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 - Perry

Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 ... 57
1226
40% isnt considered anything special and the problem I would see with the exclusivity is that unless you are a big name with proven sales no one will be interested.  You need minumum of a few hundred thousand images straight up to get going, I dont think you'd ever reach it.  Exclusivity comes when you've proven yourself.

Yes that is a problem, and it would have to be solved some way. But I still think 40% would be quite fair for a site with marketing. I don't remember seeing the "70% sites" ads in papers or sites targeted for designers. Macros can theoretically be a bit more generous because their costs (accounting, bandwidth etc.) are smaller per image sale.

1227
If a new site had the money to get launched in a big way, they could advance pay to outstanding photographers against future commissions.

Yes, a lot of money is needed already in the start. Most of the new startups are just some nerds in the basement that have coded a nice site. They often doesn't have a clue about who buys the images and what the customers want.

Now I have a feeling they don't want to go trough tons of (same) images.

1228
I think this could also be a venue for some already existing site like fotolia or dreamstime. They would just need to put the exclusive images on a separate site and market them differently.

1229
Not stupid!

But I would add:

3) When a photographer quits. the site pays them all the money due to them! If under $50.00 charge $5.00 service fee.

6) Adding keywords like nude, sexy, etc, would put them in front on a search, while a house sits in the back of the pack. Adjustments needed here.

I would add a premium price for images as they are exclusive and no subs!

Some good points here. The prices could be a bit higher, but not too much. Maybe on the same level as iStock's, but with double the commission to the photographer.

I would find it hard to upload exclusive images to a new site that isn't likely to have any buyers.

Yes, that is one of the biggest problems. I might for instance try with twenty or thirty images, but not more, and no sales in couple of months I would get bored and uploaded the images for other sites. If an average contributor uploads 20 images and gets 10 of them accepted, a collection of 100,000 images would need 10,000 contributors, that's too many...

I can't remember what new site said they would pay for new uploads. How about paying for example $1 (or more if budget allows) advance for every accepted photo but then of course the images would need to be "freezed" for instance for six months, after that if the sales are not acceptable the images could be pulled from the site and sold elsewhere. I'm not sure if this would be a good route to go.

1230
I'm bored with the new "clone" sites that are popping up every month, If I had to start another microstock agency, here is what I would do:

1 ) The site would have ONLY EXCLUSIVE IMAGES (not exclusive photographers, only images), so that it would be the only place to buy these images. That would drive some customers to the site, just to "quickly see what they have"
I think many of customers sticks with their chosen site because the other sites have mostly the same images. The site would have to be marketed as a "fresh alternative".

2 ) The agreement would prevent photographers to submit too similiar images (from the same shoot) to other agencies.

3 ) The photographers could pull out their images whenever they want.

4 ) Quite heavy editing regarding content, moderately easy on the technical side (noise etc.). The collection could be fairly small, no need to break any records here, because the images are unique.

5 ) Easy licenses, maybe only few sizes like (small web, medium print and max size) and one extended licence. Maybe two ranges of pricing, one "traditional" microstock and one "premium" microstock/midstock. The prices would be chosen by the image editors with a purpose of maximum revenue.

6 ) Search should have some very clever algorithm that analyzes all clicks and customer behavior like Alamy's search. Images with bad keywords and few clicks/purchases would sink to the bottom.

7 ) Easy uploading without categories or extra clicks.

8 ) A fair comission to the photographer. Maybe in the area of 40%. More than that doesn't seem to leave enough for marketing and maintaining the site.

One interesting different agency is photocase http://www.photocase.com/ but it has drawbacks:
-The images aren't exclusive
-The collection is too tightly edited, and it doesn't contain "normal" images
-search/keywords is a mess
-free downloads/sharing etc. sounds more like iStock year 2003, not serious business.

Are my ideas stupid?

