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 - jatrax

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7
126
Quote
I thought I recalled the FAA forum admin posting a list of things that boosted your search ranking
If you can remember where you saw that can you post a link?  I think my search placement is 'last'.

I have some waterfall images I think are good enough to sell so I checked last night to see where they would rank.  A search on 'waterfall' returns 10,000+ images.  I looked through the first 5,000 before I quit.  Nope, none of mine.  I went to bed kinda discouraged after that.

Not sure if anyone looking for a nice dreamy waterfall is going to look at 5,000 images before they pick one.....

127
Quote
I've pretty much concluded that the contests are a waste of time.
Maybe I don't understand them but I never thought they were intended to be a sales tool directly.  If you win a contest then you can brag about it on your blog/email list or whatever.  Just gives you something to blog about.

I guess you could sell something to someone looking at the contest, but since those folks are trying to sell their own stuff I don't think that is going to happen very often.

The point (I think) is generating more web traffic either to a specific image or to FAA in general.

128
General Stock Discussion / Re: Acceptance at Alamy
« on: March 18, 2013, 18:21 »
Alamy is usually not difficult to get accepted.  As noted post them here if you want more objective help.

But don't think that they are overly critical, I've rarely had anything rejected there and when I did it was definitely my fault, like missing some really obvious dust bunnies. :-[

Some people do seem to object to their "fail one, fail all" rule but if you are careful and don't try to send anything that is not top notch you will get along just fine.

And do read through their forum, it is an education on a broader viewpoint of the stock photography market.  We in MS tend to not notice the bigger market, but there is one.  And as ShadySue mentioned don't jump in there by mentioning you are doing great in MS or something, it will not go well.

129
Newbie Discussion / Re: New to microstock
« on: March 17, 2013, 20:35 »
If you are serious about this do yourself a favor and put some of your images up for critique either here or on the Shutterstock board.  If you can get a pass on the SS board you have it made, those folks will not pull any punches.  I hope you pass the test since you already sent your 10 but if don't the critique forum there is highly recommended if you have a thick skin.

Stock photos demand a very high level of technical excellence, random snapshots just won't work.  SS is one of the hardest to get accepted at but they also are the highest earner for many of us.  Canstock for example takes almost anything but sells very little.

And don't get sidetracked with the 'people' thing, yes images with people sell, but so do images without people.  I have over 1,700 images on SS and zero people.

130
Quote
The only rational way to think of FAA is as a "hobby farm". 

Perhaps but I find it forces me to think in different ways.  Shooting for stock (especially microstock) I think trains you to shoot bland, evenly lit images.  I've looked at some of my older images and find them more 'creative' than what I've shot the last couple of years.  MS is a brutal training ground and I have adapted so I get most things accepted.  But that does not make those images particularly creative.

But on FAA regular 'stock' images do not sell, or only rarely.  There must be enough creativity in the image for someone to hang it on the wall.  Dark shadows or edgy lighting are just fine, it allows you to do things that would never get accept on MS sites.

That said there are a number of artists whose work seems to do fine in both stock and on FAA, but I freely acknowledge they are far better photographers than I am.

131
Stocksy / Re: Stocksy - Are you in or out ? Experiences.
« on: March 02, 2013, 19:08 »
Replied to the email with links to my SS, Alamy RM and FAA accounts.  Would be nice to get in but I suspect they are looking for something different than what I have to offer.  Still interesting to watch as things progress.

132
123RF / Re: How is your sales?
« on: February 27, 2013, 21:08 »
Keep working at it, soon you will be at my level.  (I can't go any lower) ;)

133
Stocksy / Re: Stocksy - Are You Curious? Response?
« on: February 24, 2013, 17:36 »
and its time for a nice cup of tea hmmmm green for today! ;D
That's a great idea, Ill be right back..........

134
Quote
Tell me which company can or will drop 20% revenue?
Not sure this follows.  The 80% with tiny portfolios are also the easiest to replace.  Now I'll give that some of those are also creating new and different that the herd is not, but if they are they don't stay in the 80% all that long.

Look what 123 has done, made it much harder on the smaller contributors.  I think even the micro agencies have realized that adding 100's or 1,000's of new contributors every year is not as cost effective as encouraging those that produce 1,000's of great images every year (or every month).

