Jump to content

Rudy Umans

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    481

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rudy Umans

  1. Posted

    14 hours ago, Conny Skogberg said:

    We Contributors are reffered to as just Contibutors. We put up our content as a contribution to SS and get payed in return.

    I tough would argue that we are in fact consumers.

    SS provides a service they give us a platform to sell our media and in return we pay them a percentage of the sales sum.

    Perhaps if we would rethink this Contributor, stock site, buyer paradigm and start looking at stocksites as serviceproviders and our selfs as consumers it would be much clearer that as a consumer you really cant accept any deal the seller (service provider) gives.

    For all other services a consumer would just look for another service provider to turn to if we no longer find the deals acceptable.

    For eg you should use a contractor to renovate you hous you would typicaly use those who give good value service for the money you pay them. If a contractor raises the price to high you would go somewhere else.

    I think all consumers of the SS service would rethink if it arent better to find anohter provider of the service we consume. The price just got to high for this service.

    What do you think?

    We are the service providers, not SS, and sites like this one are nothing but an outlet for our services

    Like merchandizing in a grocery store.  A grocery store offers shelf space to a small local baker to sell their cookies. By doing so, the grocery store provides an opportunity for the baker to sell their cookies so the baker can concentrate on making the most delicious cookies and the grocery store takes care of the rest. The store does most of the advertising and makes a reasonable effort to bring in the customers to buy the baker's cookies. In exchange the grocery store wants 30% of the profit of every cookie that baker has put on the shelves, which the baker finds reasonable considering the profitable return.

    Now one morning the baker wakes up only to find out that the grocery store wants 80% of the profit of every cookie all of a sudden. What is this baker going to do................?

    We are that baker.

    5

  2. Posted

    11 hours ago, Milleflore Images said:

    Oops, sorry, Rudy, I should have made 2 posts. A short one in reply to you, and the rest for general info for everyone else.

    Yes, I know you're very familiar with FAA - a lot more than me!

    it doesn't matter really who is more familiar with what.  We all know things and we are all here to help each other.

    One thing though, Pixels offers all the products, FAA does not. 

    I happen to like FAA and I don't mind talking about it, although I know very well they are not without problems and there are certain things there I really don't like, but I don't worry about those too much. Can't change them anyway.

    got to go now, my tablet is dying

    1

  3. Posted

    2 hours ago, Milleflore Images said:

    I can kind of understand this Rudy and appreciate your advice. But from reading all of the comments above, I am starting to think that there are two ways to use FAA. One, is where you put up all your best artistic work and aim for wall art sales. Matt Gibson's stunning artwork is a great example of this.

    Or you can treat it as purely another POD site and go for all the product sales. I know people with both types of work (Very commercial vs highly artistic) who have done very well there. 

    My port definitely leans towards the commercial side, but I still make some wall art sales like this one yesterday. The artists there may think its criminal. lol

    https://fineartamerica.com/saleannouncement.html?id=b151a15f09ad38bf5da07ef6bc372269 

     

    These are my observations. It appears that the Pixels.com move (my link above on page 2 and below is from 2016) when they decided then to become more commercial. At first by separating the two, BUT that was 4 years ago and nowadays all products are available for purchase on both sites, from what I can see.

    Either way, I think people can profit from either the Pixels side of things or the traditional Fine Art America depending on their style.

     

    Here is the link:

    https://www.microstockman.com/pixels-rebranding-fine-art-america/

     

     

    Congratulation on your sale. That is always nice.

    I understand and can appreciate your point of view. It is just that for me the two don't mix. I have mixed feelings about all those accessories. sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Overall I think that sites like Zazzle and Redbubble (that is Australian btw ) are more suitable for that kind of thing.  Many people I know on FAA love those products though.

    FAA is a mixed batch. Some of the work you find there is out of this world so good and some is entry level.  (not unlike Microstock)

    Thank you for all that Pixel info,  but I am very familiar with FAA/pixels. Been with FAA since 2011, know quite a  number of people there. Abbie and I are (internet) friends and I was a moderator on their forums for a short while (hated it). Now shutterstock is coming to an end for me, I probably spend even more time there than I already do right now, which is OK. 

    I sell on other art site too. One in Europe and a few in the US and I have an Amazon Handmade sellers account/store, but FAA is my main outlet and I sell more on FAA/Pixels than on all the other outlets combined.

    0

  4. Posted

    25 minutes ago, HodagMedia said:

    I don't understand? Stock is photos, FAA is POD. Why would having the same images on SS and FAA create a credibility problem?

     

    Because you can't sell the same image for $0.10, or whatever, here and for a few hundred dollars elsewhere

    It might not matter in the MS world, but in the art world, and FAA is still part of the art world, consistency is key. (not just my opinion)

    Some people say, different buyers, different markets, but that is not always true

    1

  5. Posted

    56 minutes ago, Blue Corner Studio said:

    Thanks for the reply Rudy. It was a bit "suspicious" that the quality of your monochromes were just out if this world (contrast, clean edges, etc.). It just didn't click in that you are shooting on film! Now it all makes sense. Last time I used Ilford was about 40 years ago when/if I could afford it : ). Some memories in the darkroom! Like realizing at 5 a.m. that I spent the night in there and "forgot" to sleep!

    Thanks Blue, but not all my monochromes are on film. Most are actually not at this point. As a matter of fact, some of my best b/w sellers were done with a little rx100 mk2.  (I get 60 inch prints out of that thing) I must say though that I haven't touched my DSLR in some time. Thinking about selling the damn thing for an M6, but If I do I think I will be sorry, so maybe not yet. lol. 

     

    0

  8. Posted

    6 hours ago, Blue Corner Studio said:

    "My artsy pinhole and film stuff" : ). a good one. you have an excellent collection at FAA Rudy! really impressive. Lucky for you to have access to such "commercially attractive" architecture! Now, ignore me if you feel that I am prying. By no means am I trying to drag trade secrets out of you (!), but are you using Silver Efex for you B & Ws? they look sharp. and definitale "clean" as you put it. cool job! 

    Thank you and yes SIlverEfex and the paint brush in PS for the digital stuff. Film is B/W film, Mainly Ilford, with very little post processing. Some Dodging and burning what you would do in the darkroom

    0

  9. Posted

    Two more things, it is my personal opinion that you have to be careful uploading the same images on Microstock and FAA  (POD in general). If buyers find out, you  might lose your credibility.

    I am for 99% sure that most of my buyers there are commercial. In my case from horse racetracks to restaurants to offices

    0

  10. Posted

    3 hours ago, Milleflore Images said:

    Here is mine (which is also attached to my contributor account here so it can drive sales both ways**) so you can see what the new front end looks like. https://milleflore-images.pixels.com/

    Fanclub or not Annie, you have a new follower there.

    FAA is my home away from home and my main outlet. I don't direct people to my FAA site directly, I direct them to my Rudy Umans imaging website, but the purchase page there directs to FAA and Amazon. (www.rudyumans.com. I know! Shameless plug, but what is SS gonna do? Kick me out?) 

    Like many other sites, FAA uses certain parameters to move you up in the search. I don't know all of those, but I do know some, and I know that sales moves you up faster and higher in the search than anything else. Sales triggers sales.  Other than that, also like everywhere else, keywords and good descriptions are key. 

    Buyers on FAA also like generally speaking, clean images. My artsy pinhole and film stuff rarely sells. (I wish I wish) My lighthouses, Everglades pictures, industrial, and architecture on the other hand are doing well.

    4

  13. Posted

    5 minutes ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

    Basically what you write is true, Rudy.

    But Shutterstock is not well. The shareholders aren't happy. That may be partly due to the overall market trend.
    On the other hand, these mistakes from the past are also taking revenge. Perhaps the Yuri case is one of them.

    Sure.

    I just posted the current state of affairs.  I didn't say it will all work out for them. 

    In some other post about all this, I also said that the 2 biggest company killers are Arrogance/Complacency and cash flow and the latter doesn't seem to be the problem here.

    Maybe SS should have a little conversation with HP or IBM. They seem to have some experience with this phenomenon

    1

  14. Posted

    it was/is not a matter of winning or losing.  That can only happen when there is a fight, a debate, or something like that and there never was one.

    only a bunch of people throwing a temper tantrum and some people leaving. As I said when this all started, SS counted on that and they don't care. Hell, they let million  dollar man Yuri Arcurs go a number of years back without breaking a sweat. That should tell people something

    Take it or leave it is the name of the game. That's what they told Yuri and that's what they tell us.

    Don't let the door hit you in the @$$ is their attitude

    2

  15. Posted

    6 hours ago, Scorsby said:

    I would imagine there is a law that they must abide by that states they must show how that percentage is arrived at. 

    Not in the US 

    Since they are a public company, they have the obligation to make their P&L and Balance Sheet available to their shareholders, but that's about it.

    Having said that, they do have the obligation though to make it clear what the percentage is based on, I.E: % of the gross sale, % of the gross profit, % of the net profit etc. 

    They did that.

    Quote

    We are moving to a percentage based earnings model for all licensing plans. The amount contributors earn from each download is a percentage of the price paid by the customer for that license. 

    This means your commission will always be a percent of what the customer paid for their license. The flat rate commissions (like 25¢) are going away.

     

    1

  17. Posted

    8 hours ago, K.L. Kohn said:

    Perhaps I should take up knitting. 

     

    2 hours ago, Gtranquillity said:

    I don't remember THAT, but I do remember David! ;)
     

    Take up knitting goes back to the beginning of time (SS time that is), but was made popular by Stephen Rudolph (Bichon) 10-12 years or so ago. Yes, the same guy who shaved with Nutella!  (Nutella became another forum icon)

    "so hang up your g*damn camera and take up knitting" was his response to somebody who complained too much. It stuck around ever since.

    Those were the days when microstock still had values and meant something and the forums had a lot of highs and lows. Big fights and big laughs

    Stephen was banned from the forums a few years back. He and I stayed in touch and no, he hasn't changed a bit.

     

    It's a new era now. 

    2

  19. Posted

    On 6/3/2020 at 7:58 AM, makesushi1 said:

    feel free to also submit this so they hear us!

    this is a pic:

    pointless

    "They" are just the reviewers. Not the decision making suits

    Besides, many, if not all, reviewers are also contributors

    What do you want from the ordinary employees of Shutterstock? Show solidarity and resign so they can wait in the unemployment line with the other millions? Go on strike? Do you really think that the regular employees of Shutterstock who are trying to make ends meet like everybody else and live in a tiny apartment in a very expensive city don't feel our pain? 

    Leave them out of it! It is not them everybody should to protest to. Rather go straight to the top.

    6

  23. Posted

    12 minutes ago, R Scott James said:

    Agreed. I have deleted all my videos and 75% of my images. I am close to a payout and i am thinking is it worth it to stick around????? Or should I take a full stand on principal and close my account???????.

    Wait until they paid you. You never know waht other hattrick they might pull 

    1

  25. Posted

    4 hours ago, Stefano Barzellotti said:

    The problem is that it is not about noise, but about film grain which can only be decreased by lowering contrast and sharpness.
     

    I realize it is grain. 90% of my work is still on film with vintage cameras that I scan.  I would try Topaz Denoise Ai anyway, you will be amazed. I would also try Topaz Sharpening AI. With scanning on a flatbed, you lose some of the original sharpness that you can get back with sharpening AI. (unless you wetscan in lighter fluid, but I assume you didn't do that.)

    The other option, and might be the best one for your purpose, is not to scan at all, but digitize them with a DSLR 

    0
×
×
  • Create New...