| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/19/2004 01:49:48 PM · #151 |
moodville...I agree, that's where I am right now...if I can make a few bucks and improve my skills, I'm happy for now!
dswebb, I still don't understand why you think anyone would pay $20 for a photo they can get for a dollar...
The enterprising soul you mentioned would need to offer something that couldn't currently be purchased for a dollar...what is that?
Message edited by author 2004-10-19 13:50:34. |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 01:54:33 PM · #152 |
You're quite right dswebb, you do need 100 images. I don't think that's a big barrier to entry though, even for an amateur, especially compared with the requirements of 'proper' agencies. Are you suposed to show them all 100 to pass the test though? That's like 10 hours of uploading, describing and keywording by my reckoning. Imagine if you did that and they said no!
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 01:57:29 PM · #153 |
Mel, Charla doesn't pursue selling her stuff, people come to her. (I think the most recent was a baby shot that was on her site, a Vancouver mag wanted to use it for their cover).
Your images are really great, Mel!!!!!!! If I were you, I'd pull my stuff OFF of istock and start my own stock photography website. You're a web designer so it'd cost you basically nothing. You could promote it everywhere. Or leave what you've got up on istock and put all your new images on your own site.
Just a thought. |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 02:00:24 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Mel, Charla doesn't pursue selling her stuff, people come to her. (I think the most recent was a baby shot that was on her site, a Vancouver mag wanted to use it for their cover).
Your images are really great, Mel!!!!!!! If I were you, I'd pull my stuff OFF of istock and start my own stock photography website. You're a web designer so it'd cost you basically nothing. You could promote it everywhere. Or leave what you've got up on istock and put all your new images on your own site.
Just a thought. |
I agree, you're past the point of proving to yourself that you can do it, Mel...your images are great and their marketability is more than proven!
The only problem is, you'll only be able to Rights-Manage any photos that you didn't upload to stock sites...but still, I agree with Goldberry that it's time to move up and on to bigger, better things!
...then there will be more room on istockphoto for my stupid wet leaf, too!
;0)
Message edited by author 2004-10-19 14:01:10. |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 02:17:49 PM · #155 |
Wow I am blushing *wink* I am very happy you think my photos are worth more....but I like been on Istock and other sites right now! I am a full time stay at home mom and don't really want to do photography full time yet....I like it as a hobby right now....Maybe I will go to the next level later.
thanks just the same!
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 02:22:30 PM · #156 |
ThatCloudThere: I guess you still dont' understand something I am trying to say.
First, you are correct that nobody will pay $20 for an image that they can also get for $1. I agree with you completely there.
Second, we are talking about a quality image here, that people would be willing to pay $20 for if they had to. Not some low quality image that people would pass up at that price.
Third, my point is that the ONLY REASON the image is available for $1 at all is that there is NO OTHER CHOICE for most people. The image would either sit on his/her hard drive, or be put up on the $1 sites. The higher paying sites have entrance restrictions the average amateaur can't overcome.
So, IF that person had had the OPTION of selling it on a $20 site INSTEAD of a $1 site initially, he/she would have done that, and it NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE FOR $1 in the first place. See what I mean?
Now, at this point in time, with the limited options, I can't fault the person for selling it for only $1 if that is the ONLY OPTION. My question is, WHY is it the only option? (Unless you have the 100 image perfect portfolio etc. to get into a "pro" site.) Why hasn't some enterprising person put up a site that allows any old contributing photog to set their own price from say $1 to $30? That is the enterprising person I was talking about, a web site admin/business person.
So, if now such an "intermediate stock site" should suddenly become available, I would HOPE that the people with the images that are quality enough to bring in $20 would REMOVE their images from the $1 sites and MOVE them to the $20 site. Then the image would no longer be available for $1. Now, some images are only worth $1, those would stay. Or if the people didn't WANT to move them, they would stay as well. But people who had the quality images would move them to the higher paying sites, and the $1 sites would be relegated to lower quality images.
Now, if it would really work like that in reality, I don't know. But, given the fact that there is no $20 (or better yet variable priced) stock sites easily accesible to the general amateaur, we'll never know...
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 02:22:36 PM · #157 |
| So, somebody mentioned it takes almost a week to get your 3 samples approved and I mentioned it took me about 4 days...but I'm wondering how long it takes for individual photos to be approved for istockphoto. Does that usually take a week as well? |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 02:29:06 PM · #158 |
| I think so, I read on their forum a week is normal at the moment |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 02:50:36 PM · #159 |
Shoot! dswebb, I just wrote the longest post in my dpc history and was about to hit 'post' and the power went off in our building for a second!
I guess it was meant to be that I shut up about this!
Summary of my post:
I understand and agree with 95% of what you're saying...I just think that istockphoto is successful because they are able to offer their customers great photos at ridiculously low prices...and yes, this is because amateur photographers didn't have a lot of options.
If this new website was set up tomorrow, do you really believe that all the decent images would be removed from the successful websites and submitted to the not-yet-proven sites?
It would be like a vendor deciding that they don't want to sell Wal-Mart anymore because they could charge more for their product at another retailer...yes, it happens but ultimately, at the end of the day, Volume dictates the winner...Wal-Mart.
The website you're suggesting could work, but only if it introduces an innovative way of selling stock images or if they create a niche market...
These are just my opinions...
:0)
Message edited by author 2004-10-19 14:51:12. |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 03:10:05 PM · #160 |
The way that I still seee it is...someone is getting something for basically nothing. Million+ dollar companies using a $1.50 photo in a promotion or ad?! Who is making the money in that situation. Apparently they use to have to pay something that it is worth, not now.
You have alot of money tied up in your equipment, that is why you shouldn't give your photos away. Yeah you are making a few cents, but how does it compare percentage wise to your camera cost, and more imortantly, YOUR TIME.
Time is money. I took about an hour of MY time to edit my current challenge photo. Considering I get paid about $24/hr at my regular job...making $7 for 5 downloads in a few months isn't worth it. I am striving for sometihing higher.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 03:14:05 PM · #161 |
ThatCloudThere: You are very right. It would be an uphill battle for this "new stock site" if it were created now. It would depend on people moving their images off of the other sites, which would take some time, as people realized they had another option, and had the quality pics to take advantage of it. It might never survive if this didn't happen, or if it happened too slowly. That's why I said it might not work in the real world today...
Too bad something like that wasn't set up when the digital revolution originally took off. Or maybe it was and it died because the concept didn't work...
I don't know. Like I've said, I am totally new to all this. But it is highly interesting!
Thanks for the conversation!
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 03:20:21 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
The way that I still seee it is...someone is getting something for basically nothing. Million+ dollar companies using a $1.50 photo in a promotion or ad?! Who is making the money in that situation. Apparently they use to have to pay something that it is worth, not now.
You have alot of money tied up in your equipment, that is why you shouldn't give your photos away. Yeah you are making a few cents, but how does it compare percentage wise to your camera cost, and more imortantly, YOUR TIME.
Time is money. I took about an hour of MY time to edit my current challenge photo. Considering I get paid about $24/hr at my regular job...making $7 for 5 downloads in a few months isn't worth it. I am striving for sometihing higher. |
It seems we've been over this...At this point, I'm not taking photographs for money. If I get money for a few photographs, I'm happy with that...
Once I'm confident and have enough expertise, I will strive for something higher.
Also, to me, time isn't money...so I guess we have a fundamental difference in values which negates much further debate on this issue.
How much are you getting for your photographs now for the time that you've spent on them? ...and where do you sell them, Tracy?
Oh, and by the way, congrats on your well paying job.
Edit: I see in your portfolio that you have a self-portrait of you holding your child...it's a beautiful photo.
How much money do you normally get back for the time you spend holding a loved one? None?
It must be something you love to do, if you do it for no fiscal gain...
Message edited by author 2004-10-19 15:23:11. |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 03:33:55 PM · #163 |
Have to say something here. IStock does all the back office work. They advertise, pay us, keep track of sales and so on plus they have a presence that an individual photographer could never hope to have which translates to thousands of clicks per day. That is also worth money. If someone would want to do their own site, as an individual, I think they would have a hard time selling enough to make a profit. It's not just putting out pictures on a pretty site. It's marketing, tracking, insuring, tracing(Mel, you do follow the threads at istock?) and a lot of other stuff. A productive photographer would be better served taking pictures than sitting in an office and doing paperwork.
There are intermediate sites out there, istockpro and almay are two of them. If you can't meet their requirements, then maybe you're not ready to start selling stock. Or maybe a site like istock is a way to start. |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 03:39:44 PM · #164 |
Hear hear!
*graps his big beer stein and lifts it into the air, spilling some, then takes a big German swig and calls it a night* |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 03:52:58 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
How much are you getting for your photographs now for the time that you've spent on them? ...and where do you sell them, Tracy? |
Actually this month I have sold 5 prints (St Catherines Chapel) for between $60-$80. I have done some portraiture sittings to the tune of about $400. And bout 10 smaller prints at $5 apiece.
edit: I sell them at the college campus, to friends, coworkers, word of mouth, and trying to get into an art gallery.
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Oh, and by the way, congrats on your well paying job. |
I went to school for four years and worked 40 hours a week during school to get the education. And paying off $30,000 student loan, also.
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Edit: I see in your portfolio that you have a self-portrait of you holding your child...it's a beautiful photo.
How much money do you normally get back for the time you spend holding a loved one? None?
It must be something you love to do, if you do it for no fiscal gain... |
That is why my time is valuable!!
Message edited by author 2004-10-19 15:54:27. |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 03:58:16 PM · #166 |
I understand...
I think that, fundamentally, we'd all love to sell our photos for the highest price possible. It would be tough to argue against that.
However, at this point in my photographical endeavours, the 'highest price possible' might be the $5 I could make from selling the image on istockphoto 15 or 20 times.
Once I improve and develop a decent portfolio, I'll also set my sights higher. I hope to take a peek at some opportunities over the next year or so, just to get started... |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 04:16:36 PM · #167 |
I think istockphoto is a good place maybe to sell those images that would not get accepted via another agency perhpas...
mmm
*goes off to have a look at old images with $$$ in eyes.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 04:39:10 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I think istockphoto is a good place maybe to sell those images that would not get accepted via another agency perhpas...
mmm
*goes off to have a look at old images with $$$ in eyes. |
Stop it jon! Leave the crumbs to us rookies!
;0) |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 05:07:38 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
The pen tool shouldn't give you a black border if you have it set to "Paths" (in Photoshop 7 or CS). The reason I recommend it highly is because each point you create is another entry in your History palette, so if you screw up 4 or 5 clicks back, you can get back there without starting your path over completely.
I'm actually 95% done with a Clipping Path tutorial for the site here, but it fell by the wayside. I will do my best to get that submitted in the next day or two.
As for the leaf, it looks fine the way it is. The trick will be if I need to put that leaf over a colored background. If I can see even a hint of the original background it was on, it wouldn't work. I'd either have to fix it myself or find another photo (more than likely just fix it, but I shouldn't have to).
NEVER with the soft edges: again, if I were to drop that leaf over a black background, soft edges would give it a white "halo." Clipping paths are meant to be a good solid definition between subject and background.
Again, I'm not an expert on creating photos for stock. I just know that during catalog season, I spend weeks on end doing clipping paths and know that when I (or anyone else in my office) encounters a bad one, things get thrown. :)
Case in point: we re-worked a 60-page catalog from a previous year. Many of the products were the same, but the colors of the catalog changed. The original estimate "assumed" that we could just use last year's product shots, but when we dropped them on the new color background, we could see that someone just went around the product photos with the wand real quick-like 'cause it didn't show on the old color. EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT had to be cut out all over again and it took for-freakin'-ever (much of it was like keychains and jewelry and stuff with lots of little details). OMG...I'm tensing up just thinking about it again. LOL. |
I find this whole conversation fasinating as I know nothing about this entire scene and there is a possibility of me actually making some $$$$.
muckpond where do you buy your stock photos from now and if there was a site that offered a guarantee but charged say 10x more than istock would you buy from them?
The reason I ask is that sure it would be great if there was a middle ground site to sell your photos on but there firstly has to be a demand for it. If dpc was to start that middle ground site with very specific requirements for each section with minimal numbers of initial uploads then I'm sure it would do well.
Your case in point is a great example, if the middle ground site could offer you photos that guaranteed background versatility would you pay 10x the amount? Personally I don't know that you would as you only buy for the project at hand or are all of the ones purchased kept in a huge database for future use.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 05:17:58 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by Gurilla:
Your case in point is a great example, if the middle ground site could offer you photos that guaranteed background versatility would you pay 10x the amount? Personally I don't know that you would as you only buy for the project at hand or are all of the ones purchased kept in a huge database for future use. |
Primarily now we purchase from Getty, although I have bought a lot from PictureQuest and Veer as well. I have found that most of the time if I'm going to buy two images, it makes sense to just pay for the entire CD and have the whole collection at hand for later.
Honestly, I was not really aware there were cheaper stock photo options until very recently. I guess if my customers were going to pay for it, there was no reason to look elsewhere. Now I know: I'll charge clients bigtime for cheap photos I get (when they're what I need). Hello profit margin!!
My example with the clipping paths was probably not the best example for this discussion. They were products in a catalog, so the photos were shot custom. My problem with the clipping paths in that instance was with my predecessor and not the person that shot the photos in the first place.
I guess for what we pay for those images, I EXPECT clipping paths to be perfect. I've never questioned it. I would probably be surprised if I bought a $10 image and the path was 100%. Again, I don't have any experience purchasing shots from the cheapo stock sites.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 05:32:05 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
I guess for what we pay for those images, I EXPECT clipping paths to be perfect. |
Makes sense...I look forward to the tutorial on this as it will be beneficial for stock photography sales.
Does anybody know how (or if!) I can create clipping paths in PS Elements 2.0?
If not, is there an alternative to make it easy for the purchaser to use my 'isolated - white background' photos? |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 05:35:02 PM · #172 |
I'm getting SUPER peeved with the boys over at istock.
Out of the 5 images I sent them they only accepted 1 and told me this time it's my 'last chance'. They keep telling me there's grain at 100%. I've been using a 10D with the 28-105mm USM. AND I have sent them non-edited photos. So anyway, it irks me to know they have such high standards and you get paid like....zip.....
just my ramblings about istock who can kiss my *beeeeeeeeeeeep* |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 05:41:05 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I'm getting SUPER peeved with the boys over at istock.
Out of the 5 images I sent them they only accepted 1 and told me this time it's my 'last chance'. They keep telling me there's grain at 100%. I've been using a 10D with the 28-105mm USM. AND I have sent them non-edited photos. So anyway, it irks me to know they have such high standards and you get paid like....zip.....
just my ramblings about istock who can kiss my *beeeeeeeeeeeep* |
I know dreamstime is smaller, newer, etc....but is dreamstime generally reputed to have higher or lower standards than istockphoto? |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 05:49:39 PM · #174 |
just for a lark, i applied for istockphoto. i still haven't decided if i'm going to post or not, but they did say that two of my photos had a lot of "noise that their designers don't like."
I looked at the shots again and I think what they're talking about is NOT noise, but rather that my photos have shallow depth-of-field.
Two issues:
First: Most of the designers I know often look for shallow DOF because it's a pain in the butt to "fake" when you want to. If you go to Getty and search for "shallow depth of field" (or "focus on foreground") about a bajillion images come up. Obviously someone is looking for it.
Second: Blur/Focus is NOT noise. If these clowns can't even describe to me what they want using correct terminology, who are they to judge photos for submission?
Long story short: I've not yet made up my mind on selling photos at a cheapo site, but so far my faith in iStockPhoto is pretty much shot.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2004 06:07:41 PM · #175 |
Any ideas where I'd look for clipping lines in PS Elements?
|
|
