|
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 - Perry
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 57
601
« on: September 23, 2011, 17:24 »
Figers crossed that SS doesn't come up with anything stupid. They do have a great track record.
(Oh yes, I already crossed the line for BME at SS, this is going to be such a great month! - at SS that is)
602
« on: September 23, 2011, 15:29 »
The are so naive, do they really think it's the lower price competition (where???) that is hitting them?
603
« on: September 23, 2011, 14:43 »
So, what are these sites with significantly lower prices and comissions? I can't think of any... the only alterntive I can think of is FREE.
604
« on: September 23, 2011, 14:35 »
Finally something good has come out of the fact that my Fotolia sales are down about 70...80% from the best levels: If they are pulling this "white ranking" stunt on me, I will quit at Fotolia. This is the last straw. I have been very patient and tolerant, this will be the first time I quit an agency and pull all my images. Fotolia has become a middle-tier agency for me, I won't shed a tear if I pull my images and close my account.
Come on, Fotolia, you stinky greedy *insult removed*. Try me.
605
« on: September 20, 2011, 16:10 »
606
« on: September 20, 2011, 05:47 »
" the cream always floats to the top" well thats what we want to believe isnt it? yes maybe in the old days or 5 years back but not now, forget it. A bad search or best match, can totally slaughter a top image, it gets buried like the rest and fades away into oblivion. Thats that. Too many images, too many contributors, this and that.
Yes, but if there were less of the "same" images, there wouldn't be so much stuff to get buried under. I of course agree with the "too many images, too many contributors" part.
607
« on: September 20, 2011, 05:23 »
I fully understand you, just believe me and give it a try the results will speak for itself.
Yes, I sell my specialist/niche images as RM, the results are varying from very poor to very good, depending mostly on "luck". You go ahead and shoot another apple isolated on white, If you have luck you could earn $2.67 in three years  Meanwhile I'll keep shooting familiar concepts with some new twists...
609
« on: September 20, 2011, 04:47 »
Right but I and others have tried to put not too similar pics in microstock, matter of fact they got lost. The microstock market seems to demand the same pictures over and over or none of them. There are only two ways to be successful with not too similar or special pics: either you place them in special collections like Vetta and TAC, or you place them on good macro sites like Getty and Corbis. Otherwise you waste time and money. Microstock is about similar pictures its about proven standards, if you're pictures are special place them in a special shop.
I understand your point, but I have to disagree a bit. I think submitting the same business handshakes will be really bad for everyone. Maybe not now, but eventually. There are limits how many handshakes the customers need. They need some new handshakes with current clothing trends etc., but there are limits. If we continue to make new "same" pictures over and over, it's very logical that our RPIs will fall, lower and lowe because the sales are dividided amongst too many images. Almost none of my new bestsellers are "different" in some way, they don't have that much competition. I have found some niches that are not "too niche", but just enough to be different. The real niche and specialist images belong some other places than micros. I think there is a middle ground somewhere; just a bit "different" images that will sell. They might not be bestsellers, but better than average - just because they are different in some way. Totally oddball images that sell only once or twice are not good microstock images. Here is what the microstock sites should do: They should stop rejecting for "low commercial value" (if it's not some clear cases of pets and sunsets), and stop rejecting for artistic choices ("harsh shadows" or "uneven lighting" that SS uses a lot). Maybe then people would produce more "different" imagery instead of the light high-key stuff that looks like it's shot in a light box. The best thing would be to let the customers decide by using clever search algorithms and perhaps throwing away garbage that hasn't sold in - let's say - three or four years.
610
« on: September 20, 2011, 03:32 »
I don't think it's the economy.
It's the insane amount of new pictures hitting the micro market everyday. Sometimes it's that simple.
The worst thing is the insane amount of SIMILIAR pictures hitting the micro market everyday. This blog post by John Lund made me think a lot: http://blog.johnlund.com/2011/09/photography-in-path-of-change.html
611
« on: September 19, 2011, 17:25 »
What really surprises me is that Yuri doesn't have a special deal with Istock. Look, here is a guy (ok a company) who consistently outselling all others, even on Istock with just - what, 1/5th of his current portfolio? - and they wouldn't even allow him better upload limits (judging by the size of his portfolio there). That buffles me.
That's about the one and only fair thing that iStock has done. The rules should be the same for all of us. I really cannot understand why someone would thing that it would be a good thing if an agency would give some members unfair advantages and benefits.
612
« on: September 18, 2011, 15:00 »
A Retro compact camera? (Think about Fuji X100)
613
« on: September 18, 2011, 04:38 »
How about a large-sensor video camera, like a 5D mk II but in video camera shape and with more suitable anti-aliasing filter for video?
614
« on: September 15, 2011, 03:07 »
So, your theory is that Getty/IS created Thinkstock just for fun?
615
« on: September 15, 2011, 02:27 »
Does iStock need a competitor in order to avoid problems with monopolies legislation? It isn't trying to wipe out SS, if it was it would be undercutting the subscription price, which it could easily do, instead of pricing at similar or higher rates.
Ever heard of Thinkstock.com...? (They ARE trying to wipe out SS, and soon when they have forced all images to Thinkstock they will begin the fierce battle. I hope SS wins.)
616
« on: September 07, 2011, 17:14 »
Hey, remember: money isn't going to be what makes you all happy.
(I'll feast on my 17%)
617
« on: August 31, 2011, 06:50 »
My solution to the problem is to NOT CARE. I don't look what gets accepter or rejected at 123rf. Because they have such an easy uploading process I just dump them my images and forget about them. If the upload was more time consuming I would be more interested in rejections.
618
« on: August 29, 2011, 02:22 »
To me, it starts to look like we have a Big 2. My Fotolia earnings are only a 1/6 of what I get from Shutterstock (They were almost even sometime in history!)
Here is my current situation:
Big 2:
Shutterstock
iStock
Middle Tier:
Fotolia
Dreamstime
Veer
123rf
Low Earners:
The rest
So, do YOU still feel we have a "Big 4" ?
620
« on: August 22, 2011, 13:27 »
-- Moderator - Delete this ---- !!!
621
« on: August 20, 2011, 07:00 »
BTW I'm bored with images where people are using their laptops in direct sunlight. It looks always really stupid.
622
« on: August 20, 2011, 06:58 »
well, she's going to develop some unknown groups of muscles you've never thought of... 
She's more likely to hurt her elbow. And not getting the last squeeze because there is no weight on the muscle in the end of the movement  (btw. what is the light colored patch in the elbow, is it a patch of spotlight or what?)
625
« on: August 18, 2011, 15:53 »
I would be okay with 30%. That would be almost the double I'm making now (17%).
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
