|
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 - everest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23
102
« on: February 22, 2022, 16:43 »
Then what are you doing here, wasting your time in a thread you don't care  I don't care
That makes two of us.
103
« on: February 19, 2022, 15:24 »
Adobe is in a golden position now. If they want, they can make a deadly blow to Istock/Getty and SS. There are already top contributorst that don't supply Istock or Getty. The retreat of Arcurs from excl. might be a sign of the times. If Adobe opens the gates to editorial and creates some premium collections with image exclusivity I many contributors will run away from Istock / SS. Lets see if this year they see the opportunity and take it. If Adobe created some kind of exclusive collection where they paid us 50% of the download price and better positioning, I wouldn't waste my time with more agencies for certain photos.
104
« on: February 19, 2022, 03:29 »
https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/man-ray-photo-christies-auction-intl-scli/index.htmlThe original print of the masterpiece, widely considered to be Man Ray's most famous work, is expected to fetch between $5-7 million when it goes under the hammer at Christie's in May -- the highest estimate for a single photograph in auction history, according to the auction house. If Man Ray would see what the market of photography has become. People shouting in utter happiness because Getty or SS sold their images for 10 cents
105
« on: February 18, 2022, 06:52 »
He might have seen that Adobe will be the last man standing . If he is uploading to Dreamstime he might be doing it to Adobe very soon.
106
« on: February 11, 2022, 18:09 »
The only thing I care is leader in revenue for the contributors. And taking out specialized agencies like Stocksy,Arcangel, etc that usually bring top dollars to their contributors from the Micros Adobe has already overtaken SS and that difference is growing stronger everyday. If SS makes 1 trillion sales a day I could care less if nothing or nearly nothing ends in my pocket. I understand that others are not worried, being in a ship that is going down faster as predicted. Their choice.
leader in what? customers? library? downloads? sales? in which of these is AS the leader?
......Oringer chose the way out and cashing with his pal. Good riddance to both. They will be gone quite soon and whoever owns SS in the future I doubt they will be ever recovered the trust of their stabbed in the back contributors.
get some perspective - SS wasn't hurt by disgruntled contributors. instead, we get eternal whinging about the natural evolution of laissez faire capitalism, while ignoring the real badguys - fossil fuel, agribusiness, financial instruments that add nothing to the economy, etc, etc
107
« on: February 11, 2022, 17:42 »
No doubt it can happen. The day stagnation or decrease in the stock price happens they will begin to cud down costs. Let's hope this is not around the corner.
Dont be surprised if Adobe follows the practices of the other companies at some point. Some of you should recognize the pattern.
"Getty has become evil! Istock is great so we need to support them!"
"Istock has become evil! Shutterstock is great so we need to support them!"
"Shutterstock has become evil. Adobe is great so we need to support them!"
108
« on: February 11, 2022, 14:04 »
Shutterstock is on an irreversible down path. Adobe is already the leader and will be for a long time (quicker than I thought). If they would add editorial they would crush even more Getty and SS.
Getty has long arms and still a big foot inside many doors. If they get the money they need selling their BCC- stock with their return to the stock market the nexts months they might also surpass SS. Oringer chose the way out and cashing with his pal. Good riddance to both. They will be gone quite soon and whoever owns SS in the future I doubt they will be ever recovered the trust of their stabbed in the back contributors.
109
« on: February 03, 2022, 03:05 »
Gettyimages acts similar to the mafia. Scare tactics, abuse, dishonesty, bullying, but hey ....they ask for a honourable code to their contributor. What a joke that agency is.
110
« on: February 03, 2022, 03:02 »
Thank you very much. Respect for Adobe for this initiative 
111
« on: February 01, 2022, 17:08 »
You are wrong. The problem is not stock photography. It is penny stock photography . Remember you are all responsible. Without the photographers that agree to their scams there would be no marauder agencies that take it all and left the crumbs for the producers. Thank the gods and free spirits there are still a few decent agencies left. For how much time who knows. The core problem is that you have to wait for the big SODs at shutterstock. When these dont come in, it is a disaster. Shutterstock has become a microstock lottery.
I don't have that problem with the competitors.
Wilm, the core problem is not shutterstock, but stock photography itself in my opinion 
My core problems are:
123Rf: RPD 21 cent (they do not even seem to have ODs)
Alamy: 1 cent sales to china
Adobe: Few downloads
istock: RPD partly in single digits (iStock is actually my biggest disaster. There you fight through this moronic vocabulary, and then such a lousy result).
