Author Topic: is IS a totalitarian state? (Read 21324 times)

gostwyck · « **Reply #50 on:** February 03, 2009, 10:39 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 03, 2009, 10:07

Some of the SAME photos are on iStock as were there back when they were available for $1. What makes them more valuable now than they were back in 2004?

Funnily enough my house was built in about 1860 and when I bought it the cost was MUCH more than it was back then according to records. Maybe IS had something to do with that too?

caspixel · « **Reply #51 on:** February 03, 2009, 10:40 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 03, 2009, 10:39

Quote from: caspixel on February 03, 2009, 10:07
Some of the SAME photos are on iStock as were there back when they were available for $1. What makes them more valuable now than they were back in 2004?

Funnily enough my house was built in about 1860 and when I bought it the cost was MUCH more than it was back then according to records. Maybe IS had something to do with that too?

Total strawman argument.

gostwyck · « **Reply #52 on:** February 03, 2009, 10:57 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 03, 2009, 10:40

Total strawman argument.

Your argument is equally ridiculous. When IS was truly 'free' the cost of bandwidth alone rose to $10K PER MONTH __ that was the point at which Bruce decided to start charging for images.

Since then, you may have noticed, IS has been sold to Getty who happen to be a vast commercial enterprise not some Mom & Pop charity shop. IS occupies much larger offices premises too in order to house all those full-time employees that it didn't have when it was a free swap service.

Those are just a few of the million or so reasons why images cost more now than they did back then. You're not obliged to buy and you always have the option of taking your own images.

loop · « **Reply #53 on:** February 03, 2009, 11:11 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 03, 2009, 10:07

You can complain all you want about how expensive your gear is, but the fact remains, iStock started out as a free photo sharing site and started the revolution of cheap photos (microstock). If the model bothers you so much because your gear is so expensive, stop. No designers are forcing you to sell your photos at that rate. But you can't blame designers for being pissed at having to pay 600% more for photos that were originally much much cheaper. Some of the SAME photos are on iStock as were there back when they were available for $1. What makes them more valuable now than they were back in 2004?

And I still don't get why people are blaming the buyers for being disgruntled about the price increases. We didn't create the business model or set the original low prices. If you aren't making enough money for your effort, maybe you should talk to your agent and see if you can't get more than a 20% commission. Or not sell your photos in the microstock model at all.

"NO DESIGNERS ARE FORCING YOU TO TELL YOUR PHOTOS AT THIS RATE"

Yes, but after more than 100 posts on your side at different forums trying to convince us that we should sell at this rate, there's almost one designer who is asking us to sell at that rate.

"And I still don't get why people are blaming the buyers for being disgruntled"

Where you say "the buyers", you should say "some buyers". I still receive lots of reviews and mails coming from thankful buyers, no more, no less than before.

And finally, you are lucky because very soon you'll be able to get this "once 1 dollar stuff" at one dollar agaiin, in the new dollar bin. Certainly, new high cost production files won't be there, but for what I've read I understand that 2004-2005 quality is enough for your purposes.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #54 on:** February 03, 2009, 11:18 »

I don't believe any artistic commodity should be given away for free. unfortunately, there are many designers out there who will and do take advantage of amateur artists, or those trying to build portfolios. this has not happened to me in microstock, but it happened to me plenty when I started out in freelance writing.

despite how little the royalties are in microstock, I also pay every model that I shoot. including my niece and nephew and other family members. I don't pay them much, but nothing should be given away for free within a business paradigm. if it is, I believe that is reflected in the quality of the commodity produced.

so, as a business model I think iStock are ahead of their time and that they have continued to do well because of very smart decisions, generally speaking. where I believe they are lacking entirely is their management of their contributors. and I also believe they would do well to implement an exclusive image program rather than demanding exclusivity as an artist. as for pricing changes, as a designer, I see Carolynne's point and I see perfectly sound reasons for * price increases.

however, as a contributor, price increases are not a bad thing. they advocate good money for hard work. I don't feel the price increases at IS are unwieldy. the prices are still FAR FAR below what one would pay at comstock and the quality of the product, because of IS's stringent acceptance standards, is better.

having said all of that, I am almost completely in hate with IS right now. they should do away with their stupid forums and only have critique forums and help forums. why give the illusion of being a community? the sibling rivalry culture they have created and maintain is pretty far from my definition of community. I don't want an IS sandbox, I just want a strong, consistent avenue through which to sell my work. is that too much to ask?

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #55 on:** February 03, 2009, 11:49 »

no, you are just looking on to things from the wrong point of view - images are not more expensive today - simple "producing price" is so big (without very very expensive gear) - so prices should/could be even higher.*tip: just try to produce some studio image with a model, and make a calculation of costs( model, makeup artist, studio (if you do not have your own - i do

), clothing/stylist... and yes - you'll have to have a (good) camera too, and some photographic skill either)...
the right point of view is that images back in 2004, or whenever - were much more cheaper than today. today-cheep images - a few years ago - very cheep images. - that is the fact.
today - expensive images - a few years ago - cheaper images - that is wrong point of view.
USAF today do not use brother Wright's plane - bike builders made a plane i believe for a few hundred of buck$$ - no. they are paying a large amount of money for quality products of the manufacturers, Yf-22 on example.
any other business on the planet - for quality product - you have to pay. you wanna ride a Ferrari ? - well - you better prepare some good ca$$h for this car.-or drive... i do not know.. hyundai..

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #56 on:** February 03, 2009, 12:43 »

yes, I think we are saying the same thing. I do get the cost per shoot, my point is they COULD charge more and still be within rights. I have invested in a home studio, multiple light sets, and high end equipment (lens, speedlight etc) to go with my D300...on top of it paying models. having my studio at home really saves $, we bought a new house recently in order to accommodate a basement studio with a high ceiling. we traded living space for studio space, lol. soo, yes.....the prices should reflect the product....I have no problem with that. designers who do wish to spend less certainly can, and not begrudgingly. there are a whole lot of designers that need to spend less.

I have one client who runs a garden centre. nice guy, but CLUELESS about the cost of design and images. he'll use the most horrible clip art before paying for something. I had to stop working for him. I didn't want my design associated with the images he wanted to use.

it isn't easy to be a designer. but in most cases the cost can be passed on to clients, so I am not too worried about my images being too expensive.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #57 on:** February 03, 2009, 12:59 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on February 02, 2009, 23:32

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 02, 2009, 23:19
^ lose the racist, fairly offensive example....

Offensive and racist? Sorry buddy I live in Mindanao, Southern Phils. Want to see my shots of what the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) did on August 6 in the city of Kauswagan with the houses of my friends? Apart of being taken with a cellphone, they are unsuitable for stock. I will never be a dhimmi. Never.

Glad you added the meaning of the acronym because here in the US MILF has a different, funnier meaning.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #58 on:** February 03, 2009, 13:16 »

MILF - lol, I thought the same thing Ying....

madelaide · « **Reply #59 on:** February 03, 2009, 15:15 »

I fail to see why a discussion about IS turned into a discussion about the validity of microstock. If costs are high, don't sell cheap. Or go do something else. It seems obvious to me.

I don't do studio shots, but in my first steps in microstock I was surprised with the amount of quality studio shots with a clearly expensive production. Even if the photographer makes a lot by high volumes, I was shocked to see such high quality available for so little.

Regards,
Adelaide

shank_ali · « **Reply #60 on:** February 03, 2009, 15:48 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on January 27, 2009, 00:45

just kidding, sort of. don't get me wrong, I am a TOTAL iStock groupie. I love the site, I jumped at exclusivity and I promote iStock everywhere that I go. I am very proud of being an IS exclusive.

now that I have been around for a while, in my third year, I have noticed something...they are pseudo-dictatorial when it comes to the consequences of contributors asking questions, requesting information or posting negative feedback in forums. not just as it pertains to me, I have watched many a fellow istocker get totally shut down after asking perfectly legitimate questions.

and what amazes me, is that this type of speak no evil culture only generates angst and dissension and this seems to completely contrast with how progressive iStock claims to be.

Am i the only contributor out of 45.000 that can't contribute to the istock forum any more.
1month ban
3 month ban
Lifetime. Even the retiring mayor on New York gave fellons three chances

leaf · « **Reply #61 on:** February 03, 2009, 16:15 »

Quote from: madelaide on February 03, 2009, 15:15

I fail to see why a discussion about IS turned into a discussion about the validity of microstock. If costs are high, don't sell cheap. Or go do something else. It seems obvious to me.

you are right.. perhaps we are so far off topic now it is ridiculous

I guess this topic will be locked. Not that the discussion isn't interesting, but it is a bit unorganized discussing many topics in one thread. If someone wants to continue discussing something from this thread feel free to start another topic.

[off-topic]Crazy though, we have been defending ourselves for so long as to why it is worth our while selling our images for as little as we do, now we have to defend ourselves for selling them for as much as we do.

[/off-topic]