Author Topic: Best selling VECTOR sites? (Read 13303 times)

helix7 · « **Reply #25 on:** June 24, 2011, 14:31 »

Quote from: jvoetsch on June 24, 2011, 12:35

We aren't interested in adding more than a couple hundred artists, and I dont kick off artists to add new artists that offer similar content. That's how we work. I guess artists do like being bullied and abused and apparently expect it. helix7, I did not say anyone was better than you I was clearly saying you dont have anything different to offer us from what our existing artists already contribute. That is all. Take it how you want to but I didn't say so and so was better than you.

I never suggested you made such a claim. I understood what you said, that my work wasn't unique and you already have the sort of work I do on your site. And you could have just left it at that, but instead felt the need to compare images one-by-one. Which I'm sure you understand some people might view as being a way of saying that one image is better than the other.

I'm not offended by it. It's clear that you have a very unique view of what makes images common or similar. I don't share that view and I don't think that your one-set-of-green-icons-is-the-same-as-any-other approach to stock images is a way of building a quality collection.

Microbius · « **Reply #27 on:** June 25, 2011, 03:17 »

Makes perfect sense to me. They are contributor focused and want to have a collection large enough to appeal to customers. If they are only going to have a couple of hundred contributors of course they want each one to have a certain minimum number of images in their portfolio or the size of the overall collection will be too small.
It's a completely different way of doing things than the other sites, but it does make sense.

helix7 · « **Reply #28 on:** June 25, 2011, 17:37 »

Quote from: jvoetsch on June 24, 2011, 14:46

I apologize of my comparing of styles offended you, but thats not what I intended. I was showing that we already have similar content; grunge, shields, eco icons and that we are not looking for more. I forget how sensitive everyone is via emails, forums and text, however if you had been having a face to face conversation with me, you would have a completely different understanding.

A lot of people also dont understand what we are doing over here. I'm not trying to stock a library as full as possible. I'm trying to fill one niche at a time. Once I've added an artist for that niche, I dont want to add more. I'm doing this in hopes of giving our contributors less competition with our other contributors, so they make sales and stay for long periods of time. Its worked so far.

Understood, and thank you for that.

In hindsight, I think my biggest issue with ClipartOf was the implication that artists with less than 1,000 images weren't serious artists. However those implications were made by GraphicGravy and not ClipartOf, although the understanding from GG was that his knowledge of ClipartOf's policy was coming straight from Jamie herself. The fact of the matter is I don't know that Jamie would say the same things. And while I obviously disagree with Jamie's comments and tact in this thread, I think I at least owe her an apology for taking 2nd hand information as fact when it came to ClipartOf's stance on portfolio size and what that says about artists, which Jamie did clarify here.

My apologies, Jamie, for letting someone else's comments about your company fuel the fire. I still disagree with your assessment of my work and think that it was uncalled for to directly compare one image to another, but I was wrong to fly off the handle over someone else's unfortunate commentary about ClipartOf.

jvoetsch · « **Reply #29 on:** June 26, 2011, 02:55 »

I am new to this forum stuff so I'm learning

john_woodcock · « **Reply #30 on:** June 26, 2011, 03:19 »

I personally think 'clipart' does not have good connotations from a creative point of view, although that is just my personal opinion.
I also think to base an image collection on whoever showed the organiser their work first in a particular category, rather than who can create the best work in a particular category, could result in a collection of images that possibly wasn't of the highest quality.

caspixel · « **Reply #31 on:** June 26, 2011, 16:17 »

Quote from: VB inc on June 24, 2011, 00:32

If you actually had any eye for talent, you would be able to clearly tell that helix7's stuff that you posted is far superior than the shown items in your library. 8 years as a reviewer and you still cant tell quality?

I liked helix7's stuff better too. Much nicer quality, IMO. I'd love to see more on his site.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #34 on:** June 26, 2011, 20:20 »

How can an agency talk like that? OMG I have no words to express what I am feeling after reading this thread.. OMG!

it just keeps getting better, high five ClipartOf!

michaeldb · « **Reply #35 on:** June 26, 2011, 20:31 »

IMO the input of an agency owner should be very, very welcome here. What does it matter whether or not I 'agree' with the agency? It's information which I find both interesting and useful.

'...since we do all of the key wording and descriptions over here...' That explains a lot. Clipartof is not looking forward to keywording and describing 1000 new images. So be it. They want a different kind of relationship with their submitters than other agencies have and want only new submitters who fill certain niches in their collection. So I won't be applying there, and some of my time is saved. Best of luck to them.

VB inc · « **Reply #37 on:** June 26, 2011, 20:45 »

Quote from: jvoetsch on June 26, 2011, 20:15

Clipart is a term that was coined in Word programs before the internet even became available to civilians and is well known and used by customers. Clipart is a term that even if you think is not being used to identify your images, it probably is. While an artist may not like the term, a lot of customers dont think of "clipart" any differently than they do "illustrations."

While you as the artist are thinking of creative terms, the customer is not. The customer is looking for "clipart" or "pics" when using search engines and may not understand how artists feel about the term.

Not to mention that this entire post got completely off topic...

Maybe i think differently than you do but clipart has a cheap ring to it because the artwork i saw back in the days werent as good as illustrations. A company with money hires an artist to illustrate their idea or product. A company on the budget goes through a book full of thousands of generic cliparts. Times have changed and some amazing artists are producing stock imagery.

Kenny · « **Reply #39 on:** June 26, 2011, 21:27 »

O n T o p i c
- - - - - - - - - - -
I recommend Image Zoo (http://www.ImageZoo.com/). They are a stock illustration library specializing with both Rights Managed (RM) and Royalty Free (RF) license types. For more information about contributing contact Stephanie at acquisitions@imagezoo.com

I do not recommend the following stock illustration sites because they do not credit the illustrators which should be a cybercrime - in my opinion

Quote from: john_woodcock on June 26, 2011, 03:19

I personally think 'clipart' does not have good connotations from a creative point of view, although that is just my personal opinion.

I agree with you 100%, if you were basing that opinion on Clipart during its inception. These days Clipart is at the same level as Illustration. Why else would Google & Bing use the term "Clipart" over "Illustration" as an option to filter image results? Could it be that the term 'Illustration' does not have good connotations from a creative point of view?

iStockPhoto knows the term 'Clipart' and 'Illustration' are on the same level, that's why they went out of their way to associate every one of your illustrations with the term 'Clipart' in the keywords section.

ShutterStock also knows that when it comes to Clipart and Illustrations, they are virtually identical. That's why they include Clipart & Illustrations side-by-side under the category list on every page (25,400,000+ pages).

Screen capture:

Quote from: john_woodcock on June 26, 2011, 03:19

I also think to base an image collection on whoever showed the organiser their work first in a particular category, rather than who can create the best work in a particular category, could result in a collection of images that possibly wasn't of the highest quality.

+1

caspixel · « **Reply #40 on:** June 26, 2011, 21:47 »

Quote from: jvoetsch on June 26, 2011, 20:58

I'm very curious from the customer's point of view, but I do understand it both ways; from our customer's (that have reported to me on this issue) and from an artist's point of view.

Well, I'm strictly a buyer. While I appreciate your business model and limiting your library for your contributors sake, I think it limits your business. By excluding new artists, your library will eventually lack variety in genres and you will only be offering the same art to all your customers. I don't want that for my clients. I like a lot of variety, even within genres. I tend to look for images that have fewer downloads, because I don't want one of my customers to open up a magazine or find an ad online that has the exact same stock images as a competitor (it has happened to me and to other designers I know). So when I know that those are all the illustrations that will ever be offered on your site in any particular genre by the same artists, I will go somewhere where I know there is fresher content.

The other thing I notice is that I can get helix7's illustrations right off his own site for considerably less than you would be offering them on yours. Interesting.

cthoman · « **Reply #42 on:** June 26, 2011, 23:42 »

I can't speak to everyone's opinions about the name, their thoughts on policies, general views on the site or other thoughts. As a contributor though to Clipartof, I can say I'm pretty pleased. If there were more sites like it, there would be a lot less complaining on this forum. When I look at the chart to the right, there are only a couple sites that top it in earnings and probably none that top it in contributor satisfaction. This may sound cheesy, but I hold it as a shining beacon of what an agency should be. I'm sad to see this forum turn against a site that I respect.

Kenny · « **Reply #44 on:** June 27, 2011, 01:22 »

Quote from: caspixel on June 26, 2011, 21:47

I tend to look for images that have fewer downloads, because I don't want one of my customers to open up a magazine or find an ad online that has the exact same stock images as a competitor (it has happened to me and to other designers I know).

If you are working with clients and they are expecting images that wont be used in their same industry, Royalty-Free is not the proper license type. You should be licensing Rights-Managed images for such clients. For rights managed images I recommend working directly with the artist or the following sites.

http://www.ImageZoo.com/ - Stock Illustrations
http://www.freelancer.com/ - Work directly with freelance artists.
http://www.Alamy.com/ - Stock Photos & Illustrations

Quote from: caspixel on June 26, 2011, 21:47

The other thing I notice is that I can get helix7's illustrations right off his own site for considerably less than you would be offering them on yours. Interesting.

You can get Helix7's images even cheaper at the following stock image sites.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Vector Stock ($1) http://www.vectorstock.com/artist-portfolio/mikemcd
Graphic River ($2) http://graphicriver.net/user/helix7/portfolio
Big Stock ($3) http://www1.bigstockphoto.com/search/photographer/Mike%20McDonald
Graphic Leftovers ($6) http://graphicleftovers.com/designer/mikemcd/
Cutcaster ($5) http://cutcaster.com/user/mikemcd/
- Fotolia (1 credit) http://www.fotolia.com/p/331045
- Shutter Stock ($3 each with the 1 month subscription) http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-uhelix7.html
- Dreamstime (3 credits) http://www.dreamstime.com/helix7_more-latest-adition_pg1
- Stock Fresh ($1) http://stockfresh.com/gallery/mikemcd
- iStockPhoto (1 credit) http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/1982621/
- Crestock ($1) http://www.crestock.com/profile/helix7.aspx
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If you need the cheapest vector file without having to spend on subscriptions and bulk credits go with Vector Stock.

Microbius · « **Reply #46 on:** June 27, 2011, 03:55 »

Quote from: Kenny on June 27, 2011, 01:22

If you need the cheapest vector file without having to spend on subscriptions and bulk credits go with Vector Stock.

Although if I remember rightly Helix has become disillusioned about VectorStock (like a lot of us) so you might not find his latest work there. Is that correct Helix7?

ThomasAmby · « **Reply #47 on:** June 27, 2011, 05:26 »

Quote from: Kenny on June 27, 2011, 01:22

[...]I recommend working directly with the artist or the following sites.
http://www.freelancer.com/ - Work directly with freelance artists.

The attitude towards programmers/designers in there is horrible. Most bidders are people from Asia begging to do a months work for $30 (lowest possible bid) just to get the job, while buyers (who are for the most part from the Western world) are often very demanding.
I would suggest anyone who is looking to outsource tasks to pay a proper amount for the work and not always go for the lowest bid.

Interesting, by the way, how Google, Bing and Shutterstock spell the word differently
- "Clip art"
- "Clipart"
- "Clip-Art"

So which is it ?

Shutterstock won't let me add the word "Clipart" to images, but instead suggests "Clip-art"

helix7 · « **Reply #48 on:** June 27, 2011, 09:15 »

Quote from: Microbius on June 27, 2011, 03:55

Although if I remember rightly Helix has become disillusioned about VectorStock (like a lot of us) so you might not find his latest work there. Is that correct Helix7?

Yep. I'm not really at a point anymore where I rely solely on my microstock income to get by, and that's led me to take a good look at the agencies I work with and reassess my level of commitment. I'm not yanking my vectorstock portfolio any time soon, but I'm also not uploading there anymore.

caspixel · « **Reply #49 on:** June 27, 2011, 09:16 »

Quote from: Kenny on June 27, 2011, 01:22

If you are working with clients and they are expecting images that wont be used in their same industry, Royalty-Free is not the proper license type. You should be licensing Rights-Managed images for such clients. For rights managed images I recommend working directly with the artist or the following sites.

Well, that would be great, but none of my clients can afford RM prices. They are all just small businesses. They don't "expect" anything, but I do what I can for them by trying to find them images that have low download numbers to decrease the chance for duplication, for my own piece of mind. There is enough selection in microstock that this is usually possible. And sometimes I do work directly with artists and photographers.

However, the issue I was addressing was the limitations of ClipartOf's library to the same downloads for all their customers by excluding fresh work from new contributors. I'm not trying to rip anyone. I'm just stating a fact. Without new content in the genres, it would only be the same stuff constantly being offered to all customers, right? Or am I missing something? Also, wouldn't some of the stuff become dated after a while?