Eyeem: zero sales
Mostphotos: zero sales
Deposit: RPD ~ 30 cents (they do not have a lot ODs either)
Dreamstime: High payout limit with low RPD
It's a real mystery to me why the frustration here is directed exclusively at one agency.
112
« on: January 31, 2022, 15:20 »
Well thats the core of capitalism. Why would you drive a Bentley or Royce, heavy cars, quite ugly in my opinion, bad for environment, swallow gas like crazy and costs 100 times a last model of Renault or VW. Same thing at a restaurant, same thing with clothing and so on. Perceived value or real value doesn't matter. When someone thinks that he wants , needs something and does not find an alternative of that file somewhere else he might be willing to pay much more. Now if you only want a green apple on a white background then surely 99.99% of buyers will not be interested in paying higher at agency a or Z. Stocky curates the collection to command those high prices and although you can find similar images at other agencies , even much chaeper ones, the browsing experience of a Stocksy vs SS or Istock is totally different. Time is money and the style they promote although not unique has lots of images in that niche. Same thing with Arcangel or Trevillion etc. There are several of us here. My main source of income comes from the 10K images I have online at Stocksy.
Thank you. I can see why that is so.
One thing I don't quite understand is why a buyer would pay more for an image at Stocksy when they can get one at microstock prices (albeit possibly not such a good quality image).
Or am I wrong and is it simply a much fairer model for the contributor?
113
« on: January 31, 2022, 15:12 »
Yes, unfortunately they are quite predictable in what they like and accept. There is brilliant work there, but many images are not very original where we see the same Victorian women back looking at a field , sea or pathway, the same man running and the same house in darkness with a window lit. I guess they sell lots of those, so no problem with that. If you want images accepted shoot models and in period costumes that rate will go up. :-) Or be bold and create a very unique style. I think what they are tired of is old doors, abandoned houses, most landscapes or cityscapes. I am at a 50+% acceptance and I am fine with that. Sometimes I agree with rejects and sometimes not but usually when I look back when time has passed I agree with the rejection. They are quite good at spotting what has sale potential. I need to get some people to dress up in 19th Century costume and look moody 
and make them wander on the moors on a foggy day
114
« on: December 27, 2021, 15:54 »
For me it was 2012 with photos. I started at the end of 2009 with Istock (I was already with Getty) 2010 I made 6000$(only Istock) 2011 60.000 (only Istock) 2012 120.000$ only Istock. 2013 crashed to 70.000 $ (only Istock). Video I started very late in the game. Only 4 years now. Only growth so far around 23k/year. Images have been steadily falling. Nowadays, I make only 2000-2400$ month very far from the hay days in 2012.
[/quote]
Everest, so you've been there, peaked at $150,000/year, When did you notice a steep drop?, for me and other editorial contributors on Pond5 it was April 1 2019, actually March 15th 2019 but we started to get seriously worried by April 1 and it never recovered. It was very sudden and very planned.
[/quote]
115
« on: December 27, 2021, 12:15 »
I don't have a single file on SS. I deactivated immediately and deleted all my portfolio a few months later of their commission cut. I have 21k images and 4k videos. Yes you can. I now make over 50.000$ year on photos and videos. It is more tough every year. My peak was at 150.000$ year so yeah feeling the pressure.
I have made over 23k for a photo in the "good old days" and dozens over 2k. Now it is very rare. That's not the game anymore. You should not count on those rare sales
You are right that for retirement and a side income stock is not bad. You probably spent way more on equipment, software, gas, computer, time. But if that's just a hobby it is fine. Usually hobbies don't get any returns at all so. But don't be deluded and take those costs into consideration before saying you made 2000$ in a year if you spent 4000 to get there.
So your stock has shown at National Geographic. Well done. Does it mean something, or will it get to enjoy the national photographer life or revenue. I doubt it. But if that makes you happy go ahead. I understand that people might feel amazing for their 1s of glory.
By the way the market reality is not dependent on SS, as I have not made a single penny on them as they don't carry any of my creative work. So every dollar of the 50k earned has been made somewhere else. Trust me . If your work is good you will get your work purchased . No need to be in the SS cheap marketplace where you are a small fry among millions of assets and you are being paid 10c a pop
You see . Your reality is different to some that are a little more experienced in this game. Nothing wrong that you go after your reality but take into account that many other ones exist and with a much better return that the loosing Shutterstock proposition.
No one said you can make a living at stock.
But a $1,000 sale for one photo aint bad.
Make your bread somewhere else, but in retirement not a bad gig.
Through stock some of my photos have shown up in National Geographic publications.
So get out if you want to make a living . As one senior person in Stock told me about people leaving SS because of the cut in commissions good. Less competition. By the way, she is not working at SS.
This is simple market reality.
$50.000 still is very impressing! May I ask how many images and videos there are in your Portfolio? And those 50.000 are Not only Fromm shutterstock, I guess?
116
« on: December 27, 2021, 03:01 »
Adobe has also grown this year. I only contribute videos here. Nice company until now. They are a huge corporation that is also subject to the stock market flows so I know the can change course suddenly as Istock or Shutterstock did in the past. The have not yet, and so far happy with this company. I hope they keep respecting their contributors, at least more than SS and Istock/Getty do.
117
« on: December 27, 2021, 02:57 »
Yes you can. I now make over 50.000$ year on photos and videos. It is more tough every year. My peak was at 150.000$ year so yeah feeling the pressure. I have made over 23k for a photo in the "good old days" and dozens over 2k. Now it is very rare. That's not the game anymore. You should not count on those rare sales You are right that for retirement and a side income stock is not bad. You probably spent way more on equipment, software, gas, computer, time. But if that's just a hobby it is fine. Usually hobbies don't get any returns at all so. But don't be deluded and take those costs into consideration before saying you made 2000$ in a year if you spent 4000 to get there. So your stock has shown at National Geographic. Well done. Does it mean something, or will it get to enjoy the national photographer life or revenue. I doubt it. But if that makes you happy go ahead. I understand that people might feel amazing for their 1s of glory. By the way the market reality is not dependent on SS, as I have not made a single penny on them as they don't carry any of my creative work. So every dollar of the 50k earned has been made somewhere else. Trust me . If your work is good you will get your work purchased . No need to be in the SS cheap marketplace where you are a small fry among millions of assets and you are being paid 10c a pop You see . Your reality is different to some that are a little more experienced in this game. Nothing wrong that you go after your reality but take into account that many other ones exist and with a much better return that the loosing Shutterstock proposition. No one said you can make a living at stock.
But a $1,000 sale for one photo aint bad.
Make your bread somewhere else, but in retirement not a bad gig.
Through stock some of my photos have shown up in National Geographic publications.
So get out if you want to make a living . As one senior person in Stock told me about people leaving SS because of the cut in commissions good. Less competition. By the way, she is not working at SS.
This is simple market reality.
118
« on: December 20, 2021, 08:55 »
Envato is for me the worst agency in the video department by far. I don't submit anymore. Weird submission limits that go up and down, hard rejections that depend on the mood of the inspector, many of those are files that get top seller position in the other sites. Just another hassle agency that it is not worth working with.
119
« on: December 11, 2021, 05:10 »
Banks are not giving them anymore money so they have to search for investors that take the risk. The debt necklace is choking them.A company that has been decreasing for the last decade. It doesn't look very bright. But who knows. Maybe Hellman & Friedman sees an opportunity and will make the same move down the road and to pay the new debt, contributors will get slashed to 5% commission. A race to the bottoms competing with the other juggernaut exploiting their contributors.
120
« on: December 02, 2021, 03:43 »
At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is yearly revenue. I have made sales for 23000$ (7000$ net)for 1 license and 0.001$ for Getty connect sales. The biggest selling image at Istock has brough me 20.000$ net so more than that big sales. At the best times in micro 2012 I was earning more with them 6 yearly figures than with Getty. Everyone has to crunch his numbers and see where his work fits. You might be very talented and people want to pay you hundred or thousands of dollars to use your image or you might be very efficient at producing stock. At SS there quite a few with hundred of thousands of images in their portfolio. Quite horrible work many times but hey they sell at low prices and for the customers it is good enough Stock is not the same for everyone. The same as the stock market. Some make money shorting, others with long investing, other day trading, technical, fundamentals.......That's the beauty of it You have some lee way to adapt your working style to it. ....
Even if an agency offers to pay for your images or videos at a fair price to make up their free collection, unless you're planning to retire and walk away from the business it's not worth it.
Media companies and large production companies will use free if they can get it especially if the quality is ok and it fits their needs.
What's needed is an end to free anything but also a forensic accounting of all these deals agencies have and that won't happen and that's why this has become a ticket to bankruptcy.
