|
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 - TheDman
1
« on: October 30, 2012, 13:25 »
They don't need a justification. They just need to know that they are in differently priced collections. I've told this to buyers who have mailed me in the past, and they accept it and/or look for a similar lower priced image.
Doesn't this kill the idea then of the top-priced collections being somehow superior? I thought Vetta represented the best of the best. Using this pricing strategy, it simply represents "randomly different". Gives the impression that istock isn't trying to stratify collections based on value, they're simply trying to gouge people.
I'm not saying there isn't a point behind the editing. Just that you don't need to get into it with a buyer.
I think the buyers do in fact need justification. They're not stupid, and they want to understand why images are priced differently than other images. If buyers think it is because of quality/usefulness/value, they're going to be ok with the pricing variation. If they think istock is merely trying to gouge people who can't find the similar versions, they're going to see istock as dishonest and be dissuaded to shop there.
2
« on: October 30, 2012, 12:31 »
They don't need a justification. They just need to know that they are in differently priced collections. I've told this to buyers who have mailed me in the past, and they accept it and/or look for a similar lower priced image.
Doesn't this kill the idea then of the top-priced collections being somehow superior? I thought Vetta represented the best of the best. Using this pricing strategy, it simply represents "randomly different". Gives the impression that istock isn't trying to stratify collections based on value, they're simply trying to gouge people.
3
« on: October 24, 2012, 09:08 »
I see the same trend with IStock tanking.
So many reasons, and all have been discussed before.
Inconsistent, confusing and high pricing.
To this point, a friend of mine and occasional istock buyer just emailed me asking why this image and this image cost so much more than this image. How the heck do you answer that?
4
« on: May 18, 2012, 18:55 »
5
« on: May 18, 2012, 18:35 »
Thanks ShadySue, didn't know the policy on this. It's certainly very recognizable as the content - so recognizable in fact that it came up as a match on that photo in a Google Images search - but I have a feeling that you're right about CR not paying it too much mind.
heywoody - I don't think you need signed model releases from cows on public lands.
6
« on: May 18, 2012, 16:29 »
Wondering how to deal with this. Here's a painter in England who has obviously used my photo to paint this. Has anyone else had this happen, and what can I do, if anything? It says he's already sold it for 280. Feel like I should get a commission.
7
« on: April 08, 2012, 21:51 »
I used Chase Jarvis as an example, There are a ton of young Ones out there Like him now That have clients any one of us would drool Over.
Do they use iPhones?
Who Knows and who cares.
You should, since you're promoting them as being able to produce outstanding portfolios and land big clients with iphones.
8
« on: April 08, 2012, 18:45 »
I used Chase Jarvis as an example, There are a ton of young Ones out there Like him now That have clients any one of us would drool Over.
Do they use iPhones?
9
« on: April 08, 2012, 18:32 »
Really interesting thoughts in this thread so far. Maybe I do have a prejudice. If so, it's one that has been beaten into me for 7 years by the level of technical excellence that has been demanded (imo quite correctly) by the agencies up to this point.
I agree with Liz that the quality of the accepted images (that we've seen) doesn't justify the policy at all.
Here's the thing. If buyers want crappy spontaneous looking photos shot with cellphones, can't they do them for themselves? Why pay for a stock image? Isn't the big advantage of the stock agencies that they offer higher quality than the average joe can get for himself?
Mike, yes, absolutely, the compositional and conceptual aspects should still be there, ESPECIALLY if the technical quality isn't.
I just worry that if crappy cellphone shots start filling up the searches it's going to take buyer perception right back to the early days where microstock was seen as poor quality trash. Having watched for years as the agencies and we contributors have worked to change that perception, it's very disheartening to watch things going back the other direction.
Yes, I am sure that you can get a creative, well composed, even well lighted shot with a cellphone. But you can get that with a DSLR too, along with technical quality.
Rapideye probably got to the heart of it here:
...I have a theory. It's got to do with the Apple cult. The iPhone is so cool (because it's an Apple product) that whatever comes out of it has to be perfumed like angel's urine.
