| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2004 06:29:31 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by tbdean:
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... |
Thougt you were talking about thease amatuer and semi-pro RF sites. For pro- and RM-sites I´ve no idea. |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 09:24:54 AM · #27 |
I'll have to recheck the required resolution but the Rebel and the D70 D100 are fine at 6mp.
Looks like the web site is down as a new one is due to be online this weekend, UK time I presume.
I registered there and blow me down with a feather Rachael called me today, thats a call from England to Australia.
She is a very impressive lady and she sounds like she will be working hard for and with anyone who is willing to put in the time and effort to produce saleable photo stock.
I too recommend that anyone who is wanting to take the next from the RF sites to have a look and see for yourself, the image quality and size should be reachable by many of the members from dpc.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 09:35:28 AM · #28 |
| I like what I see, must look into this. |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 10:59:00 AM · #29 |
I would have to ask if she has any history of selling stock photography. If you build it - they don't always come. Before I started to accept outside photographers, I had a large user base of recurring customers - as well as a solid-working proof-tested marketing plan.
Jon |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 03:36:52 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by shutterstock:
I would have to ask if she has any history of selling stock photography. If you build it - they don't always come. Before I started to accept outside photographers, I had a large user base of recurring customers - as well as a solid-working proof-tested marketing plan.
Jon |
I would have to say yes. My phone and email discussions with her do make me feel that she does have stock photography background and I do know from those discussions that she has been talking with potential customers.
Drawing on my limited stock experience, I believe there is a market for Shutterstock (RF pay per month of downloads), Istock/Dreamstime (RF Pay per download), Pinupinoo (Exclusive RM High quality/resolution stock photos pay per use)
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 08:27:56 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by shutterstock:
I would have to ask [snip snip snip]
Jon |
Jon, I would have to ask just what concern is it of yours what her background is. You already have a presence here at DPC, and you have your own thread where you have staked out your position and your business model. Normally, I hang back from these things, but I find it highly inappropriate for you, a competitor of sorts, to be interjecting yourself here. It does not do anything but make you appear to be a badly behaving competitor.
It is one thing for the photographer members to be having this discussion, as it is well within the scope of the site. I, for one, believe it borders on the edge of a TOS violation for a commercial entity to start to engage in competitive practices in a thread not associated with their own commercial endeavor. |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 09:17:37 PM · #32 |
Yeah, one of the benefits of being a member here is that we don't see advertising. I'd like that to remain so...
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 09:22:15 PM · #33 |
15% and £15 = real money?
Nah
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 09:53:57 PM · #34 |
| well, it is more than 20 cents an image, and there is a wide pay range depending on the shots. |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 10:04:58 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
well, it is more than 20 cents an image, and there is a wide pay range depending on the shots. |
Yes it is better than 20 cents, but then 20m cents is better than nothing and so the argument goes.
I think for them to take a 75% cut is pretty scandalous in all honesty, and that alone would prevent me from even considering it.
Remember the main work is really done by the photographer, all they are doing is making a base in which to sell it - something that is far from unique and 'relatively' easy to do yourself.
Now also consider that they have no market presence at all yet, so they are unable to say 'ah yes but we attract more than 5 million buying customers per month' If that was the case, then I guess they may have the argument of low fees, high sales.
However, Corbis & Getty rule the stock photography market, and they are without a doubt the two big players whom share a 45% dominance of the market. And what do they give their photographers? Between 45 and 50 percent, and for others no percentage, but a weekly salary.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 10:56:49 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
However, Corbis & Getty rule the stock photography market, and they are without a doubt the two big players whom share a 45% dominance of the market. And what do they give their photographers? Between 45 and 50 percent, and for others no percentage, but a weekly salary. |
And how much will they pay me ... zero.
Message edited by author 2004-12-17 22:57:10. |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 11:12:23 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jonpink:
However, Corbis & Getty rule the stock photography market, and they are without a doubt the two big players whom share a 45% dominance of the market. And what do they give their photographers? Between 45 and 50 percent, and for others no percentage, but a weekly salary. |
And how much will they pay me ... zero. |
But it's not how much they pay you, it's the percentage they pay themselves. Even if they paid you £10,000 per image, if they took 75% of that I still wouldn't think it's a fair deal.
One may be better putting their efforts into their own site, and taking 100% of the profits.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2004 12:45:50 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jonpink:
However, Corbis & Getty rule the stock photography market, and they are without a doubt the two big players whom share a 45% dominance of the market. And what do they give their photographers? Between 45 and 50 percent, and for others no percentage, but a weekly salary. |
And how much will they pay me ... zero. |
I'd be really surprised if this site ever pays you anything either. And likely, it wouldn't be because your pictures are not good enough, it would likely be because they can't sell them.
Edit: er, i'm not saying at all that you pictures are bad, i'm just saying that that site seems to be yet another mom and pop basement op that is not worth the time one would spend on them.
Message edited by author 2004-12-18 03:05:48. |
|
|
|
12/18/2004 03:06:58 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Remember the main work is really done by the photographer, all they are doing is making a base in which to sell it - something that is far from unique and 'relatively' easy to do yourself.
|
I think one of the things that appeals to people about these stocks sites is that they don't have to run there own site and spend resources on marketing. Some people don't find these things to be easy while for others they are no burden at all. Are you selling thru any stock agencies/sites? Which would you recommend?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2004 07:03:46 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I think for them to take a 75% cut is pretty scandalous in all honesty, and that alone would prevent me from even considering it.
Remember the main work is really done by the photographer, all they are doing is making a base in which to sell it - something that is far from unique and 'relatively' easy to do yourself. |
I would like to address some of what is said above here as it is inaccurate. Photographers start out on a sliding scale of 15 – 35% of the sale of photographs sold under the single-use license fee. The reason for this is that I am likely to be investing more time and resources in photographers new to the industry. Meanwhile, most photographers producing high quality work will get 50% of sales when images are sold through other options available on our website and I would expect the majority of the photographers I accept onto our team to be receiving 50% for at least some of their sales, perhaps most sales within the first year.
It is true that the photographer is key, without the photographer there is nothing to sell! That said, professional photographers responsible for promoting their own work without the use of stock photography websites often spend more time marketing themselves, researching companies and keeping records than they do taking photographs. If this is what they want to do, I have no problems with that. If on the other hand, a photographer wants to spend their time taking photographs (especially if time is limited) then a stock photography agency of any kind can help to sell their images. It is then up to the photographer to decide what his images are worth selling for (the value) and what she / he expects to gain through the sale of them (e.g. exposure, better resume, experience, financial rewards etc.) and use that as a basis for choosing the kind of stock photo agency that they wish to work with.
I would be interested to hear from any photographers here who have successfully created a base to sell their photographs and marketed them easy, inexpensive and not time consuming – I would love to hear your secret. The development of the software for our ‘base’ is costing thousands of pounds as does marketing the photographs which I will be doing using a variety of marketing solutions and working with marketing consultants to best achieve this goal. I feel it is important here to mention that we do already have a list of interested clients who we have consulted during the research phase of the project.
Whilst I am happy to discuss certain aspects of my business and marketing plan by phone with suitable photographers who are willing to make a commitment to my agency, posting sensitive details on a forum would be somewhat unwise of me. If you would like to know more, then please feel free to contact me at photographers@pinupinoo.com.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2004 04:58:38 PM · #41 |
Thanks Gurilla for directing me to this thread from another discussion on stock photography agencies.
I have read the thread with interest and will certainly follow Pinupinoo's fortunes as Rachel drives her new business forward but I don't think I'll be sending any pictures for assessment.
I do understand her point about the costs involved in her side of the v venture and I'm sure the %s have been calculated to allow her business model to succeed but...
I am simply not prepared to take only a 25% cut of the profits on sales of my images, even if they are sales I wouldn't get without her help.
Furthermore, I can't provide a huge base of images to start with or promise to provide new images regularly - my best images are travel images.
But I do wish Rachel well with her business, GOOD LUCK!
|
|
|
|
12/27/2004 10:23:46 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
I am simply not prepared to take only a 25% cut of the profits on sales of my images, even if they are sales I wouldn't get without her help.
|
I think it is more like 50% for most fotog's who are serious, just clarifying a lil : ) And even on dpcprints thats about all we get.
(and yes you have great travel images!! ) |
|
|
|
12/28/2004 12:59:07 AM · #43 |
| Why is everyone ignoring the gawdawful name of this site? Pinupinoo? Pennypoopoo? What? I for one would never associate my images with something as inane as "pinupinoo." What does it mean? |
|
|
|
12/28/2004 07:51:08 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
Originally posted by Kavey:
I am simply not prepared to take only a 25% cut of the profits on sales of my images, even if they are sales I wouldn't get without her help.
|
I think it is more like 50% for most fotog's who are serious, just clarifying a lil : ) And even on dpcprints thats about all we get.
(and yes you have great travel images!! ) |
From what I am reading it sounds like it starts at 25% and MAY go up to 50% at most (for the photographer) and I'm hazy on how/ when that happens.
On DPC the MINIMUM the photographer gets is 50%.
BIG difference, to me anyways.
I'm not ruling this out for the future but the current situation doesn't appeal to me.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2004 07:53:01 AM · #45 |
To bledford:
Yet I bet you wish you had associated yourself with "google", "yahoo" or "virgin" way back when!
I'm not sure where the name comes from but it certainly falls under 'evocative' when it comes to marketing your brand...a category that is becoming more and more effective in our postmodern world as opposed to the 'descriptive' names of the past.
Message edited by author 2004-12-28 07:53:24.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2004 11:25:11 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
On DPC the MINIMUM the photographer gets is 50%.
BIG difference, to me anyways.
|
I don't think you can fairly compare selling a physical print and licensing specific rights to use an image -- they are two different forms of commerce. |
|
|
|
12/28/2004 11:30:49 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I don't think you can fairly compare selling a physical print and licensing specific rights to use an image -- they are two different forms of commerce. |
No indeed. I mentioned DPCP commissions in my post in direct response to it being mentioned in a post above mine.
As far as I am concerned, I am not willing to give someone 75% of the sale price to sell a PRINT of my image OR to sell the rights to USE my image. I'm fully aware that this reduces my chances to sell the image at all and to make anything at all but to me 25% of something is NOT always better than 100% of nothing.
I won't undervalue myself just to make a few dollars.
Message edited by author 2004-12-28 11:34:19.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2004 08:02:44 AM · #48 |
Has anybody heard from Rachael in the last little while? She called me a few weeks ago and I let her know I was interested in pursuing this...since then, I haven't heard any updates on how the site is going or anything despite a few e-mails.
I guess it's the holidays...anybody have any details?
|
|
|
|
12/30/2004 09:07:40 AM · #49 |
I heard from her just before Xmas, she is writing a "How to" for the Key word etc for each photo.
I've been a bit pre occupied myself. :)
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 11:54:14 PM · #50 |
Images downloaded (up to) Commisssion
100 15%
250 20%
500 25%
1000 30%
Over 1000 35%
Sounds like a rip. Most stock photo agencies deal on a 50/50 or 60/40 basis. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 06:59:33 AM EDT.