1231
General Stock Discussion / Re: Exclusivity, yes or no?
« on: July 09, 2009, 06:14 »
I would never be exclusive. Years ago I was exclusive with IS, but then I thought that I could make more by submitting also to other sites, and I was right. I believe that it's not a good thing to have "all eggs in one basket". Businesses grow and businesses die, and it may happen quite fast. What would IS exclusives think if IS sales dropped by 50% (that is a very possible scenario).

Submitting to many sites makes my monthly earnings much more stable.

1232
Newbie Discussion / Re: Concentrate or "get`m`all" ?
« on: July 09, 2009, 05:55 »
--

1233
Newbie Discussion / Re: Concentrate or "get`m`all" ?
« on: July 09, 2009, 05:54 »
My opinion is to get into the top agencies (my big5: IS,SS,DT,FT,SX) and just forget about the rest. You could try to add 123rf, canstockphoto and crestock just because the uploading process is so easy, but generally speaking the rest of the sites gives just peanuts and it would be better to spend the time shooting new stuff.

1234
General Photography Discussion / Re: Do you shoot tethered
« on: July 08, 2009, 15:45 »
Great if you have time to stop between each shot, but I think it would just slow me down. 

Why would someone need to look on the screen after every shot? I only look at the screen when I think I have a "keeper", but I'm not completely sure.

BTW tethered shooting allows me to sort and flag images on the run. You could also sort them in folders like "good ones" and "crap". Without laptop it's really annoying to flip trough a lot of images in the camera.

1235
New Sites - General / Re: Pixamba - Please keep us informed!
« on: July 08, 2009, 04:59 »
Q: Why do you feel that it will be correct to offer unlimited run with the standard license?
A: Because we believe that the market goes in this direction. The current market leaders already did it or will do it soon.

Q: Why do you offer small size EL licenses?
A: Because others do not, and we want to give it a try.

I smell a contradiction here.

1236
General Photography Discussion / Re: Do you shoot tethered
« on: July 07, 2009, 15:10 »

the way i understand it, tethering = using your camera's live view AV out into a monitor to use the screen as a large LCD to check your exp, comp, DOF,etc..  i also like the idea.

No. You connect the camera with an USB to your computer and the shots are directly downloaded to the computers hard drive. You can check the results almost immediately. You don't have to shoot many gigabytes of images just to find out that the third one was okay and the rest just extra work. You can also easily correct some details in the image instead of cursing afterwards.


If you have a faster computer and your photoshop runs quickly, I think it's not that bad, but my computer is a pain opening those 17MP RAW images.

I use a few years old MacBook and Canon DPP, it takes just a few seconds to preview a 5D mk II RAW file.

1237
General Photography Discussion / Re: Do you shoot tethered
« on: July 07, 2009, 05:46 »
I shoot a lot of food and I sometimes find that a harsh reflection or shadow, not noticeable at LCD screen size, only becomes apparent when I view the images on my PC. I think shooting tethered would probably produce better images with fewer messed-up shoots.

Oh, food is propably my number 1 thing to shoot tethered. I get much better lights and composition with tethered.

Why do you need wireless? Just get yourself a long USB cord and use a laptop.

1238
General Photography Discussion / Re: Do you shoot tethered
« on: July 07, 2009, 05:39 »
I shoot tethered very often when I have the possibility (indoors/studio). I don't look at every shot, that would be stupid and time consuming. But with tethered shooting I have much easier to decide if I have a good enough shot. That saves time especially when I have a long shot list.

It's also easier to see the composition and focus on laptop screen, especially when my old camera (5D) had smaller screen and soft raw previews.

I have also set up my system so that the files are saved both on the CF card and on the laptop hardrive, an easy way to make a temporary backup when I'm on the road.

The biggest problem shooting tethered with models is that it can affect the shoot dynamics in a bad way. Too much staring on the screen. With an assistant using the laptop this could be avoided.

