Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Include Only Photos For Sale" Box Is Misleading.  
User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4795 times:

I am referring to the small checkbox in the Image Search page.

By checking this box, images NOT included in the Airliners.net print sales program will be omitted from search results, correct?

My images are indeed for sale, just not through A.net's print program. I prefer to print my own. (A holdover from the darkroom days.)

How do other photographers feel about this? Should the checkbox be more descriptive by indicating it refers only to the print sales program? I do.

Your thoughts?

William

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9664 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4629 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

How are the photo sales going? Are any photogs making money (strictly speaking about sales thru A.nets program)?

User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4617 times:

Yes William,
I think so too. My shots are certainly for sale, but not for prints.
/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4609 times:

I agree, it could be a bit more descriptive.

Jeff


User currently offlineBigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4605 times:

I think you guys make a valid point. I wouldnt want someone looking at my shots to think that since I'm not a part of the Airliners.net print program, that I wouldn't want me pics to be sold altogether.

But why WOULDN'T you want your shot ont he anet print program anyway?



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineCathay112 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4602 times:

A good idea, a very good idea - ever since being part of the "Buy a print of this photo" option photo requests have dropped signifigantly. And with so little feedback as to what is happening, how many have been sold, is it a success, is it a failure, how much money has been made etc etc etc I am fast becoming tempted to be removed from the test program.

It seemed like a good idea at the time, many months on I am not at all so sure.......

Is anyone else thinking the same way?


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 767 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4593 times:

But why WOULDN'T you want your shot ont he anet print program anyway?

Well I held off until the hi-res upload was available, as in my opinion, Photobox could not produce acceptable large print quality from standard uploads.

Now I am uploading hi-res versions, I would really like some indication to show that these pics are available as hi-res  Smile

But I also agree that the "photos for sale" search is a bit misleading.

photo requests have dropped signifigantly

I (and others I think) have found the same. But I don't know if this is coincidence or related to the print sales option. I suspect that, in general, the standard and quantity of shots has increased so as to dilute the market. Unless you have something unique, whether your shot or someone else's is requested is perhaps a bit of a lottery.

Cheers,

Colin




Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4598 times:

But why WOULDN'T you want your shot ont he anet print program anyway?

Phil,
It's not so much a question of why not, but more of one of personal control.

1.) Quality
If I am going to sell a print, I want to be able to make the print myself. I have my own personal standards when it comes to prints. Sometimes I'll output a print on my S9000, while at other times I may want to output a high quality C print. Printing is an art form in itself and I have vendors I prefer to use. Edward Westin was quoted as saying "The negative is the score; the print is the performance." I agree wholeheartedly and want to retain the control over my prints. (Though it's a RAW file now instead of a negative.  Big grin )

2.) Comps and Trades
Sometimes, I give a print or two away to a worthy cause for free. Sometimes I'll trade a print for access or future opportunities. If the little checkbox is checked... I never get a chance to make such an arrangement.

Nothing against the A.net print program. It may work for some. But not at the price of exclusion of other photographers from the fundamental search tool on the site.

William


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 767 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4546 times:

Perhaps the only solution which would be fair to all would be to have an "Availability" or "Sales" button/tab displayed with the photo which would open a window with a link to the sales (if required) along with any terms/conditions the photographer wants to add.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineEGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4536 times:

I was one of the first to sign up for this last April as I thought it would both take care of my small 'private' picture sales and at the same time help the site make some money but, after concerns regarding print quality of large sized prints from low-resolution sized files together with no response to many questions I asked, I felt had no choice but to withdraw my pictures from sale.

I did think this would only be temporary until the system was up and running as we were told it would be.
We were promised on numerous occasions throughout the year that this was top priority by Johan but even this week in the 'monthly' Anet photographer email we have:

PHOTO PRINT SALES
I apologize for the delay in getting the photo print sales up and
unning, it's been more time consuming than I initially anticipated.
Getting the photo print section off beta testing (and giving
Participating photographers access to stats etc) is of high priority
For the first quarter of 2004


I, like every photographer, have no idea of how many sales have been made but I do think it’s very wrong that the only benefactors have until now been Anet and Photobox from 'our' pictures which, by now, must amount to a considerable amount of money perhaps not so individually but collectively.

As for the amount of enquiries generated from Anet I have noticed an ever increasing fall off this year which I agree must be down to the ever increasing amount of quality uploads on the site and the ease of theft of images but I am sure this is also partly down to the confusion of the search engine with ‘show only pictures for sale’

I look forward to a brighter ‘photographer’ related site in 2004

Derek


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4538 times:

Playing the devil's advocate:

Does Tesco allow Sainsburys to advertise in its stores? No. Why should airliners.net allow what is tantamount to advertising stating that there are other sources from which prints can be obtained? The print sales are aimed at subsidising the ongoing operation of airliners.net, something from which we all benefit. So what's wrong with airliners.net seeking to maximise that source of revenue, not by unfair means but just by not seeking to emphasise that there are alternatives?

To those who say they've lost direct print sales since the print sales service came along, well I'm not surprised. If I wanted a print of a specific subject, and there were two similar pictures on the database one which I could buy directly (via the airliners.net interface) and the other I had to faff around contacting the photographer, arranging sometimes complex payment processes, I know which I'd choose and it isn't the one that involves messing about contacting the photographer unless I had very specific requirements that airliners.net couldn't provide. Its called competition, and if your competitors make it easier to access their material than you do, then you'll loose.

On the other hand, I'd guess my direct contacts requesting prints has remained about the same since the scheme started. Most visitors to the site aren't stupid, and if they want a print and they want to get it direct from the photographer, they'll contact the photographer through the contact link - my experience suggests that this still happens often enough for me at least.

Finally, I see my participation in the print sales function as giving something back to airliners.net - I don't care if I never see a penny/cent from the sales. It also saves me a lot of messing about managing print processing and complex financial transactions. On the other hand, unlike [say Colin] I won't upload any large high-res images - if people want large prints that they can't get via the photobox interface, then they can contact me direct and I welcome that is its those sorts of images that I want to manage, not the person who wants 20 6"x4" prints which come from Photobox just fine anyway.

Andy


User currently offlineEGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4532 times:

Andy

May I draw your attention to the 'about airliners.net' page:


The Airliners.net photo section is meant to work as an online gallery for aviation photographers, giving their photos maximum exposure to aviation enthusiasts, the media, airlines etc. All income from photo sales goes directly to the photographer


Derek


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4515 times:

Well then Derek, that sentence is clearly out of date in some respects.

Firstly, we all understood that the objective of the on-line photo sales function was a 50/50 margin split. Of course, if you as a photographer arrange all prints yourself, you get all the margin - there was and is no obligation to participate in the photo sales service. Secondly, as I said in another topic fairly recently, "free" websites are slowly but surely disappearing as advertising no longer provides the sort of revenue needed to support large sites. Running costs increasingly have to be paid for through hosting charges, by subscription, or through margin on sales. We've already seen that change start at airliners.net through the "first class" membership. If margin share on photo sales allows this site to maintain its services to us the photographers into the future, then that's something I'm prepared to engage with and for me is an acceptable "cost" of having my photographs hosted on the site.

Andy


User currently offlineEGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4482 times:

Well then Andy, that sentence is then clearly misleading all the photographers and indeed all the visitors to the site and should be changed to reflect what the site is now about

I for one am very sad at the way things are going and will have to think hard over the Christmas break as to the 'direction' I will be taking in the new year as if what you say is true with regard to Anets 'direction' as without picture sales I see no future for me here because as you know I make a good part of my living from picture sales


Derek


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4474 times:

Derek,

What I said was my own opinion, not airliners.net's confirmed direction - official policy on such matters comes only from Johan. Please don't allow your thinking to be influenced by my thoughts on the future.

Non the less, all of us who contribute to this site want, in effect, a place to host our images on the web where those images can be seen and maybe (hopefully in some cases) purchased - why else do we do this? I fundamentally believe that such hosting will sooner or later have to be paid for, be that through direct payment to whoever is providing the webspace and bandwidth, be it through the hosting service making a margin on sales, or be it through charging users a subscription. In all but a very few cases, even now the advertising model nolonger sustains large websites - its the same in TV in the UK, one channel makes its revenue from advertising (and profit on sales of productions to other companies), the rest are subscription or pay-to-use based in one form or another, and that model extends to pretty much all businesses in any line.

If (and I have no inside information that points either way) a.net ultimately has to raise revenue and that has to come from photographers in one form or another, then we clearly all have to make a decision as to whether we support that approach or whether we'd be "better off" going elsewhere - but even our own websites will cost us, one way or another, either through ISP subsrciptions, hosting, or whatever.

Andy

[Edited 2003-12-24 13:13:31]

User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9664 posts, RR: 68
Reply 15, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4462 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Does Tesco allow Sainsburys to advertise in its stores?

Not a good analogy. Without photogs posting their photos here, there wouldn't be any product to sell. It's a catch-22.


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 767 posts, RR: 16
Reply 16, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4456 times:

I think Derek and Andy both have valid points, and I don't think they're irreconcilable. It all comes down to clarifying exactly what services A.net is offering.

As I understand it, the print sales is purely for non-commercial use, and is hard copy only, so not much use to a publisher. It does not therefore seem unreasonable to provide info for commercial users as to how they might get digital files etc. (which I think would in part address Derek's concerns).

I'm not too concerned about A.net's cut - given that the object is private sales, this isn't a market which is cost effective for me to pursue personally in any case.

It would of course be nice to see some kind of indication of Photosales progress, but frankly I think a lot of you will be disappointed - I suspect that the Photobox pricing - esp. foreign postage - makes small purchases rather pricey. Perhaps the Xmas season will see a spate of gift sales (mugs, mousemats etc.).

On the whole I think the system is basically sound, but needs refinements - it should simply NOT be possible to order such large prints (8x10) from a standard upload. This will result in a poor quality product which does nobody any favours and will bring A.net into disrepute. If Photobox won't allow A.net to limit print sizes, then A.net should incorporate a suitable warning.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4349 times:

Is there any chance we could rethink the wording of the checkbox that is more accurate and not so misleading?

Will this be resolved when Johan returns from vacation?

Thanks.

William


User currently offlineHenks From Sweden, joined Jan 2000, 632 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4314 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW

I found this to be a rather important issue.

I added the "Important" tag next to the checkbox text with an explanation. Check it out and notify me for any errors in spelling, content or otherwise.

Regards,
Henrik


User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4297 times:

Henrik,
First, thank you very much for respecting our feedack on this issue. Your prompt due diligence is appreciated.

I think the new JS popup is nice but have two recommendations:

1.) Make the "Important" link red html text instead of white.

2.) I still prefer wording along these lines:

"Only include images in Airliners.net print sales program."

And put a link to some sort of page describing the print sales in detail. I think the text of the js popup is good.

Again, thank you very much.

William


User currently offlineEGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4268 times:

Henks

Very nice indeed to see you agree with the need to change this feature but I would prefer wording more like:


This feature is for PRIVATE individuals who may wish to view only pictures for sale by participating photographers through the easy to use and fully automated Airliners.net print service.
Please note most if not all pictures on this site are available for sale by contacting the photographers directly using the contact feature

COMMERCIAL users should leave this box empty to search ALL photographs and use the Contact photographer feature, which is displayed, at the bottom of each image.

Derek




User currently offlineEGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4257 times:

BTW

I fully agree with William the main problem is still in the wording on the main search page and should be changed to something like:

Display only Airliners.net print service images

Derek


User currently offlineHenks From Sweden, joined Jan 2000, 632 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4199 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW

I just gave this to Johan to solve in a suitable way for everyone.

/Henrik


User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 23, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4197 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

Fixed.

/ Johan



Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4197 times:

Thank you very much Johan, Henrik.



25 Post contains images ScottysAir : Is that working for the link with these pages outside of the airliners.net? Can you please tell me about what is going on lately? Thanks!
26 EGBB : Many thanks to both Henrik and Johan for listening to our concerns and indeed acting on them I am sure I speak for all of the photographers when I say
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
WTF? WHY Do I Have Photos For Sale? posted Mon Feb 21 2005 07:05:54 by DLKAPA
Photos For Sale... posted Sun Nov 9 2003 07:57:32 by Maiznblu_757
Rjxn For "Editing": Can Someone Please Explain? posted Thu Nov 23 2006 18:56:06 by D L X
Stepping Outside "the Box"... posted Fri Oct 6 2006 14:14:20 by Flyfisher1976
Accident Pic Rejected For "personal" posted Wed Sep 20 2006 23:44:05 by EZYAirbus
For Sale: Canon 70-300mm Is + 350D + Grip posted Thu Jul 27 2006 21:44:00 by Manc
Just Had The Rejected For "Blurry" posted Sun Jul 23 2006 22:16:34 by Cosec59
For Sale: Canon 70-200 F4L - $519.99 - US Only posted Thu May 4 2006 19:53:45 by VasanthD
Rejected For "Contrast" And "Common" posted Mon Apr 24 2006 16:43:53 by Coninpa
Rejection For "Motive" posted Thu Apr 13 2006 09:13:24 by Coninpa