Lisa....Your forgetting the most important aspect. Yes the one posted was crap But, you Take a very good photographer that has a commercial Mind far greater than most and let him or her go to town with a cellphone camera. All the rest is moot. He will sell and the clients and buyers will buy.. In my 50+ years of taking Pics and teaching the past 12, I've seen people with $500 cameras that would blow away most of us with there Natural talent of seeing and....I've had students with $45,000 Hasselblads That couldn't shoot a flower in focus. It's the eye girlfriend and the commercial Mind. You wait and see. Give it a year. We ALL get hooked into the more the better when in reality it's not. it's the usefulness of an image and none of Us..NONE OF US including the sites know what that is.
Why must the very talented photographer have a crappy camera? Why can't they 'go to town' with a good camera? Will the photos then not be as good?
10
« on: March 14, 2012, 18:19 »
This is a link to a conspiracy theory website. And your first source was simply a powerpoint presentation. I expect a link to infowars.com to pop up here any minute now...
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-2/2-health-effects-chernobyl.htm#3
GreenFacts.org, clearly a branch of infowars.com. Nice try. Didn't work though.
How does posting a link to a different website prove that the previous link wasn't a conspiracy site? Doesn't even make sense. The first site contained info on "Chemtrails" and other goofiness that conspiracy whackjobs are always harping about. So I think it did indeed work.
12
« on: March 13, 2012, 10:46 »
The first generation of history that said to their grandchildren they will live worse than their parents, this never happened before in whole history.
That's not due to greed, just simple mathematics.
13
« on: March 03, 2012, 17:10 »
Today, the only thing which can get me going is first class optics, now that is what I think Canon should have done, instead of this toy they should have launched a few new L-optics.
best.
They are launching a few soon. In fact I thought they might be announced at the same time, but I guess they didn't want to steal any thunder from the big Mk3 announcement.
14
« on: March 02, 2012, 16:51 »
I don't get rating photos anyway. Can't I just look at them and determine which ones are the good ones?
15
« on: March 02, 2012, 11:46 »
Image 1, at ISO 800, looks horrible. There's an enormous amount of color noise in the ice. It looks like what I'd expect from the 5D2 at 1600 or maybe even 3200. Hopefully that's an aberration of some sort. The similar one at 6400 has had so much noise reduction applied that it looks smooth in many places.
Even the tiger one wasn't too impressive, but much better than the first two. Based on that it looks like a 1 stop ISO improvement at best; hopefully I'm wrong.
Completely agree. That 6400 aurora sample is terrible. The details have been completely eroded into a blurry, fuzzy mess.
16
« on: March 01, 2012, 13:44 »
Plus the HDR thing but I'll reserve judgement until I see it, personally I'm not a huge fan of HDR
I'm a huge fan, but only when it's done correctly.
17
« on: February 27, 2012, 09:03 »
I can't believe they're bringing back eye-controlled autofocus. I found that completely useless back on my Elan IIe. When I look through the viewfinder I'm hardy ever staring straight at the point of focus; I'm looking at the overall composition. My eye darts all over the scene. I don't have to stare directly at the point of focus to tell what is in focus. Just another bell that I will pay for and immediately turn off.
18
« on: February 24, 2012, 10:13 »
I have the opposite problem. Notebooks filled with ideas, and absolutely NO desire not enough time to shoot them.
Ditto apart from my amendment.
+1 on this. Too many ideas, too little time.
19
« on: February 21, 2012, 14:48 »
Didn't a Canon exec recently say they didn't think there was that great of a market for such a high MP camera, and if they found differently they would produce one then?
20
« on: February 10, 2012, 10:15 »
D800 is using the new 36MP sony sensor.
Canon has nothing of that class, the MK3 will barely be 24MP i think.
besides, what do you guys expect ? Canon is the Acer of photography, the 5D2 was the cheapest FX camera to start with ! good sensor and all, but the usual cheap-as-s plastic body.
i'm too a bit fed up with nikon's image quality sometimes, but feeling a nikon body in my hand is so manly compared to canon, i've big hands i can't stand canon toys, and i can't see why people keep saying these cameras are too heavy, what they want a powershot-sized FX body with pink HelloKitty lenses ?
female photographers should just forget about using a DSLR.
