| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2005 02:44:26 PM · #51 |
Can you imagine the same happening with people who make music?
With new powerful PC's people could upload their own home composed songs to a site then an advertising agency could pick one, release a no.1 single and the "musician" could revel in the knowledge that he/she wrote the song as they rushed out to spend their 50 cents.
Hmmmmm
Steve |
|
|
|
02/14/2005 02:44:38 PM · #52 |
Well, people's circumstances are different... so...
"So a couple of hundred dollar investment for an opportunity to earn it back in one sell doesn't alienate the "weekend warrior" as you put it."
May not be correct. As you notice you use the word "opportunity" in your sentence. What if you never sell one? What if it takes you 8 months to sell one? And you CAN'T afford that money to be gone for that long? Never assume how much money is in someone else's wallet...
And if the pros really thought the images going to shutterstock/istock/dreamstime/etc were REALLY worth more than 20 cents, then they'd make it easier to get those images onto THEIR sites, e.g., accepting 3MB jpegs. After all, then THEY'D be making the sale on those images for $20 rather than shutterstock selling it for $1. So since these "pro" sites don't accept the same files as the "small" sites, I can only assume that in THEIR eyes they are only worth $1. So be it.
But again, I agree it's all a silly argument. Each person AND company should do what THEY are happy with. Then everyone should be OK, right?
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 02:52:49 PM · #53 |
No, someone said that if you print big, you can see the difference between a 3MB jpeg and a 48MB tiff. So I wondered how many pics are used above 8x10. I was asking a very specific question, to which I admit I don't know the answer. And your reply of
"Considering how many issues of various magazines are printed Including an 8.5x11 cover (or bigger) or a 2 page spread, I'm sure the precentage is more than 5%."
Has something to it, but, consider this. In all those magazines, how many pictures are INSIDE the mag, and smaller than 8x10? 50? Many are MUCH smaller than 8x10. So that means that 2% of images are on the covers of magazines. Add a few inside larger than 8x10, and you're up to about 5%.
MANY MANY pamphlets etc are printed that aren't even as large as 8x10. So 100% in those are below that limit.
I know I see mostly smaller than 8x10 in the newspaper by far.
Of course, the other side is that 100% of billboards are bigger than 8x10. So that ups the percentage.
Again, I don't have any hard evidence on the percentage, just my GUESS. I'd like to hear from anyone that does have hard evidence on the issue of size one way or the other. Because if few are used that large, than it seems to me that most images don't need to be the 48MB tiff files.
I wonder where you could find that...
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 03:23:27 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Tallbloke:
Can you imagine the same happening with people who make music?
With new powerful PC's people could upload their own home composed songs to a site then an advertising agency could pick one, release a no.1 single and the "musician" could revel in the knowledge that he/she wrote the song as they rushed out to spend their 50 cents.
Hmmmmm
Steve |
If there was a royalty free music web site and someone bought my tune for $.50, put it on a CD and made millions off it, I̢۪d laugh all the way to the bank. Since they bought it royalty free they can not re-sell it, thus we̢۪d sue the pants off them and win easily. If they modified the tune slightly I̢۪d sue them for copyright infringement since I still own the copyright to the tune.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 03:39:48 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by dswebb:
Each person AND company should do what THEY are happy with. Then everyone should be OK, right? |
Most logical statement I seen in this argument.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 04:50:58 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by dswebb:
Has something to it, but, consider this. In all those magazines, how many pictures are INSIDE the mag, and smaller than 8x10? 50? Many are MUCH smaller than 8x10. So that means that 2% of images are on the covers of magazines. Add a few inside larger than 8x10, and you're up to about 5%. |
But when you are posting images for stock sale, every image has to meet the specs for the largest size at which it might be used. One reason they can charge more for those big images is that they are bigger and more can be done with them, both photographically and legally. |
|
|
|
02/14/2005 05:41:32 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by dswebb:
No, someone said that if you print big, you can see the difference between a 3MB jpeg and a 48MB tiff. So I wondered how many pics are used above 8x10. I was asking a very specific question, to which I admit I don't know the answer. And your reply of
|
I can see the difference between a print 8X10 from a 3Mb JPG file and one from a 48Mb TIFF file. Are you printing from a deskjet? On a descent photo printer the difference is astounding. And again you are off the point.What does it matter what these images are made for? You get paid more if you take the extra 30 seconds it takes to shoot in RAW, convert them to 48Mb and the small additional effort it would take to find a respected stock agency. There are two that are easy to break into listed on this thread. There are litterally hundreds more out there waiting for you to find them.
Message edited by author 2005-02-14 17:42:43.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 10:19:21 PM · #58 |
"take the extra 30 seconds it takes to shoot in RAW, convert them to 48Mb"
Once again someone is assuming something about everyone else... With my equipment it would take FAR more than an additional 30 seconds to do what you are suggesting... *sigh* I wish it weren't so, but it is.
Again, why not let everyone do what they are happy with? |
|
|
|
02/14/2005 10:32:42 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by dswebb:
Again, why not let everyone do what they are happy with? |
Really if you think anyone on here is telling you have to do anything you are mistaken. I imagine you will do what you want. Take this as advise from a few people who care and who may have at one time been in the position you find yourself at the moment.
Message edited by author 2005-02-14 22:33:33.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 10:38:31 PM · #60 |
Just out of curiosity, what was the image, who bought it for $280, was it a print or the file, if print what size, and from what source? (i.e., DPCP, your own website, a gallery?)
Originally posted by jonpink:
iStock et al are no good for me - many many better options.
Example - one image on iStock I had as a test for 6 months, sold 6 times to 6 different people / companies (A golf picture)
Total money $1.20 Wow!
Sold the same image privately just the once.
Total money $280
You would be much better off just paying £3 a month for your own website and selling from there. |
|
|
|
|
02/15/2005 07:21:42 AM · #61 |
"Really if you think anyone on here is telling you have to do anything you are mistaken."
No, I don't think anyone here is telling me personally what to do. But when this topic is brought up, there are always people saying "don't sell your work so cheap! You hurt all of us if you do that." type thing. So they are telling everyone in general not to go to the "cheap" sites. Maybe they are just advising, but it sure sounds like they are telling...
I also would be curious to know how the $280 print was sold. I mean, how did you contact the buyer? That seems like the hard part... For all I know, I may have some picture somewhere that SOMEONE would pay $280 for, but HOW TO FIND THEM? That seems the difficult part...
|
|
|
|
02/15/2005 11:09:37 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by dswebb:
Once again someone is assuming something about everyone else... With my equipment it would take FAR more than an additional 30 seconds to do what you are suggesting... *sigh* I wish it weren't so, but it is.
Again, why not let everyone do what they are happy with? |
Doug, we've never tried to tell you what to do. Earlier in the thread you mentioned "But I've yet to find a stock agency that offers higher payouts that doesn't have SOME restriction in keeping out the "weekend warrior" photographer...", - so I just wanted so show you one site (Alamy) that could possibly work for you with a little effort and time. (It takes me more than 30 seconds to prep files and make them 48M).
"The higher paying ones seem tailored to ONLY allow professional photographers to join." I agree. They have no patience to hold a newbie's hand. From my research it's very hard to get accepted with these agencies. From an image qualtiy standpoint they look for stuff created with high end medium format cameras and digital backs, or slides scanned in at 50-100M file sizes. But if you do get in - jackpot. (I've heard of one guy who earns about $500K/year - off Royalty Free!)
Royalty Free and the internet drastically changed the Stock Photo business. With a lot more photo buyers, there's a market for everyone. Do whatever makes you happy.
- John |
|
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: 11/15/2025 08:33:16 PM EST.
