|
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 - SNP
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 54
26
« on: December 11, 2013, 01:09 »
.
27
« on: December 10, 2013, 21:51 »
.
28
« on: November 27, 2013, 00:56 »
I like your images. I might have done some of the styling and composition differently, but that's just because I have my own stylistic preferences. I like the baby on grey, they are genuine. I don't like the blonde girl, weird ponytail and styrofoam ball/sheet. those ones aren't good enough in my opinion.
but overall your images are sellable and generally speaking I would have said they are a good fit for Stocksy.
even as a Stocksy photographer, image editing continues to be a challenge for many of us. Stocksy has a very prescribed aesthetic. sorry if that isn't overly helpful.
29
« on: November 02, 2013, 14:53 »
hi all - just saying hello based on earlier comment. I do still read here regularly. I follow the iStock stuff but not as closely as I once did. Once I made the decision to go non-exclusive, it was after a long time preparing and considering my options....so it wasn't a huge deal when I did it. I was a very big fan of iStock as it once was. I learned so much from peers and from the individuals that worked for iStock/Getty. some of those very good, talented people still work for iStock and Getty and they continue to have my respect. we all gotta decide what is best for us individually. but I haven't looked back with any regrets about dropping the crown.
it wasn't what it once meant to me, the business has changed and the opportunities are simply greater as a non-exclusive in today's industry. that is my point of view anyways. I don't 'miss' it in that I have continued my friendships and visits with friends I made via iStock. but I go weeks not logging in to iStock, so I definitely see the changes when I do log in. The site looks cheaper, more generic and certainly doesn't have the spirit it once did. it is what it is. my download numbers as a non-exclusive on iStock are great, the income from them is sad. lol. but it is what I expected.
if you have any specific questions about life as a non-exclusive, go for it. in the meantime, I keep reading iS threads to kind of stay on top of things.
30
« on: August 01, 2013, 11:50 »
I still cringe when I read the way some people speak to others here, including many of the comments made to Yuri. yikes. anyways, have read through most of this thread and my two cents.
flooded microstock libraries with factory-produced images; that is what I have known of Yuri for the last eight years. I don't know you Yuri. I'm sure all in all you're a nice person. but you have stated that your 'exit' from subs microstock to higher ground is some sort of epiphany. that statement can only be interpreted as egotistical and hypocritical. I'm not begrudging you success; you're arguably the most prolific and highest paid microstock photographer in the world, however, slamming the door on the microstock models that you helped build claiming their detrimental affect on the fair pricing of images, well, I can't believe that is coming from you given your longstanding contribution to those very models. You're looking for better prices, but pushing phone camera image sales. Again, that leaves me confused.
You've gotten into bed with Getty at a moment when the chasm between Getty and contributors has never been deeper or wider. you're not in the trenches with us Yuri. You have made decisions that benefit you, that's your prerogative, but with respect I doubt you know what it is to be a 'normal' contributor, a regular photographer who is not privy to special exclusivity and deals with companies that are disrespectful to their suppliers. If I were in a position of influence such that you are, I hope I would use it to do some good in the industry along with achieving success for myself. I'd like to think those two things can be achieved simultaneously. cheers.
My part in bold and then you go on saying you dont know him and call him egotistical and hypocritical. And that makes you what?
I said his statement could "only be interpreted as egotistical and hypocritical"....and my point is that not knowing Yuri personally, there are few ways to interpret the (many) bold statements he made in his announcement. I don't want to turn this into a pi55ing match, but you misquoted me.
31
« on: August 01, 2013, 01:09 »
I still cringe when I read the way some people speak to others here, including many of the comments made to Yuri. yikes. anyways, have read through most of this thread and my two cents.
flooded microstock libraries with factory-produced images; that is what I have known of Yuri for the last eight years. I don't know you Yuri. I'm sure all in all you're a nice person. but you have stated that your 'exit' from subs microstock to higher ground is some sort of epiphany. that statement can only be interpreted as egotistical and hypocritical. I'm not begrudging you success; you're arguably the most prolific and highest paid microstock photographer in the world, however, slamming the door on the microstock models that you helped build claiming their detrimental affect on the fair pricing of images, well, I can't believe that is coming from you given your longstanding contribution to those very models. You're looking for better prices, but pushing phone camera image sales. Again, that leaves me confused.
You've gotten into bed with Getty at a moment when the chasm between Getty and contributors has never been deeper or wider. you're not in the trenches with us Yuri. You have made decisions that benefit you, that's your prerogative, but with respect I doubt you know what it is to be a 'normal' contributor, a regular photographer who is not privy to special exclusivity and deals with companies that are disrespectful to their suppliers. If I were in a position of influence such that you are, I hope I would use it to do some good in the industry along with achieving success for myself. I'd like to think those two things can be achieved simultaneously. cheers.
