Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2012, 21:57

Login with username, password and session length

MicrostockGroup

MicrostockGroup » Forum » Microstock Photography Forum - General » General Stock Discussion » Have commission cuts changed your image technical quality?

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Pond5

« previous next »
Poll
Question: Have commission cuts changed your image technical quality?
I still go the extra mile with technical quality - 33 (58.9%)
I now only process images so they're "good enough" to get accepted - 9 (16.1%)
I've always only processed images so they're "good enough" to get accepted - 14 (25%)
Total Voters: 56

Pages: [1] Print

Topic: Have commission cuts changed your image technical quality?  

(Read 1788 times)
PaulieWalnuts


iStock Gauge
« on: January 25, 2011, 21:15 »
I've seen some contributors say they're perfectionists with technical quality and that they remove every dust spot, blemish, and imperfection.

So do you still take the same pride and time in processing technical quality as before all the recent commission cuts or have you cut back?


Ignore | Logged

DepositPhotos.com
Elenathewise



« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2011, 22:28 »
I do. I just can't do it any other way - my images have to perfect. Sometimes I ask myself is it insane to remove every tiny imperfection when images are selling for so little money, but I still do it. My every try to outsource image editing failed for the same reason - noone was good enough.
I could cut on quality and produce double amount of images a year, but it's important for me too feel good about what I am doing.


Ignore | Logged

pancaketom


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2011, 22:33 »
It has decreased my motivation to spring for new expensive gear.


Ignore | Logged

jsnover


Premium Member

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2011, 22:54 »
I'm not very motivated to shoot and upload at the moment, but my I have never and can't see myself ever going for the "good enough" approach. It's personal pride and also a sense of investing in making my portfolio the best it can be. 


Ignore | Logged

rubyroo



« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2011, 03:16 »
I still go the extra mile.  

I don't see the standard of my work as something I 'do' for microstock agencies.  I see it as the result of a lot of hard work and study to create a portfolio that I can take elsewhere if the tide changes.

I aim to make every image better than the last image, and would throw in the towel if I lost my desire to improve my work.  Once I'd mastered the requirements and acceptance critieria, it was no longer about the agencies for me, it was (and is) about knowing that I'd done the very best with every shot.

Who knows what the future holds, or where our ports might go?  I think it would be daft to drop our standards as some sort of response to the agencies we currently submit to.  IMO, working  at a lower standard would be a waste of my energies, incredibly unsatisfying, and something I may come to regret further down the road.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 03:40 by rubyroo »

Ignore | Logged

Karimala



« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2011, 03:54 »
Why would anyone decrease their technical quality just because commissions are dropping?  Who would want to compete with the millions of crappy images instead of those of better quality?    I'm certainly not, but I'm also not focusing on microstock like I used to.  It's just too frustrating these days.  Instead, I'm taking my photography skills and incorporating them into an entirely new specialized business that still demands top-notch technical quality.  Some of that work will end up on the micros. 


Ignore | Logged

RT

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2011, 04:11 »
No of course not, but it's changed what I shoot and sell via microstock.


Ignore | Logged

sharpshot


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2011, 05:50 »
I'm much less inclined to spend time making an image perfect now.  I have reasonably high technical standards but now I'm really demotivated with microstock.  If they guaranteed no more cuts, it might make a difference but it looks like this will happen every year.  Why should I continue when I'm going to be receiving a pay cut every year?  Some of the images I have in my portfolio took a lot of time to produce, now I'm only uploading snapshots.


Ignore | Logged

Lagereek


« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2011, 06:02 »
Quote from: Elenathewise on January 25, 2011, 22:28
I do. I just can't do it any other way - my images have to perfect. Sometimes I ask myself is it insane to remove every tiny imperfection when images are selling for so little money, but I still do it. My every try to outsource image editing failed for the same reason - noone was good enough.
I could cut on quality and produce double amount of images a year, but it's important for me too feel good about what I am doing.


Thats it!  same here, I wouldnt feel good about it if I didnt do my job properly. I think as any creative, artist, etc, its about ones own self, got nothing to do with money or anything.


Ignore | Logged

PaulieWalnuts


iStock Gauge
« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2011, 06:12 »
Quote from: Karimala on January 26, 2011, 03:54
Why would anyone decrease their technical quality just because commissions are dropping?  Who would want to compete with the millions of crappy images instead of those of better quality?    I'm certainly not, but I'm also not focusing on microstock like I used to.  It's just too frustrating these days.  Instead, I'm taking my photography skills and incorporating them into an entirely new specialized business that still demands top-notch technical quality.  Some of that work will end up on the micros. 

Maybe because contributors are making less money and need to cut corners to save time and produce more images to make up the difference?


Ignore | Logged

BaldricksTrousers

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2011, 08:22 »
And more rejections is a better return on effort?


Ignore | Logged

PaulieWalnuts


iStock Gauge
« Reply #11 on: January 26, 2011, 09:02 »
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 26, 2011, 08:22
And more rejections is a better return on effort?

When I say good enough, that means the bare minimum for the image to get accepted.  You may get the same acceptance rate using both approaches. Both images may appear identical until you look at 100% where one will have minor imperfections. Tiny spots, a small stray tree branch, or a bit of out of place hair.

And I'm sure some people go way beyond the bare minimum toward perfection.


Ignore | Logged

BaldricksTrousers

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2011, 10:07 »
You also have to consider your reputation. If your work is good, customers may take note of your portfolio. If it is slack, they may start to avoid you. Maybe. I don't know.


Ignore | Logged

lisafx


Premium Member
« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2011, 14:40 »
Quote from: jsnover on January 25, 2011, 22:54
I'm not very motivated to shoot and upload at the moment, but my I have never and can't see myself ever going for the "good enough" approach. It's personal pride and also a sense of investing in making my portfolio the best it can be. 

My feelings exactly.  I haven't shot anything since the new royalties went into effect, but I have been uploading and I always post process to get my images as perfect as possible.  I am way to OCD to be satisfied cutting corners Wink


Ignore | Logged

Perry



« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2011, 14:53 »
I'm more of a "good enough" guy, and that's because I'm a perfectionist. If I would want my (microstock) images to be perfect, I would never get anything ready.

I have found the best thing is to try to shoot as good quality as possible, to minimize the amount of post-processing. Extra five minutes spent when shooting can save 30 minutes of Photoshop tweaking and retouching.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 17:54 by Perry »

Ignore | Logged

Xalanx


« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2011, 16:38 »
I will never downgrade the quality of my work, no matter what. Not because of fear of rejections, but there are clients who come regularly to my portfolio and they expect same quality everytime. Would you like a customer to become a returning customer, or to avoid you?


Ignore | Logged

louoates


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2011, 16:53 »
I still brush my teeth, shower, comb my hair and use deodorant when no one is checking up.


Ignore | Logged

Sign up with Shutterstock
disorderly


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2011, 17:22 »
I still try to produce high quality images.  I just don't produce them for agencies that refuse to compensate me for them.  That list now includes iStock and Fotolia, neither of which will receive any new work from me.  What's there will remain, earning what it can.  After all, I've put in all the work and would rather earn something than nothing.  But anything new that's the product of my improving skills will go to places that haven't screwed me yet.


Ignore | Logged

visceralimage


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2011, 01:43 »
I have standards, will not change them just because the price changes.


Ignore | Logged

madelaide


Premium Member

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2011, 12:17 »
To me, it's not about quality changes, but where to upload my work. It's been a while that I don't upload anything new to micros because they turned into that unsustainable (for contributors) road.


Ignore | Logged

helix7


« Reply #20 on: January 29, 2011, 13:30 »

I've completely stopped producing for microstock for a while, partly because of commission cuts and partly because I'm finding better opportunities for future growth in other businesses.

Logged

microstockphoto.co.uk


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2011, 02:49 »
I wouldn't say reduced technical quality, but commission cut certainly influenced me: now I try to avoid complex compositions and to get it right in camera to reduce editing time - which may actually be a positive thing.


Ignore | Logged

Microstock InsiderEnvateo Photo Tools
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Image quality: camera vs. lens
General Photography Discussion 		danabeth555 20 3254 Last post January 05, 2010, 12:57
by YadaYadaYada
Thinkstock Image preview quality
General Stock Discussion 		gubh83 3 945 Last post February 09, 2010, 21:55
by Randy McKown
Why technical quality doesn't matter
General Stock Discussion 		PowerDroid 22 2288 Last post May 14, 2010, 18:07
by microstockphoto.co.uk
Software Determines Image Quality
Software - General 		Karimala 4 650 Last post November 25, 2011, 01:34
by Lagereek
image quality of a Nikon 18-55 vr
iStockPhoto.com 		malamus 2 142 Last post May 21, 2012, 08:55
by malamus

Microstockgroup Sponsors

CanstockPhoto



MicrostockGroup Email Updates

Microstock Poll Results

Site Earnings Rating
Top Tier - Big 4
Shutterstock 100 arrow
iStock 66.7 arrow
Fotolia 34.9 arrow
Dreamstime 26.7 arrow
Middle Tier
DepositPhotos 21.6 arrow
123RF 16.3 arrow
Canstockphoto 11.2 arrow
Bigstockphoto 9.5 arrow
Veer 8.7 arrow
Low Earners
PantherMedia 6.7 arrow
PhotoDune 5.8 arrow
isignstock 4.1 arrow
Zoonar 3.5 arrow
GLStockImages 2.7 arrow
Stockfresh 2.2 arrow
YayMicro 1.8 arrow
FeaturePics 1.4 arrow
MostPhotos 1.3 arrow
ScanStockPhoto 1.1 arrow
Crestock 0.8 arrow
Cutcaster 0.6 arrow
AllYouCanStock 0.1 arrow
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: 2012-05-25

TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc
Advertise on Microstockgroup.com | Contact: [email protected]
Sitemap | Powered by SMF 1.1.15 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Adagio design by Bloc