You have to login first in order to be able to post messages.
Click here to login or register if you are a new user.
| New Prices for 2007 and Free Section Upgrade |
| Author |
Message |
Mshake
34 posts
|
|
Message posted at 12/23/2006, 04:16:41 AM by Mshake |
 |
 |
I like the price changes and I think in the end it will mean more money for everyone and thats a good thing!
One sugestion for the DT team would be to make each subscription sale count as two units towards the levels total. That takes some of the sting out of the lower .25 cents commision for the photographers. |
|
The majority of my photos dated prior to 1/01/2007 where ta...
|
Uploaded files: 959 | Total Sales: 7977
|
|
Micspix
56 posts
|
|
Message posted at 12/23/2006, 06:33:17 AM by Micspix |
|
|
After reading through this long thread and taking a look at what type of sales my images have been generating (print, web, subscription) I like the price revamp. If the increase in the number of subscription sales generates more traffic (as I've read on independent bulletin boards that it does) 2007 should be a good year.
Thanks DT. |
|
|
Uploaded files: 368 | Total Sales: 1102
|
|
Graytown
42 posts
|
|
Message posted at 12/23/2006, 11:23:28 AM by Graytown |
|
|
I'm not a regular on the boards, but after reading all the concerns about the people who have invested in high level equipment, I do want to say that people who use this equipment have one solid advantage (although it may not seem apparent for some at this time) and that is that their files are effectively "future-proofed" for some time to come. The 4MP camera I had a few years back renders shots that barely qualify as medium at most sites.... and the Rebel 300D I use now will meet a similar fate in time to come.
So take things in your stride, enjoy the pay increase and if you have a 1Ds Mk II, or a 5D, enjoy your equipment. You've certainly earned it !
And of course, have yourself a merry Christmas and a brilliant new year.
Warm regards,
Rohit |
|
Camera : Canon 300D
Lenses : 24-105 L F4.0 USM IS, 18-55 F4...
|
Uploaded files: 1122 | Total Sales: 4583
|
|
Kcphotos
109 posts
|
|
Message posted at 12/23/2006, 12:16:38 PM by Kcphotos |
|
|
I have not been a prolific contributor to the message boards either but do follow them fairly closely. One of the points that I think that has not been emphasized in this discussion is the very concept on which microstock is based and that is volume. The main idea behind what we are all doing is offering quality images for low prices. The real profit to us as contributors is increased repeat sales over time. I think we need to keep in mind that volume/repeat downloads makes the whole concept work. Building volume takes adjustments, flexibility and above all, patience.
Sure, I am not crazy about such a steep decrease in royalties from subscription sales, but I feel in the long run, that loss is more than compensated for by the increase in regular non-subscription royalties and in increased subscription downloads. I also think the more differentiated level pricing helps make a difference, especially for images of extra high quality and demand.
I think it is a plan well worth trying and commend DT for having the courage to initiate a model that appears to benefits both the contributors as well as the market - a very difficult thing to accomplish! |
|
Nikon D300, D70s, Olympus Camedia D-565 Zoom
|
Uploaded files: 1250 | Total Sales: 3387
|
|
Wysiwygfoto
558 posts
|
|
Message edited at 12/23/2006, 13:13:33 PM by Wysiwygfoto |
|
|
Graytown, I think another advantage that a lot of the folks with bigger cameras have is they can crop in closer and still get a large size out of it. There are a lot of photographers (including myself) that have cropped an image closer to give it a better appearance than when it was shot. Those with 12 and 16mp cameras have an advantage in that they can still crop 25% - 50% of the image to make that image better and get a large size.
Some people also create a series of photos from one or two images by doing things like rotating that crop so we get an angle on the image instead of a straight on shot creating effectively two images from one - that's an advantage that a lot of us don't have. |
|
|
Uploaded files: 0 | Total Sales: 899
|
|
Lisafx
459 posts
|
|
Message posted at 12/23/2006, 13:36:58 PM by Lisafx |
|
|
| Originally posted by Kcphotos: |
 |
Quoted Message: I have not been a prolific contributor to the message boards either but do follow them fairly closely. One of the points that I think that has not been emphasized in this discussion is the very concept on which microstock is based and that is volume. The main idea behind what we are all doing is offering quality images for low prices. The real profit to us as contributors is increased repeat sales over time. I think we need to keep in mind that volume/repeat downloads makes the whole concept work. Building volume takes adjustments, flexibility and above all, patience.
|
Personally, I am not that upset about the .25 for the subscriptions. I would prefer it be more, but like you say, it is a volume business.
Where the volume argument falls apart, though, is the free section. Just check out the other thread on this same forum where the guy with the mediocre, poorly isolated, direct flash photo of a pomegranate has been downloaded for free 145 times and a similar, but much better lighted and isolated photo of the same subject has only been downloaded 14 times.
No amount of volume is going to compensate for having to compete with free images on the same site. 1000 X 0 is still 0.
|
|
Canon 5D, 40D, Various lenses, flashes, studio lights, light...
|
Uploaded files: 4088 | Total Sales: 25092
|
|
Paulcowan
335 posts
|
|
Message posted at 12/23/2006, 14:48:07 PM by Paulcowan |
|
|
| Originally posted by Wysiwygfoto: |
|
| Quoted Message: Graytown, I think another advantage that a lot of the folks with bigger cameras have is they can crop in closer and still get a large size out of it. There are a lot of photographers (including myself) that have cropped an image closer to give it a better appearance than when it was shot. Those with 12 and 16mp cameras have an advantage in that they can still crop 25% - 50% of the image to make that image better and get a large size. |
Not really, because if we use the same focal length lenses we end up with the same size subject so we just have to crop more off. Not that I regret the 5D for one moment. |
|
Canon EOS 5D, Canon 70-200 f2.8l zoom, 17-40mm f4L Canon len...
|
Uploaded files: 2696 | Total Sales: 11319
|
|
Paulcowan
335 posts
|
|
Message posted at 12/23/2006, 15:16:26 PM by Paulcowan |
|
|
| Originally posted by Achilles: |
|
Quoted Message:
The users that uploaded downsampled images so far will suffer from their own mistake. That was not honest towards the buyers nor the agency. You will not only lose sales from now on by having a portfolio that is smaller in MP than it could be, but you have already lost a lot of sales. |
Serban, I must say that I do take exception to that remark. There was nothing "not honest" about uploading 6MP files from 12MP originals. They met the requirements of the site and it made no sense at all for me to greatly increase my uploading time to provide DT with huge files that exceeded what you wanted.
If you worked in a shop, would you consider it "not honest" to give someone what they were happy to pay for? Would you insist on giving them some more, for nothing?
What's more, your changing the rules does not make my decision a "mistake", nor can you know whether it has lost me any sales, let alone "a lot". Experience elsewhere shows that demand for files that will print to A3 size at 300dpi is quite small - it's only needed for things like posters and magazine centre-spreads.
Anyway, I'm not complaining about the changes. I just find the suggestion that my strategy was "not honest" deeply offensive. |
|
Canon EOS 5D, Canon 70-200 f2.8l zoom, 17-40mm f4L Canon len...
|
Uploaded files: 2696 | Total Sales: 11319
|
|
Sophieso
1291 posts
|
|
Message posted at 12/23/2006, 17:01:08 PM by Sophieso |
|
|
Downsizing an image is also a very honest, very effective way to clarify an image without using any sharpening filters and the problems that come with those filters.
I was offended by that remark, too, Paul, but afraid to say anything. Sometimes the bite that comes back can be pretty harsh. Glad you said it and not me:-) |
|
|
Uploaded files: 270 | Total Sales: 626
|
|
Graytown
42 posts
|
|
Message edited at 12/23/2006, 17:08:54 PM by Graytown |
|
|
| Originally posted by Paulcowan: |
|
Quoted Message: [quote]Graytown, I think another advantage that a lot of the folks with bigger cameras have is they can crop in closer and still get a large size out of it. There are a lot of photographers (including myself) that have cropped an image closer to give it a better appearance than when it was shot. Those with 12 and 16mp cameras have an advantage in that they can still crop 25% - 50% of the image to make that image better and get a large size.
Not really, because if we use the same focal length lenses we end up with the same size subject so we just have to crop more off. Not that I regret the 5D for one moment. |
[/quote]
Paul, I think Eendicott meant was that if I took a shot with my 6.3MP camera and you took the same shot with your 5D (lucky bastard :), then if we crop/rotate the shot, your image will be of a much higher resolution that my image. So while my image may qualify as a medium on certain sites, your image would still maintain the size needed to qualify as large.
By the way, I've been dreaming about the 5D for some time now. How's the focussing system? Fast, accurate?
Rohit |
|
Camera : Canon 300D
Lenses : 24-105 L F4.0 USM IS, 18-55 F4...
|
Uploaded files: 1122 | Total Sales: 4583
|
|
Paulcowan
335 posts
|
|
Message posted at 12/23/2006, 19:34:20 PM by Paulcowan |
|
|
Focusing is fast and accurate, it's a great camera.
I know what Endicott meant, but I think there is a misunderstanding of what the 5D is. As far as I can work it out, the resolution (i.e. the size of the pixels) is about the same as the 300D. The "advantage" of the 5D comes in the fact that it has a bigger area that the light from the lens falls onto. But you stick a 50mm lens on a 300d and a 5D and the size of the object you see at the end will be about the same.
