|
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 - Graffoto
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 34
226
« on: October 11, 2010, 00:55 »
Interesting. Thanks for that insight.
227
« on: October 10, 2010, 18:50 »
Being from Southern California, my port is understandably devoid of much in the way of winter themes.
I have however recently uploaded some winter 'concept' shots that are not getting much attention as of yet.
So, my question is: at what point in the year do people normally see winter/xmas themed images start to move?
228
« on: October 06, 2010, 08:01 »
Do they make them in CF format?
229
« on: October 04, 2010, 22:29 »
Istock achieved tremendous success as a small startup company, oh my God how did they ever do that?
By selling something that used to cost $300 for $3.
To be more accurate they did it by recognizing that with advances in internet and digital technology something that used to cost $300 now costs $3 .... which some people still fail to recognize 10 years down the road...
Wait, this is something of an apples vs oranges argument. Was the $300 image RM or RF? The only way to get away with licensing imagery for a few dollars is by selling it over and over and over. I don't believe that the $300 image was licensed several hundred times over, was it?
230
« on: October 02, 2010, 19:47 »
This is what I don't understand. A 15-20% commission on a $2 sale is unsustainable for the contributor.
There is no money in it unless a particular file sells in the thousands.
Lets face it, those types of winners are very few and far between.
Why has no one instituted a sliding commission system.
Say something like this:
$2 sale 40% commission
$10 sale 35% commission
$20 sale 30% commission
etc, etc.
231
« on: October 02, 2010, 15:25 »
232
« on: October 02, 2010, 01:09 »
Many of the top dogs do it. If one is shooting hundreds of images a week for stock, I think it can be a cost effective solution.
Since I upload maybe a handful each month, its certainly not for me.
233
« on: September 29, 2010, 08:28 »
Some of my most recent batch is showing & a few are not.
Strange.
I wonder if IS is offshoring their IT support? I certainly hope not.
That has a tendency to slow down response time.
234
« on: September 28, 2010, 11:50 »
I don't know where you might find information strictly about shooting for stock. But for a very good general resource I like www.fredmiranda.com
235
« on: September 25, 2010, 11:04 »
It would seem rather obvious from his IS posting, that Mr. Sylvan has a problem with the things that are coming down at IS.
In solidarity with Lisa, I am going to buy his book now.
Best of luck to Mr. Sylvan!
236
« on: September 23, 2010, 14:59 »
Astounding!
237
« on: September 21, 2010, 21:55 »
Mine are definitely in the crapper this month. Can I say crapper? Well I guess I just did  Over 50% off of my normal monthly average. And I guess I should mention that August was a BME, but summer is usually good to me.
238
« on: September 20, 2010, 22:27 »
I'm glad someone bought model mayhem. for all its traffic, it is a terrible website. hopefully now they'll have some standards, rather than every model posing naked to prove they can be sexy. do we really still live in an era where young models think they have to represent themselves as sleazy to get ahead? I don't use MM anymore, found word of mouth was a better way to get dependable models. I pay my models too, which helps, modest hourly wage + prints.
While I don't shoot nudes and I generally won't use those particular models.... I do understand why the women pose this way. A whole lot of them a have a fantasy of posing for playboy or other ladmags. And frankly the ones that pose nude are more likely to get paid gigs than those that do not. Sorry for going off topic so much. Just my $0.02 We now return you to your regularly scheduled program...
239
« on: September 20, 2010, 22:15 »
OK, the following is purely conjecture on my part:
They will now be requiring paid membership for all photographers.
Models will be free, but limited to two images in their profile unless they are paid subscribers.
Free members will get one message per week.
Paid Sliver subscribers will get to send and receive 25 messages a month.
Paid Gold will get 35 messages per and Black Diamond members will get 40 messages (45 if they are special).
The goal posts will be changed every year so that you will never be able to budget properly for next years expenses.
Feel free to add to this list.
240
« on: September 17, 2010, 17:58 »
Excellent summation, Lisa.
You get a heart for that!
241
« on: September 16, 2010, 16:57 »
No, they don't.
I am an exclusive & it can take several days to get inpected.
But then again, I am not a BD exclusive.
242
« on: September 16, 2010, 14:45 »
Interesting.
But if it does work, expect the drug companies to charge 'one million dollars' per dose.
243
« on: September 16, 2010, 14:38 »
This is like watching an imploding building in slow motion. I want to look away, but it's just too fascinating.
244
« on: September 15, 2010, 23:58 »
then muster is an idiot
Yup.
245
« on: September 15, 2010, 23:55 »
If the images are already owned by Getty or at least hosted by Getty, does it not stand to reason that they have already passed muster?
246
« on: September 15, 2010, 23:05 »
It has been speculated that these are just a test batch to see if he program works....
247
« on: September 15, 2010, 22:49 »
Wow, those are are really bad - no way they're gonna command premium pricing.
I was expecting something to compete with Blend, or maybe even select images from Blend.
Early prediction: Agency will fail even worse than E+.
Man, I really hope you are right.... actually, I can't see any way you could be wrong on this. These are awful.
248
« on: September 13, 2010, 12:40 »
Slightly OT (my apologies), but I am wondering for what period of time Mr. Bruce's no compete clause was for?
Maybe it is high time that 'Bitter' got back into the game and give Getty a black eye.
So he can sell us down the river again in a few years time?
My guess is that he was lied to just as we were. I don't think he intended this to happen to his 'baby'. I suspect that the reason he bailed from IS, is that he foresaw these changes coming.
249
« on: September 13, 2010, 12:23 »
Slightly OT (my apologies), but I am wondering for what period of time Mr. Bruce's no compete clause was for?
Maybe it is high time that 'Bitter' got back into the game and give Getty a black eye.
250
« on: September 13, 2010, 12:17 »
I've had nothing but a smattering of xsmall DLs since this fiasco started.
And August had been a BME for me.
I suspect that buyers are starting to look elsewhere for product.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 34
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
