| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/15/2004 05:02:03 PM · #1 |
//www.pinupinoo.com
I would encourage all of you with good images interested in stock fotog to try out this site, it is just getting started but I have talked for hours with the owner, she is in the UK and is willing to pay very fair prices for images. She has some publishers that she is working with and if you can be patient in the new year I think you will have a chance to be with a company that does not underrate you with pennies a shot.
If we all give away are shots for pennies why would anyone pay a good price for them?
Message edited by Manic - made the link more readable. |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 05:07:04 PM · #2 |
| Isn't that site under construction? |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 05:08:35 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
null
I would encourage all of you with good images interested in stock fotog to try out this site, it is just getting started but I have talked for hours with the owner, she is in the UK and is willing to pay very fair prices for images. She has some publishers that she is working with and if you can be patient in the new year I think you will have a chance to be with a company that does not underrate you with pennies a shot.
If we all give away are shots for pennies why would anyone pay a good price for them? |
I've only submitted photos for a few weeks to one site ... and one of the exciting things is that it too is forming/transforming itself. I'll be happy to try and help with photos (and other useful suggestions if appropriate) -- the other stock sites are non-exclusive -- I just don't know if the stuff I have will pass muster there : )
Thanks for the tip!
You might want to update the link text : ) |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 05:10:10 PM · #4 |
Interesting. You have to give them all your info before they give you any information at all. Here are some bits and pieces so everyone doesn't have to fork over an address (sorry, it got kind of long):
Images downloaded (up to) Commisssion
100 15%
250 20%
500 25%
1000 30%
Over 1000 35%
Isolated images
These feature a single object taken against a white background.
Prices: 10.00 GBP / 18.70 USD.
Scenic images
These could be landscape pictures or any subject with a background. These images should not look as though taken in a studio.
Prices: 15.00 GBP / 28.05 USD.
Concepts images
These images are broadly based on a concept or saying. They could be literal representations or lateral interpretations but should always be creative and interesting.
Prices: 20.00 GBP / 37.04 USD.
Specialist images
Currently includes scientific or medical subjects that are particularly hard to find. For example, images of an operating theatre or high tech medical or scientific equipment.
Prices: 50.00 - 100.00 GBP / 93.50 - 187.00 USD.
'Premium Range'
These are high quality, creative and original images contributed by leading photographers.
Prices: 100.00 - 500.00 GBP / 197.00 - 935.00 USD.
Images on demand
Are taken on request, provided you have opted in to this approach. Once accepted, your commission is virtually guaranteed - provided that the images are of a good quality.
Prices vary from 15.00 - 50.00 GBP / 28.05 - 93.50 USD depending on timings and how difficult the images are to find.
Specialist images on demand
These images are generally scientific, medical or particularly difficult to find and are priced accordingly.
Prices: 100.00 - 400.00 GBP / 187.00 - 748.00 USD.
For images sold through the following categories, commission is set at 50%;
Premium Range
Images on Demand
Specialist Images
Please note: amounts in dollars should be taken as approximate guides and will be updated on a regular basis. All pricing may be subject to change.
They also state that your images cannot be made available anywhere else, except for a small gallery on your personal website, in which case the photos must be watermarked and linked to their site. You can't submit photos of flowers or animals unless you can name the exact breed or crossbreed.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 05:16:19 PM · #5 |
Thanks -- I'd just about gotten there.
I have to think about whether I want to sell any photos outright ... I guess I'd consider it if they were shot for that specific purpose.
My medical background could potentially come in handy here ... |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 05:26:01 PM · #6 |
| I was initially confused about giving exclusive rights to my shots, it does not however mean that they can't use them more than once (which i foolishly thought) They have accepted many/most of my shots, (rejected ones often around copyright) and I know many of you on dpc are 'good enough'. If you have shots rejected, you can always sell them on shutterstock or wherever for lots less. Why not start out selling them for more? Just a thought. |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 05:28:14 PM · #7 |
Also:
As part of your application you'll also need to send us your portfolio on CD ROM (unless you have offered an online portfolio of suitable style and content). This should contain 25 images - no more, no less - and meet our standard requirements. Try to select work that shows both variety and areas that you specialise in. But most importantly, select work that reflects you, your approach and style.
Sounds more like istockpro -- this is NOT royalty-free licensing which is why you'll get more/download, but it IS exclusive; you can remove an image with 14-day notice. |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 05:31:32 PM · #8 |
oh yeah
I think the exclusive thing is recommended, but there is a box when you upload that you let them know if it is exclusive or not. This way companies wanting exclusive can be assured they get them. |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 05:37:02 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
oh yeah
I think the exclusive thing is recommended, but there is a box when you upload that you let them know if it is exclusive or not. This way companies wanting exclusive can be assured they get them. |
That's a different issue ... that's the client getting exclusive rights to use the photo for a while, for which you get more because you can't sell it to someone else in the meantime.
What I'm talking about is that they -- the site -- require exclusive rights to market the photo. For example you can't place the same image with them and Corbis or iStockPro. At Shutterstock, iStockPhoto, and the other low-ball RF sites, you can have exactly the same image available at all of them.
Can I send them (or post) a portfolio of images for evaluation, but not necessarily for placement (since they've been used elsewhere), or do they need 25 brand-new photos they can keep?
Also it would help if they posted a (visible) email address on the contact page : )
Message edited by author 2004-12-15 17:38:12. |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 05:45:02 PM · #10 |
i've been looking into this site, myself, and have the following observations:
1) at the moment, this is a one person shop. while she seems to be very straight up, and everything looks legit, you are still putting your work at risk. i mean this from the standpoint that she will be entering into contracts involving your images, and those contracts will supercede your arrangements with her, even if her business fails.
2) i would not give her my best stuff right away. i'd spend some time shooting some stuff that fits what she's looking for, and see how she does with that. if it doesn't work out, at least i will not be out a whole lot. the last thing you want to do is to give her your best images, have her sell licenses to them, then for her to go out of business. you will lose control over your best work.
3) she does have something going for her. the website, though far from perfect (i tripped a few bugs), is a decent piece of work. it's not off the shelf, and i doubt if she coded it herself (though i may be wrong about that). she also seems to have set up an initial market that looks like she'll be able to move images right away, as opposed to waiting for buyers to find her.
all in all, i am still a bit wary, but leaning towards risking a little time and effort to see what comes from it.
and i will be interested to see how the rest of you make out with her, as well.
skip
btw i've got to run to a meeting, so i don't have time to research it here, now, but will when i get back...she is a registered member here, registering about a month ago... |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 07:25:33 PM · #11 |
| This sounds interesting but I think I'll wait until the site's official launch. I dont have a library of 500 so I dont have to worry about the early upload bonus. Considering I'm barely able to sell images for 50 cents I doubt I'll pass muster and not being able to see any current images on there it is hard to know the quality expected. |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 07:48:25 PM · #12 |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 08:57:24 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[quote=ellamay] .
Can I send them (or post) a portfolio of images for evaluation, but not necessarily for placement (since they've been used elsewhere), or do they need 25 brand-new photos they can keep?
Also it would help if they posted a (visible) email address on the contact page : ) |
I think you could email them and get them to look at your dpc portfolio or any other online sites and preused shots are fine, thats what I did, it is small at the moment and I think she is willing to do that while she can. I do not think she wants those images to keep, just to see a sample of work |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 10:06:32 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Can I send them (or post) a portfolio of images for evaluation, but not necessarily for placement (since they've been used elsewhere), or do they need 25 brand-new photos they can keep?
Also it would help if they posted a (visible) email address on the contact page : ) |
I think you could email them and get them to look at your dpc portfolio or any other online sites and preused shots are fine, thats what I did, it is small at the moment and I think she is willing to do that while she can. I do not think she wants those images to keep, just to see a sample of work |
OK -- that makes more sense. I should probably send photos which have been accepted at Shutterstock, and put some of my other best ones in a gallery at pBase -- I don't think my DPC entries constitute a very strong stock portfolio unless she likes the really offbeat interpretation : )
Does she need to see the full-sized images or can she look at a gallery of typical web-sized images?
Also, can you send me their email -- I can't find it on the site?
Message edited by author 2004-12-15 22:14:33. |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 05:45:39 AM · #15 |
| What kind of resolution and file size does she need? Would a 300D be adequate? |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 06:27:29 AM · #16 |
It has come to my attention that there is a thread going here about www.pinupinoo.com and so I would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself and address a few of the questions / concerns listed here.
My name is Rachael Nijhoff and I am based in England. I started Pinupinoo because I saw a gap in the stock photo industry and I thought that I could fill it by reducing the prices that clients have to pay without devaluing the photographers work. I currently have no employees though I have been quite successful in building a talented team of photographers. Intellectual property and copyright specialist solicitors have been hired to produce relevant documentation and advice, the server side software for my website is being built by a professional web developer that I have contracted, likewise for the web design (– the current design is temporary and a more appropriate one will be replacing it soon). I also have the assistance where necessary from marketing consultants and business advisors. The point is that this is a legit business in which a lot of money has been invested to produce professional results.
Someone mentioned on this thread that you need to give your address when you register. This is not really the case – all I require is your town and country at that stage. The information that has been copied over from my website on this thread so far is okay, but I would ask people not to copy any further information over as the reason for the registration is because the information behind the registration screen is of a sensitive nature and I don’t want it to come up in search engines.
I do require that photographs uploaded to the website are exclusive. This is because I need to be able to promise my clients exclusivity. It would also be difficult for me to explain to clients why they should pay 15.00 GBP for just one use of a photograph when it is available for a dollar elsewhere royalty free. The idea of exclusivity is that we can sell your photographs again and again whilst still keeping track of where they are going (you will be able to see all sales through your admin screen). This means that a photograph that may be for sale at 15.00 GBP single use may be requested by an advertising agency who want to use the image in an advertising campaign. As we can supply the images history and make it available to them exclusively for a short period of time, we can charge hundreds or thousands of pounds for this photo – if the photo was also sold through other channels we would not be able to do this. Another reason for exclusivity (if you need one) is that potential clients that I have spoken to are becoming somewhat impatient with the mainstream stock photo agencies since they go from one website to another looking for an image and keep seeing the same images over and over. It is a selling point for us to tell them that they won’t have seen the images on our website elsewhere.
Portfolios sent to me for application purposes are not used on the website unless you are accepted onto the team. It is clear from the portfolios on DPChallenge that there are many talented and skilled photographers here. Evaluating portfolios on DPChallenge isn̢۪t easy though since very few of the images are stock photography material, no doubt due to the nature of the challenges set. It seems to be a choice on the photographers part as to whether they are interested in learning about the relevant content and styles required by the stock photo industry and if they would enjoy shooting photos with selling them in this way in mind. A portfolio should have at least some images which are of relevant style and content to stock photography. I have begun to (temporarily) approve some photographers based purely on their applications and speaking with them so that they can upload their portfolio straight to our server since it saves time creating and sending CD ROMs.
I hope the above information is useful to some of you (sorry it is so long), and should any of you decide to apply, I look forward to speaking with you. If you have any further questions, please don̢۪t hesitate to email me.
Best wishes
Rachael Nijhoff
www.pinupinoo.com
photographers@pinupinoo.com
Message edited by author 2004-12-16 06:31:15. |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 06:29:46 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by tbdean:
What kind of resolution and file size does she need? Would a 300D be adequate? |
For most (or all) stock-photo pages full resolution images from 300D is more than adequate. |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 06:32:34 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Thanks -- I'd just about gotten there.
I have to think about whether I want to sell any photos outright ... I guess I'd consider it if they were shot for that specific purpose.
My medical background could potentially come in handy here ... |
And I see a potential for my Horticultural background as well, with botanically named plants/flowers/trees. It has been a frustration for me on the RF stock sites where they think all flowers/trees etc are the same.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 09:03:00 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Gurilla:
And I see a potential for my Horticultural background as well, with botanically named plants/flowers/trees. It has been a frustration for me on the RF stock sites where they think all flowers/trees etc are the same. |
I know what you mean, as a fellow Horticulturalist.
On the other hand, it means I'll have to start learning plants names again. Do they want the English, American, Latin or German versions? |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 10:36:30 AM · #20 |
I just got off the phone with a most remarkable person who has some really great ideas about the stock photography business. Not only do I believe she is legit, she is driven.
Not everybody will agree with her business model, but I think that her approach really hits the happy medium between being able to play with the big boys and throwing your images out for peanuts.
If you are interested, there are a some things to keep in mind:
*She is selling exclusivise, relative, quality stock images.
*She is looking for photographers who can develop a strong inventory.
*Yes, she needs inventory and a roster, but it has to meet the profile.
My basic impression is that while she does need to build an inventory, she is more interested in having photographers that are providing a steady stream of saleable images. This is not a place where you will be able to upload a catalog of old images and expect to hit the gravy train. You need to have a good idea of what stock photography is, and then shoot to meet that.
In reality, it is a numbers game. If you have an idea of what will sell and make a concerted effort to produce those images, I believe Rachel will be able to sell them and that you can make some decent money. And, if you get good at it, either she'll end up paying you more, or you will take your talents to a higher level.
As for me, while she picked a few of images as meeting the criteria, that is not enough to justify it going with what I got. So, rather than wasting her time asking her to weed through my stuff (and I'm not talking about my DPC portfolio), I am going to start setting aside some time each week to shoot specifically for her site. I doubt if I see anything during the first 6 months, but after that, I am quite confident that I will be getting a return on my investment.
If you think you have what it takes to be a stock photographer, but aren't ready for the big leagues, Rachel might just have what you are looking for.
Skip |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 10:53:36 AM · #21 |
Thanks for the update! My plan was to put together a specific gallery at pBase with my set of sample images for her to review.
Since the photos are to be placed exclusively, my plan would also be to "shoot just for this site."
My experience at Shutterstock implies I at least have a clue about this, but I'm definitely not ready for the "big leagues" anytime soon. |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 04:27:03 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by garlic:
Originally posted by tbdean:
What kind of resolution and file size does she need? Would a 300D be adequate? |
For most (or all) stock-photo pages full resolution images from 300D is more than adequate. |
Yeah? I've been limiting myself to iStockPhoto because I thought my resolution was too low. Alamy requires a 48 MB photo, even in RAW I couldn't do that. I don't mean to hijack the thread, just suprised by the answer... |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 05:13:48 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by aKiwi:
Originally posted by Gurilla:
And I see a potential for my Horticultural background as well, with botanically named plants/flowers/trees. It has been a frustration for me on the RF stock sites where they think all flowers/trees etc are the same. |
I know what you mean, as a fellow Horticulturist.
On the other hand, it means I'll have to start learning plants names again. Do they want the English, American, Latin or German versions? |
I don't know the site requirements, but for me it would be the botanical (Latin) name. Common names are just that, common to that area and one plant can have many common names and one common name can refer to many different plants.
On the resolution I have been suspicious of the need to upload high res images to RF stock sites to generate sales, they do not require hi res but it certainly helps generate sales. The problem here is the price Vs quality the customer is paying a very low price for a high res image.
When I started with RF stock I was lowering the image res and my sales were not so good, the newer uploaded higher res images have sold better but I feel a bit like I have been robbed.
I think this site could be the answer, low res RF stock and Hi res RM stock.
Bob
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 05:38:56 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Gurilla:
When I started with RF stock I was lowering the image res and my sales were not so good, the newer uploaded higher res images have sold better but I feel a bit like I have been robbed. |
What site was this at? |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 05:49:05 PM · #25 |
I started at Istock and then Dreamstime. I have very few images at Istock, I don't really like it there.
I was lowering to their minimal requirement. That is fine to get it on the site for sale but it seems that many of the buyers look for the higher res images. I don't blame them but it not really good bucks for a high res image.
Edit: Should mention that Shutterstock in now my primary Stock site, it generates much higher revenue.
Message edited by author 2004-12-16 17:50:59.
|
|
