|
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 - Dave
51
« on: October 19, 2015, 20:08 »
Yes, the old percentage bogey and our precious images and along with that one has to think about which site to put ones images on and in.
Then you have to look at sites that sell and ALSO disclose to us image creators, lets face it if it was not for us, and our images they would not be multimillionaires.
Dreamstime has the information clear to see for everyone how many times an image has been viewed and license sold, then you come to the "Hipster" sites like Stocksy, ImageBrief, 500px etc, they do not disclose any information about the images that they represent, not even how many times an image has been viewed, let alone licensed. ImageBrief, you can at least see what briefs have NOT been filled.
Another think to take into account is the useful lifetime of ones image once online, I think the Hipster sites type of images will date very quickly, ie, reflections, sun flare, Instagram look etc., so unless one is happy to write off a percentage of ones images every year as fashion changes, then perhaps the trad sites are best.
Returns on our images, is it better to license an image once for 50% of the license fee, lets say the most expensive on Stocksy $500.00, YOU get $250.00 or submit your images to multiple sites and potentially license that image, if popular hundreds of times on multiple sites at $0.50c. In the end getting much more than $250.00.
It is up to the individual Image creator to decide for themself, just don't get attracted by the shine, as my old dad used to say, "son just because it shines, doesn't make it gold". Ask questions, you have nothing to loose except your precious creations and it is a lot harder to get them OFF a site than on. Remember they are OUR precious images they are getting rich on!!
Honestly now my last word, what we need is a REAL Image Creator owned site, that would be something worth looking forward too in 2016.
52
« on: September 25, 2015, 00:49 »
I came to stock photography from a traditional graphic design background, having had my own business for nearly 25 years, sold a couple of years ago.
In the last couple of years, i was dealing with the NEW breed of Graphic designer, ones that could not actually draw and knew nothing about design, but could "use" computer programs, so they would look at images on their computers that they had got from somewhere or other and create low res pdf's for proofing. Everything thing looked fantastic on the screen, but when one received the final output file "Ready for Press", they would have rgb colours mixed in with cmyk, just about every image that was supplied was 72dpi and the scale in size changed because you can do that in a computer program, No bleeds, etc, etc.
And we wonder why places like Stockys amd Creative market place exist, it is because they are dealing with people that think what they see on a computer screen is how it will look at output. Both of these site promote themselves as hipsters and trendy but that is just an excuse for bad quality.
And in the end the our industries skills, knowledge and quality go down the drain.
You can't make a silk purse from a sows ear!!!!
53
« on: September 18, 2015, 08:49 »
Here comes the Emperor in his new clothes.
Just remember fellow image creators that WE are just another profit centre for these people, they will take our images, sell them in anyway that they feel works for them, tell us our images are out of focus or they need more white backgrounds and when they don't perform they will refuse to let us remove our creations because buried in the contributors agreement will be a clause that says our creations we have no control over and even if we do take them off line, they will still have the rights to sell the for whatever period of time they decide.
Oh! and you can bet your boots that the percentage they will be paying us for the use of our creations won't be 50% of the sale price.
54
« on: September 17, 2015, 07:58 »
I have just been through absolute waste of time myself, 3 times, they are even rejecting the files that they OK'd previously.
Telling me I had NOT selected Editorial when I not only selected it but also put a tag in the keywords.
Probaly spent 10 hours so far and that is more than enough for me, there is NO consistancy to the rejections.
But this is what happens when people who know nothing about photography are employed to review images, they have no abaility to understand the nuances of the art.
SS will suffer in the end because there are places like Stocksy and Imagebrief, that ask for images, that have a creativeness about them.
55
« on: September 07, 2015, 16:42 »
I think it all depends on your site.
ON DT you can look at anyones keywords and see by the Point size of the keyword the relevance to people using specific words when searching that particular image.
I personally use the least number of keywords I can, keeping them as close to the description of the image as possible.
no colour words unless they are relevant to the image, don't wander off.
56
« on: August 13, 2015, 01:02 »
This is fantastic they say that they are jouralists but the don't even know the difference between having legal contol over something and writing about it, this how it's spelt "copywriter" or it was when I was in the trade. If they can't spell what else can't they do, probably pay for the work you do for them!!! David May So from the press release that Sean dug up - which has more buzzwords per square inch than should be legal - is the following gem:
"Today's announcement brings together all forms of user generated content (photography, videography, live video streaming and copyrighting), ..."
Copyrighting is a form of content? I might be persuaded that "citizen generated content" was a step up from user generated content as a term companies use when they mean "the great unwashed" but are trying to avoid saying it, but it's just more euphemisms. If anyone can submit stuff to them, then that's the business model - why go to such great lengths to point out the background of the people submitting?
Then there is "...to approach Newzulu's existing news agency partners and clients, on a revenue share basis..." which I take to mean that whatever the buyer pays gets split three ways - the two companies sharing revenue and whatever's left for the contributor who actually made the image or video.
This wouldn't be the first time that two companies who are struggling partner up to see if something magical will happen together that didn't happen separately.
And this attempt to try a post as if from an interested contributor that's written in the same marketing doublespeak as the press release is a very bad idea. Trust lost is hard to win back.
Modified to add some links to stories about this company.
http://www.fool.com.au/2015/04/27/is-newzulu-ltd-a-next-gen-disruptor/
PieNetworks acquired NewZulu last August and changed its name to NewZulu
http://www.pienetworks.com/
Then NewZulu made an acquisition "...to help it crack the US" - has anyone heard of Filemobile?
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australian-startup-newzulu-just-paid-5-million-for-content-marketer-filemobile-to-help-it-crack-the-us-2015-2
http://www.startupdaily.net/2015/02/australian-startup-newzulu-closes-11-5-million-funding-round/
They seem to be acquiring a ton of domain names (search NewZulu and you'll see them) including BoomZulu
http://www.boomzulu.com/
What I haven't seen to date (but will now look out for) is any media outlet actually using any of these images or videos...has anyone seen an uses?
This sounds a lot like all the Silicon Valley startups - piles of breathless prose and investors pumping in money by the bucketload but no real clear traction as a business.
One last edit: A profile of the guy running this company
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/alex-hartman-from-teen-entrepreneur-to-head-of-a-global-media-company-2014-10
57
« on: March 12, 2015, 21:36 »
For those not in the US, Fox News (aka Faux News, known for having the worst-informed audience in the country) is a big part of the conservative media echo chamber foisted on us by Aussie Rupert Murdoch.
Just for everyone's information, the dirty digger as the Poms call him is NOT an Aussie, he ditched us to get US citizenship so he could bring you'all Fox News.
Our gain your loss!!
58
« on: June 25, 2014, 23:46 »
Steve
Thanks for the info about FAA, I am just starting to upload images as another way of getting my images seen and hopefully create some extra revenue.
I was most interested in the link to your blog and the discussion about how you price your images on FAA and I thought I would look you up on FAA, to see the sort of images you sell etc. I also looked at your pricing and got the site to show a breakdown of the costs and I could not find any realtionship to the prices you say you sell your images for and what they are selling for on FAA, have you done this on purpose or and do you price your images individually.
I'm a little confused, can you please clarify?
Tahnks
David May
59
« on: August 08, 2013, 00:42 »
The biggest problem with having your OWN site is promotion and getting your images higher than any other images that the end user searches for.
I also think that the high earning stock sites END users just go to their favourites site/s and do a search internally on that site, not doing a google search at all.
I think our energies can be better spent shooting, editing and uploading to stock photography sites that are well established and YES they sting us over the commission they take but they ALSO promote our images for us in much better ways that we can.
60
« on: April 04, 2013, 20:21 »
By the sound of it to me you need to upgrade your Adobe PS, Brigde software and Adobe Camera RAW to the latest versions.
I shoot with a Nikon D800 and use the latest version of both Photoshop and ACR with no problems whatsoever.
Coverting .NEF files to .DNG has got to be the biggest waste of workflow time there is .DNG is just the Canon version of .NEF.
61
« on: January 24, 2011, 01:09 »
I am having a strange experience, one of my images has sold 5 times, in one place on the site it says it is a level 2 image, my commission has only been paid as a level 1 image, which it is obviously not. Anyone else having this problem, I know it is only a few cents to me but across the site photographers could be being duded out of a lot of money.
I have emailed DT and they say it is a level 1 image which it can't be, according to there specs, ie 1-4 sales is level 1, 5 and above are level 2.
62
« on: January 21, 2011, 19:10 »
Here is another little trick I am experiencing, just had an image that has sold 5 times but I have only been paid for a level 1 percentage. You imagine if they are doing this to every image that moves from one level to the next higher level, they are making a nice little earner on our sales, it's worth checking your sales to see how you are affected as well.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