A 350D will actually appear to give a larger object size because the pixels are packed closer together - as far as I understand it, I haven't tested it.
However, the QUALITY of the 5D pixels is very high - better than the older 300D sensor and bigger than the newer 350 or 400D.
Some people even say the 5D gives superior quality to the 1DsMk2 (I'm happy to believe it :) ) because of the lower pixel density.
It is all very complicated.
| Originally posted by Graytown: |
|
Quoted Message: [quote][quote]Graytown, I think another advantage that a lot of the folks with bigger cameras have is they can crop in closer and still get a large size out of it. There are a lot of photographers (including myself) that have cropped an image closer to give it a better appearance than when it was shot. Those with 12 and 16mp cameras have an advantage in that they can still crop 25% - 50% of the image to make that image better and get a large size.
Not really, because if we use the same focal length lenses we end up with the same size subject so we just have to crop more off. Not that I regret the 5D for one moment. |
[/quote]
Paul, I think Eendicott meant was that if I took a shot with my 6.3MP camera and you took the same shot with your 5D (lucky bastard :), then if we crop/rotate the shot, your image will be of a much higher resolution that my image. So while my image may qualify as a medium on certain sites, your image would still maintain the size needed to qualify as large.
By the way, I've been dreaming about the 5D for some time now. How's the focussing system? Fast, accurate?
Rohit [/quote] |
|
Canon EOS 5D, Canon 70-200 f2.8l zoom, 17-40mm f4L Canon len...
|
Uploaded files: 2696 | Total Sales: 11319
|
|
Paulcowan
335 posts
|
|
Message posted at 12/23/2006, 19:46:29 PM by Paulcowan |
|
|
| Originally posted by Sophieso: |
|
Quoted Message: Downsizing an image is also a very honest, very effective way to clarify an image without using any sharpening filters and the problems that come with those filters.
I was offended by that remark, too, Paul, but afraid to say anything. Sometimes the bite that comes back can be pretty harsh. Glad you said it and not me:-) |
Well, the remark came soon after my passing comment about downsizing, so I suppose it referred to me.
I hope people in this industry have seen enough of my comments to know that while I say what I think, I do so without malice and usually with the aim of helping. |
|
Canon EOS 5D, Canon 70-200 f2.8l zoom, 17-40mm f4L Canon len...
|
Uploaded files: 2696 | Total Sales: 11319
|
|
Graytown
42 posts
|
|
Message edited at 12/23/2006, 21:04:07 PM by Graytown |
|
|
Paul, I can understand where the confusion comes in... but luckily, its an area, that I can shed light upon. You have a 5D and I have a 300D. If we both want to record a headshot, our sensors will go to work accordingly. My sensor will record that image in 3000 x 2000 px whereas yours will record that in a much larger dimension. Effectively, your camera captures more information that mine does. The frame might be the same, but your camera does record information across a larger number of pixels than mine does.
I don't know if I made sense here, but I do know that what I'm saying is correct.... if anything, the language may be leading to a bit of loss in translation.
To put it simply, you're painting on a bigger canvas that I am.
And as far as downsizing is concerned, I'm with you on this one. Its the photographer's prerogative to release the image size that he/she wishes. The buyer makes his decision on what he wants. Nope, no cheating involved on this matter at all.
Cheers!
Ro |
|
Camera : Canon 300D
Lenses : 24-105 L F4.0 USM IS, 18-55 F4...
|
Uploaded files: 1122 | Total Sales: 4583
|
|
Wysiwygfoto
558 posts
|
|
Message edited at 12/23/2006, 22:05:33 PM by Wysiwygfoto |
|
|
Paul, I understand where you're coming from but here's the issue surrounding the mp argument.
1) The 30d's dynamic range is closer to the 1dsMKII than the 5d (superior in high dynamic range) at 8.2mp
2) Depending on a photographer's style or niche, the 1dMKIIn is a superior camera in that if you're shooting sports, and you need a faster camera, the camera shoots faster than any other Canon Camera. In fact, the 30d shoots faster than the 5d and the 1dsMKII. Both the 1dMKIIn and the 30d are 8mp cameras. The 1dMKiin will not get you the sharpness of the 5d or the 30d or the 1dsMKII.
According to what I've heard, this may all change in March in that my understanding is the 5d will be re-introduced in different sub-models improving dynamic range and speed.
For the moment, say I am shooting a model with a 12 or 16mp camera, and I get a full body shot. I can crop that image 1) to get a head shot still at the 3mp minimum requirement 2) after rotating the shot so I get another image with a different feel leaving it at the "large size".
The thing that blows everyone's arguments away though (both pro and against the subscription model as well as the size of images) is either way, the large size isn't necessary to accomplish a billboard size image - Kurhan's image is an example of that - a billboard at 3.6mp http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_5758. The difference solely lies in the purchaser's abilities at enhancing and changing what we upload. |
|
|
Uploaded files: 0 | Total Sales: 899
|
|
Shuttermama
30 posts
|
|
Message posted at 12/23/2006, 21:51:47 PM by Shuttermama |
|
|
| Originally posted by Mshake: |
|
Quoted Message: I like the price changes and I think in the end it will mean more money for everyone and thats a good thing!
One sugestion for the DT team would be to make each subscription sale count as two units towards the levels total. That takes some of the sting out of the lower .25 cents commision for the photographers. |
I like this suggestion as well....
? and still perhaps charge 2 credits (and give us 4 count) for downloads over 5MP for subscription members. It's still more than fair to the buyer, a huge savings over standard price. And then an added perk, appreciation, for the photographer with larger images. |
|
Olympus Evolt 500, Paint Shop Pro, Photoshop, Filters/Plugin...
|
Uploaded files: 62 | Total Sales: 226
|
|
Achilles
3426 posts
|
|
Message edited at 12/24/2006, 09:25:03 AM by Admin |
|
|
| Originally posted by Paulcowan: |
|
Quoted Message:
Serban, I must say that I do take exception to that remark. There was nothing "not honest" about uploading 6MP files from 12MP originals. They met the requirements of the site and it made no sense at all for me to greatly increase my uploading time to provide DT with huge files that exceeded what you wanted.
If you worked in a shop, would you consider it "not honest" to give someone what they were happy to pay for? Would you insist on giving them some more, for nothing?
What's more, your changing the rules does not make my decision a "mistake", nor can you know whether it has lost me any sales, let alone "a lot". Experience elsewhere shows that demand for files that will print to A3 size at 300dpi is quite small - it's only needed for things like posters and magazine centre-spreads.
Anyway, I'm not complaining about the changes. I just find the suggestion that my strategy was "not honest" deeply offensive. |
Paul, yes, I realize now that "not honest" was not the appropriate term because you understood it as dishonest and that's completely something else. I apologize for using it, I should've rather used "unfair" or "uneven" which as far as my English goes are much different, as your actions were clearly not dishonest.
Once more, this was not directed to you, there were lots of contributors mentioning this in the past and in this thread. In fact it wasn't targeted to someone specifically, but rather rhetorically. You are right, it's rather a question of paying the price for your own decisions. We don't have to argue now if it was unfair or not, because the new prices will prove one or the other side of the story.
Anyway, in order to get back to the resolution difference, as your agent I assure you that we know a lot about the number of sales. The statistics and the fact we monitor all transactions at level site, make our arguments to be solid and well founded. We wouldn't even dare to come with some sort of presumptions without knowing what we say is correct or almost correct (because you cannot apply the same pattern to all users). |
|
Nikon D300 / Nikon N80 | Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fishey...
|
Uploaded files: 1979 | Total Sales: 10668
|
|
Paulcowan
335 posts
|
|
Message posted at 12/24/2006, 11:42:03 AM by Paulcowan |
|
|
I'm glad it was not meant the way it came over. I accept your apology and in my turn apologise if you felt my response was in any way offensive.
Now lets all go and have a great Christmas :)
Paul |
|
Canon EOS 5D, Canon 70-200 f2.8l zoom, 17-40mm f4L Canon len...
|
Uploaded files: 2696 | Total Sales: 11319
|
|
Danieloncarevic
244 posts
|
|
Message edited at 12/24/2006, 12:37:08 PM by Danieloncarevic |
|
|
| Originally posted by Nikitu: |
|
Quoted Message: [quote]Not too sure about the subscription. Are you saying that for $89.99, a subscriber can download 300 images at the largest size, any level, and we only get 25c?
For subscription, I think maybe the largest size available should be about 5Mp, or large should count as more images.
Many people downsize their images for subscription sites.
I love everything else. Sales have been rising fast on DT this year.
Looking forward to 2007!
Linda
|
The images bought on subscription will be awarded 0.25$ per image regardless of level or size of the image. A subscriber will buy a lot more images then a regular buyer who uses credits, that's why he receives this discount.[/quote]
I can't understand that some great image od 12MPX can be sold on DT for just 0.25$ and that some great illustration that was made in many days can be sold for 0.25$ too.
Yes, a subscriber will buy a lot more images then a regular buyer who uses credits but the money that he spend is going to Dreamstime, not to me... The only thing I have from that buyer is 0.25$ for hi resolution photo... Do you think this is really OK???
Daniel |
|
Canon 30D + Canon EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6 IS USM, Sigma 70-300m...
|
Uploaded files: 661 | Total Sales: 1330
|
|
|
