pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Need Your Opinion on Premium Agencies  (Read 3734 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« on: February 17, 2017, 22:11 »
+2
I'm doing a lot of research on the Macro world and would like your opinion or thoughts on which one is the best or the worst.

I have hundreds of images waiting to be uploaded but Stocksy is not open for submission. I have it narrowed down to these agencies.
1. imagesource.com
2. blendimages.com
3. inmagine.com

Quick note: Apparently, MS (microstock) is not interchangeable with Royalty Free. The macro agencies really hate micro. I have sister images that have never seen micro but since the "mother" was on micro, I can't upload any of them - such a shame.

I have happily been accepted to arcangel and very excited but some of my images are just not the right "fit" and you are stuck in a 3 year contract so I have to be careful about which ones go on.

Any thoughts or suggestions would make me so happy. All of the blogs seem to be outdated.



Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2017, 07:37 »
+3
Hi Angela,

Happy to hear you got accepted at Arcangel, they are a nice bunch and I'm optimistic i'll get some images licensed soon, especially since they are excellent on the marketing side...

As for the best Midstock / Macrostock agencies, I'm afraid I don't have enough experience with many except the above and Robert Harding (specialist travel), but in any case I've recently compiled a list of 26 such agencies (attached pdf). If I missed any out, please let me know.

Hope you find the information useful.

Alex

« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 07:40 by Brasilnut »

« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2017, 08:08 »
0
Robert Harding wants 50 MB files. Unless I got that wrong. My images, converted from RAW to JPEG using LR and quality set a 100% don't have more than 20MB.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2017, 08:21 »
0
Quote
Robert Harding wants 50 MB files. Unless I got that wrong. My images, converted from RAW to JPEG using LR and quality set a 100% don't have more than 20MB.

The 50 MB file requirement is for "uncompressed image size".

This should be OK for most images as long as they aren't cropped too much. Also helps if you're shooting with a full frame sensor.

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2017, 09:18 »
0
Thanks for the info Brasilnut. I'm more of a people person so I won't won't make the cut at Harding. 50 MB is crazy!

It seems there isn't a lot of feedback on the macro agencies...
I can read all about Alamy, SS, istock but nothing on the high end ones.


« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2017, 10:01 »
+1
It would be interesting to know if they sell better than Alamy. Angela, your images are far too beautiful for microstock. So dreamy and artistic. They should be used in movies. 

« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2017, 12:25 »
+3
Uncompressed image 50 MB = 17.5 Mpx camera..

« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2017, 12:28 »
0
I have a 20 MP camera but my RAW files are not 50 MB.

« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2017, 12:34 »
+2
I have a 20 MP camera but my RAW files are not 50 MB.
20 MP x 3 / (1024x1024) = 57,2 MB.. yes you have.. it's UNCOMPRESSED SIZE :)

« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2017, 12:37 »
0
Thank you Jarih.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2017, 13:18 »
+1
Quote
It seems there isn't a lot of feedback on the macro agencies...
I can read all about Alamy, SS, istock but nothing on the high end ones.

They want to keep it that way, I think :)

« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2017, 16:05 »
0
I just noticed that I can download any RM file on Arcangel in full size, free. You just click the download button. Is that normal?

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2017, 17:23 »
0
I checked and the maximum is 800 x 600. It is too bad they don't have the watermark ...

« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2017, 19:06 »
0
I checked and the maximum is 800 x 600. It is too bad they don't have the watermark ...

http://www.arcangel.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=2U1HZOQNUL5#/SearchResult&VBID=2U1HZOQNUL5&POPUPPN=4&POPUPIID=2U1HRGDPRXKQ

Dunno I clicked a few of the images here and they had the download option enabled and you can select full size without any issues.

« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2017, 02:05 »
+2
Out of these three. Blend!  and they also sell by themselves and you be working closely with a picture editor and art director. I dont give much for the other two. However you would be earning more if your work is special with agencies like Trevellion and science photo.

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2017, 10:10 »
+1
Thank you Derek!

langstrup

« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2017, 08:23 »
+2
What about considering Adobe Premium!

We are selling there - Seems like a super team to work with :D


angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2017, 09:26 »
0
I can't figure out how to apply to them. It takes me to the Adobe Stock contributor login (which I already sell on Fotolia)

langstrup

« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2017, 13:54 »
+1
I can't figure out how to apply to them. It takes me to the Adobe Stock contributor login (which I already sell on Fotolia)

Okay I cant help you with that, since we got invited without applying. But try sending the Adobe team a mail asking how to apply. I acutally dont know if people can apply, or if its only a invite thing now that you mention it!

« Reply #19 on: February 20, 2017, 13:59 »
+1
What about considering Adobe Premium!

We are selling there - Seems like a super team to work with :D

Yes nice people! but sales are very few and far in between!

« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2017, 10:48 »
+2
Any thoughts on Trevellion vs Arcangel? Given their similar client orientation - I believe they are both especially know for beautiful and intriguing book covers - which would you try for first? I'd imagine being with both would be difficult. I've been holding aside artsy/dark work for a while with thoughts of eventually applying to one of them.

Do you get worthwhile sales with Robert Harding? I know they've been around for a long time. about 90% of my portfolio is travel - from the US and Europe - and it sells for me via my site, direct to clients and via Alamy, and more generic on the micros, but I'd like to see better revenues per photo. With that in mind, are they worth applying to? I have a large volume of travel that is currently RM, which I could pull, and other work not yet on any sites.

If you only have nature work (with appropriate scientific names for flora and fauna) as well as landscapes, is it worth applying to Sciencesource?

I'm always leery of joining smaller mid/macrostock sites. I joined one in Germany that was very strict with file size, editing, no micro similars, nearly all RM, etc and nearly all my sales have been subscriptions from their partner sites with my share of each under 1 Euro for the past three years. Disheartening.

Appreciate the thoughts already shared here as well as the pdf with all the links.

Asked about Adobe Premium a while back, it's invite-only at this point but they may open it up eventually.




Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2017, 14:37 »
0
Quote
Do you get worthwhile sales with Robert Harding? I know they've been around for a long time. about 90% of my portfolio is travel - from the US and Europe - and it sells for me via my site, direct to clients and via Alamy, and more generic on the micros, but I'd like to see better revenues per photo. With that in mind, are they worth applying to? I have a large volume of travel that is currently RM, which I could pull, and other work not yet on any sites.

I've joined with them 2 months ago and have only got 53 images accepted there. No earnings as of yet. I have to say that they are extremely picky with what they accept into the collection (53 images out of 160 submitted for 33% acceptance rate). Perhaps you would have a better return.

I'm not thrilled about the exclusivity and only 30% earnings but let's see...

I'd say, try them out and aim to have at least 300 images and after a year to see how you're doing.

Here's my portfolio there:

https://www.robertharding.com/alexandrerotenberg

« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2017, 14:22 »
0
I'm with Image Source for about a year now. They are the only agency I'm with, I'm new to stock photography, and still learning my way.

As you may know, they are a distributor, so your image will be on Getty, Offset, Adobe etc. I can tell you that while some sales are decent, most are in the pennies which makes me cringe. That's because they supply to agencies that offers subscription based pricing model. The nice thing about these "premium" agencies is that they have art directors that advises you how to generate more salable images.

« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2017, 16:18 »
0
I do nature and travel photography and have been looking for mid/macro agencies that specialize in these areas. I'm concerned about the ban on selling "sister/similar images" that some of these agencies have.

I've been on several photo trips where you shoot all day in a particular location and can end up with hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of images each day. Some of these images shot in close proximity in time and place would clearly fall into the sister/similar ballpark but overall, there's generally a wide variety of different-looking images, including multiple species of wildlife.

Would all the images shot in the same place on the same day be considered similars, even if the images themselves depict very different things? Would different species of animals shot on the same day and/or in the same location be considered similars? What about all images shot in a given location over a week or a month?

Also, does this type of ban apply only to sending similar images to other stock sites, or does it also apply to personal RM sales for, say, calendars, postcards, notecards and editorial sales to magazines, newspapers, web sites, etc.?

I don't have a problem with image exclusivity, but I worry that one or a few accepted images can effectively prohibit me from selling hundreds or thousands of others. If this is the case, it doesn't seem all that much better than artist exclusivity. And it sounds like the return on the accepted images is not likely to compensate.

Any insights would be greatly appreciated. I'm just starting to look into this and I already feel overwhelmed.


Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #24 on: July 01, 2017, 04:04 »
0
Last night I put together a small blog post on my experiences with Arcangel Images. I really like them but growing increasingly frustrated that there's been no downloads (474 portfolio), but need to remain optimistic and keep uploading. It's cool that the managing director of the agency replies directly to my questions and he reassures me that I just need to keep plugging away. My goal is to have 1000 quality images there by the end of the year...

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2017/06/30/part-2-opportunities-outside-of-microstock-fine-art-images/

Anybody having any luck with them, or any other similar agencies? Perhaps Trevillion?

Alex


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
39 Replies
14099 Views
Last post July 13, 2009, 18:24
by Squat
19 Replies
6715 Views
Last post September 10, 2009, 15:34
by NitorPhoto
8 Replies
5166 Views
Last post August 03, 2011, 23:20
by RacePhoto
7 Replies
1295 Views
Last post November 23, 2013, 09:50
by leaf
1 Replies
3384 Views
Last post June 09, 2016, 14:00
by ssviluppo

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors