|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - caspixel
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 41
1
« on: March 04, 2013, 16:07 »
Seriously, he must have banned even dozens of buyers as well, imagine how much money istock lost because of this psycho.
Do you have any evidence for this statement? I bet a month IS earnings you don't.
They do ban buyers if they think they are causing enough "trouble" (aka telling the truth).
2
« on: February 13, 2013, 10:46 »
Sean's behavour is entirely consistent with that of someone who believes that the truth matters more than self-interest and who genuinely wants to help others and is willing to go out of his way to do so.
Before we canonize Sean, I would just like to point out that there were plenty of times I saw him not want to share information or help people because he didn't want to help the competition, and he was quite honest about it too. I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with that, it's a competitive world out there and everyone needs to keep whatever edge they can. I just think it should be acknowledged that there was some self-interest in the things that Saint Sean did. 
Sean often said that, but it was totally tongue in cheek, and almost always to someone who came on here asking for help and was either new here or clearly had not even started to help themselves. Also he was very brief and to the point, which may have come over as brusque. But the info was there.
Yet there's always an element of truth in humor, isn't there? I don't blame him one bit for wanting to protect his bottom line. Yes, he was helpful, but there was always a line that wasn't crossed. That's smart business. Let's just not make it into something it isn't. He's not Jesus, LOL.
3
« on: February 13, 2013, 02:22 »
Sean's behavour is entirely consistent with that of someone who believes that the truth matters more than self-interest and who genuinely wants to help others and is willing to go out of his way to do so.
Before we canonize Sean, I would just like to point out that there were plenty of times I saw him not want to share information or help people because he didn't want to help the competition, and he was quite honest about it too. I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with that, it's a competitive world out there and everyone needs to keep whatever edge they can. I just think it should be acknowledged that there was some self-interest in the things that Saint Sean did.
4
« on: February 12, 2013, 18:54 »
How can they say that, when they themselves are making it look like it's okay to use their images on Facebook by giving them away for free as cover images? https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150868420440825.396331.20425620824&type=3In fact, by offering those images for free, with their logo on it, ironically they may be violating FB's terms of use: Covers must not be false, deceptive or misleading, and must not infringe on third parties' intellectual property. You may not encourage or incentivize people to upload your cover image to their personal timelines. https://www.facebook.com/help/276329115767498/Many of the images they have in the free album they have also used for their own timeline covers!
5
« on: February 11, 2013, 21:44 »
I am in that FB group, I didn't receive a letter.
Yet...
6
« on: January 11, 2013, 21:58 »
At this point, knowing all their bad deeds, anyone who doesn't delete their account or continues to upload is only enabling them. And letting the rest of the agencies know they can do whatever they want with your content and they don't have to pay you for it. That is the bottom line.
7
« on: July 31, 2012, 18:04 »
LOL. I'm sure the servers will crash with all the people taking advantage of that massive 2-3 credit savings.
8
« on: May 15, 2012, 09:28 »
Anything to derail the truth about istock. Too funny.
Notice they have also not answered my questions as to why they submit to microstock when they complain about the pricing points and "cheap" customers. If they are so unhappy with it, they should stop diluting the market, delete their portfolios, and leave microstock to the people who do want to sell at those price points. Simple.
9
« on: May 14, 2012, 20:57 »
"Six games all. Tiebreaker. Lagereek to serve first"
I'm quite sure it's not a tie. LOL I've been making much more logical sense than his nonsensical posts about the automobile industry and going back in time 120 years.
I know! I was just giving Lagereek a little encouragement to extend the entertainment.
10
« on: May 14, 2012, 18:06 »
"Six games all. Tiebreaker. Lagereek to serve first"
I'm quite sure it's not a tie. LOL I've been making much more logical sense than his nonsensical posts about the automobile industry and going back in time 120 years.
11
« on: May 14, 2012, 16:56 »
Well I am sure there is plenty of time 2012, to hire illustrators and use type. Then along comes Daguerre, with the bright idea to capture images on a wet-plate, large format camera, followed by the intro of silver, etc and voila! film! finally comes somebody whos invented electronic capture, namely digital. BUT! lets just stop people alltogether from using digital capture, throw us back 120 years, hire illustraters, type, etc. Oh by the way, whats the cost sir? 20K and thats after discount.
