|
Congrats Konstantin, cool concept and great lighting!
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Cool!
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Woohoooo! Well done.
Do you do mail order? :)
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Yay, hope those $1 comissions pay your rent...
Cool image though...
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It's nice light, but it is your concept that makes the photo. Cool shot.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Very nice and congrats! Now tell us what you used for lighting.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
great photo, not sure how many jesus in a box pictures the corporate world needs but who knows! The main thing is that you created a cool photo.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Is this thinking inside the box?
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm beginning to appreciate the difference between what sells and what is good. This shot achieves the higher standard, beyond the $1 price recognition. I really like the hair light you added from behind.
Dave
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Do you find it worth (financially or other) putting your images up on micro-payment sites?
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Very nice picture, though unfortunate that you're licensing it for a dollar.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Killer PIC!! Love the concept!
2 strobes?
Did you underexpose the sky a few stops?
Really good work, I'm sure this shot will keep selling!
~cheers
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i share your joy. next stop, getty one.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thank you for the comments and congratulations.
Yes, that image is worth more than a dollar. Even on microstocks, it creates nice publicity and draws attention to me and my portfolio. I found that there are pictures that constantly earn money and then there are ones that get you featured on the front pages, and these are not nessesarely the same pics.
Regarding the question if it's worth to put images on microstock sites. I'd say it depends on the photographer (or illustrator). I started submitting to microstocks in the January 2007. I submit my photos to several microstocks. Last month Shutterstock alone has made me $928.20 with a portfolio of 500 photos. It bought me a 5D and some nice lenses. You tell me is it good or what? One thing I would say for sure: there are two things which helped me to take my photography to the next level recently - strobist and microstocks, and I love both.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
rogvon - may be, why not :)
GiantDwarf - I didn't underexpose the sky, it was about 7PM. Follow the link in the first post and you can find the setup shot :)
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Messiah in a box?! But it looked good on ebay :(
Just kidding, congrats Konstantin.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Congrats, saw this on istock earlier today and thought it had a strobist feel. Good work
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
That's 1856 sales if you get 50% - I would bet that 5% would have paid you $500 if I-Stock photo wasn't in the middle. Even 1% times 1856 times $500 is $9000 - Too bad - I think you let a lot on the table. and with all the sales of this image - which is great you can buy a new cardboard box. (sorry I couldn't resist)
Originally posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
JASPhoto edited this topic 58 months ago.
|
|
|
@jasphoto: wow! Are you assuming that you can make the same number of sales at a price higher than the microstock 1 buck?
The $9000 you calculated ($9280 to be exact) appears to me to come from 1856 sales at $500 a piece!. I'm sure many would want to know who your sales agent is. He sure deserves his cut of $918,720 :)
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
No, it's 1% of 1856.
1856 / 100 = 18.56
$500 * 18.56 = $9280
Sounds like microstock is working okay for you, and if you're happy with the deal then I'm not going to tell you that it's good or bad or anything else. Not for me though. I'm not really interested in making other people rich.
Great image. Worth more than what you sold it for.
Originally posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
Andrew (Meejahor.com) edited this topic 58 months ago.
|
|
Great image.
I saw this in your stream when I added you as a contact a while ago. There's loads of good ideas around the theme there.
@Andrew: Is there any middle ground in it? While I've a bit of RM stuff with one agency, is there room for my less good stuff to go to microstock? I obviously don't me similars, because that's just bad business.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This topic just scares me cause of the pure emotion of it.
Andrew... Making other people rich is exactly the pitch I use when trying to sell them on using me. I want them to hire me precisely because my design and photography can 'make them rich'. I know you didn't mean it in this context, but I thought I would remind us all that making other people successful through your work is the best way to becoming rich ourselves. Or at least reasonably comfortable.
cheers
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
ok... I can't resist.
I consulted with a photographer about a year ago. He was having some trouble (understated) with understanding the changing business. He couldn't get his stock agency interested in his work. Problem was his work was dated and stale. I told him to use the MicroStock work to find his groove. Look, if you can't sell images through MS, you sure as hell ain't gonna sell to the big boys.
He was rejected on the first three submissions. That pissed him off and he got focused... know what I mean. He was so angry that a place that sells images for a buck wouldn't take his images that he got serious about new work. He never did get in to that stock agency, but his work picked up nicely.
I think that MS has its place... and it can be used to find out if you have the skills as well as build some buzz.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
kc kong - No I'm not say he could make the same number of sales - what I said was if he can make that many sales - I BET he could have sold 5 percent of them for a LOT more money (some of them had to be worth more then a dollar to the people that got them for $1. 1% would be 18 - since you can't make half a sale (it was just an estimate).
WizWow - Even I think there is a place for microstock - and Konstantin may belong there but I feel if your making 1856 sales in a month you should graduate to the big leagues. I think he's being taken advantage of.
giving away half that many images for 4 times as much - $4 dollars each - if they can pay $1, I think they can afford $4, would give him twice as much money. 1/4 of the sales at $8... and so on.
Even Toyota started selling Lexus' - they are not being laughed at anymore.
I'm not asking for him to charge a lot just what they are worth - if they suck - $1 is fine but I can't believe they all suck.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Konstantin,
Great job, great image and congratulations on the front page of iStock! I would say I'm jelous, but I think that's a sin or something...
I think you are doing just fine by the numbers you posted above--and I knew some feathers would be ruffled by the mere mention of Microstock. The truth is you aren't selling your image for a buck, you are letting it be used more times for "what it is worth." I know it is hard to say what it is worth, but let me put it another way...
Would anyone out there rather make $1000.00 of off an image sold twice for $500 a peice, or make $1500.00 on the same image sold 100 times for $15 each?
