|
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 - RapidEye
101
« on: November 18, 2011, 05:45 »
Ah, so you have a private and privileged entree into the inner workings of IS eh?
Not so. I have no more idea than you of the inner workings, nor do I have any kind of communication with anybody in a position of authority or influence at IS. You may freely discount those figures I mentioned because I'm not going to breach any confidences by explaining how I heard them. Added: In any case, it doesn't matter whether my source was right or wrong as far as my line of argument is concerned. None of us will doubt that iStock was a strongly growing concern a year ago, and the management's present policies were hatched before then.
102
« on: November 18, 2011, 05:22 »
About six months ago, the last time I heard the numbers, iStock's revenue was about a third of Getty's, and rising, whereas Getty itself was flat. Link?
No link, sorry. "Private communication", as they say in the academic journals. You'll have to take my word for it I'm afraid.
103
« on: November 18, 2011, 04:18 »
SS had stagnated for me but the past few months have been very good. I do think they are getting buyers from istock. It seems unlikely that earnings would flatten and then suddenly they find lots more new buyers that have never used other sites. Is it just a coincidence that so many of us have seen earnings fall with istock and improve with SS? Not necessarily, but quite possibly. Shutterstock may have doubled its ad spend. Or it may have quadrupled its sales force. We just don't know. It's quite possible that SS would spend more than IS on marketing at the present time because it doesn't have to deliver every last cent of profit to a demanding shareholder. This is all speculation and we don't know 100% what's going on but it seems highly unlikely that istock is doing just fine. I think they know this and they aren't concerned. I'm sure they have a plan but it doesn't make much sense to most of us, as were only interested in our earnings from istock. It looks to me that their plan is to make istock much smaller and higher priced. That might work but it's a big gamble, when so many buyers are used to lower prices. Why would they take this risk? They must think it will strengthen Getty. I think that if they were only concerned with making the most money possible with istock, they wouldn't of made so many changes and they would of done much more to keep buyers and suppliers happy.
I share your puzzlement about the behaviour of iStock's masters in the past year. But I doubt the plan is to diminish iStock itself. About six months ago, the last time I heard the numbers, iStock's revenue was about a third of Getty's, and rising, whereas Getty itself was flat. It would take an unusually deranged MBA to decide wilfully to shrink the growing business in the hope of reviving the stagnant one, particularly when there's plenty of competition.
104
« on: November 18, 2011, 03:00 »
Same here, my growth this year has been good overall. Those traffic stats have absolutely no correlation to sales imo.
Those traffic stats have absolutely no correlation to YOUR sales, anyway. And maybe a few others. But apparently it's correlating to a huge majority.
Hmm, we actually don't know anything about general sales stats because all we have is a self-reporting sample, which is about as far from randomised as you can get. In two words: statistically worthless. I, for one, have felt inhibited for months about reporting my sales because they're not nearly as bad as those of most of the people posting. On the contrary. But it seems tasteless to be smug while others are mourning, and I'm sure many others feel that way too. And then of course there's the worry that if you stick your head above the parapet the copycats will descend in droves on your portfolio. But if we take sjlocke's self-reported sales as an example, we can possibly draw some conclusions. Sean's sales must be as close to a representative sample of general iStock performance as we can get -- he's been around a long time, he uploads consistently, the quality of his work is stable. He says his sales are flat year-on-year despite something like a 25% portfolio increase in the past 12 months. Now, Yuri once made the very good point that your new uploads have to compensate for the best match decay of your old images and their dilution by the flood of new competition. At some point an equilibrium will be reached: you won't be able to enlarge a big portfolio at such an ever-increasing rate that you can do any more than replace the losses. And eventually you will start losing ground. This, I suppose, is why Yuri is on a mission to scale up his business. In Sean's case, and mine for that matter, stagnation can be explained quite feasibly by Yuri's theory. The phenomenon doesn't necessarily imply any overall decline on iStock. Nobody is immune to it, and infrequent or haphazard uploaders will obviously suffer sooner and worse. As an iStock exclusive 99% of whose income comes from Calgary, and who has a formidable number of dependants to support, I worry constantly about the possibility of a sudden collapse of iStockphoto. The dodgy developments of the past year have trebled my anxiety. However, as yet I see no signs of anything except an end to the fast-rising tide that used to float all ships. What follows now will be interesting. The apparent boom at Shutterstock could mean a migration of buyers from iStock, but then again it could mean only that iStock is not attracting new buyers but Shutterstock is. iStock could continue bumping along at roughly its present level for years or, as sometimes happens to ailing Internet market leaders, it could suffer a catastrophic collapse within months as buyers and exclusive contributors desert it en masse. My point, though, is that with the scanty information we have there is no way of making predictions. I wish there was.
105
« on: November 17, 2011, 03:36 »
well count yourself as a lucky boy because everyone I know at IS, exclusives and independants see these graphs mirrored in their sales.
But that's not really possible because the graphs are different from each other. I didn't say my sales were soaring; I just said I couldn't see any correlation between them and any of these graphs.
106
« on: November 17, 2011, 02:56 »
If you compare Alexa and Compete, the graphs don't agree. Alexa shows iStock having a precipitous drop in page views, about a 50% fall within one month, at the end of 2010, followed by more-or-less flatlining ever since.
Compete, on the other hand, shows a more gradual three-month decline in unique visitors beginning only in May 2011, admittedly ending up even worse, more than 60% down from the peak.
Granted, these are not measuring the same parameter, but you might expect the general trends to agree.
To make matters more confusing, the Alexa graph of Reach ("Estimated percentage of global internet users who visit istockphoto.com") shows growth in the first quarter of 2011, followed by a sudden 20%-odd fall around the end of the quarter, but that only puts the numbers back to average 2010 levels.
I really don't know what to make of all this. None of these graphs bears the slightest resemblance to my sales on iStockphoto.
107
« on: November 16, 2011, 01:31 »
(sorry, changed my mind about this posting)
108
« on: November 13, 2011, 02:32 »
Resourceful guy, great stuff. Goes to show how technology has moved on. Those cellphone pics are of better quality than much of the war photography shot on 35mm back in the day.
109
« on: November 13, 2011, 02:25 »
I understand your point of view. There's a book that Tom Wolfe wrote quite a while ago called "The Painted Word", which goes into great detail about the movers and shakers of the art world, and how critics began turning the art world toward the concept instead of the technique. For me, modern art has always been interesting. I never really had much exposure to it until I came to work in NY as an assistant, and used to go to the museums on the free night. To me, the work was new and exciting, clever and thought provoking. This was the late 70's, with the punk scene and crime and craziness all over. Modern art seemed so exact, precise. As they say, art is in the eye of the beholder, so I just happened to be at the right place for it. As for paying millions of dollars for a Gursky, this says more about the concentration of wealth among the uber rich more than it does about the art. As an investment, art has a much better track record than just about anything else, so maybe that's the thought behind it.
And I understand your point of view. Perhaps I'd be less cynical if my first exposure to this kind of stuff had been in New York instead of a provincial African city, where presumably the cleverness quotient was lower, even if the time and the social backdrop were similar. Still, it seems to me that the ultimate expression of conceptual art might be a blank gallery wall with a tag describing what the work would have been, had the artist troubled to make it. I must give that Tom Wolfe a read. I'm sure you're right about the stinking rich and art prices. There are plenty of people for whom $4.3 million is pocket change. Two such bidders at an auction could send a price stratospheric for no good reason.
110
« on: November 12, 2011, 16:53 »
So essentially we don't disagree...
I love Gursky's work, think he's a great artist and like this picture too; whether its worth $4.3 million, probably not. But are Vincent Van Gogh's sunflowers worth the $39 million they sold for? Are all the great masters worth the enormous amounts payed for them?
It's an industry with artificially high prices, just like in the music, fashion, sports, etc. industries... technically its maybe, probably all not worth it, but there are peeps out there rich and crazy enough...
Sunflowers is probably the second most famous picture in the world. Such celebrity is bound to command a fearsome price. This Gursky? Not so famous. I confess I'd never seen his work until now. Some of it looks nice enough but it doesn't blow me away. This particular image ... well ... if I'd shot it I wouldn't have bothered to print it. If any photo was going to set a world auction record I'd have expected it to be one of the well-known ones by legendary dead photographers. That this one commands the top price is just weird.
111
« on: November 12, 2011, 15:05 »
I'm not denying there's microstock work that has artistic value; but i also see very often that when someone uses a somewhat artistic lighting and slaps some filter on top of it everyone starts calling it 'art' made by a great 'artist'. It just strikes me many people only can look at photography through stock glasses.
Oh yes, we have our fair share of pseuds in microstock too. But as you can guess from my general tone, I'm sceptical about judgments of what constitutes "art". If instead of appealing to hocus-pocus we define art as a cultural product that possesses the power to move people (possibly the only definition that makes any sense) then it's a broad funnel indeed.
112
« on: November 12, 2011, 14:55 »
On a related note, I think the invention of photography is responsible for the peculiar rarefied condition of modern fine art. For millennia, artists strove mostly to create ever better techniques to depict people and things, but that project was suddenly destroyed. Into the vacuum marched the conceptualists.
113
« on: November 12, 2011, 14:46 »
Microstock is as artistic as any ancient Greek vase painting or medieval religious fresco. It serves much the same purpose -- to illustrate in ways that please.
Yes, it is the handmaiden of commerce and one can find plenty of fault with that, but it doesn't mean it's not artistic. As opposed to Art.
114
« on: November 12, 2011, 13:34 »
More people aren't doing it because at its upper levels the fine art world is a closed circuit of pseuds -- artists, critics and patrons. Fine art isn't something whose value is determined by mass markets or popular acclaim. It's consensus among an in-crowd of dahlings and bullshitters that does it.
This is one thing I like about microstock. Sure, it's not fine art in any sense, but it is an artistic product that rises or falls according to its appeal and utility in a purer way than any single on the pop charts.
115
« on: November 12, 2011, 09:47 »
I would prefer to see real craftsmanship put on show, rather than streams of controversial installations and the manifestation of artists' personal inner exorcisms.
That's it exactly. There was a time when all art was craft, even if not all craft was art. Only in the past couple of decades has it been possible -- even preferable -- for art to be produced without any kind of admirable skill.
116
« on: November 11, 2011, 15:47 »
I saw the Gursky show at MOMA, and thought it was great. The presentation is key- very large prints of excellent quality. As with all modern art, a large element is the concept and the "shock of the new". However, I think I will spend my millions elsewhere, or even my 50 thousands. ( Sorry, Race! )
I have difficulty with the very idea of art, at least the modern conceptual kind. Seems that if you say you're an artist, and you do the right brown-nosing and self-promotion, you might strike it lucky and end up with work worth millions. Much of what gets lionised as art just comes off as silly in its desperate eagerness to be novel. Of course Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin come to mind. Until fairly recently in human history there was no notion of art in the modern sense. It was just illustration and decoration, and a lot more decorative it was too.
117
« on: November 11, 2011, 06:51 »
Had to check it wasn't April Fool's Day.
118
« on: November 07, 2011, 01:48 »
Absolutely right, Baldrick. Over the past year I've chewed wryly over every one of the points you make. Unfortunately, when I started out in 2006 I rose rapidly through the iStock canisters, giving me a bigger early incentive, and I was rejected by Shutterstock at my first attempt. At this stage the golden handcuffs of exclusivity are pretty tight. I'm sure I've done at least as well as being independent, probably considerably better, but I'd certainly feel more comfortable if I'd paid that insurance premium.
119
« on: November 05, 2011, 09:06 »
Ok, so I couldn't stand the suspense and I went out and bought the last one in the local camera shop. Shot several hundred frames today, mostly children, leaves and things, and going through them on the computer now I'm pretty * impressed.
The lens is sharp enough for stock at f/2 except perhaps at close focus distances. By f/4 it's fine at MFD. The camera JPGs are superb ... among the best I've seen. ACR 6.5 handles the RAWs nicely, too, with a built-in auto lens correction profile. High-ISO performance is startlingly good: I reckon well-exposed shots at 800 should have no problem getting accepted, and even 1600 and 3200 should work downsized to 2000 x 3000-ish.
Camera operation is better than I expected from the reviews. Metering is excellent, just as good as my 1-series Canon. AF is on the slow side, but not a deal-breaker. If you prefocus rangefinder-style, shutter lag is brief, good enough to capture bouncing kids. The menu system is quirky, it's true, but after a few hours I'm familiar with it. The optical viewfinder is nice and the EVF is even better for some things.
Build quality is great, the feel of the camera is nice, and it's a small and lightweight package that fits into the side pocket of my jacket.
On the negative side, the lens flares badly in certain conditions, which I haven't quite nailed down yet. Point sources of light seem OK, but a bright overcast sky in the frame veils everything else.
A cautious thumbs-up so far.
120
« on: November 04, 2011, 16:21 »
Thanks.
121
« on: November 04, 2011, 02:30 »
Anyone using the Fujifilm X100 for stock?
I'm interested in the well-reviewed lens, sensor and high-ISO capability. And the portability. Not so keen on the reports of sluggish AF and numerous operational quirks.
Wondering if anyone has any experience with using this cam and getting shots from it accepted by the agencies.
122
« on: October 26, 2011, 12:36 »
I suppose that would not exclude a system applicable to new content under which they could decide that particular images / batches would be most at home at the PP sites.
The idea of some human deciding what stuff should be sold where makes my skin crawl. It would kill the genius of microstock -- the brilliant notion of accepting anything technically sound and then allowing the market to determine the fate of the file through the Best Match mechanism. There are some pretty weird bestsellers in microstock, stuff that's so simple or so corny that no up-his-arse editor would ever have given it the nod. Only a pure market mechanism could ever have revealed that such images had enormous commercial value.
123
« on: October 19, 2011, 01:29 »
Yeah, I get that. I can see the advantage for an event photographer/newshound. It's the rest of us (and Mat in particular, though I know he does some events) I am wondering about. It's a lot of money to justify spending.
Since I lavished an unthinkable sum on the 1Ds Mk III shortly after its launch I've become accustomed to getting just about every frame in perfect focus in just about any circumstances, including big apertures using peripheral focus points. (The exception is irregularly moving subjects, but try those with a 5D.) Over three years and well over 100,000 frames, I reckon I have easily enough money shots that would have been missed to justify the cost of the camera. Thinking along those lines, I was sure I'd buy the new 1Ds. Trouble is, this isn't it. Losing the XXXL size on iStock could be a big deal if the best match has a size factor. On the other hand, the Mk III's high-ISO performance is not exactly stellar, so if the X is brilliant there it could cancel out any loss of revenue from the smaller maximum size. Decisions, decisions...
124
« on: October 10, 2011, 17:09 »
That's because we voted with our feet and preferred to use them rather than the old town centres, etc. They're safer, warmer, have more choice and free parking. It's the petty officialdom, restrictions and revenue-raising policies of those who run our town centres who are also to blame __ that and the fact that increases in population and greater spending power means that we have simply outgrown the capacity of most town centres to serve our needs without radical restructuring.
True, but the usual public-place liberties could very well be legislated to apply in such privately owned places, in much the same way as public rights of way trump private land ownership in the English countryside. Shopping centres are after all the de facto town squares of our time.
125
« on: October 10, 2011, 16:42 »
Really, sod asses like the security oik and the mindless police in this story. Not to mention the shopping centre's no-photos policy itself.
Sure, it's private property and the owners can make the rules, but there's a bigger picture here and that's the remorseless encroachment of the private sector on what used to be public space. Shopping centres of this kind have destroyed old town centres and main streets across the developed world.
Now we live not only under the laws of the land but also under the arbitrary restrictions of petty tyrants. It's a civil rights issue in the broadest sense -- how we would like to live our lives and under what conditions.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
