pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - tygraphics

Pages: [1]
1
Thanks for sharing that FreezingPictures. In my mind 15 to 30 percent is a fair portion for an artist to yield to a rep.

One of my reasons for wanting to pursue selling off my own site is to offer very specialized, elaborate illustrations that take exceptional amounts of time to make. These would be like a collection of fine wines and are not meant for the mass markets but rather the connoisseur. The focus is to build one's reputation as an extraordinary resource for exquisite specialties that are priced accordingly. That is why a simple, intimate and focused interface of presorted images makes so much sense.

2
Cool site!

I was always under the impression that becoming a direct competitor of the stock sites was against their User Agreement's, but I'm probably wrong.

If one were exclusive. But we're not exclusive. What's the difference if you contribute to competing sites or to your own competing site?

BTW, I like your website Cory! Thanks for the comments.

3
Hi Norebbo,

Thanks for the insights. I like the quality of the images on your site, 1st class!

Interesting discovery of how people check out your site but make the purchase through a large corporate site. I think you are right about falling prices. I think eventually stock art will be selling for the price of a song. So these be the days of the big money ($25)!

Thomas

4
For stock, editorial, travel etc photographers will do much better with professional representation at sites, agencies and libraries which designers, editors and other buyers regularly use  and trust with their payment details.

But from the stand point of a contributing professional artist who has been in the business of making art for 30+ years and over half that time representing myself, I think it is worth the effort to run a three year trial to test the potential.

Now if the payment is made directly from the buyer to the artist/photographer at 100% minus the transaction fee, then what is there to trust? Also the artist/photographer would have the name of the buyer. At these corporate stock sites I have no clue who has bought my illustrations unless the buyer tells me or show me the design they made.

5
General Stock Discussion / Re: Vector Graphics, why so expensive?
« on: February 27, 2009, 09:29 »
First of all vector art is not expensive. But I guess compared to digital photos you might say that. You could also say a rocket ship is more expensive than an airplane. The present pricing more than a buck because it takes time to make the files.

Probably one of the longest times for me to make a vector illustration for a client was 70 hours for which they paid $3500. Granted that was a custom technical vector illustration created from blueprints but to make great stock vector art is nevertheless a very time intensive process.

Try it. It is a very humbling experience. The skill takes years to master. I've been making vector art since 1988 and I'm still honing my craft.

6
What a great place this forum is! :)

Just wanted to post a comment about Mr. JesterArt's post where he states that the content of Flash based Rich Internet Applications (RIA's) can not be indexed by search engines. That is not entirely true as Adobe has recently provided insight into the Flash technology to allow search engines to access content.

Pages: [1]

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors