|
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 - cardmaverick
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 18
26
« on: March 07, 2013, 01:10 »
Does anyone know of a place that sells photoshop related accessories like brushes, etc..? I've been working on little set of tools for my own work and have been considering selling them online. I've considered direct sales as well.
27
« on: March 01, 2013, 15:44 »
I'm guessing this is a good indication of what they'd like to see:
http://pinterest.com/stocksyunited/
If thats their niche then they are not aiming to become the next stock site. Not by a long shot, thats very conceptional arty imagery. I dont think that stuff will be downloaded by the millions, not be because its not good, but because its very conceptional. Its not going to be about a handshake or a businesswoman.
The people who want that content are willing to pay more for it. I don't see anything saying that Stocksy is a micro style agency either. They might be trying to cull all the best talent that got into micro during a time when places like Getty either wouldn't sign new artists or only offered Photographer Choice style pay to play placement options.
28
« on: February 25, 2013, 18:13 »
To me this all looks encouraging. My best stock photo earnings come from the most exclusive collections I contribute to. I think microstock helped improve a lot of photographers technically, but there is no sign that I can see that it has helped improve the visual aesthetics of those same photographers work. A huge swath can now shoot technically perfect white isolations of people, or even location photos, etc... but only a small percentage can actually direct the model, cast the right face, choose the right wardrobe, props, etc.... The technical details are the baseline. It's the all the other stuff that separates people. I see a lot of technically sound lifestyle work in stock, but hardly any of it is well directed - too many stilted looking models who are clearly posing for the camera for example pretty much kills it for a certain segment of customers.
29
« on: February 24, 2013, 15:35 »
I feel like the only way this place can really generate good income for photographers is if they do an image / photo set exclusivity deal - very different from being totally prohibited from selling at other places. The reality is that when you have thousands of photographers tossing images across a ton of sites, all they can really compete on after a while is better pricing. If all the agencies have exclusive images, they don't have to engage in price wars. I'm hoping they have enough sense to figure this out...
As I understand it, that is exactly the approach stocksy is taking. Image exclusivity, but not artist.
And what's the use of that? Everyone goes off and shoots all the same old stock motifs, all the pictures are original and exclusive but overall the collection looks exactly the same as everyone else. Or are you going to tell me that nobody is going to submit a jumping goldfish or a handshake this time?
I understand what you're saying. If they are serious about Stocksy, they will need to be far more selective about what they take and only a small group of photographers will be accepted for submitting content.
30
« on: February 24, 2013, 01:53 »
Getty is NOT closed !
They're just very selective and picky.
At least they accept applications, Corbis instead is a closed fortress but you can get the foot in the door joining one of their partners, and same for Getty.
I would argue it's 99% closed off, even for those with a lot of talent. They would much rather send you a photographers choice deal - pay to play.... The only reliable ways to get into the Getty site are via agencies that sell threw Getty or via Flickr. I would say Flickr is almost better because a lot of the smaller partner agencies do NOT send all their shots to the Getty site and many of them have greater requirements to get in and stay in. I've been approached several times, so I've been around this block 
31
« on: February 24, 2013, 01:09 »
I feel like the only way this place can really generate good income for photographers is if they do an image / photo set exclusivity deal - very different from being totally prohibited from selling at other places. The reality is that when you have thousands of photographers tossing images across a ton of sites, all they can really compete on after a while is better pricing. If all the agencies have exclusive images, they don't have to engage in price wars. I'm hoping they have enough sense to figure this out...
32
« on: February 24, 2013, 01:03 »
I'm a bit curious to see what images had been sold, but as a guy who sells both traditional RF and microstock, I have to say, my very small traditional RF images have heavily outperformed my microstock shots in earning power. I think the ugly reality of stock photography is that for it to pay well for the photographers, an agency has to be super picky about who get's in, what they take, how long items stay in a collection, etc...
When I first looked at getting into stock photography over 10 years ago, one agency required an already shot and ready to go collection of 10,000 images. That's not a typo. Most microstock sites require 10... if even that much.
33
« on: February 21, 2013, 15:50 »
I own sekonics top of the line cine / photo all in one light meters. I gotta say, this looks pretty cool.... but... the real reason why people buy their meters, usually, isn't for incident reading - it's for the spot meter abilities they have.
34
« on: February 19, 2013, 19:36 »
I know of only one agency trying to sell 3D pictures. I don't think it's working out to well for them... 3D has always been, and seems like it forever will be, an idea that just never goes mainstream.
35
« on: February 19, 2013, 17:02 »
Were you relying on google alone for the marketing?
36
« on: February 18, 2013, 15:36 »
I would say look into production insurance instead. A lot of film companies get policies for "x" number of days when they are shooting, based on the conditions of the shoot. Insurance for when you really need it, only when you need it.
37
« on: February 17, 2013, 16:05 »
all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".
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 $.
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.
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 !
A lot of people here probably hate what the post above says, but he has a point. The overwhelming business model of choice for many agencies since about the late 90's has been to start an agency, grow the collection, then sell it off to Getty or at the very least sign a distribution agreement with them. To be fair, only iStock has taken this road as far as micro agencies are concerned.
38
« on: February 09, 2013, 15:37 »
Reading this thread really made me chuckle. Linux has come a LONG way. Software for Images: Darktable - Raw developer / database management. More powerful than Lightroom at the moment if you're using the current development version. This is probably the biggest reason to consider switching. In 3 years it has had MASSIVE development at highly regular intervals and features requested actually get put in. Imagine that! I've had one included that I requested  Gimp - 2.9+ has 16 bit support. I hate recommending it since it's a project with a bad reputation for ..... staying alive :/ Darktable really picks up the slack in so many ways though. Geeqie Image Viewer - the fastest RAW file viewer you'll ever experience, and by fast, I mean 100% view loads in less than a second fast. I love it to death for reviewing a shoot. Beats the snot out of Adobe Bridge's 100% CROPPED eyedropper view tool, LOL. I used to capture direct to my laptop and view 100% snapshots using it. RawTherapee - Raw file developer, a close second to Darktable. I kinda hate the interface. Video: Lightworks - a real true blue professional NLE is hitting Ubuntu this year. You can now cut you're super high res Red Epic footage on the same system you composite with Kdenlive - waaay behind lightworks, but to be honest, the only real alternative that actually works well. It's just not a very heavily worked on project. All the major compositing programs work on linux.
39
« on: February 06, 2013, 20:55 »
Value should not play into the penalty. Shoplifting carries the same penalty whether it is a bottle of nail polish or a $200 pair of tennis shoes: prosecution. If prosecution was the penalty, as it is with shoplifting, it would curb image theft and solve the problem of the copyright holder paying legal fees associated with civil suits.
You might not want it to play into the penalty - but it does. What your awarded is decided largely by the judge. When the judge see's the real value of a sale is less than a buck... don't expect him to award the max amount, which I believe is $250K per infringement. This why people try to bully and intimidate people into settling out of court. No judge to worry about, much less how SILLY you will look suing over a 50 cent picture.
40
« on: February 06, 2013, 12:54 »
Small copyright claims won't work... remember, you're going to court over a 10 cent image. You might be awarded $10 in damages...
I think in the long run it'll just make stock photographers look even more like a bunch of whiners stuck in the 90s as trying to sue or legislate your way to success is not exactly a good way to build a reputation in any industry.
41
« on: February 05, 2013, 17:05 »
Here's an interesting thought.... if someone actually intends to license an image, why on earth would they go to google images instead of just going directly to an agency. I think a lot of people here are getting all cheesed off over a non-existent problem.
While I agree with you for the most part, the majority of my walk-in traffic and new buyers are from Google. I would suspect most agencies would probably say the same. So, it definitely has the potential to be damaging. Whether it is or not is hard to say right now.
I can understand coming from a google web search... but how many actually come from google image searches?
42
« on: February 05, 2013, 15:34 »
Here's an interesting thought.... if someone actually intends to license an image, why on earth would they go to google images instead of just going directly to an agency. I think a lot of people here are getting all cheesed off over a non-existent problem.
Just because the older layout might lead to more visits, it doesn't necessarily mean it's quality traffic that will purchase anything. I was discussing some options to spread around shots I have represented at a traditional agency. They let me move forward but gave me the same advice, quantity and quality traffic are totally different things.
There's a reason why I stopped making certain types of blog posts for my website. I get a ton of traffic everyday, even after being inactive for over a year. The QUALITY of my traffic however was all wrong. I want art directors visiting my site and reading my blog... not other photographers who won't hire me.
A simple solution to this "problem" - if you really think it IS a problem: targeted direct marketing... or, like I posted earlier, take advantage of the new layout. People can see a big shot in the search results? Awesome, just add some sales copy to make'em click on threw. Under the old design, this wouldn't be very feasible.
It would awesome if they made a way for us to introduce image map html into the high res previews. We could make specific URL links they can click on to go directly to the point of sales with their image all loaded up ready to be purchased.
44
« on: February 05, 2013, 03:45 »
We should take advantage of the new format. If you look closely at shutterstocks images, they have a hidden bottom section containing their URL and the images file number.
We should make this stuff much larger than it was before, really big in fact, so as to show up in high res searches - but go further than a URL and file number. We should include prices and bit of marketing text to provoke people to click threw to the site.
123RF sorta does this... they have super sized their thumbs (look like garbage full res) but seem to downsize them on their site to make them look better than they are.
Everyone automatically thinks the world is coming to end in the stock business whenever anything changes even slightly.... sheesh. Learn to think in new ways people.
45
« on: February 05, 2013, 03:39 »
Google Images is hurting all stock agencies!
If you found your images on a site that you did not contribute to, you would legally react in some manner to have them removed. How is Google any different? Do you have a contributor agreement with them? They are acting as an agency except they have no regard for your images ownership or copyright. Google wants everything to be FREE for their users just like the images in Google Drive!
Just block google from crawling your website if you don't like it.
47
« on: January 29, 2013, 19:21 »
I have to say, around May of last year, Fotolia has really gone downhill for me. I stopped uploading to most sites a few years ago and had very consistent sales there despite not adding anything new. Slowly it's just kept going down and down.
48
« on: January 22, 2013, 23:06 »
Yes of coarse I am aware. The best part of that is I have an agency that will go to bat for me and wields a great deal more power than I do as an individual.
Again, sorry, but Rick (Blend) has said he has no problem with this scheme.
There are many third party agencies that are speaking to Getty right now and they will be heard much quicker than a handful of Istock Exclusives. One person does not get the same ear time as a leading agency does.
That's wonderful. How about we join together instead of being separated, or would it bother them to sink to our level? Jon, can we count on you to be our liaison to this group of leading agencies in this matter?
Sean, fyi, majority of high-priced images is sold through Getty - this is valid for any distributor agency, Blend included. If they drop Getty some of them will lose 90-95% of their sales, even though they boast they have many more distributors. They know it, Getty knows it. They don't have much leverage here really, apart from threatening to sue, but suing is a lot of trouble and money, it's so much easier to say -well this is business these days, whatcha gonna do:)
You're absolutely right about the percentage of sales Getty gives to all the agencies it works with. I was being recruited by an agency similar to Blend and I asked for their roster of distribution outlets, Getty was one of them, the rest, super tiny distributors I've never even heard of - almost all of them don't even register as having traffic when you do some research on their traffic... The main selling point for joining the agency was actually.... access to Getty. The only way a younger photographer can really get into Getty these days without having to pay to play (photographers choice) is by either contributing to an agency that sells threw Getty or via Flickr. I have both of these methods at my disposal (I'm represented at different agency than the one I mentioned above). Getty can certainly deliver sales, but when you see how much you're not getting... it can get under your skin a little. Problem is, not many photographers are capable of generating these kinds of sales on their own so taking 35-20% at Getty is far better than going out on their own. I would argue that very few agencies selling with Getty can get better sales numbers outside of Getty or don't depend on them. I can only think of one that I know for sure doesn't need Getty's help but it's a unique agency selling to a very specific customer base that Getty doesn't really serve as well as they do.... that's why Getty got involved with them.
49
« on: January 12, 2013, 16:06 »
Local agents tend to sell better than foreign agents. They know the market better. Getty Images has deals with local agencies in many foreign countries for this very reason, so, if you can get in with them and avoid a second middle man, you could do much better.
50
« on: January 12, 2013, 11:01 »
another German site? no thanks 
Not that I have anything against Germans, on the contrary I like them BUT:
I was on panthermedia once, hated it, and left it.. Unless they are at least middle tier, I am passing on German sites..
They do weird stock photo sites..
Germany is one of the biggest stock photo markets in Europe, you're sales from other agencies like shutterstock probably contain a decent number of German customers.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
