| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/13/2006 01:36:37 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
I don't know what part is confusing - Alamy rejected my cd. If I sent another, it would likely be rejected for quality instead of technicality. Does it matter? I tried at Alamy and it didn't work. I could waste time trying again, but it's just that - a waste - unless I get in.
I do understand Brent's (and the other macro supporters) point. It just doesn't seem to apply to people who get rejected by the other companies. Why would I remove my images from micro to apply to MyLoupe to get rejected? So instead of theoretical 1000s and real 100s I get real 0s? That I don't get. |
I've stated many times that if you really have no option ( like the macro sites don't like your work) then micro is for you. That is it's purpose.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:40:50 PM · #77 |
I'm pretty sure Lise Gagne wasn't even a photographer before Istock. They have not only made her famous AND fairly well off, they turned her into someone who could not only make money on her images, but could turn around and make a TON elsewhere.
When an athlete does this, we call them assholes for leaving our favorite team. Lise hasn't jumped ship (that we know of) because of loyalty and a steady customer base. Why would you give up a 160,000 job for a "possible" 400,000? If someone at Alamy offered her 400k a year, I'm CERTAIN she would take it. If they offered her the chance at putting her images up...probly not.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:41:41 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
I don't know what part is confusing - Alamy rejected my cd. If I sent another, it would likely be rejected for quality instead of technicality. Does it matter? I tried at Alamy and it didn't work. I could waste time trying again, but it's just that - a waste - unless I get in.
I do understand Brent's (and the other macro supporters) point. It just doesn't seem to apply to people who get rejected by the other companies. Why would I remove my images from micro to apply to MyLoupe to get rejected? So instead of theoretical 1000s and real 100s I get real 0s? That I don't get. |
So, you kind of tried once, now you just give up and settle for pennies?
You said your submission was rejected by Alamy because they had trouble reading the disk, not for image quality. How do you know the images would be rejected? If they didn't see the images, I'm sorry, but that's not really trying. That's just giving up without trying.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:49:43 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
I'm pretty sure Lise Gagne wasn't even a photographer before Istock. They have not only made her famous AND fairly well off, they turned her into someone who could not only make money on her images, but could turn around and make a TON elsewhere.
When an athlete does this, we call them assholes for leaving our favorite team. Lise hasn't jumped ship (that we know of) because of loyalty and a steady customer base. Why would you give up a 160,000 job for a "possible" 400,000? If someone at Alamy offered her 400k a year, I'm CERTAIN she would take it. If they offered her the chance at putting her images up...probly not. |
IT's why there are agents. Because the people in any profession that do it for the love, would do it for pennies. It's the agents that get them fair market value for their talents.
With photography, the stock agencies are the agents (if you don't have a rep). So many people just give it away to see their name & image in print. You might have too starting out, but after a few times is when you need to charge going rates. You won't purchase all the gear you need with that credit line only.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 02:07:19 PM · #80 |
| why don't you get some bandwidth together and open your own website? |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 02:41:15 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
why don't you get some bandwidth together and open your own website? |
I think their are plenty of stock sites out there already. But maybe I could make 80% from my own microstock site....hmmmm.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 03:23:56 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
I don't know what part is confusing - Alamy rejected my cd. If I sent another, it would likely be rejected for quality instead of technicality. Does it matter? I tried at Alamy and it didn't work. I could waste time trying again, but it's just that - a waste - unless I get in. |
Waste of time after ONE failed QC attempt because you didn't follow the right procedures? Seems a bit sudden to give up on something you could profit from. You started the Alamy- The Challenge thread, and while most people have tried to and have succeeded in applying, Qc'ing, and selling images on there, you have given up and keep ranting that micro is better for you. Seems like a defeatist attitude considering that you stated on the initial posting on that thread...
Originally posted by mavrik:
I am going to sign up for Alamy and give it my best shot to be a regular contributor and see what happens. I will try to remember to report in this thread as often as something newsworthy happens. Most DPC'ers who are on SS and Istock (like me) feel like we a) can't get into Alamy or b) won't sell pictures anyways. I am setting out to prove this claim for myself one way or other.
|
Everyone on here stating that micro sites are bad, are not taking time out to poke fun of those contributers to those sites, but only to help them understand that these sites (and there are now hundreds of thousands of images) will only devalue the worldwide market for stock images. BS, you might say? What if istock or shutterstock had a new competitor selling images to buyers for half the current micro stock price? Your images would instantly devalue because buyers would always go for a cheaper option if they can.
END
Message edited by author 2006-01-13 15:26:08. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:00:45 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by WGF Images:
Everyone on here stating that micro sites are bad, are not taking time out to poke fun of those contributers to those sites, but only to help them understand that these sites (and there are now hundreds of thousands of images) will only devalue the worldwide market for stock images. |
The trouble is that they don't restrict themselves to "I feel microstock is bad because..."; they go on to rant and scream about how we're all idiots for being ripped off.
Leaving aside my personal feeling that it's fairly idiotic to suggest we're being ripped off in some underhand way because they're very open about how their business operates, quite obviously those of us still working with these sites are content with the terms and DON'T feel ripped off.
Apparently that makes us dim-witted fools being secretly fleeced by the big bad microstock world, and we're incapable of coming to our own decisions about the value of the deals we're offered. Apparently only the Brents of this world are qualified to make a decision of this sort.
The only HONEST argument I can see is the one you alluded to there - a protectionist argument about how the way we choose to sell our pictures is affecting your market. As I've said before, welcome to capitalism.
edit: i kant spel
Message edited by author 2006-01-13 16:01:39. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:11:11 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Apparently that makes us dim-witted fools being secretly fleeced by the big bad microstock world, and we're incapable of coming to our own decisions about the value of the deals we're offered. |
Only a fool will argue against making more money or that their own images aren't worth more.
I guess ignorance is bliss.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:11:36 PM · #85 |
WGF
I do think it's useful to point out to a small segment of those who sell on microstock exclusively that actually, their images are of sufficient quality, both technically and content wise to sell for a lot more on traditional stock sites.
I would not argue, and never have done, that strong stock images which are of sufficient quality would very likely make their owners a great deal more on traditional stock agencies, long term, than they would make their owners on micro sites.
But for some reason, everytime this kind of debate comes up, those waving the "micro stock = bad choice in all circumstances" banner seem to deliberately ignore and fail to respond to some of the points made in response.
1) Much of the stuff submitted to micro would be rejected out of hand by traditional agencies. You can't tell this just from looking at the previews. So when I read people coming out with stuff like "I know for a fact that so many of the pictures I saw on would sell on " I wonder what kind of psychic talent they have to be able to tell whether the image in question is of sufficient resolution and quality at full size to be accepted. A lot of people submit stuff to micro sites because their material isn't high enough resolution or whatever for anywhere else.
2) I also see many people who are experts in the traditional stock market assuming that their knowledge translates fully into micro stock. I have brought up before, much more fully than I have here, that the market for micro stock is not the same market as for macro stock and is, in the large part, a wholly new market. I can only assume that those I am discussing this with cannot find a suitable counterpoint to this theory as it's completely ignored every single time I make the point. There are hundreds of thousands of small businesses, non-profit organisations, hobby societies and clubs, local media outlets, etc. that never did buy images from traditional stock because they simply never had the budget for it. These customers can now afford to buy images for their newsletters, websites, posters, magazines becuase of the micro stock industry. Whilst there may be a small segment of the old traditional stock agency customer base that has made the switch, I do think it's a small segment. Because of this, I don't agree that micro stock will be the death of traditional stock and nor do I think that one can simply play the numbers game in terms of saying, this is what happens when an image is sold 100 times via a traditional stock agency, so it must be 10 times more likely if an image is sold 1000 times via a micro stock agency.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:15:19 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by ganders:
Apparently that makes us dim-witted fools being secretly fleeced by the big bad microstock world, and we're incapable of coming to our own decisions about the value of the deals we're offered. |
Only a fool will argue against making more money or that their own images aren't worth more.
I guess ignorance is bliss. |
You consistently ignore the point made about a million times to you in response to statements such as this. A large volume of what is submitted to micro stock sites simply would not be accepted by macro stock.
All the stuff Pete (Ganders) and I have on sale via micro stock sites is way too low in resolution (and not suitable for upsizing) for any of the macro stock sites. Stuff taken on old digital point and shoots or stuff that has been cropped too heavily from a shot on one of the DSLRs.
This stuff would not make more on macro, it wouldn't make a penny because it wouldn't be accepted.
EVERY image we have that is suitable for Alamy is/ will be on there. We've deliberately held it back from micro because the two-market sales model makes most sense to us.
Explain to me again how we're losing potential money by selling on micro stock.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:15:28 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
WGF
I do think it's useful to point out to a small segment of those who sell on microstock exclusively that actually, their images are of sufficient quality, both technically and content wise to sell for a lot more on traditional stock sites.
I would not argue, and never have done, that strong stock images which are of sufficient quality would very likely make their owners a great deal more on traditional stock agencies, long term, than they would make their owners on micro sites.
But for some reason, everytime this kind of debate comes up, those waving the "micro stock = bad choice in all circumstances" banner seem to deliberately ignore and fail to respond to some of the points made in response.
1) Much of the stuff submitted to micro would be rejected out of hand by traditional agencies. You can't tell this just from looking at the previews. So when I read people coming out with stuff like "I know for a fact that so many of the pictures I saw on would sell on " I wonder what kind of psychic talent they have to be able to tell whether the image in question is of sufficient resolution and quality at full size to be accepted. A lot of people submit stuff to micro sites because their material isn't high enough resolution or whatever for anywhere else.
2) I also see many people who are experts in the traditional stock market assuming that their knowledge translates fully into micro stock. I have brought up before, much more fully than I have here, that the market for micro stock is not the same market as for macro stock and is, in the large part, a wholly new market. I can only assume that those I am discussing this with cannot find a suitable counterpoint to this theory as it's completely ignored every single time I make the point. There are hundreds of thousands of small businesses, non-profit organisations, hobby societies and clubs, local media outlets, etc. that never did buy images from traditional stock because they simply never had the budget for it. These customers can now afford to buy images for their newsletters, websites, posters, magazines becuase of the micro stock industry. Whilst there may be a small segment of the old traditional stock agency customer base that has made the switch, I do think it's a small segment. Because of this, I don't agree that micro stock will be the death of traditional stock and nor do I think that one can simply play the numbers game in terms of saying, this is what happens when an image is sold 100 times via a traditional stock agency, so it must be 10 times more likely if an image is sold 1000 times via a micro stock agency. |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I've stated many times that if you really have no option ( like the macro sites don't like your work) then micro is for you. That is it's purpose. |
Doesn't this sum it up?
Message edited by author 2006-01-13 16:15:50.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:19:06 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by ganders:
Apparently that makes us dim-witted fools being secretly fleeced by the big bad microstock world, and we're incapable of coming to our own decisions about the value of the deals we're offered. |
Only a fool will argue against making more money or that their own images aren't worth more. |
I thank you for making my point so well.
Actually, I'll tell you what. If you feel so certainly that anything I sell in microstock could OBVIOUSLY be making so much more money, I'll sell you the copyright on the next 50 images I prepare for them for $1000.
After all, you've already determined (without actually seeing them, mind) that they're worth far more than I could ever get, so you'll be in the money, right? |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:23:28 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I've stated many times that if you really have no option ( like the macro sites don't like your work) then micro is for you. That is it's purpose. |
Doesn't this sum it up? |
I'd think so. Except that you continue to insist so often that anyone selling their images on micro is ignorant and foolish because they could definitely make more, without admitting this exception unless reminded of it each time.
Since soooo many of the DPC people selling on micro sites fall into this very category, you spend a lot of time telling them they are being ripped off when infact, that is applicable only to a small proportion.
Message edited by author 2006-01-13 16:23:46.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:23:45 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by ganders:
Apparently that makes us dim-witted fools being secretly fleeced by the big bad microstock world, and we're incapable of coming to our own decisions about the value of the deals we're offered. |
Only a fool will argue against making more money or that their own images aren't worth more. |
I thank you for making my point so well.
Actually, I'll tell you what. If you feel so certainly that anything I sell in microstock could OBVIOUSLY be making so much more money, I'll sell you the copyright on the next 50 images I prepare for them for $1000.
After all, you've already determined (without actually seeing them, mind) that they're worth far more than I could ever get, so you'll be in the money, right? |
Message edited by muckpond - removed personal attack. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:26:25 PM · #91 |
Luckily not everyone agrees with you. Alamy have accepted every image we've submitted so far. Only today I discussed several of my Antarctica pictures with the Picture Editor of a very successful magazine and she expressed interest and asked to see more. These are on their way to Alamy too.
The reason our portfolio on micro stock isn't fabulous is because we only put our weaker stuff there in the first place. Still the weaker stuff, tiny portfolio that it is, has netted about $150 dollars so far so we're not too upset by your comments.
Message edited by muckpond - removed reference to personal attack. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:29:03 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Luckily not everyone agrees with you. Alamy have accepted every image we've submitted so far. Only today I discussed several of my Antarctica pictures with the Picture Editor of a very successful magazine and she expressed interest and asked to see more. These are on their way to Alamy too.
The reason our portfolio on micro stock isn't fabulous is because we only put our weaker stuff there in the first place. Still the weaker stuff, tiny portfolio that it is, has netted about $150 dollars so far so we're not too upset by your comments. |
I wasn't talking to you, your images are much better than your husbands. :D
Alamy only screens for quality of the file, not for content.
Message edited by muckpond - edited reference to personal attack. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:30:10 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I wasn't talking to you, your images are much better than your husbands. :D |
It's a joint account! How do you know which are which? LOL :)
Message edited by author 2006-01-13 16:31:29.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:31:13 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Alamy only screens for quality of the file, not for content. |
That's a fair point.
I think they should screen for more myself, even though that will mean that some of my images will be rejected after the fact but I think it will be better in the long run.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:31:47 PM · #95 |
| what is this thread about again? |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:31:59 PM · #96 |
Just my two cents (and I usually don't participate in these debates at all).
I would much rather be able to sell on traditional stock sites like Alamy and MyLoupe. My problem is that my equipment is not up to par for their requirements. At the moment, my only option is microstock until I have enough funds to upgrade my equipment. I have read on other posts that I am not the only one with this issue. We don't all have the funds and/or nice equipment that will get us accepted to the traditional stock sites. My plan is in place...I will keep submitting to microstock and between payment from those and my own savings I will upgrade my equipment. Once I can upgrade, I will start putting together a portfolio for places like Alamy and MyLoupe and then remove my photos from microstock.
When I read these posts slamming those individuals who contribute to microstock and how bad it is to the world of photographers it does bother me because I don't have much choice right now. I know most people out here don't even know who I am or anything about my work so I try very hard not to take it personally, but it does still affect me. These threads can be very disheartening for a struggling photographer.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:35:27 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by ArpeggioAngel:
Just my two cents (and I usually don't participate in these debates at all).
I would much rather be able to sell on traditional stock sites like Alamy and MyLoupe. My problem is that my equipment is not up to par for their requirements. At the moment, my only option is microstock until I have enough funds to upgrade my equipment. I have read on other posts that I am not the only one with this issue. We don't all have the funds and/or nice equipment that will get us accepted to the traditional stock sites. My plan is in place...I will keep submitting to microstock and between payment from those and my own savings I will upgrade my equipment. Once I can upgrade, I will start putting together a portfolio for places like Alamy and MyLoupe and then remove my photos from microstock.
When I read these posts slamming those individuals who contribute to microstock and how bad it is to the world of photographers it does bother me because I don't have much choice right now. I know most people out here don't even know who I am or anything about my work so I try very hard not to take it personally, but it does still affect me. These threads can be very disheartening for a struggling photographer. |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I've stated many times that if you really have no option ( like the macro sites don't like your work) then micro is for you. That is it's purpose. |
Everybody has to start somewhere, learn quickly, upgrade, then get out of micro ASAP.
Message edited by author 2006-01-13 16:35:57.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:38:20 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
what is this thread about again? |
Being rejected at a major agency because you have microstock galleries up.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:38:24 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Alamy only screens for quality of the file, not for content. |
That's a fair point.
I think they should screen for more myself, even though that will mean that some of my images will be rejected after the fact but I think it will be better in the long run. |
I've heard that they are getting ready to. Way too many simliars on there.
Don't forget about Photographers Direct. You should put some stuff up there as well. They even give you a rating.
Message edited by author 2006-01-13 16:39:58.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 04:42:15 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by Kavey:
I think they should screen for more myself, even though that will mean that some of my images will be rejected after the fact but I think it will be better in the long run. |
I've heard that they are getting ready to. Way too many simliars on there. |
Indeed.
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
learn quickly, upgrade, then get out of micro ASAP. |
My intention is not to get out of micro but to continue to use it as a sales avenue for any stuff I take that isn't strong enough to macro agencies. If I come across this problem where a macro site won't accept ANYTHING from me if I have ANYTHING on sale at a micro, I may review this but I'll put it to them first that the shots I put onto the micro sites will never even be similar to what I give them, let alone the same and see what happens.
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Don't forget about Photographers Direct. You should put some stuff up there as well. They even give you a rating. |
Can you tell us anymore about this lot?
Message edited by author 2006-01-13 16:42:57.
|
|
