Attention: These forums are no longer active. The iStock Contributor forums have moved to the Contributor Community site.

Prices

First pagePrevious pageof 3
Displaying 41 to 53 of 53 matches.
MALT
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Thu Aug 3, 2006 8:52AM
Just looked at your portfolio Phil and realised we have just used loads
of your digital abstract images for some product brochures for a road
surfacing company at work. If I get a moment I'll email you a pdf to
have a look at. I imagine your casino renders would make great movie
clips if that is possible.
toddmedia
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Thu Aug 3, 2006 9:36AM

Posted By EricFerguson:
People will just have to put their cameras on tripods for once, .....

 



No Blair Witch type footage allowed? LOL
katemirov
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Mon Aug 7, 2006 2:13AM
Posted By toddmedia:


Posted By EricFerguson:
People will just have to put their cameras on tripods for once, .....

 



No Blair Witch type footage allowed? LOL


No. And Ansel Adams would have been banned too, for poor lighting/grain/artifacts/minimal commercial value.
pbc278
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Aug 7, 2006 6:34AM

before I found iStock I used Google image search to search for photo's for my work (I design flyers and posters in a small town in Holland). I would use Photoshop to create an image that I could use out of the downloaded Google images files. Ofcourse it's illegal, but who would ever know... The normal stock photo price is just too high. Then iStock came along, and for a few bucks I could own a photo to use .

Sometimes I have video projects, like a flash movie for a website, or mobile phone application or a business presentation or something small like that. I then use yahoo video search to search usable video files, and alter them and then use them in my work. But the qualitiy is poor, and it's actually illegal to do, so I would love to spend a few Euro's on a video file that is of good quality, and usable in my work... So that's what I want to use iStock video for. Also, I have over 200 DV tapes with video shoots, and it's fun to see if there's anything usable in it to post... I'm already approved so uploading can start!!

 
photographerc
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Aug 8, 2006 8:28PM
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah, blah, blah. Poor me, I'm not making enough money. Got it. When is SOMEONE going to explain more about the drunken monkeys from the FUTURE?

People get your priorities straight here.
fabiopb
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Aug 9, 2006 10:23AM

Hello, guys, how are you?

 

There's another detail I would like to comment here.

Selling pictures based on the resolution is just fine, but video?

Besides the resolution a video has a second characteristic that is at least a bit important: the lenght.

Is a 10 second video goign to be sold at the same price than a 2min one because they have the same resolution? I read a lot around here but I didn't find anything about that (in fact I entered this topic hoping people would discuss the lenght issue).

Maybe the price list Istock is advertising is per minute? (hopefully per second
Velk
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Aug 9, 2006 10:38AM
I kinda agree with you fabiopb; though I'm withholding judgement until I see how it all works out.
One of the strangest things about the pricing to me is the difference in prices between 1080i and 720p; I figured that both are HD and the price would be the same, these are usually very specific to a project.
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Aug 9, 2006 11:12AM

Is a 10 second video goign to be sold at the same price than a 2min one because they have the same resolution? I read a lot around here but I didn't find anything about that (in fact I entered this topic hoping people would discuss the lenght issue).


Clips are from 5-30 seconds, and prices are flat across lengths. I would hope that would change in the future. Maybe 5-20 seconds and 20-30 or something.
fabiopb
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Aug 9, 2006 12:25PM

Indeed. Actually I would prefer more price levels. Up to 5s, 5-10s, 10-15s, 15-20s, etc...

In fact a per second price would be ideal... otherwise people will ceirtanly tend to stick to the minimuns.
luxxtek
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Wed Aug 9, 2006 12:46PM
Apart from the clips pricing which I rather not discuss untill I see how well it sells, I think there is more.

Long clips can be extremely cheap to make (30 sec of speeded clouds passing by are free), A 5 second clip showing a model answering the phone in a design office environment will take much more time and money to make.

Length is not a suitable criterium for pricing, only if there would be content categories it would be OK.

It sounds logic to me to pay double for double time of super content, but not for clouds or cats or dogs ....

I think this needs time to grow and eventually it will be OK.
fabiopb
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:30PM
I´m sorry but i do not agree with you, Luxxtek. It's not a matter of how much money it will take to make, but how much it is worth for people who's using the video (if you're a photographer you *must* know that).


Following your logic charging more for a higher resolution picture or video would be absurd: a Large image didn't cost a single cent more than a Small one,  but Istock sells the first for 5 bucks and the last for 1 buck. That's 5x the price!


Do you think that it's right to sell big images for more money than the same image reduced? Do you think image size is a "suitable criterium of pricing"? How do you justify that? How's that different than the video case? Do you think that an image of the sky should be cheaper in Istock than an image of a rare wine bottle?


> Long clips can be extremely cheap to make


Series of pictures taken on a studio using the same light setting, the same objects, models, etc., can also be way cheaper than producing the same amount of pictures of completely different subjects. Does that mean that pictures taken in series should be worth less money?

(Edited on 2006-08-11 22:33:02 by fabiopb)
yingyang0
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:37PM
Posted By Imm0rtal:

another n00b with his two cents here...

 

Even if not enough people are interested (which I dont think will be the case) what is istock losing here?  Honestly theres not alot of upfront costs at all...


I don't think you realize the cost of storage of the files here. We're talking teraflops upon teraflops of extra storage space that is needed. Not to mention vcr's salary wink. I think there honestly are a lot of upfront costs involved.

(Edited on 2006-08-12 21:38:14 by yingyang0)
matt_scherf
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:26AM
Posted By yingyang0:
Posted By Imm0rtal:

another n00b with his two cents here...

 

Even if not enough people are interested (which I dont think will be the case) what is istock losing here?  Honestly theres not alot of upfront costs at all...


I don't think you realize the cost of storage of the files here. We're talking teraflops upon teraflops of extra storage space that is needed. Not to mention vcr's salary wink. I think there honestly are a lot of upfront costs involved.

(Edited on 2006-08-12 21:38:14 by yingyang0)

 

For the sake of semantics: Teraflop is a measure of processing power. Terabyte is the appropriate term in relation to storage. Phew. Now I can sleep tonight.
This thread has been locked.
First pagePrevious pageof 3
Displaying 41 to 53 of 53 matches.
Not a member?Join