|
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 - oxman
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 18
176
« on: February 23, 2013, 18:30 »
Instead of dragging my 5DM2 around with me all the time I thought I would snag a quality point-and-shoot for getting those interesting walk-around shots. After much research, I got the new Canon G15 and have been testing it and feel that this just might not work. (Still in Que. at IS). When you enlarge these files in PS... well, it is what it is and it just isn't pretty after living in the L-Glass, full frame sensor world.
I've had images accepted with my iPhone4 but many get rejected for image quality.
Do any of you find much success (quality images and acceptance) with "upper end" point-and-shoots? Is it worth going down this road or should I just keep the 5D in the front seat and not mess with these wanna-be, consumer toys?
Thanks
177
« on: February 09, 2013, 03:36 »
I am not so sure the big IS players will be that ready to move since most are getting 40% commission now and an extra 10% to move to a new micro site (or mid tier) with little awareness and momentum may not be appealing. Sure, we all hate Getty but it comes down to money in most cases.
I would love to know what Stocksy's business plan is regarding content ingestion. This is not 2001 and the landscape has changed. But I feel that there is a strong momentum for something like this to flourish -- but it will take time and a nurturing mindset by all.
178
« on: February 08, 2013, 19:47 »
Rob Sylvan at Stocksy United just reported that iStock/Getty is canceling his account in 30 days and only referred to the ASA stating they can do so.
179
« on: February 07, 2013, 19:52 »
Just got accepted on the Facebook Group.  Lots of good info regarding their plans but they admit they are really in early stages and kinda overwhelmed. More news to follow. I don't think they had plans for it to go viral so quickly. Looks like only photos initially. The energy feels just right. 
180
« on: February 07, 2013, 14:24 »
I don't see this being open to everyone. They would have to have high standards or it would be filled with the 80% of crap all the sites now have. It could be successful if it gets QUALITY images at a fair price to the buyers. Perhaps 1000 or less of the top shooters would work. I am not saying I am in that group but... just sayin.
If they have to have high standards, explain why my "crap" is still selling. High standards = high overhead = high prices for the images. The whole point of microstock is have affordable images for everyone at a couple of different price points. That said, I don't remember seeing if stocksy said they were going to be micro, mid or high quality.
Well, maybe your "crap" is not crap  . I am speaking from my creative director point of view as a buyer. A new site has to offer me more than what I am now getting from the micro sites -- which is 80% unusable crap shot by amateurs with no eye for design and little understanding of useful concept. Just bad execution. If you give me the "same old" ... why bother. Give me quality at a fair price. Weed out the junk and I am a loyal customer. Actually, I am going to contact Bruce regarding becoming an advisor for the site and perhaps get on the board. OX ...so there
181
« on: February 07, 2013, 13:27 »
I don't see this being open to everyone. They would have to have high standards or it would be filled with the 80% of crap all the sites now have. It could be successful if it gets QUALITY images at a fair price to the buyers. Perhaps 1000 or less of the top shooters would work. I am not saying I am in that group but... just sayin.
182
« on: February 07, 2013, 12:38 »
Sean is on board too... com'on Locke... spill the beans
183
« on: February 07, 2013, 12:22 »
A co-op would have the very unique advantage of having every photographer advertising like crazy for it. it is great that we all have our own sites but we are all working independent of each other. If we were all part of a co-op it would be a massive advertising octopus with many many arms.
A co-op type agency would also appeal to other creatives in the industry as a great place to shop for images - ethically sourced.
Exactly. It would be supported by a MASSIVE viral marketing campaigns by the members. It may take time to get traction and momentum but it is the right direction with major potential. I think Bruce can do it. I feel he is highly motivated to do a smack down on Getty after what they did to iStock and their treatment of the contributors.
184
« on: January 29, 2013, 12:19 »
At least you don't have to chase the bench, avoid getting run over, or duck flying debris. Looks like fun!
Hey maybe an idea for the Off Topic, "show yourself at work, shooting" ?
san diego rocks 
185
« on: January 29, 2013, 03:26 »
My GF took this last week of me at work. Post some of you in action. OX ...smile
186
« on: January 25, 2013, 11:45 »
They mostly mention subject matter so shoot some diversity -- a portrait perhaps. You have two table top shots and one nice outdoor shot. mix it up more and keep the histogram hugging but not touching the right wall.
good luck
OX
187
« on: January 20, 2013, 13:33 »
Flame their wimpy azz back. Don't show any weakness. Bring it.
OX
...troll buster
188
« on: January 20, 2013, 00:47 »
I like this kind of songs. Are you Austrian or German?
Kone
Neither. I am Californian
189
« on: January 20, 2013, 00:03 »
| <![CDATA[<a href="http://youtu.be/vQhqikWnQCU" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://youtu.be/vQhqikWnQCU</a>]]> |
190
« on: January 17, 2013, 16:16 »
The problem with all the PR on this issue is that it will drive "buyers" to Google Drive to snag free images. Sorta like free advertising.
it is a double edged sword of the worst kind.
OX
...the drain spins faster
191
« on: January 17, 2013, 01:38 »
192
« on: January 16, 2013, 17:55 »
Good story from life. Make things meaningfull.
Also a nice photo she took.
And you know, those planks, can be very usefull with blurred backgrounds.
LOL 2
193
« on: January 15, 2013, 21:15 »
The Result
194
« on: January 15, 2013, 21:09 »
A wonderful woman has come into my life recently bringing a passion for photography. Her current experience is primarily point-and-shoot of landscapes.
I am enjoying teaching her what I know about photography and professional equipment and she has fully embraced the experience.
She mentioned that she was a ballerina in her teens and still had her cherished ballet slippers. I suggested shooting them. Her eyes lit up.
After a few days of lessons about histograms, high-light alerts, DOF, lens, strobe lights and just getting comfortable with my 5DM2 I let her go solo in the studio.
The other morning at 6:00 a.m. (before coffee or breakfast) I discovered her taking photos of her beloved ballet slippers. I snapped an iPhone candid of the moment and wanted to share it with you to remind us of what we do.
Sure, we all get charged up by the unfair treatment by the agencies and for many, that is overwhelming. But let's not forget that we are artists creating memorable images that tell a story. It is what we do and who we are.
I saw that in Beverly that morning as she reconnected with and paid homage to a very special time in her life through my camera. As she sat down and viewed her work all of the strobes, stands, laptops, and software faded away -- and she cried warm tears of joy.
OX
...keeping it real
195
« on: January 15, 2013, 13:33 »
Getty management will not care about what you do and will be glad a bunch of "squeaky wheel malcontents" are out of the system. They have plenty of images. The iStock "amateurs" are not that important to them. That is why they will cut unethical deals and cut your commissions and leave iStock staff in the dark about what shady dealings they are doing. Getty and Klien are unethical, back stabbing, ruthless, money-grubbing, narcissistic shysters. YOU don't matter. And buyers don't care as long as they find an image they want at a good price.
Ox, you are a great guy and I sincerely do appreciate your advice and your consideration. But I would ask you to please reread the above paragraph you've written (which is quite eloquent IMO) and ask yourself why ANY of us, exclusive or not, would want to be in business with this company.
i still make good $$
196
« on: January 15, 2013, 00:23 »
With mixed emotions I have to speak up.
As an IS exclusive, it possibly benefits me when you nice folks delete your files. But the majority of you are friends and really wonderful people and I do not wish to benefit from my friend's actions when I feel they are involved in a martyrdom activity that will have little affect or significance to Getty management. The files you are deleting can make money for you. You worked hard creating them. They should stay and work for you.
Getty management will not care about what you do and will be glad a bunch of "squeaky wheel malcontents" are out of the system. They have plenty of images. The iStock "amateurs" are not that important to them. That is why they will cut unethical deals and cut your commissions and leave iStock staff in the dark about what shady dealings they are doing. Getty and Klien are unethical, back stabbing, ruthless, money-grubbing, narcissistic shysters. YOU don't matter. And buyers don't care as long as they find an image they want at a good price.
If you feel strongly about trying to make a statement; do it. But I feel the only one you will be hurting will be yourself.
OX
...thinking this through
197
« on: January 11, 2013, 01:38 »
you are well intended but very naive.
198
« on: January 08, 2013, 15:44 »
It's because we are their bee-aaa-cccchs  OX ...doing three point finger snap
199
« on: January 07, 2013, 15:10 »
Flooding iStock with expensive Getty content is not going to help either brand very much, even if iStock does have 10x the traffic. Micro buyers will just be driven away and macro buyers would surely have gone to Getty anyway if that's what they wanted.
I find it hard to imagine the management can be so stupid. It's not as if there's a shortage of competitor sites.
But who knows? Corporations have done dumber things. And if that is the strategy, it looks as if we may be entering the death spiral.
Getty needs to see that IS and Getty are fundamentally different businesses and stop the cack-handed integration.
Prices on iStock need big cuts. Royalty rates need to be boosted to keep suppliers happy. There needs to be heavy investment in technology and advertising.
All bad for next quarter's results, but the only way to avert a death spiral. Perhaps Carlyle will be able to take a longer-term view than we've become accustomed to.
I agree 1000%. To me it is really a price issue and a major marketing effort to win back buyers with value and quality selection. Getty management are ffffn idiots.
200
« on: January 07, 2013, 13:06 »
Getty has been tweaking UP the price points of microstock over the past few years. All of the nudging and pressing of higher prices appears to have had a negative affect on their client base resulting in buyers seeking less expensive images elsewhere. I think it was initially a good strategy but it may have backfired on them. Then there were all the site performance issues thrown in the middle of the plan. OOPS. Messing with pricing is a delicate dance and I think they have tripped over themselves and may be in an unstoppable downward spiral.
I also think they do not care too much about contributors. They have plenty of those and plenty of very marketable images. But so does the competition.
And now the question is how do they win back buyers. Or are they gone for good?
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