1239
Off Topic / Re: Poll For Photoshop Users
« on: July 05, 2009, 05:49 »
Stop using pirated Photoshop, I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR YOUR PHOTOSHOP.

You don't. As with all pirated software and music, those people wouldn't buy the official product anyways.

Think again. It's the paying customers that pays all the Photoshops in the world.

1240
To get me as a contributor I would need this:

-Submission by DVD, and no extra clicks for categories or such, just sending a couple of discs with images equipped with IPTC data. (This was propably the reason I joined snapvillage and scanstockphoto)

BTW. categories...who needs them anyway?

1241
Featurepics.com / Re: featurepics moved up
« on: July 03, 2009, 06:07 »
Strange. I earn at least 10X more at crestock than FP.

1242
iStockPhoto.com / Re: IS pictures online at Photos.com?
« on: July 03, 2009, 06:04 »
You can opt in your whole portfolio now. Check your control panel.

Great! I opted in to make up for the lacking SX/Photos/JIU sales.
Let's see when the first sales roll in...

1243
Off Topic / Re: Poll For Photoshop Users
« on: July 03, 2009, 05:20 »
I'm using a legal copy of Photoshop. I saved money from my other (non-photographic) job to buy all my gear and software. It wasn't cheap, but I don't regret it, now I sleep my nights better.

I think everyone that are doing money using Photoshop should pay for the software, It's just fair business competition that way. For instance it really bugs me seeing some "pro" using latest pirated CS4 when I'm still using old CS(1).

Stop using pirated Photoshop, I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR YOUR PHOTOSHOP.

1244
General Photography Discussion / Re: The stock style
« on: July 02, 2009, 04:04 »
For high key it's better to overexpose a little, just before blowing highlights.

With digital cameras that is the correct way to expose anything. And before blowing highlights that means all the channels and numeral values (not just what it looks like for the eye).

1245
General Stock Discussion / Re: June 2009 earnings breakdown
« on: July 01, 2009, 04:39 »
Best month ever for me... BME also for iStock (finally over the $500/mo barrier)
I have been uploading quite much last two months, so this is propably the payoff.

SX is still struggling.

1246
I noticed that Crestock has a new layout. There sure is one thing I don't like about it. I can't find my royalties anywhere. I mean the current amount of money, not the total earnings or earnings for this year.

1247
iStockPhoto.com / Re: IS pictures online at Photos.com?
« on: June 24, 2009, 03:10 »
You'll have to find some time and patience at this point.

I don't think so. They even have an annoying box that pops up after every click. It's just too hard, I hope they make it easier.

1248
iStockPhoto.com / Re: IS pictures online at Photos.com?
« on: June 23, 2009, 15:56 »
I'm really confused... is there no way to opt in with all files? I don't have the time and patience to click boxes on all my files...

1249
Google made $1.42 in profits last quarter

I made more! :D

1250
General Stock Discussion / Re: How it all adds up
« on: June 22, 2009, 10:33 »
I did a similiar statistic over my big5 (IS,SS,DT,SX,FT) and came with these results. I have also images on other sites (both micro and macro) but those are not included here.

Years in business: about 4
Images produced: about 1500 (between 1200 and 1300 accepted images)
Total amount of licences sold: 46,931
Earned money: $31,392

About $20 for every image produced.

So, what is the situation now?
-RPI is falling because the market is getting oversaturated.

-I have no people shots in my portfolios (except some body parts like hands and such). People shots would most likely have better RPI's, but also more hassle: finding and booking models, releases etc.

-My production speed has increased significately, I just doubled my port size in one year,
and now I have the same goal (3000 images next summer)

-Still going strong, this month is propably going to be my best month ever.


Feel free to step up to the plate and share your cumulative totals, maybe it will help give people just starting out some realistic expectations.

I don't think my numbers give realistic expectations. I had a very good start in the beginning, 2005 RPIs were much better than now. I don't think I would have ever started if the RPIs were as bad as today.

Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 ... 57

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle