|
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 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 18
226
« on: November 29, 2012, 01:32 »
I hit 40% today actually and got the congrats email. A nice 15% increase. Nice way to start the day. 
227
« on: November 27, 2012, 02:56 »
OK i get it. cool, sorry for the confusion,
nice work
228
« on: November 26, 2012, 12:22 »
that may be considered spamming the boards... ya think?
just saying.
229
« on: November 26, 2012, 12:15 »
I saw this video a few years ago and it was a MAJOR driver for me getting into stock photography. This is so * true. Clients are insane. Now that my main income is from stock photography I don't take any of this crap from my branding clients. Some respect the way I draw the line, others run away to find a cheap designer they can bully or fleece. Geezzz this video still creeps me out!!! 
230
« on: November 24, 2012, 18:47 »
I bought some IS Canon Binoculars years ago... game over for me.  IS is the way to go
231
« on: November 23, 2012, 11:35 »
if looks could kill !!
232
« on: November 19, 2012, 10:26 »
With the development of cheaper digital cameras, the internet and jpeg formats it was inevitable that microstock would emerge and be successful. The RM model was impractical for most marketing needs. Trust me. I lived through it.
Quality still prevails. Those that shoot better work will prosper. My mentor pulls in about a million a year. Nuff said. Don't ask.
Well you didnt live through it the right way then, did you? last month, out of 14, RM sales, 4, sales alone netted me close to a five figured amount. Good or bad?
Mind, having said that, thats after 20 years of RM photography.
Most people here havent really got the slightest idea of how to treat RM photography. Its like you plan a specific commercial shoot and you know beforehand that it will sell big-time, it might take you 2 or 3, days to get it right and all you have is one single shot BUT! it will sell, for sure.
My point is from the buyers/art director's perspective as it relates to client budgets. The price point and annual licensing arrangement of RM was beyond the budgets for MANY small business's marketing programs. Then came the Getty and Corbis lawyers if an image ever got used for something outside of the original license. That would always send a shock through a company. Then microstock emerged and ALL of my clients would tell me not to use the RM photos. And that is after 27 years of buying stock photography.
233
« on: November 19, 2012, 03:34 »
With the development of cheaper digital cameras, the internet and jpeg formats it was inevitable that microstock would emerge and be successful. The RM model was impractical for most marketing needs. Trust me. I lived through it.
Quality still prevails. Those that shoot better work will prosper. My mentor pulls in about a million a year. Nuff said. Don't ask.
234
« on: November 18, 2012, 21:48 »
That is a pretty normal response from traditional photographers. They just don't realize that there are alot of nickels to be made from this if done right.
235
« on: November 15, 2012, 03:23 »
Dunno what the rejection was for but the top one looks a little over sharpened and the flowers look like you may have brightened them exposing some noise in the shadows.
Suggestion: get some strobes or speedlight and watch your histogram. Keep it to the right without clipping. Shoot some simple stuff on a tripod. don't submit flowers!! shoot something interesting and a little unique. show some creativity. do not over process in photoshop. get it right in the camera. i think your processing is what is killing you.
good luck
236
« on: November 10, 2012, 23:42 »
After thinking about this and spending my life in marketing it seems any company without their head up their azz would welcome the opportunity to have a world class photographer showcasing their products internationally. They should be sending Yuri all the newest products and have him use them almost like an endorsement. Having beautiful models photographed perfectly with your product circulating the world? What could be better? And have him leave the logos on for his own collection. Am I missing something here?
237
« on: November 10, 2012, 13:46 »
My guess is the company in question is Luxottica. They're notoriously aggressive. They bullied Oakley into being bought out by them, for example. http://www.luxottica.com/en/
That is my guess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LuxotticaIf so, these guys are ruthless, funded and ready (and looking) for a fight. We will need to know more before we can give advice. Are they seeking damages or a simple request to remove images? Lawsuits are expensive. You may end up winning the battle but losing the war.
238
« on: November 08, 2012, 12:41 »
working fine for me
239
« on: November 07, 2012, 09:41 »
It is an asset and a value can be agreed on. It compares to a family business.
When the value is agreed on it becomes a part of the estate, like the car and paintings, and shared between the divorcees.
Putting a value to the port is not easy, so the only way is to negotiate it, and if you fail to agree, you may want to have a specialist put a value to it. A specialist would be the agency that distribute the portfolio.
In divorces the important document is the settlement of dividing the estate. Which can just be a piece of paper signed by the parties or it can come from endless tracasseries via lawyers.
That sounds like a nightmare trying to determine future value factors. I guess it would be handled like the value of a business and future earnings. It would indeed be a main negotiation lever in the settlement agreement.
240
« on: November 07, 2012, 09:38 »
I don't, but you probably want to say if you're in the US and which state, or which country if not the US, as the laws on this vary by place
Good point. California.
241
« on: November 07, 2012, 00:33 »
Does anyone have any experience dealing with a property settlement from a divorce which involves a stock photo portfolio? I was wondering how one would divide up an asset like a portfolio generating an income stream if there was a divorce. Anyone been down that road? 
242
« on: November 05, 2012, 00:44 »
Ah yes.. the Model Conspiracy Theory
243
« on: October 28, 2012, 13:45 »
I did an extensive shoot out with my old 24/70 and a new 24/105. The tie breaker for the 105 was much less chromatic aberration which is a pain to always have to clean up. The 105 only goes to f/4 so you miss some of the advantages of the lower f-stops but the Image Stabilization of the 105 makes up for that. And I don't go below f/4 much anyway -- or I slap on my 100mm Macro that goes to f2.8 with IS.
As far as sharpness... the 24/105 is awesome and I use it for about ALL of my location shooting.
244
« on: October 25, 2012, 15:21 »
both
245
« on: October 19, 2012, 01:23 »
about 3 weeks but I am exclusive
246
« on: October 18, 2012, 15:32 »
Congratulations Yuri. Great job
247
« on: October 10, 2012, 11:08 »
HEY!! how did they get access to my portfolio?  
248
« on: October 04, 2012, 20:47 »
My guesses:
- High prices and much competition
- More competition
- Display of real prices
- Bad Contributor treatment and the consequences
- Global economic downturn
- Upload limits and stupid rejections
This is sudden sharp decline in sales we are talking about. Many of us were doing really great until September 5th.
Neither prices, nor competition, nor contributors' feelings towards iStock, nor economy, have caused this crisis.
An regarding upload limits and rejection: They are necessary. Otherwise the site would be full of garbage, and also the factories would try to flood the site.
That is my point of this thread. Why did this happen so suddenly?
249
« on: October 04, 2012, 00:15 »
After reading this thread at IS, I am kinda shocked with the massive SUDDEN downward shift in sales and income for 99% of the iStock community. And since IS is one of the major players, this trend must be industry wide. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=347763&page=1SO what is going on? Is it IS's site issues or something else? It does not feel like a gradual trend since September is usually the bounce-back month. Hopefully it is related to the zoom and add-to-library issues (that should be fixed) but that seems odd that those simple features would slam the sales activity. Have any of you veterans seen anything like this? Any ideas?
250
« on: October 03, 2012, 21:41 »
@oxman - do you like photocase? If not, is there currently an agency that has the type of hand-picked work you'd like to see?
I was not familiar with them. Just checked them out and typed in "gavel" and it returned a bunch of photos of gravel and no other options... so I feel that site has issues with content. Regarding quality stock... back in the pre micro days my firm used alot of stock from Tony Stone. That collection had a great feel and creative twist which is lacking in most stock. I'd like to see a micro stock with the style of the old or new Stone work. http://www.gettyimages.com/creative/frontdoor/stone
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