I'm not sure why you keep coming up with more and more outrageous scenarios, except maybe to just act stupid. It's really not that complicated. What did a lot of people do in place of photos even as little as 10 or 15 years ago, before the microstock explosion? They used type. Or maybe some clip art. I have books that were written about design that have not one mention of using stock photos, but there are plenty of other design solutions that look beautiful. In fact, my design teachers never talked about using stock photos either. To think, people actually even did design *before computers and Photoshop*! *gasp* Nonetheless, the point is probably moot anyway, as microstock isn't going away. Maybe some of the current businesses will migrate to midstock, but that will only open the door to new microstock agencies. If this happens, I wonder how many of these complainers of low prices will be the first uploading. LOL
12
« on: May 14, 2012, 16:35 »
In that case, before the invention of the picture, (the photograph) what did businesses use for promotion, advertising, etc, ?
They hired illustrators and paid them good money. Thanks a lot, stupid camera.
 And they used type.
13
« on: May 14, 2012, 16:10 »
I can understand to a point some of your philosophy, I would also welcome macro, midstock or whatever yoju might call it. The thing is, we are not alone in micro. many years back, yes, micro photographers. Today! I can assure you, most, even famous photographers, getty RM photographers are supplying micro and all under different pseudos, etc.
Seriously though, you can not think that people would stop buying and use what? they havent got the time for alternative methods or whatever, they havent got the time to rig or shoot pictures themselves. Thats why they buy! No matter how much governments are rising prices on booze, ciggies, petrol, people are still boozing, smoking and driving.
Do you really think photos are as important to people as fuel? And booze and smoking are addictive, so once people start, they can't quit. The parallel just doesn't work. Sorry. You, of all people, who have been in the industry for so long, should know what people did before microstock. Though I've already explained it countless times. Some *might* start taking photos themselves (after all, that was how iStock started - designers were taking their own photos because they couldn't afford macrostock prices and decided to trade them), others will do without photos and will simply find other solutions to take their place. Photos are just one tool in a designer's toolbox. As for the people who aren't designers - churches, school teachers, bloggers, etc - they may just steal photos or not use them at all. It's weird how people seem to have forgotten the origins of microstock and the pre-microstock days aren't really ancient history. I bet you can find a lot of designers who would tell you what they did before the advent of inexpensive photos.
14
« on: May 14, 2012, 15:46 »
You seem to be under the impression that if micro ended, everyone would go out and take their own shots or stop buying, the entire globe would stop buying, right, pics would just fall from the sky and free of charge. I suppose if the entire car-business collapsed, yeah, right, people would ofcourse start building their own cars. I forgot, silly me.
Nah, youre dreaming mate, dreaming.
I'm under the impression that people would just go back to what they were doing *before* micro. Remember those times? And I never said I thought pictures would fall from the sky free of charge. That's in your own imagination. Nor do I expect people to start building their own cars. You seem to be the one with reading comprehension problems. Besides, taking a photo is a far cry from building a car. LOL
It really looks caspixel like you think ppl would start using horse carriages again if the car industry went bust... 
Actually, that is a good point. They might not go back to horse and carriage, but they might start using more public transportation, car pooling, walking, or biking. In fact, when gas prices go up, that's exactly what they do. So you see, you are right, they will look for alternate methods. Just like people will do if buying photos gets cost prohibitive. And I still don't understand why those who are bitching the most about "cheap" buyers are submitting to microstock. When you submit to a business model that sells things at low prices you are going to get price sensitive buyers. If you do not want price conscious buyers, submit to macrostock. If you can get accepted that is. NO ONE is forcing you to sell microstock, so you are free at any time to pull your portfolios to avoid having to deal with cheapskates and scrooges. And then you can sit around and dream about submitting to the magical mid-stock agency that is going to materialize and make everything better. LOL
15
« on: May 14, 2012, 10:35 »
Yeah well, thats my entire point, thats why micro should move much, much closer to macro or at least midstock. To stop this penny-pinching attitudes from buyers, etc. Give it a few more years and they will have us down to selling pics for 0.5c. and the agencies will ofcourse do nothing, just, yes sir, no sir.
So, we lose some buyers, so what, heck! thats the kind of buyers we dont want anyway, can do very nicely without them.
I have been with the Getty-RM-housecollection since 93 and yes I have seen pics getting cheaper and cheaper but not at the micro rate, pics within the RM, might fall but it still good revenues but with micro? when they fall from pittens to the bottom of the barrell, too much.
Except that there are plenty of photos in micro that aren't worth midstock prices. Isolated objects, textured backgrounds, older, outdated photos with poor lighting, etc. I do agree that the shots with the models in specific settings should be priced higher. But someone who is taking snap shots of their friends in their backyard - nope. Look through the micro collections and can you *really* say *every single shot* should be at mid stock prices? I tend to buy a lot of textures and things like that. I do it because I like to buy the photos, but if it gets cost prohibitive, I can create my own textures without it costing me that much in time.
The other problem I see is that it seems like nearly every single mid-stock photo option fails. iStockPro anyone? So if the current microstock agencies move to midstock, I've no doubt more microstock agencies will just pop up. Again, you seem to forget how iStock started...with FREE photos.
Maybe you don't want the low-end buyers, but the low-end buyers helped many people succeed in microstock. You yourself say that you make a nice return on your photos in microstock, so how about you stop bashing the people who are putting money in your pocket? That's really just rude.
Well, I am a rude person and YES, I can do nicely without, pimps, pontses and panders, cheapskates, scrooges, warewoolfs and vampires, well, maybe not vampires, they tend to live forever, suits me fine.
Then stop selling microstock and you won't have to deal with any of them. Simple solution. You are creating all your own problems and aggravation.
16
« on: May 14, 2012, 10:35 »
Yes but this is not really a good example and I tell you why. I know an enormous amount of ADs and Art-buyers, etc, and some of them know how to use a camera and in fact take their own shots but they are the real small-fry, that have got the time for all that.
Most ADs, AD-agency people I know havent even got the time for the lunch, let alone learning how to shoot.
Have you ever been up to just an average sized AD-agency? its total chaos and mayhem, and everything should have been done like yesterday.
I'd love to know the percentage of ad agencies vs freelance designers though.
17
« on: May 14, 2012, 10:31 »
Yeah well, thats my entire point, thats why micro should move much, much closer to macro or at least midstock. To stop this penny-pinching attitudes from buyers, etc. Give it a few more years and they will have us down to selling pics for 0.5c. and the agencies will ofcourse do nothing, just, yes sir, no sir.
So, we lose some buyers, so what, heck! thats the kind of buyers we dont want anyway, can do very nicely without them.
I have been with the Getty-RM-housecollection since 93 and yes I have seen pics getting cheaper and cheaper but not at the micro rate, pics within the RM, might fall but it still good revenues but with micro? when they fall from pittens to the bottom of the barrell, too much.
Except that there are plenty of photos in micro that aren't worth midstock prices. Isolated objects, textured backgrounds, older, outdated photos with poor lighting, etc. I do agree that the shots with the models in specific settings should be priced higher. But someone who is taking snap shots of their friends in their backyard - nope. Look through the micro collections and can you *really* say *every single shot* should be at mid stock prices? I tend to buy a lot of textures and things like that. I do it because I like to buy the photos, but if it gets cost prohibitive, I can create my own textures without it costing me that much in time. The other problem I see is that it seems like nearly every single mid-stock photo option fails. iStockPro anyone? So if the current microstock agencies move to midstock, I've no doubt more microstock agencies will just pop up. Again, you seem to forget how iStock started...with FREE photos. Maybe you don't want the low-end buyers, but the low-end buyers helped many people succeed in microstock. You yourself say that you make a nice return on your photos in microstock, so how about you stop bashing the people who are putting money in your pocket? That's really just rude.
18
« on: May 14, 2012, 09:58 »
You seem to be under the impression that if micro ended, everyone would go out and take their own shots or stop buying, the entire globe would stop buying, right, pics would just fall from the sky and free of charge. I suppose if the entire car-business collapsed, yeah, right, people would ofcourse start building their own cars. I forgot, silly me.
Nah, youre dreaming mate, dreaming.
I'm under the impression that people would just go back to what they were doing *before* micro. Remember those times? And I never said I thought pictures would fall from the sky free of charge. That's in your own imagination. Nor do I expect people to start building their own cars. You seem to be the one with reading comprehension problems. Besides, taking a photo is a far cry from building a car. LOL
19
« on: May 14, 2012, 09:36 »
Reading all this! its quite clear that most but a few, dont really know anything else then micro, or rather have no experience of any other form of photography then micro.
I keep reading stuff like " buyers would take their own pics, etc" , look, let me tell you, most buyers here, DO NOT, have a single clue of how to set-up, or take pictures, let alone all the raw, PP, PS and other programs, they dont even know what is involved in post-processing, theyre punters, not creatives and all they need is a pic, to promote whatever.
Professional Stock-photographers, survived far, far better before the entrance of Micro and will continue to do so, after micro. Micro, is but one step on a ladder, no more. However, to many here, micro seem to be the only form of commercial photography, simply because they dont know any other form of photography. Further more when it comes to, buyers, tons and tons of buyers, DONT even know about micro, theyre not even interested in micro, wouldnt know where to start, buying micro. To them, this is regarded as some sort of a joke and do not wish to be associated with it.
Trad agencies, is still and will always be the source, where "proper" buyers go, its not just money involved here, its customer-relation, service, support, know-how, expertice, design, layout, the whole god-damned package all wrapped in one AND they are prepared to pay for this.
Its a gigantic fools paradise, to even start believing that the micro model will sustain or present itself as a major, upper, supplier to all industries.
best 
You seemed to think microstock was enough of a market to sell in, however. Why do *you* bother if macro is the end all, be all? Also, I'm betting many more people think their snap shots with their phones and point and shoots are adequate and aren't interested in hiring a professional photographer, setting up a proper photo shoot, or care about post-processing. I can't tell you how many clients send me such photos. Or just go out and look at websites of most small businesses. They know absolutely nothing about macro or micro. Nor do they care. Most of them can't afford photos from the macros, so they'll just use their own photos or do without. A few can be convinced to hire a professional photographer. But some don't even want to use a microstock photo, as they would rather use their own photos, as bad as they may be. Sure, big ad agencies and corporations have the budgets for macros, but there are a lot of other businesses out there who don't. And not every single designer in the world works for a big ad agency or services big corporations with million dollar advertising budgets. Not sure why you don't get that. And your scorn and disdain isn't going to change that. That is why the micro market originated, because the world of photography was an elite club, closed to many business and photographers alike. Look at how many NEW photographers were able to sell their photos who would never have been accepted to Getty or other macro clubs. Without microstock they would not have had a channel to sell their photos - Lisa Gagne, lisafx, Sean Locke, etc... It's unlikely that microstock is going away, even if the current agencies go "mid stock". That will just open the door for someone else to start another microstock site. Always remember, iStock originally started as a sharing site, because the macros were out of reach of so many people.
20
« on: May 13, 2012, 18:41 »
So complaining about rises is ok in your books, but complaining about rises being too small or too infrequent isn't? Did you even read the post you quoted? I really can't see any relation to macro in it . You're replying to me in a fashion as if I'd said I wanted micro to die. But I just want it to be more fair to contributors, for all the work we've put into it, for how far it's come in such a short period of time. The quality of the libraries has risen a lot more than the price. But I can see your viewpoint as a buyer. And it looks like you fall into the category of "pnny-pinching buyers, cheapskates and scrooges" as Lageerek colorfully described them.
You should probably take your beef to your agency and not take it out on the buyers though. The buyers truly have very little control over the prices. The only thing we can do is choose to shop at one place or another. None of us dictates what your commissions are or what the price points are. And as lisafx already pointed out, sales were actually much better when prices (at iStock for instance) were lower, because people buy more images, even if they don't use them, when the prices are lower. I do think the photographers get raked over the coals as far as commission cut goes. The split at iStock is criminal, really. But they try to appease the contributors by raising the prices, so there is a false sense of making more money, as sales continue to decline. I don't really care if you think I'm cheap or penny pinching or whatever lagereek said. I have to buy photos that fit in with what I can charge my customers. Designers that serve small business have small budgets. That's just the way it is. And calling me names isn't going to change that. I'm just sorry you are incapable of listening to my points. You seem to have this invincible feeling that buyers will keep buying when there are other options to photos. There were before and there will be again. There is a reason microstock became the phenomenon it did. I just still scratch my head at the whiners that start submitting to it and then complain that they are selling too cheaply. You knew what the business model was when you joined. If *you* want to spend your time and money doing high value production shots for microstock, you only have yourself to blame for that. And calling me names is not going to change that. LOL
21
« on: May 13, 2012, 18:26 »
So you don't think these issues also affect the people who buy photos?
They do, but the free ride has to end, it's about bloody time. Not too, little too late, but a lot (way overdue)
Well, all I can say is, be careful what you wish for. You may find yourself with a lot of more appealingly priced (to you) images that are not selling at all. Raising the prices is going to further shrink the market share. People *will* stop buying photos. They didn't buy them before and they will go back to not buying them again. The problem with the microstock market is not the demand, it is the supply. Too much is available now. If you aren't seeing any growth at the lower prices, why do you think you will see growth at higher prices? People also seem to forget that microstock opened up photography sales for *a lot* of photographers to which it was closed. How many microstock photographers is Getty images *still* closed to?
So where will the buyers go to get photos? YOu're saying they'd rather go out of business, than pay more? You can't get free photos (steal them), since no one is doing commercial stuff for his own pleasure. Besides you don't need growth if the prices would quadruple. You'd earn 4x more anyway and even if the sales would be split in half (which they probably would be if prices would indeed be quadrupled), you'd still get 2x more than you do now .
I'm saying they'll use something *other* than photos to get the point across. Like people did *before* microstock. Remember those days? Part of a designer's job is to look for solutions. They will just create something that does not need a photo. And a new trend will arise. And at some point, you would still need growth. If the collections still grew and the target market was shrinking, your returns would also eventually diminish. Just ask macrostock photographers.
22
« on: May 13, 2012, 18:20 »
I remember the 1970s, when we cut up bits of Adverkit drawings to put in adverts and the small town companies were very happy with that. "Wow! You've got a frame to put my advert in? Let me get my cheque book".
We actually sold whole broadsheet pages on the basis that there were slots in the pretty borders where people could put their words.
I guess it was cool back then (shucks, I remember waiting for the next Adverkit bundle to give us an idea to sell on). Who knows what people would settle for today, if pictures weren't cheap any more?
Part of what designers do is look for solutions to problems. If buying photos is no longer cost effective for a lot of the small designers, etc. then a new trend will arise. And many designers will start taking their own photos of apples and other inanimate objects, textures, their friends, and the like. They did it before. And once microstock came along guess where those photos ended up?
23
« on: May 13, 2012, 18:12 »
If that's true I hope for some more price rises, evenly introduced every 6 months or so. So that at least one agency is going to be selling my photos at a half decent price. I'm saying that because I've seen no decline in sales, on the contrary, I've seen constantly rising sales. The ratio between SS and IS is locked for me. I also think that P+ proves that buyers are willing to pay more, at least some and at least for some stuff. Indies are also reporting how this price rise has helped their RPD go up and consequently, earnings. We all know, as you said, that the agencies are not going to collectively rise the prices and that there's no way they're going to be quadrupled (like I hoped for), but at least they could sync the XS and S prices with exclusive (e.g. 2 cr for XS, 4 for P+ XS etc). I'm sure I'd earn more, I'd probably get a bit less sales, but my cut for XS and S files would be double, so I'd at least get 50%+ more for those sales (not 100%, because I'd get less sales)
Why do you even bother with microstock? You knew what it was and what the price points were when you started, didn't you? Why don't you just put all your images at Getty in the macro collection? That's what I don't understand about the people who are submitting to microstock who are complaining about the prices. You are certainly free NOT to sell your best, highest production value photos at microstock prices. So instead of complaining about how you submit them to microstock and don't get a return, why don't you submit to them to macro stock instead, if you are so intent on getting a bigger return?
24
« on: May 13, 2012, 17:36 »
Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.
Be careful what you wish for.
No way they would stop buying, unless they go out and take pics themselves, no way, it isnt worth it, and its not a break against the law either. Remember, we are not talking automotive industry here, we are talking pictures, as example, instead of selling a pic for 10 bucks, make it 20, etc, etc.
Warren! there is no law against this,
Yes, they absolutely would stop buying. Stop being so arrogant as to think the world can't live without photos. It did before and it would again if the price was cost prohibitive. Here's a for-instance for you. I create FB banners for people. Most people (especially since Facebook is a free service) are not going to spend a hefty amount tricking out their Facebook page, but, priced right (say under $100), you can actually sell quite a few of them. Am I going to buy a $50 or $100 photo for such a design? Nope. I'll come up with another solution. I might even get a decent point and shoot and start talking some photos myself. Heck, even some phones are taking quality high-res photos these days. After all, it's not the camera, that takes the great photo, it's the person, right?
BTW, if all the microstock industry got together and decided to fix prices, it is absolutely against the law. It is called collusion and it has happened before.
Are you going to do it? You think you're a know it all person, even that good that you could be taking better photos with a phone than pros or talented amateurs do with good equipment and more importantly knowledge and mileage? I don't know who's arrogant after all you said... Yes, it happened before and they got bailed out [/quote] Whatever. What do you think people were doing before microstock? They weren't buying macro.
25
« on: May 13, 2012, 10:11 »
So you don't think these issues also affect the people who buy photos?
They do, but the free ride has to end, it's about bloody time. Not too, little too late, but a lot (way overdue)
Well, all I can say is, be careful what you wish for. You may find yourself with a lot of more appealingly priced (to you) images that are not selling at all. Raising the prices is going to further shrink the market share. People *will* stop buying photos. They didn't buy them before and they will go back to not buying them again. The problem with the microstock market is not the demand, it is the supply. Too much is available now. If you aren't seeing any growth at the lower prices, why do you think you will see growth at higher prices? People also seem to forget that microstock opened up photography sales for *a lot* of photographers to which it was closed. How many microstock photographers is Getty images *still* closed to?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 41
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