I know this debate will go on, but as far as I am conerned, there just aren't that many people out there throwing around $500 for an image. I'll take my chances on the numbers game.
Originally posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
mortonphotographic edited this topic 58 months ago.
|
|
|
@jasphoto: that makes more sense - making 18 sales at $500 a piece without any middleman. In your earlier post, you started out with the iStock "revenue share" of 50%, then 5% and finally 1%. I read the 1% as revenue share LOL
Then again, no middleman also means you have to do all the marketing/selling yourself, especially when you're dealing with a $500 image. I wonder if one's shooting style would be different ... ie shooting for microstock vs market-sell-yourself $500 per image
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Terrible terrible image.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Timmy: I believe that people have a right and an obligation to challenge absurd beliefs, whatever they may be. Do you agree?
Originally posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
Andrew (Meejahor.com) edited this topic 58 months ago.
|
|
|
I agree they can challenge all they want, but I find it sad people think Jesus Christ is absurd. Nice lighting btw.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Setting the microstock argument aside for a minute,
I don't get it
I get that it's Jesus in a box but why?
Don't get me wrong i'm not trying to be a dick about it and i'm not saying i could do better
i'm all for pretty much any kind of iconoclasm but i just feel like i'm missing the point here
anyone care to fill me in?
party on
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Just an observation, but here goes:
How about the shot represents how we try to make religon conform to our personal desires, hence forth putting it in a box that we like.
To take it further, the Christ image has open outstretched hands which implies that Christ is still there for us even though we try to make him conform to our beliefs. Always welcoming us home to him.
Seriously people, before you start complaining about an image take a art class or something and look for the meaning in what we do. Art speaks at a lot of levels. Just because you don't like an image at first glance maybe you should consider the symbolism of the message. I think this shot could mean a lot of things to different people. I see why it got picked as shot of the week. It speaks different things to different people.
I like the shot, congratulations!
(Yeah, I know I probably just opened a huge debate, Beat me later!)
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
yeah, I don't see that this is mocking Jesus, but mocking our fast / DYI religion of our society.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
Lesstimeonlinein09 [deleted] says:
I just took a look at the 100 best sellers on shutterstock. It's interesting to see what sells, and how that style and level of presentation of an image differs from the majority of people's idea of what a photograph is.
Many of the shots are polished, clean and shiny and unreal, a little plastic, but with visul impact.
It's good that this shot is selling for you, Konstantin.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Whether we like it or not, the Internet and affordable digital photography has changed the business of photography. Its like what MP3 did to the music industry I think. The old of business model is being challenged, and the new one is not to everyone's liking. In Asia anyway, graphic design studios are so hard pressed with razor thin margins, so micro stock do offer designers a chance to use a semblance of 'real photography' in their work. Not perfect, but it does benefit some designers and photographers.
Unfortunately, that means more photographers will have to find even more ways of adding value - and strobist is definitely showing the way.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"Would anyone out there rather make $1000.00 of off an image sold twice for $500 a peice, or make $1500.00 on the same image sold 100 times for $15 each?"
Yes, me. Sometimes you just have to say no to ridiculously low prices. I'd rather not send the message that my work is next to worthless. I'd rather not help contribute to the devaluation of photography.
"I know this debate will go on, but as far as I am conerned, there just aren't that many people out there throwing around $500 for an image. I'll take my chances on the numbers game."
Many of us continue to license images for that sort of money and, often, considerably more.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh no, here we go again :) I should have seen that coming. Although it's a beaten to death topic I'll state a couple of points. First - I don't sell my images. I license (lease) them.
I first thought the micros are evil, so I started with Alamy. I had no sales for about 8 months. Then there was one sale for something like $17.99 via a Russian distributor. So I got frustrated and angry and joined micros. The only thing I regret now is that I didn't do it earlier.
The stock game is not about the price of one license, it's how much one picture earns per year ($PPPY). I don't have my $PPPY data for the whole year yet, but the numbers are looking good so far. Then again, I'd rather see each of my photos used in 1000 places for $1 than just in one place for $1000.
Times are changing, the world is not the same as it was yesterday. Look no further than Strobist. David left his great job at Sun to develop a FREE!!! blog. Is that crazy? Do you feel that his work is devalued now?
For those who are crazy enough to try micros, here is my shameless referral link to the best microstock site at the moment. If you register via my link - feel free to ask for any help with selling on shutterstock (but not in this thread, just send me a message).
Originally posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
Konstantin Sutyagin edited this topic 58 months ago.
|
|
|
By the way, like it was not enough, this week I'm also the featured photographer on Dreamstime.com %)
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Nice image - great lighting - cool concept.
Way to go!
I find it so funny that some photographers assume that selling your own images is so easy that anyone could / should do it themselves... there is a cost (be it time or money) and specialized skill required for any of those marketing activities...
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well put Konstantin!
You too Tpuerzer! That is one of the things I like about MS sights--I am making money as I type this.
And Mark S., I respect your stance. You don't want to sell your images that cheap and apparently you don't have to. Believe me, if I could sell my images for $500 each often enough, I would. But I have had nothing but trouble with that. Between the people who don't want to pay, to the people who complain about everything to get the price down, I am just sick of it. I would rather let my MS do the heavy lifting so I can enjoy shooting.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Bump
Hey a feature on Strobist now!
Congrats again!
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Congratulations Konstantin - you truly deserve these awards.
I expect you'll be tempting any number of Strobists to give MS a try, though - maybe even myself?
I suspect however that dealing effectively with numerous MS companies at time requires a highly-structured approach (and a bunch of time).
K
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Strobist.com /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Strobist.com discussion threads