The 5DMII has a mostly magnesium alloy body.
Have you even held a 5DMII before? I doubt it. I had a D300 and the 5DMII was around the same size. Same goes for the D700 probably the D800. I have fairly large hands and the 5DMII feels more natural to me.
for starters, Canon's shutter button is very gay compared to Nikon.
Canon is also too roundish and feels cheap.
size doesn't matter, i'm talking about the whole feeling, Nikon is simply so much robust and sturdy.
and if you really ask me, i would gladly go back to real bodies like Nikon F4 ...
Too 'gay' and 'roundish'. That's some valid criticism. I'm not sure what the issue is with even the cheapest plastic bodies. I've owned models up and down the line, and none of the bodies have even come close to falling apart or anything. In fact, my old 20D made it through several long-distance hiking trips where it got rained on, dropped on rocks, infested with midges, etc and still worked like a champ. I'll take the lightweight magnesium over old metal tanks any day.
21
« on: February 03, 2012, 09:08 »
But are big megapixels still the driving force behind camera sales? I'm not quite sure how 36 megapixels will benefit me, especially if it comes with an increase in noise. Canon made the statement with the D1x that image quality should be the new driving factor, and I agree with them. Give me larger microlenses instead of more and more noisy pixels.
The Nikon D4 is aimed for performance shooters like sports and news. The D800 is aimed at shooters who require high resolution like landscape or medium format.
The Canon 1DX is aimed for performance shooters like sports and news. The 5DX is aimed at... uh... well...  performance shooters who don't quite need as much performance?
If I had 36MP I could downsize or even crop to XXXL and have a lot of room to play with. Now if an image is so-so I normally downsize to L or M.
Yeah, you can downsize 36MP and still have room to spare, but you can downsize 100MP even more! 100MP on a standard 24x26 sensor would produce pure noise, and downsizing noise would just give you smaller noise. I'm not sure where it is, but there has to be a sweet spot in the middle somewhere. At 21MP I'm already at the XXL size on istock, so I don't really need more pixels. I just need the pixels I have to be cleaner. Larger microlenses would give me that, as well as far superior high ISO performance.
22
« on: February 02, 2012, 16:57 »
But are big megapixels still the driving force behind camera sales? I'm not quite sure how 36 megapixels will benefit me, especially if it comes with an increase in noise. Canon made the statement with the D1x that image quality should be the new driving factor, and I agree with them. Give me larger microlenses instead of more and more noisy pixels.
23
« on: January 19, 2012, 16:53 »
Do you think this bill will stop people from lifting your illustrations?
Stop! maybe not..
make it difficult? Yes!
Why would it make it any more difficult than it already is?
24
« on: January 19, 2012, 16:15 »
I think istock will be around this year, as they streamline what images go to Getty and what goes to stinkstock, but then BOOM!, one day an announcement will come and istock will be gone. You will be directed to either Getty or thinkstock directly. The "artist formerly known as istockphoto" will cease to exist.
Which just kills me. It would be like Amazon buying Overstock.com, dissolving Amazon.com and rerouting traffic over to Overstock. Why would you eliminate the stronger brand?
25
« on: January 19, 2012, 15:50 »
Wonder what kind of golden parachute Kelly got today?
If a book is ever written about all of this... I am interested in what Kelly might shed light into. At least JJRD got out with his dignity and beliefs in place. rogermexico seems to be one of the few original faces left, hope he is not forced to sell his soul or leave.
iStock resembles a red giant star in the final stages of collapse. Shine bright and expand then sheds its content; then a cold core cinder remains at the center slowly cooling until there is nothing left.
Years from now your avatar will make a movie called "Lobo & Me", where he goes to Calgary and finds laid off istockers hunting jackrabbits for food.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
