[STOCKPHOTO] Re: some groups
David Laguillo
Dear Paul:
I am not complaining. I am going to stay as a subscriber of those lists, sometimes there are interesting people out there. It was only little and candid thoughts to express my loss of heart and sadness for the actual situation of our market.
regards,
David Laguillo
http://www.davidlaguillo.com
http://www.davidlaguillo.es.vg
http://www.absolutearts.com/portfolios/d/dlaguillo/
http://www.agefotostock.com/age/castellano/imse01.asp?page=isph01.asp&key1=DLA&key2=David+Laguillo
http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=david+laguillo&go=1&a=-1&lic=1&lic=6
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.cfm#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.cfm
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STOCKPHOTO-...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David Kilpatrick
David Laguillo wrote:
> Dear Paul:
>
> I am not complaining. I am going to stay as a subscriber of those lists, sometimes there are interesting people out there. It was only little and candid thoughts to express my loss of heart and sadness for the actual situation of our market.
>
worth adding that Alamypro moderators have removed some of my posts
referring to publicity received from competitors of Alamy as being not
relevant
Well, today I got one mailshot from Getty, two Contact directories, one
mailshot from Dorling Kindersley Images, and a copy of TPG (a vital
little guide for the publishing industry) where I see Getty has a big
listing and Alamy has.... none.
I won't bother to post descriptions of the mailshots and their marketing
approach on the Alamypro group since it would be removed.
David
--
Icon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines
http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk
Stock images at www.alamy.com -
Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick
Conrad Hill
--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@b...> wrote:
> Well, today I got one mailshot from Getty, two Contact directories, one
> mailshot from Dorling Kindersley Images, and a copy of TPG (a vital
> little guide for the publishing industry) where I see Getty has a big
> listing and Alamy has.... none.
>
> I won't bother to post descriptions of the mailshots and their marketing
> approach on the Alamypro group since it would be removed.
>
> David
David
I can't speak for others (esp other forums) but I for one would be
interested to see descriptions.
Disturbed a bit about Getty listing but no Alamy.
Rgds
Conrad Hill
Jeroen van der Werff
Hello all,
Especially advice how to reach anyone within Orion for submitting
material!!!! We have sent a dozen of mails, but no response!!! What to
do????
Regards,
Jeroen van der Werff
Picture Partners
Jeroen,
Don't worry. We are with Orion Press for more than fifteen years now,
and they are very reliable. How long ago did you send your images?
Frans Rombout
www.picturepartners.nl
Picture Partners
Jeroen,
Sorry, I made a mistake - reading your post again, I understand you WANT to
submit material to Orion Press.
Try this:
Takao Matsumoto, Photographer Services Liaison
ORION PRESS
1-13 Kanda-Jimbocho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-0051 Japan
mats...@orionpress.co.jp
Regards & succes,
Frans Rombout
www.picturepartners.nl
> Hello all,
>
> Especially advice how to reach anyone within Orion for submitting
> material!!!! We have sent a dozen of mails, but no response!!! What to
> do????
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeroen van der Werff
Brian Seed
I interviewed the then director of Orion, Shun Kimiwada, in 1994, on one of
his annual visits to the U.S. He is/was a world traveller, believing it
necessary for him to be constantly meeting with overseas photographers in
order to brief them on the needs of the Asian market. On this subject he was
very detailed and informative. At the time I interviewed him, Mr. Kimiwada
said the Japanese market for stock was the third largest in the world, with
sales of between US $150 and $200 million. For those interested in Japan as
a market for stock, it may be worth finding out when the next visit to their
area is envisaged by Mr. Kimiwada, or his successor.
I believed Orion to be the biggest stock agency in Japan at the time. I
doubt if this situation has changed.
It may be of interest to note that two important agencies in Japan have been
owned and run by Americans. Pacific Press still is run by Robert
L.Kirschenbaum, I believe, and Imperial Press is now run by its founders
widow.
Brian Seed
Stock Photography Consultant
Phone" 847-782-7420
From: Picture Partners [mailto:PIC...@XS4ALL.NL]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 9:46 AM
To: STOCK...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Orion Press
... I understand you WANT tosubmit material to Orion Press.
Try this:
Takao Matsumoto, Photographer Services Liaison
ORION PRESS
1-13 Kanda-Jimbocho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-0051 Japan
mats...@orionpress.co.jp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio
In a few years I think I will need to change job...
RF is killing the RP business model, now there are something that may
kill RF:
Without words :-((
Cheers
Sergio
-----------------------------------------------------
Sergio Pitamitz Travel Photography
http://www.pitamitz.com
ser...@pitamitz.com
-----------------------------------------------------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kilpatrick
Sergio wrote:
> In a few years I think I will need to change job...
>
> RF is killing the RP business model, now there are something that may
> kill RF:
>
> http://www.shutterstock.com
>
> Without words :-((
>
So what's different?
This sort of deal - $299 a quarter to receive a bundle of CDs - has been
around for a decade, and was around long before that in stock clip art.
It's been around in the music industry for 30 years and more, I used to
susbcribe to De Wolfe and KLM and get their vinyl albums - occupied half
a store-room! Some stuff was entire free, other stuff was subject a
payment for the number of seconds used and the nature of the use.
This is not a new business model. Heavens sake - how do you think Thomas
Bewick earned a living in 1820? He operated a subscription service for
clip art WOODCUTS for use by newspapers and commercial printers! Royalty
free graphics almost 200 years ago. Buy the block (woodcut at first,
later on, copperplate) and use as many times as you like!
It's not new, it won't go away, it has never prevented original OTHER
material from selling at premium rates, and I can only advise folk to
mug up on the history of the press, of graphic art, and photography and
they will find that the current process has been happening in every
single decade for hundreds of years. It has not managed, yet, to ruin
the market.
Just don't send YOUR pictures to this outlet. If what they have is
typical, even with thousands of images on line, they won't be able to
meet the search requirements of most requests. They would need millions.
I know. I have loads of free CD RF collections sent to me free as a
photo magazine editor. I never even touch them. They contain nothing of
any interest at all!
David
--
Icon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines
http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk
Stock images at www.alamy.com -
Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick
Stockphoto Seller
The subscription model has been around for a few years now, an extension of the royalty-free and photos-as-commodities games. The basic way of fighting it is the same as for RF in general: try not to do anything to benefit companies and photographers employing the model and control your images so they will take no part in the scheme.
Carl May
Biological Photo Service
Jeroen van der Werff
Frans,
Thank you very much for your advice. I will try this mailadres!!
Best regards,
Jeroen van der Werff
----- Original Message -----
Glenn Zumwalt
At 01:03 AM 10/23/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>This is not a new business model. Heavens sake - how do you think Thomas
>Bewick earned a living in 1820? He operated a subscription service for
>clip art WOODCUTS for use by newspapers and commercial printers! Royalty
>free graphics almost 200 years ago. Buy the block (woodcut at first,
>later on, copperplate) and use as many times as you like!
>
Your analogy doesn't hold up David. Woodcuts and copperplate etchings have
a finite life span, pixels don't. Depending on how large the print run
was, the block or plate would be next to useless for printing a new
revision or use in a different publication. They just ware out. Even with
modern technology, using state-of-the-art materials, you would have trouble
using this method of printing more than 1,000 copies.
Another problem for the producers of RF is raising its ugly head. In the
latest issue of Visuell magazine, there is an article about the pirating of
RF discs. It is hard to control because there is no way to track the
usage. It seems that illegal copies of RF discs are starting to appear on
the market for a fraction of the cost of the originals.
Glenn Zumwalt Fotografy
age, Alamy, SAA, EP
David Barr
>Another problem for the producers of RF is raising its ugly head. In the
>latest issue of Visuell magazine, there is an article about the pirating of
>RF discs. It is hard to control because there is no way to track the
>usage. It seems that illegal copies of RF discs are starting to appear on
>the market for a fraction of the cost of the originals.
>
>Glenn Zumwalt Fotografy
Surely Glenn this piracy of RF could in itself be the end of RF it
will be a victim of it's own lack of control.
As for the web site offering subscription use of images. I see a
problem that any person paying the subscription for one month could
spend the whole month downloading the complete archive and then why
would they ever pay any additional fee.
I did a search on the shutterstock site looking for wheat pictures.
Using wheat as a keyword brought up oats, weeds and various other
pictures but on the few pages I looked at no wheat. I wondered if
this site really represents the work of a number of photographers or
just one or two people that started the site hoping to make a quick
buck!
Either way I think they are doomed to failure.
David
--
Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography.
Stock and assignment photography and
specializing in all aspects of agriculture.
http://www.photobar.com On line catalogue
http://www.stockartistsalliance.com SAA member
http://www.cama.org/ CAMA member
David Kilpatrick
Glenn Zumwalt wrote:
> At 01:03 AM 10/23/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>
>>This is not a new business model. Heavens sake - how do you think Thomas
>>Bewick earned a living in 1820? He operated a subscription service for
>>clip art WOODCUTS for use by newspapers and commercial printers! Royalty
>>free graphics almost 200 years ago. Buy the block (woodcut at first,
>>later on, copperplate) and use as many times as you like!
>>
>>David
>
>
> Your analogy doesn't hold up David. Woodcuts and copperplate etchings have
> a finite life span, pixels don't. Depending on how large the print run
> was, the block or plate would be next to useless for printing a new
> revision or use in a different publication. They just ware out. Even with
> modern technology, using state-of-the-art materials, you would have trouble
> using this method of printing more than 1,000 copies.
That was not true, even in Bewick's day. The life of woodcuts was is
decades (they were used, generally, on hand presses) and life of the
stock copperplate blocks I used in the 1960s was in centuries - some
dated back to before WW1, along with many of the fonts of type. In
newspapers, the stereotype process ensured from the mid 20th-c onwards
that master artwork blocks took little or no wear.
We have specialist locally who deals in early printing press wooden
type, art blocks, etc and the condition of most of the heavily-used
Edwardian ones is still excellent. Later clichograph blocks are almost
indestructible, and it was this type of deep etched mechanically cut
block which were shipped in the 1960s by stock advertising art
companies. In the 1970s I subscribed to clip art companies and received
masters for paste-up or camera use, and before this ceased to be a
worthwhile service, photography began to feature more and more using
Schafline and similar enhancements.
A graphic artist I knew then, and still know, became what would be a
millionaire today just by using these clip art books (he had the
contract to produce ads for one of the first free sheets, the local
newspapers distributed entirely free). The owners of the free sheet DID
become millionaires and that meant something in the 1970s. I used to get
really p*ssed off that Steve could just have a crew of young kids
cutting up un-original graphics and assembling with type into ads, and
get paid for it without ever doing an original design. Also, he would
never commission or use photography - ANYTHING which had a identifiable
cost, he refused to employ (apart from his staff, essential supplies,
and clip-art). Today I bet he has a building full of RF CDs.
Although many first editions from the Regency and early Victorian period
were in the order of 200-1000 copies, when a publication took off, tens
of thousands were needed and the hand engraved art blocks of the period
were capable of delivering.
>
> Another problem for the producers of RF is raising its ugly head. In the
> latest issue of Visuell magazine, there is an article about the pirating of
> RF discs. It is hard to control because there is no way to track the
> usage. It seems that illegal copies of RF discs are starting to appear on
> the market for a fraction of the cost of the originals.
>
You mean for nothing? I have about two dozen RF photo CDs here and half
of these were issued entirely free by Corel, PhotoDisc, and a few others
either with industry magazines (MacPublisher, long lamented) or as
direct mailshots.
Last week I receive three targeted mailshots from stock CD publishers
(Getty, Dorling Kindersley and another) but I also received the latest
Contact Food Photographers book - I chucked away the RF mailshots but
spent some time going through the Contact book, which has given me the
idea of featuring some food photographers as the stronghold of REAL colour!
David
--
Icon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines
http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk
Stock images at www.alamy.com -
Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick
ekatsumata
Hi Sergio,
This one's even more disturbing:
http://www.photos.com/
It ranks higher than Corbis on Alexa's ranking of stock photgraphy
sites:
http://www.alexa.com/browse/categories?catid=253870
Ei Katsumata
www.firstlightphoto.net
--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, Sergio <sergio.pitamitz@t...>
wrote:
> In a few years I think I will need to change job...
>
> RF is killing the RP business model, now there are something that
may
> kill RF:
>
> http://www.shutterstock.com
>
> Without words :-((
>
> Cheers
>
> Sergio
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Sergio Pitamitz Travel Photography
>
> http://www.pitamitz.com
> sergio@p...
Brian Seed
First of all, the Alexa ratings are likely to be highly misleading. The
value and nature of people accessing a site requires an answer to the
following questions: how many of the people accessing the site are buyers?
How many of them, if they are buyers, are offering the kind of payment you
would ever be willing to accept?
Whether or not you see the RF sites as a threat to your business depends on
how you view your own photography. If you see RF photos as being as good as
the ones you are taking then you are clearly in trouble, and in this case
you need to raise the quality of your work. Professional photographers
always have to face the fact that they are only as good as the last
photographic assignment they handled. RF images are a challenge, one we all
have to meet. Retiring to be worm farmers isn't the answer; improving the
creativy and general excellence of our work is..
Finally, the RF images on recently described sites likely will not pass a
quality check, if only for reasons of file size.
Brian Seed
Stock Photography Consultant
-----Original Message-----
From: ekatsumata [mailto:ekats...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 1:19 AM
To: STOCK...@yahoogroups.com
David Kilpatrick
Brian Seed wrote:
> > Finally, the RF images on recently described sites likely will not pass a
> quality check, if only for reasons of file size.
>
I doubt that if I was buying stock I would often need their full-page
repro size - the so called High Res (1/2 page A4) would be OK.
Anyone wanted a 25-30mb file - even AFTER paying their monthly or
quarterly sub - has to pay $199 for each such download. That's only full
page A4 really.
There must be people out there who for some reason need very large files
but I can't think who they are.
David
--
Icon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines
http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk
Stock images at www.alamy.com -
Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick
Brian Seed
David,
Most of the major agencies demand files of 50 mgb and up. Photonica requires
100 mgb files. I believe Corbis' minimum size, for editorial use only, is
35mgb. Quality-wise this does put the offerings of the RF companies we have
been talking about into the shade, but then they are marketing their stuff
on the basis of price and convenience, not of high quality. We may all know
that huge files are seldom needed, but some buyers seem not to be aware of
the fact. Alamy says buyers invariably demand the 50mgb files whether they
need them or not.
Just about everyone in this business needs more education in this digital
field, including me...
A prime consideration for many of these fly-by-night RF companies is the
need to keep their costs down. Hence the smaller file sizes requiring less
work and a smaller amount of storage.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: David Kilpatrick [mailto:icon...@btconnect.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 10:45 AM
To: STOCK...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: New stock photo business model
Brian Seed wrote:
> > Finally, the RF images on recently described sites likely will not
pass a
> quality check, if only for reasons of file size.
>
I doubt that if I was buying stock I would often need their full-page
repro size - the so called High Res (1/2 page A4) would be OK.
Anyone wanted a 25-30mb file - even AFTER paying their monthly or
quarterly sub - has to pay $199 for each such download. That's only full
page A4 really.
There must be people out there who for some reason need very large files
but I can't think who they are.
David
Sean McCormick
ekatsumata wrote:
>This one's even more disturbing:
>http://www.photos.com/
>
>
I wouldn't lose too much sleep over Photos.com. At my day job, my
employer asked me to buy a one month membership with them so we could
procure some graphics for use in our internal company newsletters.
Trying to find a single useable image there was worse than looking for a
needle in a haystack. The quality of the majority of their inventory is
rather amateurish. By this I mean poorly conceived, poorly composed, and
poorly exposed. We wound up licensing a few images from Getty instead.
Best,
Sean
--
Digiteyesed Photography
http://www.digiteyesed.com/
The online photographic portfolio of Sean McCormick.
wks photo
Even more interesting is to see what else they own.
Walter Shockley
Hi Sergio,
This one's even more disturbing:
http://www.photos.com/
It ranks higher than Corbis on Alexa's ranking of stock photgraphy
sites:
http://www.alexa.com/browse/categories?catid=253870
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Vitti
Hate to take a side here, but these royalty free access based sites
illustrate the move of stock imagery toward that of the pornography business
model where value is based on a limited window of exclusivity.
Here's what an acquaintance did:
Produce a 4-5 model shoot (1 Day) $10-15,000
produce, scan & retouch 400 - 600 images, burn to CD-R
sell 20 CD's for $5,000 each, grossing $100k
Site owners (buyers) knew they had 3-6 months to capitalize on the
'exclusive' content before the content had propagated throughout the web.
So, is this is the observation: RF is predicated on the fast turn around
(volume) where RM is the long term investment (quality). Do we need or want
to turn over images (in terms of their uniqueness) faster than they
propagate through the web?
Michael Vitti
VittiPhoto Productions
stilll & motion, abstraction to distraction
<<>>
>From: "ekatsumata" <ekats...@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: STOCK...@yahoogroups.com
>To: STOCK...@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: New stock photo business model
>Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 06:18:53 -0000
>
>
>
>
>Hi Sergio,
>
>This one's even more disturbing:
>http://www.photos.com/
>
>It ranks higher than Corbis on Alexa's ranking of stock photgraphy
>sites:
>http://www.alexa.com/browse/categories?catid=253870
>
>Ei Katsumata
>www.firstlightphoto.net
>
>
>--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, Sergio <sergio.pitamitz@t...>
>wrote:
> > In a few years I think I will need to change job...
> >
> > RF is killing the RP business model, now there are something that
>may
> > kill RF:
> >
> > http://www.shutterstock.com
> >
> > Without words :-((
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Sergio
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > Sergio Pitamitz Travel Photography
> >
> > http://www.pitamitz.com
> > sergio@p...
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
> Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.cfm#rules
> STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.cfm
> STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Sean McCormick
Brian Seed wrote:
>Finally, the RF images on recently described sites likely will not pass a
>quality check, if only for reasons of file size.
>
>
Brian, what file size do you feel is the acceptable minimum?
Best,
Sean
--
Digiteyesed Photography
http://www.digiteyesed.com/
The online photographic portfolio of Sean McCormick.
Fred Voetsch Publishing
> Glenn Zumwalt Wortez:
> I will admit that you can still make prints from
> the blocks and plates, but, unlike pixels or film,
> they will wear out with repeated use.
Yes, Glenn, but BECAUSE we are moving images as pixels there will be
much more demand.
Just as with the DTP revolution, not only did we see a lot of people
become designers who might never have (some bad and some good - the
good ones are still around) but we saw much greater demand as people
were able to print on the desktop and the glut of good design caused
much more use of that good design work.
And so it goes with digital cameras. News organizations can now get
their still images digitally without waiting so they use more photos.
Web sites, which didn't exist 10 years ago, almost all need images and
as those little sites get bigger and more profitable they are willing
to spend more money on better images and want exclusivity...some of
them, some will love the $2 photos or the $299 a month subscription but
most people want the photo they NEED and will pay $100 or $200 if they
can get it NOW!...I've never known an designer who didn't need it NOW!
Fred Voetsch - Owner
http://www.AcclaimImages.com
Paul
Hi All,
Sorry I just joined this newsgroup and missed out the beginning of this
discussion about the new stock photo business model. What is the new
business model? Is the new model all about RFs and subscriptions or what?
Also, can anyone recommend me one or even some stock photo sites out there
that are so much better than the rest and why is it the best? Or are they
all the same and not very easy to use and/or not very profitable, etc? Are
Getty and Corbis really that great? They seem to have such a huge market
share.
thanks,
Paul
David Riecks
At 01:18 AM 10/23/2004, ekatsumata wrote:
>This one's even more disturbing:
>http://www.photos.com/
>
>It ranks higher than Corbis on Alexa's ranking of stock photgraphy
>sites:
Ekatsumata:
So long as Alexa is only measuring the usage of Windows computers users
that view websites using Microsoft internet exploder with the Alexa toolbar
installed, I don't think the ranking of photos.com over Corbis is much of a
concern.
Statistics that measure the full broad spectrum of visitors, or those that
specifically can isolate actual "buyers" rather than window shoppers would
be a better measure.
David
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
da...@riecks.com http://www.riecks.com/
Midwest/Chicago ASMP * ph/fax 877-646-5375
Brian Seed
Sean,
If you want to market you images through the biggest and best marketing
agencies, such as . Getty, Corbis, and Photonica, then you need big files of
high quality of the order of 100 mgp. I have not been shooting for quite a
while and thought I would ease myself quite inexpensively into digital
photography by buying one of the fairly new 8 megapixel camera's, which do
an amazingly good job. In terms of most requirements these camera's would
fit the bill, but do I want to limit my marketing outlets to the less
demanding and less lucrative agencies?
Very much depends on the nature of your work and hence the markets into
which you sell, but there is a premium that has been set on very high
quality. The aforementioned agencies demand images from only the top of the
line camera's, such as the Canon 1DS, or from drum-scanned slides. Even the
Kodak 14 megaixel camera has been frowned on. There is ongoing discussion on
this list about RF agencies and the relatively small size image files they
offer. Very high quality in terms of creativity and file size is one way the
big agencies know they have to distinguish themselves from mass-produced RF
crap, not that all RF is crap.
As a somewhat tangentially related comment, I recently had cause to talk to
a number of key marketing people at Corbis and was very impressed. Made me
want to join the agency and further made me doubt the wisdom of buying
underpowered digital equipment.
Brian Seed
Stock Photography Consultant.
Phone: 847-782-7420.
From: Sean McCormick [mailto:se...@digiteyesed.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 10:26 AM
To: STOCK...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: New stock photo business model
Brian Seed wrote:
>Finally, the RF images on recently described sites likely will not pass a
>quality check, if only for reasons of file size.
>
>
Brian, what file size do you feel is the acceptable minimum?
Best,
Sean
Brian Seed
From: Brian Seed [mailto:bs...@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 4:55 AM
To: STOCK...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: New stock photo business model
Sean,
If you want to market you images through the biggest and best marketing
agencies, such as . Getty, Corbis, and Photonica, then you need big files of
high quality of the order of 100 mgp.
CORRECTION. I SHOULD HAVE SAID MEGABYTES... BRIAN SEED.
Sean McCormick
Brian Seed wrote:
>If you want to market you images through the biggest and best marketing
>agencies, such as . Getty, Corbis, and Photonica, then you need big files of
>high quality of the order of 100 mgp. I have not been shooting for quite a
>while and thought I would ease myself quite inexpensively into digital
>photography by buying one of the fairly new 8 megapixel camera's, which do
>an amazingly good job. In terms of most requirements these camera's would
>fit the bill, but do I want to limit my marketing outlets to the less
>demanding and less lucrative agencies?
>
>
I've been approached twice about image licensing in the last month.
These people found me through my Web site and were both ready to make
purchases, but backed down when they discovered the file sizes of my
images (taken with a Canon EOS 300D 6.3 megapixel camera). One wanted
the image for a CD cover and as such it would have wound up on
billboards if it was large enough, and the other was looking for an
image for a poster. I'm obviously going to need to move to a larger
camera if I want to make sales.
Is interpolating file sizes upwards (using S-Spline or Genuine Fractals)
allowed by stock agencies? I can't see how a 1Ds Mk II would produce a
TIFF file beyond 51 MB. Even a 22 megapixel digital back on a medium
format camera is only producing file sizes around 65 MB. I'm guessing
that the big stock agencies prefer drum scanned medium format (and
larger) images from slide film.
I'm not even sure how I'd manage the purchase of a Canon 1Ds right now.
I suppose I could find the money, but I'd hate to lay out $10 grand for
a camera and be told that my file sizes are still too small.
:-(
Sean
--
Digiteyesed Photography
http://www.digiteyesed.com/
The online photographic portfolio of Sean McCormick.
The Light Painter
http://www.thelightpainter.com/
Adventures in artificial light.
Pol:Spy
http://www.polspy.ca/
Kicking Canadian political arse.
Thinking Parents
http://www.thinkingparents.ca/forum/
Got kids? Got brains? Come on over.
Michael Vitti
The storage barrier might change with the implementation of a raw file base
digital negative files. Forsee the automation of file creation & delivery
done serverside after purchase has cleared. Could reduce storage
requirments by 3 fold for same sized images, but I wqould guess both RM and
RF vendors alike would benefit from this change. Early adoption being the
criteria that separates survivors.
Michael Vitti
VittiPhoto Productions
stilll & motion, abstraction to distraction
<<>>
>A prime consideration for many of these fly-by-night RF companies is the
>need to keep their costs down. Hence the smaller file sizes requiring less
>work and a smaller amount of storage.
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
David Kilpatrick
Sean McCormick wrote:
>
> I've been approached twice about image licensing in the last month.
> These people found me through my Web site and were both ready to make
> purchases, but backed down when they discovered the file sizes of my
> images (taken with a Canon EOS 300D 6.3 megapixel camera). One wanted
> the image for a CD cover and as such it would have wound up on
> billboards if it was large enough, and the other was looking for an
> image for a poster. I'm obviously going to need to move to a larger
> camera if I want to make sales.
>
> Is interpolating file sizes upwards (using S-Spline or Genuine Fractals)
> allowed by stock agencies? I can't see how a 1Ds Mk II would produce a
> TIFF file beyond 51 MB. Even a 22 megapixel digital back on a medium
> format camera is only producing file sizes around 65 MB. I'm guessing
> that the big stock agencies prefer drum scanned medium format (and
> larger) images from slide film.
>
> I'm not even sure how I'd manage the purchase of a Canon 1Ds right now.
> I suppose I could find the money, but I'd hate to lay out $10 grand for
> a camera and be told that my file sizes are still too small.
>
Ignorance. The huge images of Nike shoes which covered a 150ft long
scaffolding in Glasgow a few years back - the first giant outdoor banner
inkjet prints made - were shot on a Nikon D1, that was 2.x megapixels.
You can put 300D images on a 48-sheet poster and they look much the same
as a Kodachrome to the same size.
Billboards, absolutely no problem at all for a decent EOS 300D image.
Yes, agencies allow interpolated images, I shoot on cameras ranging from
3.4 megapixels to 8 megapixels and my files are 48-56 megabytes. I also
scan from slides to 100 megs and while some scans show more detail,
generally, at 50 megabytes or so, a good 6 megapixel DSLR shot will look
smoother, better defined and will make a better print.
David
--
Icon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines
http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk
Stock images at www.alamy.com -
Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick
roycebair
--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, David Barr
<photobar@P...> wrote:
> I did a search on the shutterstock site looking for wheat
pictures.
> Using wheat as a keyword brought up oats, weeds and various
other
> pictures but on the few pages I looked at no wheat. I
wondered if
> this site really represents the work of a number of
photographers or
> just one or two people that started the site hoping to make a
quick
> buck!
> Either way I think they are doomed to failure.
>
> David
ShutterStock is the work of just a few photographers, but they
opened up their previously "closed to oursiders" RF subscription
agency just a week ago.
I've been in the stock business for 30 years, and thought I'd do
an article on how they and 3 micro-payment agencies relate to
the history of stock over the past decade. You can find this article
here:
"A New Paradigm Shift in Stock Photography"
http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_10-28-04.html#5
I'm currently working as a technology cuonsultant for
InkjetART.com
Royce Bair
http://www.inkjetart.com/
David Sanger
I have asked this before but can't find anything in the archives. Does
anyone know if there a significant advantage in doing an exact 200% upres -
eg. 3000 pixels wide to 6000 pixels wide, ratehr than some lesser amount -
say to 5500 pixels.
My thinking is that with an exact 200% upres the program won't change and of
the existing pixels at all, but will simply insert one new [calculated]
pixel between each pair of existing ones?
any external references on this subject would also be appreciated.
thanks
david
On 10/27/04 11:45 AM, "David Kilpatrick" <icon...@btconnect.com> wrote:
> Yes, agencies allow interpolated images, I shoot on cameras ranging from
> 3.4 megapixels to 8 megapixels and my files are 48-56 megabytes. I also
> scan from slides to 100 megs and while some scans show more detail,
> generally, at 50 megabytes or so, a good 6 megapixel DSLR shot will look
> smoother, better defined and will make a better print.
----------------------------------
David Sanger Photography
Travel assignments and stock worldwide
510-526-0800 voice
510-526-2800 fax
510-685-2512 mobile
da...@davidsanger.com
http://www.davidsanger.com
Chris Luneski
> I've been in the stock business for 30 years, and thought I'd do
> an article on how they and 3 micro-payment agencies relate to
> the history of stock over the past decade. You can find this article
> here:
>
> "A New Paradigm Shift in Stock Photography"
> http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_10-28-04.html#5
>
> I'm currently working as a technology cuonsultant for
> InkjetART.com
>
> Royce Bair
> http://www.inkjetart.com/
Royce,
Good to see you posting to the group again. I, for one, would be
interested in your take, either here or in your newsletter, on the
agency/portals similar to Alamy. I assume you would include MyLoupe,
OzImages, Canz and perhaps others in this category.
take care,
Chris Luneski