MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - bunhill

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 62
51
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy Rejection Rate Has More than Doubled
« on: December 02, 2015, 06:03 »
I have made $35,000 on Alamy.

This year?

52
General Stock Discussion / Re: Kelly Thompson to 500PX
« on: November 20, 2015, 14:28 »
What happened to iStock started the day the changed the royalty system.  The other agencies just took advantage of Getty/iStock bad decisions.

Change was coming anyhow. The main issue today is over-supply. The availability of thing determines it's price.  Plus the small business which once used microstock use Facebook today instead of having a website.

The smaller curated sites can, of course, offer a much better experience. They have lovely content presented in a way which makes it accessible. But that isn't microstock.

53
General Stock Discussion / Re: Kelly Thompson to 500PX
« on: November 20, 2015, 08:22 »
bunhill, theres nothing malicious being posted here

I disagree.

Anyhow - most of what has happened in microstock including iStock is inevitable economics. If it had not been them it would have been someone else. Basic issues are that the economy collapsed about the same time as Facebook and the iPhone went mainstream. For many former customers that meant that they realised that they no longer needed a website (in many cases they never did). Content today is often something shared from 'friends' and followers.

Plus over-supply. The price of using mainstream stock photographs is trending towards zero.

54
General Stock Discussion / Re: Kelly Thompson to 500PX
« on: November 20, 2015, 07:36 »
It is clearly simplistic and potentially malicious to personally blame Kelly Thompson for what happened at iStock during that transitionary era. The same as it would be wrong to blame any of the other people who used to once speak for the company. And at least he was not annoying like the clubby insiders with their bizarre group speak and addressing each other as member :)

We have no idea how hard he may have argued for things to be different.

55
Relatively few would recognize that and fewer yet would know how to look it up.

Google.

56
Here's another example of why many of us use what are essentially anonymous names.

OT I guess but I always assumed that was your callsign!

57
My top sellers earned me thousands

Me too. But for most people those days are over. Because of over-supply.

Microstock is still a volume model. But in most cases that means the agency selling volume made up from an over-supply of photographers. Unless, like the factories, you own a considerable slice of that volume.

58
Alamy.com / Re: Delete a photo
« on: October 21, 2015, 05:09 »
On 1 occasion I contacted Alamy support via email explaining why I would like a specific image removed early if possible. I had a sensible reason why I wanted the image withdrawn from sale. They responded quickly and were very helpful and friendly.

I am not suggesting that we bombard them with ad hoc requests since in most cases the 6 month process makes good sense. On the other hand they are flexible, friendly and responsive when there is an issue. Because that's the sort of company they seem to be :)

59
I have previously found Imaging Insurance (UK) to be very helpful and competitive. But I do not currently need insurance so I have not used them for about 18 months.

A while ago when this was asked, there was a list of UK insurers which people recommended.
I emailled all of them.
Most didn't even answer.


That's a useful thread which Herg should probably look at. In a post there you also mentioned them being too expensive.

One answered to say they didn't insure cameras and lenses only despite advertising as insuring professional photographers.  Apparently they weren't really interested as I don't have a studio, just cameras and lenses, and that's probably why the others didn't reply to the email.


You also reported that they wouldn't do the liability insurance without the equipment cover, because you were happy with your equipment cover.

Two answered, and both wanted to insure my home also


I wonder perhaps whether there was some confusion - and what they meant related to insuring the equipment when it was at your home. Which would obviously be part of the package.

As a UK semi/professional you will probably also want to have liability cover.


Would I need that as I don't work with people, models ?


I would say yes. But that's a personal opinion not a statement of definite fact.

60
As a UK semi/professional you will probably also want to have liability cover.

61
General Stock Discussion / Re: Fair Trade?
« on: October 07, 2015, 07:37 »
I don't believe that Fair Trade' is a particularly relevant paradigm in any industry unless the entire chain is "Fair Trade" (e.g. in this example, cameras, computers, their components, how the images are used etc).

So then it's really only about whether the money makes it worthwhile for the supplier.

62
General Stock Discussion / Re: Fair Trade?
« on: October 07, 2015, 05:10 »
Alamy is the only open-access agency which I consider to be pro-actively contributor friendly.

63
iStockPhoto.com / Re: new istock forums
« on: August 15, 2015, 05:31 »
Internet communities are also valued with hundreds of millions of dollars by investors, even if the community itself hasnt produced anything. Just for "being there" and being alive, money will be invested.

The idea of internet communities was enthusiastically overhyped during the boom which has now definitely ended (as the collapse of the SS stock price demonstrates). Today smart investors are increasing aware that internet communities are transient and likely have very little inherent value.

A platform which hosts communities may have the potential to be profitable (though there are very few examples since the broadband era). Community itself is an organic thing and not something which fits well into an investment model.

The old iStock forum was, at best, of its time.

64
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shares Plummet
« on: August 10, 2015, 09:59 »
According to Adobe (16 June 2015) they now have 4.6 million CC subscribers (see the section marked Supplementary Business Unit Data).

According to Shutterstock they have 1.3 million customers in total.

It is easy to see why the stockmarket is nervous given that Shutterstock growth would largely depend upon growing the number of subscribers. And 4.6 million existing or potential customers already have an account with Adobe.

The inevitable outcome is surely going to be a downward pressure on costs.

65
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock and their selfish thinking
« on: August 09, 2015, 08:05 »
So that seems like perhaps a different conversation and probably not much connected with the thing that ARTPUPPY is referencing. So I am going to post my original question again so that it isn't buried behind the diversion. This question relates to some specific announcement about Sept 2015:

In September they are planning some "exciting news" about the istock exclusivity.

Where was this (pre) announced? Please :)

66
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock and their selfish thinking
« on: August 09, 2015, 07:36 »
In September they are planning some "exciting news" about the istock exclusivity.

Where was this (pre) announced? Please :)
A year or two ago, IIRC.

you mean that a year or two ago they pre-announced changes planned for September 2015? That seems unlikely.

67
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock and their selfish thinking
« on: August 09, 2015, 05:15 »
In September they are planning some "exciting news" about the istock exclusivity.

Where was this (pre) announced? Please :)

68
iStockPhoto.com / Re: What is happening to iStock?
« on: August 03, 2015, 15:28 »
There are 3 main issues, not just with respect to iStock but also relating to all microstock sales - where microstock largely replaced previous RF stock:

1. Over-supply: In 2001 only a few people had DSLRs or knew Photoshop. Today all of that is ubiquitous to the point of no longer even being interesting any longer -> and becomes increasingly irrelevant vs iPhones and great apps. DSLRs are what the grandparents are probably using to make pictures today.

2. Declining market vs a peak in the 2007-2010 era. The market peak came in the era following ubiquitous broadband but before the full impact of the financial crash filtered through. About the time that Facebook was opened up for anyone to join. A down obviously always lags some years behind the crash. The sorts of client businesses which once fuelled a peak in microstock sales often simply no longer exist.

3. Competition from free/shared content. This is particularly relevant with respect to the huge number of companies, NGOs, local govt bodies and small businesses which once believed or were convinced that they needed a website. They don't today because a Facebook page reaches their customers better. A plumber or local shop doesn't need a website which is much more than a business card. For interacting with customers they can use Facebook. And the knock-on is that the customers ("friends") share content. Companies and small businesses looking for fresh content can today often achieve that simply by sharing what their "friends" post.

The companies selling stock will do okay provided that they can keep their costs low. I would be worried for any companies which have stockholders with expectations of growth or which are servicing significant debt. Unless those companies can find completely new things to do. Meanwhile the images which a significant number of the existing customers actually use are trending ever closer towards being free at the point of use.

Company valuations and expectations of future profits which seemed to make sense even a few years ago now seem hopelessly daft.

69
Dissolve / Re: Dissolve price update
« on: July 29, 2015, 17:02 »
The idea that buyers shop around on individual ble pieces of content to find cheaper prices is a fallacy.

How do you know? There is only have anecdote. Based on my own experience I would say that people do shop around. Internet savvy people shop around when they are buying almost anything today. Partly it will also be about trust, payment convenience etc.

70
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy- Any success??
« on: July 29, 2015, 16:36 »
Also, make sure you have NO duplicate words in your keywords. I'm sure you're familiar with how strict Alamy is with their word spamming algorithm, but this can't be overstated. Make sure there are no duplicate keywords in the "essential" "main" and "comprehensive" keywords fields.

What evidence or stated policy are you basing this on?

I am not saying that you are wrong. But what you are saying about duplicates seemingly goes against what Alamy themselves recommend with respect to the use of phrase, word proximity etc. Because a single keyword may have many potential pairings. Eg - "business team", "business meeting" etc. And we know, because they have told us (and we can all see from the search), that word order and word proximity matters. I know from the data they show us that duplicate words work for me.

I'm sure you're familiar with how strict Alamy is with their word spamming algorithm

I'm not. Do you have a link which relates to duplicate words. I know that CTR works against irrelevant keywords - but where is the evidence that duplication is an issue? Not saying that you are wrong - but it seems like it would be a contradiction with respect to how other aspects of the Alamy search work. Also - it wouldn't make much sense ... because weeding out duplicates would slow down the search and create overheads for no good reason. It doesn't really actually probably matter in a search if you say the same word twice - better than filling your allocation with irrelevant words.

71
Dissolve / Re: Dissolve price update
« on: July 29, 2015, 14:04 »
If the minimum price that an HD collection is available elsewhere is $299, then well price it at $299. If the minimum HD price is $79, then well match $79.

So you follow where others lead. And with commissions?

72
Adobe Stock / Re: Introducing Adobe Stock!
« on: July 17, 2015, 09:48 »
just walk through any normal office or business. How many doctors, plumbers, accountants,physiotherapist,restaurants etc...have adobe products installed?

Ever fewer businesses are buying stock photos anyhow vs the 2001 - 2009 boom. And the market is massively over supplied. Hence profits continue to fall. The same as many companies no longer actively maintain websites.

Adobe can afford to see this not as a business but as added value bolted on to an existing software service.

73
I have been looking to invest in a good enough scanner  for 35 mm slide and BW negs which I will further refine in Lightroom.

There is a huge amount of work involved in preparing film scans to a quality which will be good enough to be accepted as microstock. Even many of the large historical collections have given up scanning their libraries except to order. Some have scanned prints instead. Dust and scratches are the issue. Dust and scratches are a much bigger issue with scans than they were with traditional printing.

Unless you are in possession of incredibly unique, valuable and in-demand images this will not be an investment. The cost of the equipment is not the issue. The issue is the time and bother involved in correcting the scans. There is also a steep learning curve with respect to color correction.

Also - Lightroom is probably not the best software for fixing dust spots. Since you will likely be dealing with hundreds of spots per scan - so Lightroom will quickly slow down when that many non destructive adjustments are applied - all of which have to be kept in memory. I have done dust correction in Lightoom on a Mac Pro with lots of memory and found that I needed to export a new version about every 10 minutes rather than deal with the lag. You would be better using Photoshop or similar.

Some libraries will accept un retouched scans for editorial use if the content has historical value.

74
Off Topic / Re: GO Greece!
« on: June 27, 2015, 15:33 »
banksters

I really hate the use of this term / meme. I don't believe it gets us anywhere. And blaming bankers is, ultimately, the same as simplistically blaming anyone else for what are actually much more complicated issues. Also - it feeds into that whole daft conspiracy mindset.

Also - well we've been here before - where people start vilifying international financiers and imaginary elites. And it did not end well. Indeed the formation of the old Common Market was, partly, an optimistic response to all of that.

75
Off Topic / Re: GO Greece!
« on: June 27, 2015, 11:54 »
..yes - he is a good poker player - we agree ...

But it's not a game and playing it like a game is inappropriate.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 62

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors