pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Game is on - agencies want high quality content. I am falling behind  (Read 18350 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2015, 13:39 »
+3
Stocksy may be the saviour some say, but when I talked with them a year or so ago, they only want one or two images per shoot, those are exclusive, and you can't sell any others from shoot elsewhere.  Even if that one does well on Stocksy,  I don't see how it could pay for a HCV shoot involving models. Maybe someone who does well on Stocksy can correct my misperception if I'm wrong.

They do like "found" images, which are normally limited to one or two, but model shoots are fine to have as many images as are different and useful.


« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2015, 14:35 »
0
Ron,
Upload your landscapes and more artsy stuff to 500px prime. I've had good sales there on that kind of stuff despite only having a few images up.

« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2015, 15:10 »
0
Stocksy may be the saviour some say, but when I talked with them a year or so ago, they only want one or two images per shoot, those are exclusive, and you can't sell any others from shoot elsewhere.  Even if that one does well on Stocksy,  I don't see how it could pay for a HCV shoot involving models. Maybe someone who does well on Stocksy can correct my misperception if I'm wrong.

They do like "found" images, which are normally limited to one or two, but model shoots are fine to have as many images as are different and useful.

Oh, that is good info to have.  Thanks for clarifying. 

Semmick Photo

« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2015, 15:15 »
0
Cheers Rob. I'll pm you later. Watching Barca Bayern match atm

Sean,  what's a found image?
Cheers

« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2015, 18:26 »
+1

Sean,  what's a found image?


I believe he means an image you happened upon and took pictures of (versus a shoot you set up, styled, staged, etc.). Not a snapshot, but not an organized shoot either :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #30 on: May 06, 2015, 19:01 »
+7
Oh, as in what used to be sneered at as a 'walkaround' shot?  ::)

« Reply #31 on: May 06, 2015, 19:46 »
+11
I think I am ready to change, I just have been stubborn about it as I think my images are good but I need to realise they are mediocre mostly. LOL. But there is potential in me.

I am ready to step it up, it might take a while to get there, but hey, slow and quality is better then fast and no quality. I might just shoot for micro and high end separately and slowly build a high quality port.

If I want to make some money I have to get better with my photography. Simple as.

I don't know that getting better at photography will help much.  I have over 95% acceptance rate at all sites and shoot high demand subjects and still income going down at a troubling rate.  I read the same from lots of others. 

If you want to improve your skills for personal satisfaction,  great. If your doing it for stock income, don't bother.
But if I get onto Stocksy and Creative Market my earnings will increase, thats the whole point. Problem is both agencies want filtered highly commercial images with copy space.  I dont shoot like that, yet.

Some will agree with me some certainly wont so please do find this post my personal opinion and advice.

Forget who wants what, who does what and go out and shoot a lot,and I mean a lot, play with post processing, fill your hard drives with all kind of photos and build an arsenal to play with and to experiment with and compete only with yourself in time. You will be winning all the time for sure but more important, I would even say most important is that you are eventually gonna build a style.   

Then start to build a portfolio of various levels, there are crappy low paying sites...well pick stuff from your work which is exactly like that and save your best for the best sites even if it means that something is sitting on your hard drive when it could be making pennies somewhere... it will come back multiple times at a point.

I really believe everyone should rank the sites he submits to at multiple levels and then rank his portfolio same way and pick what goes where and that long term strategies are the best of them all.

The best thing I ever read about photography is about a guy that won some photographer of the year award on bugs photography. He said that he doesn't even consider himself a good photographer and doesn't even like photography itself much. But he likes bugs, from every perspective under every light and that he is ready to wait for days for right moment because he wants to own that shot. But if someone gives him a camera and sends him to a soccer game he will come back with a full disc of snapshots. And I cant agree more with him.   

 




« Reply #32 on: May 06, 2015, 22:03 »
+13
The question I am asking myself - Do the agencies deserve higher quality content and is it my best interest to provide it to them?

The answer is a resounding NO.

« Reply #33 on: May 07, 2015, 01:37 »
+3
I know but the majority on stocksy is filtered. I am sure I can create unfiltered images for stocksy I just need to get on with it.

I don't agree. I don't have numbers to support my view but I believe there is a lot of "unfiltered" images. There are quite a few really great photographers who know exactly how to use light to get the image they want and coming from a microstock experience this might look like some awesome photoshop work but isn't. Then there is a bunch of enthusiast who shoot film (analog), so those images also have a different look than what you find on micro. And obviously parts of the Stocksy reputation comes from the "Curated" section which especially at the start contained a lot of filtered images.

But if you go to the big portfolios, you will find a lot of professional stock photographers who don't use any fancy faded filters on their images.

great but stocksy is neither micro nor macro and neither is creative markets

I think those definitions are blurring. When I was iStock exclusive back in 2012, I averaged about $10 per download. On Getty, while there are occasional three digit sales, a large majority of royalties I get to see is $5 or less. Even macro agencies sell a large number of licenses to editorial online use sites which typically justify only a low amount, so the average RPD has dropped in those traditional agencies.

I get a rather high RPD on Stocksy - while the prices don't look as high, it makes a difference to receive a 50% share, and no sales below the minimum $10 for the smallest size.

I believe RPD might only be higher at Offset (and maybe 500px but I didn't find anyone selling high volumes there yet) but it's not easy to get in there as direct contributor as well, I guess.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #34 on: May 07, 2015, 02:04 »
0
The question I am asking myself - Do the agencies deserve higher quality content and is it my best interest to provide it to them?

The answer is a resounding NO.
I am not talking about Shutterstock, but about Stocksy or other midstock agencies. Just a question, have you stopped submitting to SS and the other micros that dont pay you enough?

Semmick Photo

« Reply #35 on: May 07, 2015, 02:07 »
0
I know but the majority on stocksy is filtered. I am sure I can create unfiltered images for stocksy I just need to get on with it.

I don't agree. I don't have numbers to support my view but I believe there is a lot of "unfiltered" images.
OK, I just checked and it seems that indeed they have a lot of mixed content now. When they started out it was different. But I see there is a lot of 'normal' images now. Thats great.


« Reply #36 on: May 07, 2015, 05:09 »
0
I think is not about filters or even the style ... we all have photos that match some of the ones we see at Stocksy.

I think the way to be accepted at Stocksy now is showing them the type of images that they are looking for ... and that is the gold question. For us, that don't have access to the Stocksy foruns is hard to know that.

For my aplication this year, i need a mentor someone to guide me into to the right path ... any one there to help?  ;)

« Reply #37 on: May 07, 2015, 05:45 »
+1

Sean,  what's a found image?


I believe he means an image you happened upon and took pictures of (versus a shoot you set up, styled, staged, etc.). Not a snapshot, but not an organized shoot either :)

And the person who takes such images, could be called "Image Finder".

« Reply #38 on: May 07, 2015, 06:01 »
0
Yes, it seems like photography business is going after VSCO these days. Has any photographers seen better sales by adding vsco filters?

I think unsplash is affecting the whole photographic scene now. Those photos are so in demand right now. I'm using them frequently. I would assume that those kind of images sells great on microstock.

« Reply #39 on: May 07, 2015, 06:05 »
0
I think unsplash is affecting the whole photographic scene now. Those photos are so in demand right now. I'm using them frequently. I would assume that those kind of images sells great on microstock.

Nice images, but I wouldn't touch them with a 20 foot pole.  Nothing about releases or protection for the user or anything.

« Reply #40 on: May 07, 2015, 06:14 »
0
I think unsplash is affecting the whole photographic scene now. Those photos are so in demand right now. I'm using them frequently. I would assume that those kind of images sells great on microstock.

Nice images, but I wouldn't touch them with a 20 foot pole.  Nothing about releases or protection for the user or anything.

Yeah. Landscape images are safe, but those people images you newer know. They claim all images are "Free (do whatever you want) high-resolution photos", but I think they don't aks Model Releases is it photographers fault if there comes a lawsuit?

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #41 on: May 07, 2015, 06:53 »
+9
Yes, it seems like photography business is going after VSCO these days. Has any photographers seen better sales by adding vsco filters?

I think unsplash is affecting the whole photographic scene now. Those photos are so in demand right now. I'm using them frequently. I would assume that those kind of images sells great on microstock.

Just checked out Unsplash. So let's see if I have this right.

Crew, a web design firm that uses images for their paid work, starts a website for... free images. And wait for it... photographers gladly submit work. For free. So designers can take those free images and... charge their clients for the work. Their clients are using the finished product, which includes the free image, to... make money. And, and... it's based on Creative Commons whose board and advisers consist of... publishers, web companies, and other businesspeople who have an interest in free images. SMFH.

That seems to be the trend these days. Maybe I need to quit tying to sell my images and set up a website where everyone just gives me their images for free and I sell them, make money, and pay them nothing. Sure would save me a lot of time and money from having buy equipment and take pictures. And photographers seem to jump at any chance for attention. I'll just hang the exposure carrot out there and watch them jump like crazy for it.

I'm beginning to wonder if photography really has no long term financial potential. We are increasingly headed toward everything being free. It's becoming easier to take great pictures and those who take them don't seem to care that while they slave away at their day job, and even second job, while everyone is using their pictures to make money except for them.

Is there any other product or service that people so willingly give their work away?



« Reply #42 on: May 07, 2015, 07:56 »
0
According to Similarweb, unsplash is getting a pretty significant amount of visitors:

http://www.similarweb.com/website/unsplash.com

I think unsplash do cut some sales from microstock (specially micro bloggers etc.), but there's still a huge need for paid images.

I'm actually pretty sure Crew has some idea behind unsplash. I mean they will sure monetize it somehow.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2015, 08:34 by File Sold »

« Reply #43 on: May 07, 2015, 08:56 »
0
The question I am asking myself - Do the agencies deserve higher quality content and is it my best interest to provide it to them?

The answer is a resounding NO.
I am not talking about Shutterstock, but about Stocksy or other midstock agencies. Just a question, have you stopped submitting to SS and the other micros that dont pay you enough?

To a large degree Yes, I do not see micro as a productive way to spend my resources. There are too many contributors who are willing to sell the farm in the race to the bottom.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #44 on: May 07, 2015, 11:53 »
+2
Is there any other product or service that people so willingly give their work away?

we should just ask money straight away on crowdfunding sites and give nothing back, not even a print or a book, actually there are even sites where people donate to strangers so they can make a round-the-world trip and write a blog !

however ! yeah there's more and more images given away for free but this because the bar has been lowered so much that now cr-ap shot with an iPhone seems to be "good enough" for publishers, which was unthinkable not long ago.

they will indeed get their free images but the quality is still low, if it works for them, good, but it won't work for Stock or for serious buyers.

and if the sh-it hits the fan these guys will learn a thing or two about copyright when they get sued by a random iphone snapper, the CC licence is well clear about commercial use, many limitations, not at all a poorman's public-domain as many people tend to believe.

finally, if your company can't even pay for licenced images your just a fly by night operation, no excuses.
they're risking a lot using the cheapest imagery on the market, it takes nothing to ruin a brand.






« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2015, 11:25 »
0
Is there any other product or service that people so willingly give their work away?

Yes, basically in all creative areas: Musicians pay to go on stage at some events. Authors are paying to get their books printed. It has been like this for decades. Why should photography be different?

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2015, 12:19 »
+1
Is there any other product or service that people so willingly give their work away?

Yes, basically in all creative areas: Musicians pay to go on stage at some events. Authors are paying to get their books printed. It has been like this for decades. Why should photography be different?

Then creatives need to take some sales and marketing business courses and learn negotiating skills. No wonder why this industry is full of starving artists.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #47 on: May 10, 2015, 12:25 »
0
Is there any other product or service that people so willingly give their work away?

Yes, basically in all creative areas: Musicians pay to go on stage at some events. Authors are paying to get their books printed. It has been like this for decades. Why should photography be different?

Lots of acts at Edinburgh Fringe run at a loss, even with an army of volunteers flyering, ushering etc., and some less-known acts performing in portacabins and literal garden sheds and other non-conventional venues.
And still some shows can be quite expensive for the audience. So much so that there's now a growing Free Fringe, where the audience donates after the show.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2015, 13:03 by ShadySue »

« Reply #48 on: May 10, 2015, 13:41 »
0
Then creatives need to take some sales and marketing business courses and learn negotiating skills. No wonder why this industry is full of starving artists.

That ignores the fact that creative expression seems to be a need for many (or all?) of us. And it ignores the fact that many people do have a full time job supporting them, so they can afford to be creative for free. The difference may be that it's rather easy to press the shutter button on a camera (or phone) rather than typing 50,000 characters on a keyboard.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #49 on: May 10, 2015, 15:43 »
+2
Then creatives need to take some sales and marketing business courses and learn negotiating skills. No wonder why this industry is full of starving artists.


That ignores the fact that creative expression seems to be a need for many (or all?) of us. And it ignores the fact that many people do have a full time job supporting them, so they can afford to be creative for free. The difference may be that it's rather easy to press the shutter button on a camera (or phone) rather than typing 50,000 characters on a keyboard.


While that may be true, there's creative aspects to many professions and I can't think of one where people so willingly work for free. Do you know of any beauticians who work for free? Maybe as a favor to friends or family but not to strangers who say "Hey I love your work. Will you style my hair? Pay you? Why would I pay you? Can't you just do my hair". 

And regarding a full time job, I don't know of anyone who ever makes enough money at their full time job. Unless you're filthy rich, and I don't think most creatives qualify, you could probably use more money to help your finances so why not earn something from your work?

So Semmick can have his topic back, I started a new post about free stuff at http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/strategies-for-free-usage-requests


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
48 Replies
7781 Views
Last post July 03, 2013, 07:08
by grsphoto
9 Replies
4993 Views
Last post July 11, 2013, 01:21
by picture5469
2 Replies
2991 Views
Last post February 03, 2014, 12:15
by stockphoto-images.com
18 Replies
9012 Views
Last post September 17, 2016, 02:05
by gyllens
3 Replies
3085 Views
Last post May 21, 2021, 16:43
by MatHayward

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors