| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/07/2004 09:31:19 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by ahaze:
How are you getting 48MB- or even the 17MB they recommend- file sizes from your 10D? |
They are talking about actual, non-compressed file sizes. The 10D makes 18MB files, which is then interpolated up to 48mb (5000 * 3333 px, if I don't recall incorrectly) using Genuine Fractals.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
One of the issues that SharQ fails to address here is the FACT that most of these rights managed stock companies simply won't touch an amateur photogrpher... period. Those agencies won't even look at you unless you have a LARGE portfolio of stock images right off the bat (500, for instance).
I don't shoot for the purpose of selling stock. I shoot whatever I feel like shooting. If it would work as a stock image, I upload it to one of the royalty free sites.
I'm waiting for SharQ to simply say that he feels like the royalty free stock market is hurting the sales of the rights managed stock companies. |
Well, Alamy will take on anyone, as long as their pictures are good. As for the others, you are absolutely right - but the question remains: are you willing to sell your images that are worth a lot of money, for little money? And if they are worth only a little money, is that something that is worth advertising, by posting them on iStock et al?
The problem I have with RF isn't so much that it competes with licenced or rights-managed images, but the fact that it is a badly thought through price structure: RF is a result of greed ("I want as much money as possible, right now"), rather than of long term planning in form of licenced images ("I'm happy to sell a picture for less money now, and if the company decides to re-use it, they have to pay me again") or rights-managed images ("I'm happy to let one company use my image exclusively, but they are going to have to pay a lot of money for the privilege").
selling RF images should *only* ever happen at extra high rates, to compensate for the fact that you miss out on repeat sales. And - as I've said about 10 times before - $3 per image is not any form of decent compensation for this.
Of course, I'm happy to see people sell their photos via iStock if they really want to, but only if they are aware that they are damaging the stock photography market in general, their own reputation as photographers and their own wallets in one fell swoop. As long as people are aware of this (and not acting out of sheer ignorance), it's perfectly okay.
Obviously, iStockPhoto et al are not in direct competition with Alamy and co, because the quality is in completely different leagues. The problem comes around when genuinely good photographers (such as yourself, mr Setzler) come along, and are down-grading their own work by selling it alongside genuinely sub-par photographic work, at rates that barely cover the internet bill - let alone the cost of photo equipment etc. |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 12:15:37 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by ahaze:
How are you getting 48MB- or even the 17MB they recommend- file sizes from your 10D?
edt: and while I'm at it, why are they more concerned with the file size than image dimensions?? |
My D70 files saved as PSD's come out to around 17MB on its normal resolution.
SharQ--Do they accept the files as TIFF, PSD, or do they just do jpg?
Do you use RAW? I know you are able to jack the size in the RAW. Have you tried and/or notice that this works as well as Genuine Fractals?
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 12:43:00 AM · #28 |
Whenever a person make a career out of something that most others do as a hobby they risk competing with a whole lot of amateurs. I have heard professional musicians bitching about music groups that either play for free or for not much more then beer money. I have heard them say that amateurs should not take on jobs because it hurts the careers of the pros.
These same arguments will be made with respect to photography. The millions of happy hobbyist shooting thousands of photos each are going to have an impact of stock photography. And from the standpoint of the pro stock photographer it is just going to be getting worse, the cameras that the hobbyist have will keep getting better.
For any number of people if they can just get enough from a RF stock site to pay for a new lens, or if they do very well a new camera body, they are happy.
Even if you can get a few DPC people not to go to an RF agency you will have no effect of the tide of people flooding to them.
Whether this is good or bad does not really matter, it is just the way of the future and all will have to adapt to it.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 12:47:31 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
SharQ--Do they accept the files as TIFF, PSD, or do they just do jpg? |
have a look at their Image Submission Guidelines. they want uncompressed TIFFS, at 48MB or more each. |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:04:55 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by SharQ:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
SharQ--Do they accept the files as TIFF, PSD, or do they just do jpg? |
have a look at their Image Submission Guidelines. they want uncompressed TIFFS, at 48MB or more each. |
thanks. couldn't find a link that spot |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:05:34 AM · #31 |
rf existed long before iStock did. I think the problem is just the opposite of what was stated. If some poor web designer needs a small photo to help with his design, why should he have to pay $100 or more for it? No reason other than greed on the part of the photographer. But, that is my personal opinion. I won't tell you how to do your own business if you won't tell me how to do mine.
You are comparing apples to oranges. The same customers don't use the images in the same way. But a lot of designers are beginning to understand the mathmatics of the rm model and are maybe deciding they don't have to have an exclusive on a picture. And if they do, they know for right now, they can go to corbis and get it and pay for the priviledge. Why should you have to pay $400 to get a picture of a pretty woman holding a cell phone. Heck, most designers have their own digital cameras and take their own stock now. Are they ruining the industry because they aren't subjected to your high prices? |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 01:05:55 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
I wished I had a dSLR . |
DITTO! |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 02:30:47 AM · #33 |
There are other options beside DSLR's. Stock agencies existed waaay before the advent of digital photography. You can still mine old 35mm slides and negatives for use in these agencies. Just get ahold of a decent 35mm scanner like the Nikon V ed or Minolta 5400 Elite and you can easily pull 22 mega-pixel images from your negatives. File sizes range around 70mb for a 4000dpi TIFF file.
And the quality of both of these scanners is intense. Both are valued around $500 USD which is waaay less than most $8000 DSLR's. Plus most of you already have the bodies and lens already lying around. And getting negatives processed only costs about $2 per roll. (unless you process B&W at home at about $1/roll)
I admit I still love the film :D And pulling instant 18"x24" 4000dpi scans from negatives feels sooo good.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 02:34:11 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by PerezDesignGroup:
There are other options beside DSLR's. Stock agencies existed waaay before the advent of digital photography. You can still mine old 35mm slides and negatives for use in these agencies. Just get ahold of a decent 35mm scanner like the Nikon V ed or Minolta 5400 Elite and you can easily pull 22 mega-pixel images from your negatives. File sizes range around 70mb for a 4000dpi TIFF file.
And the quality of both of these scanners is intense. Both are valued around $500 USD which is waaay less than most $8000 DSLR's. Plus most of you already have the bodies and lens already lying around. And getting negatives processed only costs about $2 per roll. (unless you process B&W at home at about $1/roll)
I admit I still love the film :D And pulling instant 18"x24" 4000dpi scans from negatives feels sooo good. |
I wish I had a 35mm camera |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 03:24:14 AM · #35 |
I see some very good arguments here in favour of submitting to RF stock, very few against, other than it hurts the market and might hurt your own future business.
* web designers won't pay a high price, so there is a market for RF.
* they exist, nothing can be done about that, if you don't submit, others will. Why not take a piece of the cake ?
* resolution requirements of others are too high. Need genuine fractals of 159 USD to get there first. (I could actually pay for that with the income from my RF images !!!)
* need large portfolio and regular additions for the major stock sites.
* most of us don't aspire to be come a stock photographer, just submit images we have anyway to stock sites to have them pay for a new lens.
So if you want to make some money just from your own portfolio images as an amateur, why not submit.
You said it yourself, I quote "For myself, I merely see my stock sales as a bonus, as most of my work is commissioned, but once you have the photos, not submitting them as stock is a bit silly - it's free money, after all! "
I have been submitting approx 100 images to RF stocksites and get about 3 USD per day for them. I kept some higher quality images away from those sites and made some of them available throught dpcprints, but made only 45 USD from them.
I will also investigate those non-RF sites, to see whether I can make some more money from my best images, which I would not "give away" on RF.
I don't think submitting to RF has to hurt the rest of your business. For me it is just a different market segment to explore, with a different audience with different needs.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 03:25:03 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
I wish I had a 35mm camera |
You can buy my Practika , LOL |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 04:16:46 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
istock and shutterstock were inevitable! |
The key difference here is Royalty Free versus Licensed distribution. I don't believe quality has much to do with it - except that digital cameras have more limited resolution of course. That is a real issue indeed. Let's just assume 8 x 10's as the "stock standard" for this discussion shall we? :)
As you suggest, there is a supply and demand issue. The supply of high quality photography has certainly increased - from an accessibility point of view especially.
But I find it hard to believe that professional media would settle for photos from royalty free sources. They've always been about "exclusivity equals value." Though granted, there must be a grey area in there somewhere.
It seems to me that marketing photography on a royalty/licensed basis is not going away any time soon. Many predicted the demise of the print industry once the World Wide Web took hold. In fact, there are more magazines and newspapers today than ever!
I do agree with SharQ - if you want to make money out of photography, you should at least commit yourself to making the most you can for each shot. That's just commonsense business practice.
I do not accept that RF agencies are "driving the market." They are merely competitors in a differing niche. Without a doubt, however, there are some exceptional hobbyists entering the game through those channels. But the media at large seems unlikely to ever become comfortable with such a lose business arrangement.
Message edited by author 2004-12-08 04:38:22. |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 07:27:24 AM · #38 |
Here's my personal take on this...
Both have value for me... right now Istock et al are my learning sites... I'm a student learning what sells and what doesn't. I do admit that I put almost anything up there (even what I would consider crap) and it sells. So that's a few $$ in my pocket for my learning experience. :-)
I am however, slowly building a portfolio of quality Hi-res images so that in the near future I'll have a few 100 images. Then I'll be able to approach the big boys and play in their yard. :-)
My 2 cents....
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 07:39:41 AM · #39 |
I think a lot of people are missing the old business principle of "supply and demand". It seems to me the supply is out weighing the demand and with more and more players coming on board I can't see that the supply will dry up soon.
Digital photography is turning the industry on it's head similiar to what color photo labs did in the 60s. You must also take into account that digital cameras are the fastest growing consumer product on the market and the affordability is also coming down therefore more and more new entrants into the market.
What I am trying to say don't think that it is going to be easy to make big $$ in this market but the exception to the rule is that quality will always sell or you need to niche into something a bit different. |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 08:04:39 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
I am however, slowly building a portfolio of quality Hi-res images so that in the near future I'll have a few 100 images. Then I'll be able to approach the big boys and play in their yard. |
You can't approach the 'big boys' with the files you already have uploaded to iStock and shutterstock though, right? Because they probably dont' want some photo that's been lingering around on the web selling for $.50 a pop???
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 08:30:08 AM · #41 |
sounds almost like the napster of the photo world.. never checked it out
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 08:35:13 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
I am however, slowly building a portfolio of quality Hi-res images so that in the near future I'll have a few 100 images. Then I'll be able to approach the big boys and play in their yard. |
You can't approach the 'big boys' with the files you already have uploaded to iStock and shutterstock though, right? Because they probably dont' want some photo that's been lingering around on the web selling for $.50 a pop??? |
No, the portfolio I'm building for the "pro" sites have not been uploaded on other stock sites. These will be exclusive images.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 08:45:09 AM · #43 |
One thing to remember about the big stock agencies besides the fact that you need a huge porfolio of great images, is that most stock photographers dont shoot with DSLRs or 35mm, they are still using medium and large format cameras with film or with very expensive digital backs.
Plus something that no one has metioned is //www.Istockpro.com the sister site of Istockphoto.com, its harder to get into and the prices are higher.
Message edited by author 2004-12-08 08:45:22. |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 08:47:53 AM · #44 |
I am probably one of the dreaded hobbyists ruining the profi industry. BUT my reasons are as follows.
I Love photography, but it is a hobby for me. I have no intention in the near or mid term future to make it into my profession.
I have a good job, a family, a house and very limited free time and limited money.
I need a way to make a little bit of money to help pay for my expensive hobby where I don't have to invest time or resources (Perticularly during working hours) to make this happen.
Therefore Istock and shutterstock are ideal for me.
In the evenings when I have a little time, I can prepare and download a few photos, and hopefully make some money from it.
I would love for someone to come up to me and give me $1000 for an image, but I don't have the time to go out and market myself.
Here is my Shutterstock Portfolio And I have made $37 in the last month.
I'm not thrilled with it, but it's better than nothing!
Peter |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 10:05:53 AM · #45 |
There is another advantage of these online cheap stock photo sites and that is the number of photos to choose from. In 1999 we had to put together a box for a product that we were coming out with. We used one stock photo but the rest we had shoot in a studio. There were a lot of small elements that we needed, a camera, printer and monitor. At the time there just was not that much verity to choose from the stock agencies, if we were doing the same project now I would think we would have been able to make use of several more pieces of stock photography. A studio photo shoot is a pain to deal with, beyond the cost is the time it takes. After the shoot the negatives have to be sent out to be scanned, we were dealing with a small studio that did not have their own drum scanner.
To see that final image that we put together you can go to this link, it is surprising that something that looks so simple can take so much time.
Box photo |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 10:32:14 AM · #46 |
The RF websites are a fact of life. The new business model has taken hold and won't go away. But at the same time photographers have a right to exert influence on how the marketplace evolves. Only when photogs begin to assert themselves will the market respond, and right now the photogs are in an oversupplied and unorganized position. They are at the mercy of the RF site operators.
Wouldn't it be cool if all the amateurs and semi-pros that feed the RF sites could coalesce around some values and business practices more beneficial to themselves without putting a terminal strain on the sites? Why shouldm't the standard minimum value for an image download be a dollar to the photog instead of 20 cents or 50 cents? And why shouldn't the threshold for a payout be ten bucks instead of a hundred?
Just as it costs the site operator a certain amount to cut a check for a photog's earnings and send it out; so also it costs the photog a certain amount to take a picture and edit it, and then upload it. If the site owners can set their payout threshold so high, then why couldn't photogs just conclude that it just isn't worth their effort to produce a saleable image for less than a dollar?
The industry is still in it's infancy and, so far, the rules have been set by the site operators. Maybe at some time in the future the photogs will realize that they deserve a better deal and start lobbying the sites to get themselves a bigger piece of the pie.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 10:32:26 AM · #47 |
The photography is generally poor on those sites - poor impact - poor quality and poor effect. Which is why the big boys still use Getty et al.
Although if people didn't buy it, then the company would cease to exist.
Bad in some ways, but helps in others (for designers)
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 10:38:59 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
The photography is generally poor on those sites - poor impact - poor quality and poor effect. |
Do you think the poor images are getting used? Based on the "top downloads" on sites like shutterstock, I'd say the most popular images are ones that would be considered winners or high-placers here.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 10:42:01 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
The RF websites are a fact of life. The new business model has taken hold and won't go away. But at the same time photographers have a right to exert influence on how the marketplace evolves. Only when photogs begin to assert themselves will the market respond, and right now the photogs are in an oversupplied and unorganized position. They are at the mercy of the RF site operators.
Wouldn't it be cool if all the amateurs and semi-pros that feed the RF sites could coalesce around some values and business practices more beneficial to themselves without putting a terminal strain on the sites? Why shouldm't the standard minimum value for an image download be a dollar to the photog instead of 20 cents or 50 cents? And why shouldn't the threshold for a payout be ten bucks instead of a hundred?
Just as it costs the site operator a certain amount to cut a check for a photog's earnings and send it out; so also it costs the photog a certain amount to take a picture and edit it, and then upload it. If the site owners can set their payout threshold so high, then why couldn't photogs just conclude that it just isn't worth their effort to produce a saleable image for less than a dollar?
The industry is still in it's infancy and, so far, the rules have been set by the site operators. Maybe at some time in the future the photogs will realize that they deserve a better deal and start lobbying the sites to get themselves a bigger piece of the pie. |
Haven't you heard, unionism is in decline ... |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 11:24:59 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Haven't you heard, unionism is in decline ... |
Hadn't really thought of it in those terms. Is "price-fixing" in decline also?
Amateur and semi-pro photogs are too diverse a group to ever come together in anything as formal as a union. But we do have a sort of organizational structure, very loose, in communities like this one.
Just to put it out there for people to think about, and share their ideas-- How much are your images worth? And how much does it cost you to produce them? We are in the habit of thinking that digital images cost next to nothing. We delete, or probably should delete, half or more of what we shoot. But to support the RF sites we are making a capital investment in photo equipment, editing software, a computer with internet access, our training (most of mine via dpc), and our time (if we are competent with cam and computer we are more valuable than minimum wage). The dollar per image figure that I proposed was very arbitrary, but who's to say that it is not a more accurate reflection of the actual costs involved than the (also arbitrary I suspect) lowball prices from the RF sites?
How much do people think it really costs them to come up with an image that will sell well on an RF site? Or to come up with one that will earn a score of 5.5 or better in a dpc challenge?
|
|