32
« on: June 30, 2013, 15:03 »
it seems like they're scrambling to create profit growth, and despite evidence that their decisions have seriously handicapped the business, their strategy continues to be sacrificing the well-being of dedicated contributors and image quality = the very things that iStock's success was contingent on. I don't think there's any going back now.
Reducing prices now won't be enough to save the business. The tiny royalties currently on offer won't be enough to tempt independent contributors to upload new content. For independent contributors Istock are now just another mid-tier agency. If they want new content they'll need to be offering royalties of 30%+ to to make it worthwhile.
I agree, though I think you're giving them too much credit right now. I think they believed their strategies over the last few years would not only save but grow business. they've seriously underestimated both their contributors and their buyers.
33
« on: June 30, 2013, 14:16 »
I still see this as a bullish move for iStock.
To me, it looks like they are drowning in a pool. They are flailing around wildly without any rational thought other than just trying to stay above water. We could jump in to rescue them, but they would just try to push us under to save themselves.
an apt analogy. it seems like they're scrambling to create profit growth, and despite evidence that their decisions have seriously handicapped the business, their strategy continues to be sacrificing the well-being of dedicated contributors and image quality = the very things that iStock's success was contingent on. I don't think there's any going back now.
34
« on: June 28, 2013, 23:28 »
you have some really beautiful photographs......enjoyed looking through them. good luck!
35
« on: May 31, 2013, 21:28 »
Jaime Ibarra
Marion Post Wolcott
Eve Arnold
Canadian singer, Byran Adams is also a pretty great portrait photographer
Philippe Halsman
Richard Sandler
36
« on: May 29, 2013, 23:43 »
I think anonymity is the weapon of choice for anyone who is willing to be aggressive, and even abusive with forum posts. I think Tyler made a perfectly reasonable compromise; that those wishing to remain anonymous can do so, but should have to pay a nominal fee. simply as a small administrative hurdle to reduce multiple accounts and abusive posters. it would make this forum more informative in my opinion. otherwise, the information is often buried in the bickering and escalation. there is a lot of great stuff here, but it's also a circus
37
« on: May 29, 2013, 00:05 »
I've tried to think of a way to describe why I love the images on Stocksy so much. I'm not referring to my own, but to the work I am consistently affected by as it comes through the system there. the best description came to me while watching a movie yesterday. I was invested in the story, which was beautifully filmed. I thought to myself at least fifty times that a scene should be paused as an amazing photo. to me that is what Stocksy's offerings are like.
I already dislike the word authenticity as the buzzword de jour, but if I use it more literally it fits. the majority (sure not all, since it's subjective) of images on Stocksy have that quality, like a still from a movie that captures a truly genuine moment. not contrived. you just know it when you see it in a really beautiful film and the more work I do for Stocksy, the more I recognize a contrived image versus something more real.
<cringes> That is truly painful to read. If you were well-known that piece would make you a prime contender for Private Eye's 'Pseuds Corner'. I may not be able to recognise a 'contrived image', as you put it, but I can sure recognise a contrived persona.
okay, so I waxed a little poetic...but, the thought was true. the movie I was watching was "Take This Waltz", a Canadian film set in Toronto. and my post was slightly tongue-in-cheek because there's a number of dismissive comments about stocksy images. I don't know how you could go through the collection and not be interested in it if you love photography on any level. gostwyck, you're out of practice. I expected something even more colourful outta you...;-)
38
« on: May 28, 2013, 18:25 »
I've tried to think of a way to describe why I love the images on Stocksy so much. I'm not referring to my own, but to the work I am consistently affected by as it comes through the system there. the best description came to me while watching a movie yesterday. I was invested in the story, which was beautifully filmed. I thought to myself at least fifty times that a scene should be paused as an amazing photo. to me that is what Stocksy's offerings are like.
I already dislike the word authenticity as the buzzword de jour, but if I use it more literally it fits. the majority (sure not all, since it's subjective) of images on Stocksy have that quality, like a still from a movie that captures a truly genuine moment. not contrived. you just know it when you see it in a really beautiful film and the more work I do for Stocksy, the more I recognize a contrived image versus something more real.
39
« on: May 25, 2013, 11:54 »
there's really little sense to comparing the way an image would be treated in micro; Stocksy isn't trying to be micro.
there are so many great things about that front page photo. her expression is so genuine, it's warm and feel good, the red glasses are in the perfect spot IMO. and that the shot is at eye level as though you're seated right in front of her makes it really easy to connect with. completely different type of imagery, that's kinda totally the point.
it's just bad manners to so dismissively cut down another photographer's work with such trite comments.
You are right, it was bad manners to malign anohters effort. What did you say about Yuri again?
I shouldn't bite, but FWIW I didn't say anything about his work. simply about his choice to use his considerable influence in a less than desirable manner..in my opinion. the Seans and Yuris have pull, it's that simple. what they do influences others in the industry. maybe that isn't a responsibility they choose to take on, but Sean has always given back and shared his experience and knowledge with everyone at all levels in the industry, whereas Yuri ( and I don't know him) seems to be out for Yuri alone. that's fine if that's his choice, I just don't agree with it. I think it's possible to do what you think is right within values we share as an industry group, and still make strong decisions for your own income.
40
« on: May 24, 2013, 20:28 »
there's really little sense to comparing the way an image would be treated in micro; Stocksy isn't trying to be micro.
there are so many great things about that front page photo. her expression is so genuine, it's warm and feel good, the red glasses are in the perfect spot IMO. and that the shot is at eye level as though you're seated right in front of her makes it really easy to connect with. completely different type of imagery, that's kinda totally the point.
it's just bad manners to so dismissively cut down another photographer's work with such trite comments.
41
« on: May 20, 2013, 20:22 »
Offset is interesting, and has a more editorial feel than what is being discussed. I don't see it being high end or even stock photography primarily. Shutterstock is an intriguing company. It's the one agency I'm really on the fence about. I have argued myself onto both sides. The price per download is so little that it really does feel like an insult when you've been 'raised' in another agency. But, there are a lot of really good shooters out there who make great money on Shutterstock. They have good contributor relations, reaching out by phone and email. I also like what I know of Jon Oringer. But it's not like that matters, except that he is a photographer first and still runs the company. Right now my 500 or so images are all opted out. I'm reluctant to completely close my account at SS though until I've made a concrete decision about whether it's worth it or not. If I do continue to contribute to SS, it will probably be the only sub site I contribute to (other than iStock).
anyways, I heard from someone with more experience with SS. they have me rethinking the decision to stay on SS.
Am I correct that Shutterstock doesn't farm images out like istock does to programs and subsidiary sites? Or do they?
42
« on: May 18, 2013, 22:02 »
how about selling them for $1 (and probably closer to an average of $20 per PAYG sale)....one million times? ^ that argument is so silly and old....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
43
« on: May 18, 2013, 12:28 »
Not sure why such generous terms and open exclusivity arrangements shouldn't be open to all though. It's not like it's a unique portfolio or full of rare, hard to obtain images, just lots of really great people images. If only there was a site that specialised in that.
exactly. why keep up the illusion of exclusivity?
44
« on: May 18, 2013, 11:54 »
stocksy is a special niche content agency and it is very, very early stages. Bruce has come up with a clever model and is not planning to add 30 000 photographers and 30 million images.
The world is very big place and I am very confident that stocksy will find its niche in the global market.
Think of trendy expensive organic food stores. They exist inspite of walmart.
not to mention it is a business model that has the long-term health of its suppliers in mind as a priority
45
« on: May 18, 2013, 11:15 »
other than reading other peoples' opinions about Yuri, I've had very few of my own about him. I don't know him. but this move speaks volumes, about the industry, about Getty and about greed versus principle.
Yuri, this seems like kind of a "screw you rest of the industry, now I'm the king of the playground". to each his own I guess.
46
« on: May 17, 2013, 20:56 »
^ yes, I'm green at independence, but certainly not in the industry. within my frame of reference, I'm just not going to sell my images for pennies on a regular basis in hopes of volume accumulations. I simply don't want to work that way, slinging my wares on every little and big site out there. not trying to convince anyone else, just how I choose to work.
47
« on: May 17, 2013, 20:11 »
I don't know about that, but I'm sure he isn't selling the same images both places.
Yuri's portfolio is on dozens of sites. He can't be exclusive to IS with that work. And if he could blatantly enjoy image exclusivity if that mishmash is cleaned up, that opens the gates for everyone to do the same.
I'll take my exclusive royalty level back please, and continue selling my images through better agencies too in that case  if his avatar changes to batman, you know something's up...
48
« on: May 17, 2013, 17:41 »
it doesn't surprise me if they've afforded him special exclusivity. does this really surprise anyone? or it's just a mistake but I doubt it....they needed another big hitter without Sean. enter Yuri...seems pretty typical a move these days. I just don't see why anyone would agree to be exclusive under the current regime given the obvious direction it's moving in. whatever.
49
« on: May 17, 2013, 17:38 »
gostwyck - I'm sure you are right when it comes to your work. but I had almost 500 images up on SS before cancelling my account, as well as the same files everywhere else. I'm not claiming anything statistically relevant. but the rate of sales and the income per sale, I simply don't see how you're possibly earning more at SS than at iStock at such a piddly amount per image. same goes for the others, and frankly fotolia was the absolute worst.
I much prefer keeping my stuff with the agencies I have chosen for various reasons. to each his own, no skin off your back, right?
50
« on: May 16, 2013, 11:45 »
You can just opt all your files out. I've just done the same. I have been independent only a few months, but have closed all accounts except for iStock, Alamy, GL, and Getty. My main site for new work is Stocksy, which I look forward to being my uber-agency. Even as an independent iStock continues to make me far more than all the other sites including SS or Fotolia combined. I realize I had less files up than on iStock, but watching files go out for pennies was brutal. the ROI just isn't worth it IMO.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 54
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
