Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2012, 02:00

MicrostockGroup

MicrostockGroup » Forum » Macro Stock / Midstock » General Macrostock » Anyone have experience good or bad with Inmagine?

Microstockgroup Sponsors

« previous next »

Pages: [1]

Topic: Anyone have experience good or bad with Inmagine?

(Read 3587 times)

tubed

« on: August 20, 2008, 15:27 »

#link

Hey Guy's
I have a few images with Inmagine, but no sales.. I was just curious if anyone has anything with them or has had anything with them in the past and would like to share their experience.. Any sales? Is it worth uploading more to them?

Anyone have any good Macro sites other than Photoshelter, Alamy, Getty, Corbis? Just curious if you have a particular collection that might be not as mainstream you thought was worth giving a shot?


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2008, 15:38 »

#link

I've got a few there and had sales but I wouldn't exactly shout from the roof tops about them, to be fair though I don't upload much.

I would mention though that their admin staff are very helpful if you ever need them.


« Last Edit: August 20, 2008, 15:40 by RT »	Ignore \| Logged

tubed

« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2008, 17:19 »

#link

Quote

I would mention though that their admin staff are very helpful if you ever need them.

That's good to know, it is important to have a good contributor relation.

They are picky for sure.. As I think they are pretty specific in what images they want in their collection, but I think that is good as it cuts down on the crap and overload factor..

Thx 4 the response.. Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2008, 18:13 »

#link

Quote from: tubed on August 20, 2008, 17:19

They are picky for sure.. As I think they are pretty specific in what images they want in their collection...

That's an understatement, and funnily enough it's one of the reasons I know their admin staff are very helpful, I submitted a series of three shots and they rejected one of them with the 'not what we want' reason, I wrote to admin explaining if they reject one they might as well reject the other two as the series wouldn't make sense, within an hour they accepted it with an appology!!

Out of interest do you find that what they want according to their submissions list is completely different to what they generally accept / reject ?


	Ignore \| Logged

tubed

« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2008, 19:31 »

#link

Quote

Out of interest do you find that what they want according to their submissions list is completely different to what they generally accept / reject ?

I didn't really think of it like that before but now that I'm thinking about it.. Yes.. I sent in a couple of shots that were textbook "Requested Shots" from their guidelines, actually some of my personal best images and not easy shots to do and I got a "Not what we are looking for".. Which seems to be their response to every rejection Grin

but it's all good, I've tried to leave my ego at the door after a couple of years with micro rejections.. But in actuallity they have accepted a good amount of my shots so I'm not complaining, although they could use a stats area to see views and such, all I see is $0.00 Wink

..

Rob


	Ignore \| Logged

Gizeh

« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2008, 03:48 »

#link

AFAIK Inmagine is the mother company of 123RF.

Have no first hand experience with them but it looks like it is one of the companies working heavily with intransparent distribution schemes and a lot of middlemen. Meaning even if your contract says 50% you could easily end up with something between 5% and 20% of the actual sales price.

Not my cup of tea.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2008, 05:20 »

#link

Quote from: Gizeh on August 21, 2008, 03:48

Meaning even if your contract says 50% you could easily end up with something between 5% and 20% of the actual sales price.

In all fairness they state you get 50% of the nett price and in my experience so far they're good to their word.

Quote from: tubed on August 20, 2008, 19:31

...although they could use a stats area to see views and such

Totally agree


« Last Edit: August 21, 2008, 05:22 by RT »	Ignore \| Logged

Gizeh

« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2008, 08:58 »

#link

Quote from: RT on August 21, 2008, 05:20

Quote from: Gizeh on August 21, 2008, 03:48

Meaning even if your contract says 50% you could easily end up with something between 5% and 20% of the actual sales price.

In all fairness they state you get 50% of the nett price and in my experience so far they're good to their word.

You get 50% of what they receive after the middle men have taken their cut. Don't confuse this with 50% of the actual sales price paid by the customer.

Example:

Customer pays 100$
Middleman takes 50% commission
Net Revenue of Inmagine 50$
Your cut: 25$
Your actual commission: 25% and not 50%

This procedere is quite common in Macrostock sometimes even involving several layers of middlemen/ distributors.


« Last Edit: August 21, 2008, 09:01 by Gizeh »	Ignore \| Logged

tubed

« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2008, 10:36 »

#link

I think pretty much every macro that has middleman does this kind of %.. It does suck, but it's also business.. If there weren't cuts there wouldn't be distributors..


	Ignore \| Logged

Phil

« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2008, 15:18 »

#link

http://www.stockphotographer.info/agencies/
http://www.stockphoto.net/
http://www.stockasylum.com/text-pages/findagency.htm

all have info on various macro agencies, the beauty I see of inmagine (speaking as someone on the outside looking in

is that they are not exclusive (for macro) and so can still same images with alamy and others.

phil


	Ignore \| Logged

grp_photo

« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2008, 16:33 »

#link

You have the choice if you wanna use their sub-/distributions-channels or just only wanna sale direct from them. I only allowed direct-sales because i have my images already on several macro-sites and don't wanna risk an overlap!


	Ignore \| Logged

Gizeh

« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2008, 03:45 »

#link

Quote from: tubed on August 21, 2008, 10:36

I think pretty much every macro that has middleman does this kind of %.. It does suck, but it's also business.. If there weren't cuts there wouldn't be distributors..

Of course distributors are not bad per se but photographers should be aware that there are a lot of shady distribution schemes with only one purpose: Bringing down the photographers cut.


	Ignore \| Logged

yuliang11

« Reply #12 on: June 30, 2010, 00:29 »

#link

any had sales with them before? near 1 year experience 0 sales.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

Jump to:

Related Topics
	Subject	Started by	Replies	Views	Last post
	www.inmagine.com New Sites - General	pauloresende	9	2984	August 07, 2008, 03:25 by grp_photo
	Is inmagine also another micro site? General Stock Discussion	angel gab	6	1305	July 26, 2008, 14:03 by angel gab
	Got Paid From Inmagine?! General Stock Discussion	Allen	7	1692	November 14, 2008, 22:40 by charlesknox
	Bad NewEgg Bad Off Topic	Moonb007	12	2316	July 28, 2009, 16:12 by Moonb007
	Inmagine / Iris General Macrostock	tubed	0	1194	February 28, 2011, 11:32 by tubed

Microstockgroup Sponsors

MicrostockGroup Email Updates

Microstock Poll Results

Site	Earnings Rating
Top Tier - Big 4
Shutterstock	100
iStock	66.7
Fotolia	34.9
Dreamstime	26.7

Middle Tier
DepositPhotos	21.6
123RF	16.3
Canstockphoto	11.2
Bigstockphoto	9.5
Veer	8.7

Low Earners
PantherMedia	6.7
PhotoDune	5.8
isignstock	4.1
Zoonar	3.5
GLStockImages	2.7
Stockfresh	2.2
YayMicro	1.8
FeaturePics	1.4
MostPhotos	1.3
ScanStockPhoto	1.1
Crestock	0.8
Cutcaster	0.6
AllYouCanStock	0.1
ClipartOf
Pond5
RevoStock
Clipcanvas
DrawShop
ClipDealer
PhotoSpin
VectorStock
GraphicRiver
Pixmac
PhotoCase
The3dStudio
photaki
SuperHug
PhotoKore
iRockStock
Vivozoom
StockPhotoMedia
Regimages
ImageVortex
Imagegate
ViscoImages

More Poll Results Updated: 2012-05-26

Advertise on Microstockgroup.com | Contact: [email protected]