|
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 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23
401
« on: February 14, 2018, 12:11 »
I would say no. If they put another zero behind maybe.
Some of my images have made me over 10k .And many hundreds over 500$. Simple shots in micro (Concept drawed on blackboard, object on white,....) or more complex,scarce images. You never know when a well executed image might go up in one of the search engines at any agency and start selling well.
As an example, a few months ago I was approached by a publisher for a book cover. They wanted one of my images for 1200$ with exclusive rights for ever. As this was an image from an expensive shoot that would invalidate also some similars I refused. Finally we agreed for 1500$ for 2 years exclusive rights for editorial use ( no use in books etc ). In this case I had the winning hand because the image is very unique and I knew my bargaining power. If it would have been a more common subject I might have accepted. So it always depends.
But unless it is a very mediocre/bad image I would not accept if at least my share was under 500$. This is the reason I also do not participate in any of the custom clients requests at istock. Prices are just too low.
402
« on: February 07, 2018, 07:08 »
Maybe you should go again on the site and watch carefully the video to get some proper manners. You might learn something........Zack not only gives an insightful lesson on why this sites are not the best idea for a photographer but also stays civil and behaves like an educated person even in strong disagreement. Moaning around with insults and bad attitude is not going to take your arguments very far. those who give the photo free in my opinion are the most idiot person i have ever met in my life.
from any side you see this story you cannot but think how stupid those instagrma related generation is...
Agree. Zack does a great job getting this across. There isn't some kind of free exchange going on. Everyone is making bank except the photographer. Crew/Unsplashed who have built a 30 million dollar business, the designers/ publications making thousands of pounds selling ads and their projects, everyone but the photographer.
unbielevable...the world created by all those genius like Facebook steve jobs instagram...a prostitution giant world where everybody sell him/herself just for have a second of popularity...instagram is the WORST stuff ever appeared in the world...this is the real weapon of mass destruction...thousand of young girl and woman showing everyday ass boobs just to find somebody who pay their vices....thousand of idiot food and blog photographer sho shoot the same boring dish and spend thousand of dollars earned by their parents/ husband in idiot kitchen utensil.....idiot girl/young puppet who give away free the photos cause stock photography is cheap but unsplash is so COOOOOLLLLLL...
i have more respect for porn actress than this idiot people.
403
« on: February 07, 2018, 05:03 »
Agree the Royalty Free term is confusing to many. Would be great to get rid of it and change it for something more self explanatory. Unsplash is an image sharing website where photographers share high quality/res work and it is 100% royalty free. It seems, for all intents and purposes, like the 'race to the bottom' that is plaguing the stock photo industry has gotten Zack unhinged. Zack nails it and very briefly mentions iStock:
http://youtu.be/6M_OZWtpokc
There's already a thread on this but.... statements like "100% royalty free" when referring to free images on the Creative Commons licence do not help. It goes towards confusing inexperienced image buyers to think, "Royalty Free" means the images are free when they are most certainly not.
404
« on: February 06, 2018, 14:39 »
Great video of Zack. People giving their images away for free. Nothing we can do about it. People uploading images of people and properties without releases and granting a "use the image for what you want" license. This guys will face some serious trouble sooner than later. They will be splashing for air when the million pot lawsuit hits them.
405
« on: January 11, 2018, 15:26 »
by paying SS contributors 0.25c per download and turning a once very sustainable industry upside down. he could not have done it without the support of people willing to undersell their own worth.
Let me turn this around. 
He is a visionary entrepreneur, a Clair Voyant! He, he! 
He enabled a multitude of talented people to tap into a market and a revenue stream they would have never been able to access otherwise. I'm one of them and I'm very grateful to people like Oringer, for the extra, unexpected 6 digits bonus I was able to earn during the last 4-5 years.
He deserves to be rewarded for his courage to innovate and revolutionize a market, to take risks very few dared to take.
Zero Talent. You say this because you simply didn't experienced how it was before. Now I am heading to a 7 digit figure of profits only made on Istock in the last few years. But even if arrived very late to the golden years of macro when with a few hundred images you made over 1million/year I can remember well my single 5 digit sales. You have to live on your time. And the digital revolution changed everything and made possible the strong devaluation of images as a whole. So although nothing would have changed much if Oringer or Livingstone wouldn't have existed, as other would have taken their place, the fact remains that those individuals were responsible to the sudden drop of value of all images in general. Although I think it was inevitable I cannot thank them.
406
« on: January 11, 2018, 15:05 »
by paying SS contributors 0.25c per download and turning a once very sustainable industry upside down. he could not have done it without the support of people willing to undersell their own worth.
Yep . Sad and astonishing buy hey everyday more free sites were photographers and non photographers give happily their images away for some sort of ego boost. But not only is SS responsible of the state of the industry. Unfortunately bean counters, business sharks and other unscrupulous people have destroyed the industry with the help of millions of contributors. Fortunatelly there are still some agencies and production houses that try to fight this policy.
407
« on: January 11, 2018, 10:23 »
Revenue caps are a fact in Shutterstock ans this is one of the reason I got back to Istock exclusivity. I uploaded in 45 days 5000 images. The first 1000 (I started from old to new) gave 80% of the revenue and the 4000 that came next only 20%. This is mathematically just impossible if there are no hands pulling the strings. I even asked to support if this policy was in place and they denied it. Well ....liers.
No idea how they calculate every individual contributor cap but may be once you hit it, only agressive upload of every pixel available that is so often seen in Shutterstock might be a path to overcome somehow those caps.
Now I don't think they are the only ones playing this game. I am having my suspicion that this is also played by their largest rival...... Somehow I didn't notice it when I contributed to Fotolia were revenues were more random from day to day with no weird pattern to be detected. Maybe this has also changed with Adobe.
408
« on: January 08, 2018, 03:32 »
I don't think so. Produce generic content. It will give you a much better return per investment, much more.
409
« on: January 04, 2018, 17:19 »
410
« on: December 16, 2017, 04:06 »
For independents Istock will always play the price trump. They want to be cheaper than the other 2 rivals (Shutter and Abobe) They really dont care abour all the others. Dreamstime,Deposit,bla bla bla....a joke they don't even scratch them in the ankles. With Istock or you are exclusive or it is barely worth it to submit. If you are independent and supply the first 6 on the list and have a contract with the medium or macro agencies (Stocksy, Getty, Westend,Offset) or even better you work with one of the big lifestyle agregators that it makes sense to stay independent, no doubt about it. But if you only contribute to micro options than look again closely at the numbers on the polls. They have been quite consistent over the years. And about emotions....Getty is the same greedy juggernaut as all the other ones. Shutter started the subscription for low, Getty only followed, Adobe/fotolia have done similars move in the past and are also giving away creations for pennies nowadays. Don't let me start with Dreamstime Deposit Bigstock Canstock that are plain rip off "agencies" or whatever they can be called. Yes, it is a tough world out there........ For you but look at the poll, Shutter is still double FT. And look, FT has passed IS which used to be #1. When Pond5 passes IS maybe people will wake up that they have turned to crap. In your favor I'd like to see DT pass IS just for the satisfaction of watching Getty look like the trash they have become.
411
« on: December 03, 2017, 16:44 »
That's an amazing figure. Great to hear that some creatives are doing so well in this tough business. 👌 Didn't take the poll as I'm mainly video, with some 3D models, After Effects templates and a sprinkling of graphics and audio... but I get just over $6 per item, per month. Give or take.
412
« on: December 02, 2017, 09:35 »
It surely answers the question. Now it is understandable, because to supply professionally images to Canstock,Bigstock,Deposit,bla bla bla would be quite weird to say the least if you take your job seriously. Now if you are befriended with the owner of one of the snick snack agencies that's another story. Great month at Getty, Blend, Offset and SPL! but so and so in micro. Left Canstock and next will probably be FT! I havent got any more time to just keep uploading and uploading. Drains me of energy!
Anyway wish you all a good December!
It really makes me wonder how somebody that affirms to supply images at Blend Getty and Offset is also supplying to Canstock ?? Doesn't make any sense at all.
Many years back I joined Canstock mainly because a friend who used to be here introduced me to Duncan! ( the owner) and we became sort of friends!....did that answer your question?
413
« on: December 02, 2017, 08:14 »
Great month at Getty, Blend, Offset and SPL! but so and so in micro. Left Canstock and next will probably be FT! I havent got any more time to just keep uploading and uploading. Drains me of energy!
Anyway wish you all a good December!
It really makes me wonder how somebody that affirms to supply images at Blend Getty and Offset is also supplying to Canstock ?? Doesn't make any sense at all.
414
« on: November 22, 2017, 02:28 »
Great post Cobalt. That's the way it is ...that is the actual trend and yes every agency is now interested in this type of shoots. They are not easy to accomplish do With stock style you mean stock 2006? Mostly design elements and posed pictures, happy woman laughing with salad?
No, that is not what eyeem is looking for.
Actually no agency is looking for that. All agencies are asking more or less for the exact same thing: highly localized content with mostly natural light, with people looking of camera and of course always model released.
However...this is actually much harder to shoot. The images they give you as an example may look spontaneous but are usually done by super pro and experienced teams.
All the colours are muted earth tones, images are shoot outdoors against the sun or have lensflare added, lots of highly unrealistic images like all these images where people are hiding their faces or the back of faces. Normal people dont do that in real life, this is a fake authentic trend.
The real world is messy, the fake authentic style has an etheral and otherwordly feel to it. The majority of people on this planet live in very crowded and often dirty urban areas, yet fake authentic provides nature escapism with a happy 70ies retro vibe.
A romantic and sanitized memory of better days, obviously ignoring the cold war and ugly politics, peace marches, everybody smoking heavily, not taking showers daily and people with really yellow teeth.
The trend does sell very well, but you really need to understand it when you shoot it.
Authentic is a specialized style popular in the stock industry today.
It is NOT editorial or documentary photography.
Trends like these come and go, those that spot them early make the most money.
But you can upload that style anywhere eyeem, shutterstock, offset...they all want it.
415
« on: November 18, 2017, 14:11 »
Very strong month. Now already two in a row. Hope the trend continues.
416
« on: November 15, 2017, 11:49 »
No black cat. It's all about the money, and in this department they deliver more than all the other agencies/distributors combined (at least in the photo department-video seems to be a different story). Why do you think that they still have so many top pros as exclusive contributors. I can tell you that those that are supplying images to stock as their main business are a thousand times more sensitive to revenue than anyone else that does it for pocket money. I can guarantee you that once they don't bring food to the table they will be gone in a heartbeat. As simple as that. Yeah the prevailing philosophy from some is to keep bending over and taking it
How weak an argument is that?
Weak, or realistic? Better to get some money, or none at all?
If you don't like it, don't use Getty. Getty is far, far bigger than any individual contributor, and there's no shortage (yet) of people wanting to sell their pictures to take your place. So, as a contributor, you have no bargaining power.
Rather than fighting a battle you will never win, make a strategic withdrawal and concentrate your energy on the agencies you do like.
Such a pathetic reason to keep feeding this outfit
I dumped them back in February
A colleague who was a Getty exclusive dumped them last year for the 1 cent royalties.
You keep feeding into this abusive relationship along with others and you just end up encouraging them.
417
« on: September 28, 2017, 04:02 »
Although I agree that the measure innocently wants to tackle a problem that is happening in our hyperconnected societies where fitness gods and goddess are pushed up in the social media altars, magazines tv shows etc the measure will backfire in many ways. I thinks these are some negative implication of this measure:
1- The beauty trend of slim bodies is fortunately not going away from our societies. We are following again the classic greek aesthetics of body shapes and that is not going to change soon. And I am glad for it. As it has been already said western societies have a much bigger problem with obesity and overweight population than the contrary. It is all those images that are pushing millions of people to practice sports and eat better. Anorexia might kill some hundreds in Europe every year.....overweight kills hundred thousands. You cannot even compare the problem. You need a strong and regular will to do sport and to eat healthy. It is much easier to watch the latest tv show on the couch while eating some fries. But we dont want to look fat we want to look in shape in our mirrors and here the influence of all those published perfect bodies is a strong incentive.
2- Thank to photoshop the tyranny for the models to be a their 100% is over. A little overweight can be corrected without a problem at the push of a button. If this is not more possible photographers,agencies etc will look for even more perfect bodies. This will be much harder to maintain and I think a jump to surgery will be more common.
3- Photography the same as movies drawing music is a form of artistic creation. It is wrong to impose arbitrary artificially limitation to it. Should we ban from the museums painter John Currin and only show Rubens. Should be forbid violence in movies because some idiot might be influenced and do so terrible act. Should be forbid rap music etc, where do trace the line ?
4- What are the consequences for Getty. It depends. If all the other agencies follow this decision everything will balance out. But if other agencies do not follow this rule or for example use a button to just specify if image has been retouched or not they will have a competitive advantage. They will get images that Getty wont. It will not matter in a few months time but in a couple of years Getty will notice this disadvantage and will have to act. I would think that to make clear if an image has been retouched (changed body form, nose,hair etc) would be much more interesting for buyers. The no filter trend is exploding and to know that an image has been altered or not at all would be for sure interesting for clients.
5- The argument that Getty is taking this action because of the french law is a lie. They are taking this action because they want. There are many laws in dozens of nations that conflict with some images of the library but they dont limit it, and they shouldnt. Because if tomorrow Poland comes up with a law against nudes or Mexico forbids showing images of children will Getty follow. I dont think so. By this new french law they are simply obliged to state if the image has been retouched or not. They went all the way to banning any body shape contouring. Of course they can do what they find convenient but to attribute it to the french law is not speaking the truth.
