010, 18:48 »
There are roughly X number of images licensed in the world. Starting a new agency and selling DLs does not increase the number of images licensed in the world it only displaces some sales from somewhere else. Therefore taking less for an image on DreamerStock just diminishes the amount of money generated by picture sales which diminishes everyone's income. It's kinda simple. Best thing to do is not contribute a single image and let DS die before they a get even a sputtering of life.
huh? what's this extremely broad conclusion based on?? even with just the existing agencies it's hardly likely - agencies grow each year and produce more sales - what evidence do you have that's not true?
so, a new agency IS likely to increase the gross # of images licensed - the real question is whether it's worthwhile to upl to such an agency when they offer so little
s
General demand does not go up just because another portal is introduced. Doesn't make sense. What do people say? "gee I I've never bought an image before in my life I think I'll start with these guys no one has ever heard of". If you want to believe it does that's fine. I obviously have no proof either way. It's not exactly extreme or broad. P.S. Of course the system isn't static and of course every pull and tug affects every corner of the system. If iStock chose to drop image prices by 50%v you can be sure everyone would. If some start up begins by selling way bellow current rate the effect is not as extreme but it is there. Kind of like the Butterfly Effect. Pretty soon it changes everything.
999
« on: June 20, 2010, 11:37 »
Wrong! quantity does not make money, unless a food store, but we are led to believe that. The most sucessful agency ever, The-Image-Bank had some 3 million transparancies in their files and then a small collection of some 100000 very special images, this small collection represented some 75% of their turnover, there are numerous other examples.
We are told to constantly upload, why? because that among all the rubbish there might just be that one/thousand of shots that might actually become a good seller.
Place yourself just for half an hour and look at whats being accepted: brings tears to your eyes.
Dayrate or assignment shooting is on a totally differant level, you cant even compare it. However if micro buyers dont mind spending money, well, then they should buy RM or RF. Problem is the average buyer of Micro cant recognize quality either.
I agree with the above. The only ones to really make any money off quantity are agencies. Could be that this business as a viable career is now dead. It's become a pyramid scheme that appears may soon crumble. It's hard not to lament the progression stock photography has taken. Those entering now don't see the trajectory the evolution of the business has taken.
1000
« on: June 20, 2010, 09:57 »
It's unfortunate but for the most part stock photographers do need middlemen. I wish it weren't the case but this type of scheme or some variant of it has been tried many times in the past with little success. Even this scheme, in a mild way, is form of middleman. I do wish them the best.
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... 72
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