121
« on: November 20, 2021, 14:58 »
If you do what you like and don't change that habit to make a few pennies more that is great. It is like a Flickr but with revenue attached. From that point of view I think nearly any half serious stock agency is valid. At the end the images would be on your computer and not generating anything. I also understand those that give them for free. It's their choice and if they are that generous kudos to them. What is not logical is to work for air. Nobody can pay their rents with badges, low revenues,.... I guess there are still some pro players at SS because: 1- They have huge portfolios and a very tight and streamlined production system 2- They live in countries with much lower costs of living. I live close in a big city in Europe where a lot of advertising shooting is going on. I have rented lofts at a minimum of 700$ day plus, assistant plus models. Things get really expensive fast and at 0.1$ a pop with ocassional 50-100$ sale you don't get very far if you want to recoup your costs and make a profit . 3- They produce content like illustration 3D motion graphics where costs are much much lower than with photography As I am in neither of this groups I have to carefully evaluate where I put my work Cheers.
Yes that's the difference.
My situation is very different. I pay more attention to sharpness than before I uploaded to Shutterstock. In that respect, I've gotten better thanks to Shuttertock.
Now a retired teacher, before that worked as a technical draftsman in construction. My hobby is macro, determining insects. I now earn something from that and I also find it more fun to photograph other things. But I'm not going to buy equipment for stock, which I should do to sell more. I probably wouldn't recoup the money I spend, because I'm not that good a photographer either. I fear that then my pleasure would disappear.
I also live in an expensive country (the Netherlands). Our pension hasn't gone up for years, but we can still make a decent living if we don't do crazy things. So I keep uploading to SS, AS and Alamy.
But if I were to work for a company like SS for my profession, I would very quickly look for another company.
122
« on: November 20, 2021, 02:25 »
Yes I am "still "a stock pro although at the pace everything is going don't know for how long. I can perfectly understand those that like photography would shoot anyway and are happy if they can buy a new camera and lens in the process, even if once you take the time spent and money to create the images they are at a loss. In my case I have to pay equipment, taxes, social security and I live in an expensive European country. So I have to evaluate very carefully where my effort and future goes. I cannot produce at a loss or a 5$/hour scheme. I also don't want to support those companies that take advantage from their contributors and race to the situation I just was describing, and in the process destroy those that are more fair to their contributors. This is the reason why I left SS , why I don't contribute to Istock video, why I don't support many other penny chasers. I concentrate on the few that still respect somehow contributors. That is Arcangel, P5, Adobe, Envato market not elements, Artgrid ( still on the fence on that it will depend on this year sales) Alamy (dont contribute for many years but I still have my portfolio with them RM) .... The market of all of those might be not enough to sustain me in the future. Then I will make something else. If the time arrives my relation with creative stock will be gone not even from an amateur point of view. The reason is that I truly think that many amateurs are creatively taken down once they collaborate with stock agencies, they begin to chase pennies and create boring images for a few dollars when they could grow their passion to truly flourish. Pros don't have the luxury to create what they want as they have to take food on the table every month and the creative stock market is what it is: 99% boring, bland images. So when I leave this industry : no more smiling multicultural groups, no more "conceptual" still life that have to sell a product, no cute animals, no the 1000 times green meadow with a fake composite sky. All this ultra IMHPW bad content will be gone forever
A few years ago, many people left Istock because they started paying much lower. Was called an anti-social company.
Lately I've been hearing some more positive things about Istock. But most mention IS as third after SS and AS
Some also talk about Alamy, while I haven't been enthusiastic about that lately.
I also see a difference between people who make videos and people who only upload photos and between people who work professionally and the amateurs like me,
Doug Jensen for example, made a lot of money on Shutterstock with his videos. But he is a professional with very good videos of Musk, rockets taking off, forest fires in the Amazon etc.
If you earn that much I assume you are also a professinal.
I think everyone should decide what to do based on their own situation.
123
« on: November 19, 2021, 02:16 »
Agree on the editorial front. In fact the only reason I am still image exclusive with Getty is that Adobe does not offer the editorial option and as I am not interested one iota in SS I stay with the Getty/Family because I have a lot of editorial content.
124
« on: November 18, 2021, 02:52 »
I disabled and deleted my port at SS more than a year ago. I don't contribute videos to Istock, although I am still image exclusive with them as I earn a few thousand dollars every month with them. Since I left SS my video sales at Adobe and Pond5 have doubled. So fine with me. I rather bet on raising agencies that are more friendly to contributors than sinking ships, but every contributor should know exactly how to treat their time.
125
« on: October 30, 2021, 15:50 »
There are a few others. Adobe premium, Offset, Pond5 setting your prices (basically for video),FilmSupply, plainpicture,... Everest, 'As suggested I think it is much wiser move to medium or macro stock'
I am only aware of Stocksy, Arcangel and Trevillion which I assume are 'macro' stock.
Do you know of any others, and which ones are 'medium' stock?
Thanks.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