418
« on: September 14, 2017, 02:28 »
https://www.stocksy.com/1451389
Is it a joke or what! Must be crazy to pay $175.00 or I'm stupid to understand the concept. Is this what you are looking for?
I am not at Stocksy but that portfolio is truly amazing. Only Stocksy, Gettyimages and Pond 5 have that kind of work. Some people get it and some don't. For me those clips are powerful and inspiring. Others might think that a splash of fruits into the water or a group of businesspeople on a meeting desk in an aseptic office giving each other fake smiles is what it takes to make great content.
419
« on: August 11, 2017, 14:02 »
Half day 60-90 ( 75-110$) Full day 120 to 150 (140-175$)
420
« on: July 20, 2017, 01:50 »
Different photos, different author's name.
I don't see where is the problem.
Same "exclusive" author selling RF images at another agency. I can see very well where the problem is. But again it might be not a problem for Istock. Nowadays special rules and deals are common tongue.
421
« on: June 24, 2017, 04:13 »
As far as I know the %age paid out by SS has remained the same. Its not really in their interest to force down prices any more than us....so I blame Capitalism and market forces ;-)
True, market forces made what happened unavoidable.....sooner or later we would arrive at this point. In any case, pros are flooding the market now more than ever to stay just afloat and amateurs are making much less than they used to. This are the facts we all know.....tomorrow might be better for all of us.......I would say the odds are that it is going to be even tougher....
422
« on: June 24, 2017, 01:12 »
Yep! I had counted them out and left them for dead and then I recieve one of the largest payouts in 12 years time! into a 5-figure amount. Guess I start uploading again there.
Could it be that they somehow are staggering back and its weakening SS who according to lots of fairly big contributors in their own forum is just terrible. I dont know but something is cooking.
That's a great surprise. I haven't had one of those in a long time but I remeber my largest one with them long time ago close to 30k. Unfortunatelly all those magic vanished too quickly. I hope that your thought of the weakening of SS could come true. On the contrary that the majority of the contributors here I blame SS to the rapid demise of the industry.....more so that the one that everybody points fingers at. Not that I want to defend Getty because I think they suck contributors blood everytime they can. But it was who SS implemented the ultra low subscriptions. Getty at least tried with Vetta/Agency, mantained RM, defended only credit sales, and had decent prices for a while till it was not more feasable with the breath of SS on their necks. Now we are in this crazy battle of ultra low prices where nobody wins but the customers. The fact is that SS is loosing steam. Getty cannot get the content they want because the kind of content they want is not feasable anymore with those prices. Adobe is slowly crawling up in the game.....and all the others are lingering........ lets see how everything goes in the next future.......
423
« on: June 23, 2017, 13:39 »
Blend is a distributor and they do work with adobe-ft. There are better Rm agencies. I wouldn't bother.
Derek, is imagesource a better place to submit an application?
It depends! but with your material I have seen a little ( brilliant) I would rather go for agencies like Trevellian and Arcangel. They love the stuff that you produce. Like tailormade for it.
I also agree with Derek. Cultura, Blend, Image Source, Hero Images, OJO Images,....are dedicated to shoot mainly lifestyle images. With your portfolio you will have a better chance to get accepted and sell images at the mentioned Trevillion and Arcangel. Take a look at this: https://tudorsphoto.com/selling-photos-for-book-covers/Getty would be another option. But it is dissapointing to see RM images that have cost a lot to sell for so little. But Getty is on the radar of all the book/CD publishers that need many times exclusive rights for their book covers.
424
« on: June 22, 2017, 14:18 »
I have received it too. The problems with many briefs is that the return is too low now to invest in them. Most involve many models and high production. No chance to recoup the investment with the cents or few dollars you get per sale. If they want to impulse that program they will have to come with better incentives. The problems is NOT the upload process. QHero DeepMeta are great tools and uploading directly via ESP is much improved of what it was in the original Istock. They are not getting the desired amounts of quantity and quality because the eroding treatment to contributors (exclusives and non exclusives).Too many have turned their backs on them. Let's see if they can reverse the trend. It wont be easy, that's for sure. 
425
« on: June 21, 2017, 15:00 »
No surprise here. More contributors everywhere....high speed Internet connection have for sure helped. In any corner of the world broadband is available now. I doubt the big explosion of contributor came from the US or Western Europe. The rest of the world is just joining the game. On the other hand, specially when I browse Shutterstock, I see thousands variations of fractals, dozens nearly exact similars and buckets of very basic vectors. There are many stockers that upload thousands/hundreds on a weekly basis  . 99% garbage but they believe in the quantity strategy. I would never go this route but again my revenue has declined from the boom years and that might be the opposite for them so if only for revenue reasons their strategy to overload the system might be working. .....
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