It is harder to replace a 20,000 image portfolio from a contributor that has a good eye and creativity than it is to replace 100 contributors with 200 images each.  Look in the critique forum at SS or other where, newbies every day trying to break in.  A certain amount of new is required to keep from getting stale and to replace those that burn out or drop out.  But a new contributor has to cost the agency far more than a seasoned one if in review costs alone.  What is the acceptance ratio of a newbie (or hobbyist) compared to someone who has been doing this for years?  What is the sell through ratio of a newbie (or hobbyist) compared to a pro?

I am frankly surprised that agencies still make it so easy to get accepted.  Maybe they figure enough people start and never make a payout that it covers the costs?  I think going forward it will be harder to get accepted, and the difference in returns between upper tier contributors and hobbyist will get even farther apart.  Crowd sourcing worked for awhile but the standards are much higher now and the body of work available in micro is now so large that being selective is a better business model than accepting everyone in order to build image count.

135
Quote
That's impossible in stock, no matter if RF, RM, or whatever.
Exactly my point, so we have in micros at least 70% (probably more) that are only hobbyist right now.  And as you pointed out this is only going to be more true as revenues decline and contributors doing this for a living can no longer make a living and move on.  This is certainly true of micros but how much will this affect other areas of stock as well?

Take another industry for example: landscaping.  There are many firms that invest $100,000's of dollars in trucks,  equipment and skilled staff, designers and landscape architects.  They produce impressive and professional work and get paid very well because they have skills.  Then the economy goes poor and anyone with a pickup truck is now advertising as a 'landscaper'.  Their work is generally poor and unimaginative, but they drive the perceived value of a job down so much that the professionals are being put out of business.  Is the quality of work the same? No, but to many it is good enough and costs 10% of what a professional would have to charge.  Are they making money?  Short term, yes if making money is defined as extra cash while collecting unemployment benefits.  Long term?  Of course not.

In some states now you must get a license and take classes and tests to prove you have the skills.  This raises the bar of entrance and helps assure the public that a contractor they hire has proven to at least have the minimum skill set.  Work without that license and you can get a big fine.  Maybe this is what will be needed for photographers?

136
Quote
Good grief, it's already a hobby, we're there.  The few people making a living at it started very early and are hanging in despite declining returns.

According to the recent survey:
Average hours per week: 18.5
Full time: 21%
Exclusive: 26%
Sell to Alamy: 31%
Sell to macros: 21%

You could say those are unrelated facts.  Or you could draw the conclusion that 70-80% of people doing microstock are doing it as a hobby.

According to Microstock Time there are 33,230 contributors on SS.  Of those only 4,300 have more than 1,000 images. and only 7,500 have more than 500 images, which is 22%.  While I will not argue that the total size of the portfolio is the only consideration, I will suggest that very very few people are making a living in stock (any type of stock) with 500 images.  The conclusion is again that 70-80% of contributors are doing it as a hobby.  With 500 images on micros you MIGHT be making enough money for equipment, but you cannot possibly be covering your time, even if it is that 18.5 hours per week.  18.5 hours at US minimum wage is $8,000+ depending on the state.  How many are making that with 500 images?

137
Take a look at Pentax K-01.  APS-C sensor, interchangeable lenses, mirrorless.  Fits in a coat pocket (not a shirt though) with the 40mm lens.  I got mine for $319 body only.  Same sensor as in Nikon D7000.

Just checked out the images at dp review. VERY nice. Do you use that alot for microstock and have good approval results? Is this the ticket? What lens? The 50mm looks hot.

Thanks
I use the k-5 as my main camera (same sensor).  Just got the k-01 this month so not a lot of track record but what I have sent up has been accepted.  Really it is the same camera as k-5 just packaged into a mirrorless body.  Lenses, lenses....  I have far too many.  Pentax has a good assortment, possibly the best primes in the business, maybe not as many zooms as some makers.  I use mostly a 50mm f/1.7 the DA 40mm, the DA 70mm and the 100mm macro.

I bought the k-01 strictly as a backup, fits in the same space as a lens in my bag.  But I've found it is so much fun to use I am using it almost as much as the k-5.  Would not recommend it for sports, AF is too slow IMHO but for anything else it is killer.  And at that price?

138
Take a look at Pentax K-01.  APS-C sensor, interchangeable lenses, mirrorless.  Fits in a coat pocket (not a shirt though) with the 40mm lens.  I got mine for $319 body only.  Same sensor as in Nikon D7000.

139
So if I take a picture of a tree falling in the forest, but no one ever sees the picture...
............it never gets sold.

140
Quote
It can only really go so far. Content is still king. So, as soon as something becomes unprofitable to the contributors, they will look elsewhere. Microstock is already sitting on that line, so they really can only flex so far until their content/contributors leave.
  That's mostly true, except that there seems to be a constant influx of contributors delighted to make .25 per image.  I'm not sure if in their standard of living that is a good wage or if they are just delighted to have sold something.  But as long as there is an overabundance of content being dumped into the micros there is no reason to say that income to contributors will not continue to drop.

141
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 17, 2013, 18:30 »
If all the shares in the coop of all contributors always only add up to 49 percent they can never prevent a sale of the coop? Am I thinking that correctly?
No, a cooperative is a specific legal entity under US and Canadian law.  I am not familiar with how it would work in other countries.  Ownership is by the users of the cooperative, typically each member has a certain amount of stock, usually 1 share.  So ownership is always dilute.  Profits are distributed based on patronage, not ownership so someone with 10% of total usage (in this case sales of images) would get 10% of whatever net is achieved.  Income tax (in the US) devolves onto the owners based on patronage and 1099-PATR forms are issued to indicate that.

That is not to say they could not organize it as a corporation and just call it a cooperative, but that is how a true cooperative is organized and operates.

142
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 17, 2013, 17:30 »
all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".

Normally "vaporware" is describing something that has been promised for a long time and never materialized.  Hardly an accurate description of something we only learned about last month.

as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.
I honestly am not aware of any industry that is not over-saturated and cut-throat at this time.  Lots of types of businesses used to be fun, you could work as you wished and make lots of money.  Not any longer.  I am really sorry for you that the world changed but it changed for a lot of people who suddenly found themselves working twice as hard to make a living.

and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.
I certainly hope they are in it for the profit, I assume you are not giving your work away for free?  As to selling it off, well why worry? I thought you said it was vaporware?  And they do state it will be a cooperative, not a corporation.  Cooperatives are owned by all members not by stock holders.  And I was not aware they had published their business plan, perhaps you could link to that so the rest of us can be informed?

early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.

would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !
I thought you said they had "not a single chance"?  And if this will be a cooperative then there is no opportunity to 'invest'.  In a cooperative contributors become owners based on their patronage, or usage, of the cooperative.

143
On shutter it was opposite, weak sales in the beginning of January, then 2nd half of January and February increasing sales. Still rising.
Same here, first half of January was almost nonexistent, then started to pick up.  February has been very strong BME unless the bottom falls out.  Reviews are stretching longer at all agencies though, maybe more ex-Istock material getting moved in?

144
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 13, 2013, 23:51 »
Despite everyone lumping Istock and Getty into the same hat I think it is important to make a distinction.  When the Google Drive deal was announced the first posts in the Istock forum by admins amounted to "what deal?  Umm let us get back to you on that we need to check with corporate".  They could have been lying but I do believe Istock staff were not informed of this, or at least it never got down to the level of people who post on forums.  The Google Drive deal was done by Getty and it seems they neglected to inform Istock about it until it came out in the wash.

And it is also important to remember that Getty in turn is owned by the Carlyle Group, a private equity group that will have it's own agenda.  The contributor of content is so far down the chain of command here that they don't even register. 

Istock staff may want to sell micro-stock photography but
Getty wants to maximize it's profit on selling stock photography and it's other assets but
Carlyle Group wants to maximize the return on it's investment to it's investors.

See the difference in point of view as you move up the ladder?  Istock staff MAY care about their contributors but their bosses at Getty certainly do not, though they MAY care about their stable of RM photographers and wholly owned collections, but Getty's bosses at Carlyle Group care only about making Getty look good enough to justify their $3.3B purchase price.   Are the people making decisions even thinking about photography?  Or just about how to make the company look good enough to sell?

100 years ago corporate coal barons sat in mansions and laughed at the idea that common miners would dare to argue for better working conditions or even accurate scales so they would be paid fairly.  I have this vision of some suits smoking cigars and chuckling over the idea that a few common photographers would dare to question a deal that might bring millions into the Getty coffers.

145
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 13, 2013, 20:20 »
Sean getting the boot is classic strike breaking, directly out of the rule book used by coal companies 100 years ago.

1) Make an example of anyone perceived to be a potential leader, particularly anyone showing a level head.
2) Leave the loudest most extreme protestors alone, their extremism tends to work against them and they generally are not leaders a group would form around.
3) Divert attention from the real problem using miss-information, disinformation and simply ignoring the real issue.
4) Demonstrate clearly what happens if you don't toe the company line by hitting where it hurts, putting your family on the bread line.
5) Vigorously restrict labor's ability to assemble and discuss the issues.
6) Bring in strike breakers to handle the work until labor gets hungry.

The only thing missing is armed guards and baseball bats.

The confusing part is that they did not have to do those things, most would have been satisfied with an explanation and an opt-out button.  I think issuing a simple statement that in future you could opt-out your images would have allowed this to just blow over.  And it seems they have not realized that they cannot keep people from discussing things by just stationing armed company guards in all the bars.  That worked 100 years ago but there is this thing called the internet now, Getty maybe you have heard of it? ;)

Sean good luck in your future ventures and I hope it all comes right for you.

146
GLStock / GL reviewing harder than other sites?
« on: January 31, 2013, 21:41 »
Just started to upload to this site and @ 40 a day it will take awhile but I'm starting to wonder if it was a good idea.  I currently have about a 50% acceptance rate.  And I am only sending them images that were already accepted at a minimum of three other sites.

Kind of weird seeing images that have sold well being rejected for "poor use of focus".    Just had one rejected that has 24 DL's on SS including an EL.  Has anyone else had this problem?  Any suggestions for what they are looking for?  If my stuff is not what they are looking for, I won't waste their time.

147
Take a look at Pentax K-01.  aps-c sensor, complete range of interchangeable lenses.  Pocketable with the 40mm lens or any small zoom if you use a coat pocket.

I just picked one up for $320, really surprised at how well made and solid it is.

148
The portfolio is live at SS but has only 1,498 images in it.  Looks like all of the composites have been removed.  Lots of isolations.  Some things with foreground but a white, blue or green background I presume ready to drop onto a background.

149
Pond5 / Re: Image sales at Pond 5
« on: January 10, 2013, 17:45 »
Had a couple of sales, for fair money.  $3-5 range.  Review times have been good and I have most of my portfolio there now.

Got an email after my first batch was approved noting that they had duplicate images because of their relationship with 123.  They asked if I wanted my images hosted through them or through the connection with 123.  I told them I wanted to host with them and they removed the connection for my stuff @ 123.

150
General Stock Discussion / Re: A newbies view of the MS market
« on: January 10, 2013, 14:53 »

<snip>Firstly, royalties earned but not paid out are never profit. They are liabilities and thus are listed on that side of the balance sheet. The money is not owned by the agency but is simply a debt yet to be paid.

<snip>


On a balance sheet it may be listed as a Liability, but in any business cash flow is king, and having a large liability helps you avoid having a profit.... on which you have to pay tax.  Not a bad situation at all.

I don't think iStock and the other biggies works on this model, but other sites?  I don't know.  This is just musing while I wait for uploads...

Glenn

Not exactly true.  While I agree with your comment on the unpaid balances sitting in small contributors accounts improving cash flow (slightly) that has nothing to do with profit or paying taxes.

When a sale is made, and the contributors account credited, they record an income for the sale and an expense for the royalty paid.  The expense is accompanied by an entry in accounts payable on the balance sheet, and stays there until the contributor makes payout.  So there is no affect whatsoever on their profit or taxes.

I agree that large contributors are the bread and butter and the huge number of smaller ones is likely a burden to administer.  They most likely lose money on most of the smaller ones due to overhead to setup and maintain the account and for the higher cost of reviewing that will often result from a lower accepted percentage.  But they cannot stop taking on new talent because who knows which newbie is going to be the next superstar?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors