|
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 - jefftakespics2
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14
177
« on: September 22, 2014, 08:59 »
I'm happy to report that I have the same lousy sales I had before! Been down so long it looks like up to me.
178
« on: September 20, 2014, 12:24 »
The implication is that you put the right number or keywords and title info and you will rocket in sales. Perhaps it is more important to have a great image and relevant keywords, title and description. I don't think this info have a great deal of relevance.
179
« on: September 17, 2014, 05:23 »
Thnx Beppe. This is quite cool.
180
« on: September 15, 2014, 09:35 »
You do have to wonder how solid the business plan is when they can change so many things on the fly. That said: I'm hoping they make it. It's a pretty tough field to be setting up shop in.
181
« on: September 05, 2014, 11:36 »
+ on Mark's comment - Francisco Aveledo is a class player in this business. Hoping he can partner with someone of equal stature.
182
« on: September 04, 2014, 16:17 »
It's a religious channel featuring " Dr Charles Stanley" that sells tons of products: dvds, etc. I can guarantee you they have $$. https://store.intouch.org/
183
« on: September 03, 2014, 16:48 »
I actually think you are looking at a Rights Managed situation and you need to get more information to price it. Firstly, though, it depends how unique your image is. If it is not very unique, Sean's suggestion of $100-200 might be fine. You want to know how many viewers this will get, duration of the run, duration of image use in the show, size of image, potential use in other related materials, etc. To give you some idea, we would typically sell the one-time 5 second use of an image on a Canadian TV show for around $350 on a fairly non-unique image. (This price is heavily discounted because they used a lot of our images.)
184
« on: August 29, 2014, 09:37 »
I find this somewhat sad. I supposed if I was a CGI artist I would applaud it. "Today, reveals Enthed, about 75% of all IKEA product images are CGI, and rendered at ridiculously high resolution so theyre good for everything from web viewing to wall-sized displays in IKEAs stores. And as time goes on and rendering software continues to get better, traditional photography promises to play a smaller and smaller role." "The real turning point for us was when, in 2009, they called us and said, You have to stop using CG. Ive got 200 product images and theyre just terrible. You guys need to practice more. So we looked at all the images they said werent good enough and the two or three they said were great, and the ones they didnt like were photography and the good ones were all CG! Now, we only talk about a good or a bad image not what technique created it. http://petapixel.com/2014/08/28/flip-ikea-catalog-75-photography-see-cgi/
185
« on: August 29, 2014, 09:29 »
Thank-you Scott for that very concise search explanation.
186
« on: August 28, 2014, 07:50 »
Automatic keywording!
187
« on: August 25, 2014, 20:12 »
I went to have a look. His Flickr site has been taken down. Good work!
188
« on: August 18, 2014, 11:44 »
PP June/July -48% rev. Number of downloads roughly the same. I'm not dealing in large $ amounts to begin with do it is looking more and more like it's not worthwhile for me to bother uploading.
189
« on: August 18, 2014, 05:57 »
One one attempt at using the cloud as backup went badly. I was copying from my archive which was on a RAID 1 and during the upload process (which was days) something failed and the originals were deleted from the RAID. To complicate it, one of the RAID drives died during the process, which might have been the problem. Fortunately, I had everything backed up on disks elsewhere. I just use multiple backup disks again. I love the cloud idea but if you have a sizeable archive the upload is brutal.
190
« on: August 13, 2014, 07:51 »
I'm guessing the problem is the modern building on left. Architects now often copyright there building designs.
191
« on: August 09, 2014, 06:30 »
Yes, I jumped the gun. Numbers are still rising. I figured when all the days were filled in that was the end of it.
192
« on: August 08, 2014, 20:43 »
PPP -67% from June! It's been reasonably consistent for me up until then and expect a summer slowdown, but that is a big drop. At least I am finished paying them back.
193
« on: August 04, 2014, 13:59 »
A lot of for hire contracts have a limited exclusive use clause after which you are free to re-sell. Depends on the client and contract. If it's product shoot, they likely will need lifetime exclusivity, but editorial magazine shoots usually only require a month of two.
194
« on: July 31, 2014, 16:37 »
The super macro approach!! "Given this rapidly worsening status-quo, wedding and commercial photographer Greg Lumleys latest venture is either incredibly ballsy, or incredibly nave: hes trying to sell a single print of his viral aerial photograph of Cape Town for $35,000 no we didnt add a zero by mistake." http://petapixel.com/2014/07/31/pay-35000-buy-print-gorgeous-cape-town-photograph/
195
« on: July 31, 2014, 15:07 »
I agree with Sean on this. It's an interesting concept but it mostly seems that they are getting a lot of photogs to shoot directed concepts on spec instead of assignment. Tying up the rights for extended periods is another downfall. I think it will just drive down the market for medium range assignment photography since they can get directed shoots in bulk at a lower cost. Then again, if you are indeed just using images that would not get sold otherwise, it's found money.
196
« on: July 31, 2014, 13:16 »
Nice to see it didn't take them months to notice the problem and then enforce a monthly payback program like another agency (I just made my last payback payment). Pond5 is not a seller for me, but they sure seem fair and great to deal with.
197
« on: July 30, 2014, 16:08 »
I have had a big $5.00 balance there for a while from a sale. I think I will hold out until I make $10! To be fair, I only have 22 photos on the site.
198
« on: July 29, 2014, 14:38 »
What a great outcome. I'll be watching my P5 account, but in my case it might just go down! Or does that only happen with iStock?
199
« on: July 29, 2014, 11:31 »
I wish! Just my usual crumbs.
200
« on: July 27, 2014, 17:23 »
Yes lots of disgruntled contributors and many are friends of mine. They are getting squeezed as are most photographers today. Yet, aside from Reuters, AP, AFP, etc ... they are really the only other major player in the game. Reuters last year farmed out its North American major league sports coverage to an agency paying photographers next to nothing, and putting a lot of freelancers and staffers out of work. It's a very tough world out there in editorial photography. In my day job I deal strictly with editorial photos. From what I see the only place a shooter can really make money on editorial is with Getty. Getting in is another story....
cheers for coming here to give me your opinion. jrwasserman
yes, i observed for years that the only images on www are mostly Getty. no harm to try when i do have time to gather a portfolio or i suppose they will only invite you, so i will need to build a site with my work.
while we are on Getty, how do you feel about the rumours of them displeasing contributors with their new promotional idea? the one which many are claiming to not being paid for the usage of their images.
as great as the lure for any site like Getty,etc.. i like to know what are the changes in their treatment of their suppliers, as already we see many sites going the displeasurable route to cut your earnings in the interest of short term gains.
i suppose it is inevitable to discuss a site in particular. i said i would not welcome that here, but
if it is on topic, i guess we will need to be more open in discussion .
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
