|
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 - TheDman
26
« on: January 19, 2012, 13:36 »
In particular, it suggests to me that decisions about content - what's accepted, where it goes, etc. - are all moving to Getty. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that iStock will become an input portal for Getty Images "crowdsourced" content. Down to Thinkstock/photos.com or up to Getty (Vetta/Agency).
Agreed. What amazes me about that is why they're pushing Thinkstock as the place for the crowdsourced content. When they bought that dog the istockphoto brand was about 10,000 times stronger than Thinkstock, yet it seems they want istockphoto to become Thinkstock. You don't kill off your best brands and replace them with lesser ones.
27
« on: January 19, 2012, 13:32 »
I know that. the deal is that if it is not an exclusive image then you really don't know how many times the image has been downloaded from all the other sites, so the download number then only becomes significant (for a buyer) on exclusive images.
Ah, point taken.
28
« on: January 19, 2012, 13:25 »
I don't see the benefit for the buyer.... It's not supposed to provide any 'benefit' to the buyer, it's just supposed to make the buyer shop at your store. for one thing they can't "shop around" for the best price on that image if they are so inclined.
That's the idea! If you want the image, you have to come here. Macy's has their own exclusive brands like I.N.C. and Alfani. When you buy an Alfani shirt, that doesn't mean nobody else in the world owns that shirt. It just means you can only buy it at Macy's.
29
« on: January 19, 2012, 13:20 »
iStock offers a brand, an exclusive product, and higher prices for a (generally) better standard of image. at least that is what they used to do, very well.
Exclusive to the agency but not the buyer. I've never understood why an image being exclusive to iStock would matter to a buyer when that image may be found in use all over the globe by the many who purchased it before. Would love to hear from a buyer as to why/if iStock image exclusivity really matters to them.
A (generally) better standard of image?.....not sure I agree with this statement. Being independent I pay close attention to the quality of the images around me and why there is what I would consider "substandard" work everywhere there is also outstanding work everywhere....iStock is no exception.
Personally I hope iStock does well for you exclusives now and well into the future so you'll stay there and not flood the other agencies with your work.
You're missing the point. It's not supposed to be exclusive to the buyer, it's just exclusive to the site. So if a buyer wants that particular image the only place they can get it is at istockphoto. Having a different set of images is one way for agencies to differentiate themselves from one another.
for a buyer the advantage of an exclusive image on istock would also be that they can see if it has been downloaded a gazillion times and decide if they want the same thing every other buyer has downloaded or not. If it has low downloads they may have a better position in having a unique image. That's about it.
You can view downloads whether an image is exclusive or not.
30
« on: January 19, 2012, 13:07 »
What's good for wikipedia, is clearly not good for me!
I am a creative person.. I produce %100 original vector art that is being stolen and used illegally over and over again.. Sure, I can make complaints and have pirates take down stolen content if I notice it..
But there must be many that go unnoticed..
I am sorry but as a designer and illustrator I am with movie and music industries and everyone who backs this law, and I don't believe wikipedia's best interests are good for me personally.. Just because majority is going to enjoy stolen content and abuse my copyright (under the disguise of freedom of speech supposedly) I don't want to put up with piracy..
this video is crap http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html
who says sharing should be free? and why should it be free? Is it free to create content? Do we, designers and photographers not pay for things? Well, I am sorry but internet is too wild and it is wrong..
I think of the internet today, like the "wild west" which will eventually reach to a point where legality is normal..
Do you think this bill will stop people from lifting your illustrations?
31
« on: January 19, 2012, 12:15 »
iStock offers a brand, an exclusive product, and higher prices for a (generally) better standard of image. at least that is what they used to do, very well.
Exclusive to the agency but not the buyer. I've never understood why an image being exclusive to iStock would matter to a buyer when that image may be found in use all over the globe by the many who purchased it before. Would love to hear from a buyer as to why/if iStock image exclusivity really matters to them.
A (generally) better standard of image?.....not sure I agree with this statement. Being independent I pay close attention to the quality of the images around me and why there is what I would consider "substandard" work everywhere there is also outstanding work everywhere....iStock is no exception.
Personally I hope iStock does well for you exclusives now and well into the future so you'll stay there and not flood the other agencies with your work.
You're missing the point. It's not supposed to be exclusive to the buyer, it's just exclusive to the site. So if a buyer wants that particular image the only place they can get it is at istockphoto. Having a different set of images is one way for agencies to differentiate themselves from one another.
32
« on: January 18, 2012, 13:34 »
How EXITING! and colorful and creative! hundereds of little bluish graphs comes out of the woodworks, showing us what we have known for two years. Surely this forum can be used in a more productive way. 
Ending world hunger?
33
« on: January 18, 2012, 10:11 »
Banning all reference to company news, and dodging the questions with a lockdown, just makes it worse.
That was my reaction too. It's this kind of 'all is well here, keep your head in the sand' attitude that helped get them into this predicament in the first place. Istockphoto was killing Getty back in the day because istock was cheap, consistent, and simple to use, while the Getty site was a confusing, expensive, difficult to use mess. So what does Getty do? They buy Istock out and turn it into a confusing, expensive, difficult to use mess. It's what they do.
34
« on: January 17, 2012, 11:30 »
Here's my 2011:  Now here's the really sad news: my best month there (January) is equal to my worst month of 2010. And this January is tracking at 50% of last. Yikes.
35
« on: January 16, 2012, 16:34 »
The price increases will continue until sales improve... the istock version of 'the floggings will continue until morale improves'.
36
« on: January 15, 2012, 13:18 »
Filtration, mostly, and I'm certain they would find some reason to reject the flower if I sent it.
There's not a whole lot of filtration going on with these though, save for the building which is just an exposure blend. But point taken that anything can seemingly be rejected as 'overfiltered'. Quick search for Cosmos Flower though shows that there are some non-exclusives getting those in, so it looks like it's doable.
37
« on: January 15, 2012, 04:27 »
from my observation Vetta seems better quality than alot of the Agency stuff.
You win the satisfaction of being the most eagle-eyed Vetta scout on MSG. And you're right, Vetta still beats Agency, since a lot of that stuff wouldn't even pass inspection for the main collection. Yet another issue that I'm sure drives customers nuts.
With all respect, I think that if an independent had submitted those files they would all have been rejected except for the pano. That doesn't mean they are bad photos, it just means that different requirements seem to apply to indes and exclusives.
Why so?
38
« on: January 15, 2012, 04:00 »
from my observation Vetta seems better quality than alot of the Agency stuff.
You win the satisfaction of being the most eagle-eyed Vetta scout on MSG. And you're right, Vetta still beats Agency, since a lot of that stuff wouldn't even pass inspection for the main collection. Yet another issue that I'm sure drives customers nuts.
39
« on: January 14, 2012, 21:28 »
The answer is... the fall river. Qwerty was the only one who got it. Interesting that most people either said the building or the pano. Those are the two that I thought had the strongest case especially when compared to the competition. I wouldn't have even much cared if all of them had been shot down, but the logical side of me struggles with the fact that the river was deemed worth 10x more than the others. Frankly, it's the most easily reproducible of the bunch (save for maybe the flower) - just a quick grab shot while on a hike in the Smokies. Not that I'm complaining though. Of this group, the only one that has sold so far is the Vetta. And I have no doubt that that is because it gets shoved in front of a bunch of eyes. It might not be so bad that we contributors are confused by the seeming randomness of it all, but I shudder to think how many buyers see things like that, throw up their hands, and head for the next site. There is certainly a segment of the market that's willing to pay for quality, but when the 'quality' merchandise is as hit or miss as it is, the brand suffers.
40
« on: January 14, 2012, 03:07 »
Hold on...I have a tendency to read things backwards.
Are all of these photos yours?
They are. And the pano is not in the Vetta collection.
41
« on: January 14, 2012, 02:21 »
Wow, that's a beautiful pano.
Thanks!
42
« on: January 14, 2012, 02:20 »
Wow, that's a beautiful pano.
It really is beautiful.
Camera shake from that spot is a given (and I was mistaken about the wind's direction...it comes directly from the right of "The City" through a narrow channel underneath the Golden Gate Bridge). The wind never stops blowing. And then there's the courage it takes to drive off the Treasure Island exit from the Bay Bridge just so you can get the shot. Freaks me out just thinking about it. Too many speeding cars and not enough lane...gotta slow down fast to make the curve onto the island.
Hehe, you're spot on about everything! My human windshield strategy could only block about 60% of the wind, because it was coming nearly directly at the camera. Shot it with the Canon 100L macro and had to remove the lens hood because it was acting like a sail. And not being from San Francisco, I first drove through all of the restricted military roads on Treasure Island (and was chased by a truck) before finding this location. I should have asked some locals for advice. Lack of a watermark was just so I could show it in a larger size than the tiny istock panoramic thumbnail.
43
« on: January 14, 2012, 02:12 »
Oooh...nice panorama of San Francisco from Treasure Island. That's not an easy photo to make, because a hard wind is constantly blowing straight at the camera.
It has to be either the flower or the ocean rocks, because I'm a decent enough photographer to shoot those, but not the other three. 
You know your shooting locations! That was extremely tough, the wind was so strong you had to yell at the person next to you just to hear each other, and I was using my own body as a human windscreen because otherwise the whole camera and tripod would vibrate. Managed to pull it off though through 8 consecutive shots, and after meticulous stitching this one was accepted into the main collection, landed on page 16 for "San Francisco Skyline", and hasn't even been viewed since it's acceptance in July. So no, it's not the pano, but thanks for the comments!
44
« on: January 14, 2012, 00:58 »
45
« on: January 10, 2012, 17:46 »
Mine are in folders broken down by year, month, and day. Finished files ready to upload go into a collective "stock" folder. Seems to work for me so far.
46
« on: January 10, 2012, 13:11 »
I'm confused about the whole rangefinder thing. Why would I want one of these?
47
« on: January 06, 2012, 16:08 »
Not even 2011 being the wettest Scottish year on record has made me regret leaving the well-paying day job, though it made me end the year short of my uploading targets for both iStock and Alamy, and I have nothing to process at the moment.
Even though I will NEVER forget that iStock changed the groundrules 5 days after I handed in my notice. 
My 2007 Scotland trip was the one that paid off the best. Was over there in 2005 also and that one didn't do bad either. I envy you being a full-time stocker in such a great place!
48
« on: January 06, 2012, 11:49 »
I do this and have had a trip or two that paid for themselves (usually from one or two shots that really took off), but several that so far have not. I would echo Sean's thoughts that a stocker that already lives there and can shoot in any season, time of day, etc has an infinitely better chance of getting the best selling shots of that location than you do from your quick tour. Still doesn't stop me from trying though.
49
« on: January 06, 2012, 01:50 »
The Agefotostock link that Morphart posted above. It details the requirements for becoming a contributor there. Strange requirements indeed... I wonder how anyone gets accepted!
50
« on: January 05, 2012, 13:52 »
They recommend your camera be at least 12 megapixels, and will accept jpgs no smaller than 26 MB "saved at quality 10 or higher in Photoshop". What 12 megapixel camera produces 26 MB jpgs, especially saved at quality 10?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
