calling all photographers...

Hi there...

Our website, http://samfind.com, which is set to launch in September
will be displaying high quality images that our users submit on its
homepage.

we are looking for images ... but not any ordinary images...

we are looking for images that have a white background. sorta like the
image in our first post of July 14th on our blog at
http://samfind.blogspot.com. this is so that we can add color to the
homepage without getting in the way of the reason for people to be
there...other than to see your images!

send us anything you think fits this criteria and we will select the
ones we like and put them on our homepage. also, please add your full
name and your web address so that we can give you credit and a link
back for the image.

while you are there, feel free to sign up to be notified of our launch
at http://samfind.com!

sincerely,

sam

samfind.com wrote:

send us anything you think fits this criteria and we will select the
ones we like and put them on our homepage.

You neglected to mention how much you're paying.

--
Jeremy |

samfind.com wrote:

These days images are not that expensive to purchase and with the
measly 20-40 cents on the dollar that photographers earn on their
photgraphs at places like istockphoto, having your image on the
homepage of a website seems like pretty good compensation.

Devaluing photography even further. Thanks...

--
Jeremy |

In article . com,
"samfind.com" wrote:

measly 20-40 cents on the dollar that photographers earn on their
photgraphs.

Huh? R You nuts? I earn my living doing this stuff. Bah haaaa haa 20 to
40 cents.
--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".

Little Green Eyed Dragon wrote:

Huh? R You nuts? I earn my living doing this stuff. Bah haaaa haa 20 to
40 cents.

The problem is, lots of people *do* take 20-40 cents, leading to people
like the original poster thinking that's the value of a photograph. That
hurts all of us.

--
Jeremy |

"samfind.com" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jeremy,

Our goal is to give exposure to photographers while providing and
appealing image on your homepage. The compensation that the
photographer will get is exposure on our homepage and a link back.
These days images are not that expensive to purchase and with the
measly 20-40 cents on the dollar that photographers earn on their
photgraphs at places like istockphoto, having your image on the
homepage of a website seems like pretty good compensation.


You overlook the fact that nobody has ever heard of your site, so how long
is it going to take before the public start seeing the photographs, and by
extension, the photographers who decide who post with you? Though I
disagree strongly with the so-called microstock sites, such as istockphoto
which you mentioned, at least the public, or anyway the designers, know
about them, and buy stock from them; the disagreeable part is the insulting
few cents the photographer gets per sale. They devalue the photographs
placed with them and the photographers who took them, and dilute the work of
proper and responsible agencies such as Alamy, who charge a full and correct
value per sale (and, incidentally, pay 65% or 75% of each sale to the
photographer, depending on the plan, not the 20 to 40 you said). Alamy pays
my mortgage.

As a matter of interest, I've just spoken to an amateur photographer friend
of mine who tried some of his work with a new microstock agency he liked the
look of. He tells me this agency has now been around for about 5 months and
so far has sold 55 pictures. Big deal. Furthermore, in the last two months
they've only sold 5. Yes, five. The point is, it's going to take a while to
get known, and unless you have the marketing skills and the funds to push it
like hell you simply won't see much happen, and nor will your photographers.
It's cutthroat out there.

Helen wrote:

You overlook the fact that nobody has ever heard of your site,

....and if I want the "exposure" of being on a website no one's ever heard
of, I can make my own.

Sam: come on back when you're the next Google, and we'll talk about featuring
photographers on your home page in exchange for exposure.

--
Jeremy |

samfind.com wrote:
Hi there...

Our website, http://samfind.com, which is set to launch in September
will be displaying high quality images that our users submit on its
homepage.

we are looking for images ... but not any ordinary images...

we are looking for images that have a white background. sorta like the
image in our first post of July 14th on our blog at
http://samfind.blogspot.com. this is so that we can add color to the
homepage without getting in the way of the reason for people to be
there...other than to see your images!

send us anything you think fits this criteria and we will select the
ones we like and put them on our homepage. also, please add your full
name and your web address so that we can give you credit and a link
back for the image.

while you are there, feel free to sign up to be notified of our launch
at http://samfind.com!

sincerely,

sam

For this, or any other URL if people are curious about how much
"exposure" it gets,
got to www.alexa.com
Put in the URL and check "Traffic Details."

In article ,
"Helen" wrote:

The point is, it's going to take a while to
get known, and unless you have the marketing skills and the funds to push it
like hell you simply won't see much happen, and nor will your photographers.
It's cutthroat out there.

Like all business, competition....photographers may as well forget being
"Known" Ansel Adams was known in the conscience of the average Joe...
unlikely it will happen again - and its better just to earn a living.
AA was relatively penniless until about the last couple of years of his
80+ year life.

Approximately 5 % of the photographers out there actually can make a
living beyond 25,000 dollars per year. Last year I was lucky enough to
finally after 20 years of photo to be one of them.

--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".

In article ,
Jeremy Nixon wrote:

Little Green Eyed Dragon wrote:

Huh? R You nuts? I earn my living doing this stuff. Bah haaaa haa 20 to
40 cents.

The problem is, lots of people *do* take 20-40 cents, leading to people
like the original poster thinking that's the value of a photograph. That
hurts all of us.

Unfortunately getting the whole photo community to cooperate
is like banging your head against a rock.
--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".