Recent Conversations with MostPhotos

[mwp1969]

All,
 
During recent email "conversations" with MostPhotos personnel I was told the following which I would like to share with you:
 
Mostphotos has during the past months worked extremely hard on attracting photo-buyers to the site in order to increase their sale numbers.
 
The number one request that is coming from potential buyers is that they want to see MostPhotos Image Library much larger.

According to MostPhotos, several large buyers have been registered and having made significant cash deposits purchasing credits and are ready to buy. Many of these buyers have commented on the fact that they find photos at MostPhotos that they do not find elsewhere.

I have heard that MostPhotos is selling photos daily and sales are growing rapidly. In order to capitalize on this growth spurt, MostPhotos needs more images and portfolios to further accelerate its growing buyer base.
 
If you find this information was helpful and are considering joining MostPhotos in the future here is my referral link: http://mostphotos.com/index.php?mwp1969=3065
 
 
Mark

[RT]

Many of these buyers have commented on the fact that they find photos at MostPhotos that they do not find elsewhere.

They should employ reviewers then !!!!!!

[suwanneeredhead]

Many of these buyers have commented on the fact that they find photos at MostPhotos that they do not find elsewhere.

They should employ reviewers then !!!!!!

NO... that's the point... reviewers tend to reject images that the buyers WANT... buyers are changing their paradigm to want shots that don't look too highly polished or overprocessed... reviewers are kind of stuck in that plastic-perfect "look" that the microstocks have long chased after.

This is the good thing about MostPhotos! Buyers want to be able to look at images that did not go through that narrow funnel we know as the approval/rejection process at the microstocks.

I am a graphic designer by trade and I know that my clients are wanting more edgy, realistic looking shots nowadays... and we have to give them what they want!

Personally I like the MostPhotos' business model and am thrilled to see the industry moving toward pricing the images higher and letting US decide that should and should not be in our portfolios. I know, you say that's opening up a huge can of worms with bad photography and storage issues... but its a peer-policing rating system that I appreciate... its always fun to see a nasty, icky photograph get a negative rating which keeps it out of the search completely.

Check it out before you make any kind of judgment about it.

[rjmiz]

I just joined today and even had my first sale....every sale for USA is currently $19.48 according according to the Euro exchange rate.

It's a fun place to be.

http://mostphotos.com/index.php?referenceid=3797

The MIZ

[mwp1969]

Many of these buyers have commented on the fact that they find photos at MostPhotos that they do not find elsewhere.

They should employ reviewers then !!!!!!

NO... that's the point... reviewers tend to reject images that the buyers WANT... buyers are changing their paradigm to want shots that don't look too highly polished or overprocessed... reviewers are kind of stuck in that plastic-perfect "look" that the microstocks have long chased after.

This is the good thing about MostPhotos! Buyers want to be able to look at images that did not go through that narrow funnel we know as the approval/rejection process at the microstocks.

I am a graphic designer by trade and I know that my clients are wanting more edgy, realistic looking shots nowadays... and we have to give them what they want!

Personally I like the MostPhotos' business model and am thrilled to see the industry moving toward pricing the images higher and letting US decide that should and should not be in our portfolios. I know, you say that's opening up a huge can of worms with bad photography and storage issues... but its a peer-policing rating system that I appreciate... its always fun to see a nasty, icky photograph get a negative rating which keeps it out of the search completely.

Check it out before you make any kind of judgment about it.

As evidence to your point suwanneeredhead, I recieved my first sale there from a photo that was previously rejected at some of the microstock sites. Also being paid originally in Euros is a strong plus with a falling dollar here in the US.

Mark

[RT]

Many of these buyers have commented on the fact that they find photos at MostPhotos that they do not find elsewhere.

They should employ reviewers then !!!!!!

NO... that's the point... reviewers tend to reject images that the buyers WANT... buyers are changing their paradigm to want shots that don't look too highly polished or overprocessed... reviewers are kind of stuck in that plastic-perfect "look" that the microstocks have long chased after.

This is the good thing about MostPhotos! Buyers want to be able to look at images that did not go through that narrow funnel we know as the approval/rejection process at the microstocks.

I am a graphic designer by trade and I know that my clients are wanting more edgy, realistic looking shots nowadays... and we have to give them what they want!

Personally I like the MostPhotos' business model and am thrilled to see the industry moving toward pricing the images higher and letting US decide that should and should not be in our portfolios. I know, you say that's opening up a huge can of worms with bad photography and storage issues... but its a peer-policing rating system that I appreciate... its always fun to see a nasty, icky photograph get a negative rating which keeps it out of the search completely.

Check it out before you make any kind of judgment about it.

You are judging things based purely on a microstock point of view, there are many many traditional stock agencies that employ reviewers but they don't judge content they purely check for technical quality and that is what I am referring too, as a graphic designer you should be well aware of the possiblity of an image looking great at thumbnail size but being completely worthless when purchased at full size.

And the rating system is the part I hate most about the site, it is too open to corruption as has been mentioned before, why do they need a rating system anyway, surely the highest accolade an image can get is to be bought and to me that's the most important rating system there is.

I totally agree with your assessment of what clients and designers want, people are too hung up about backgrounds being pure glistening white and in doing so they lose detail and colour in the subject, I work with one of the biggest design companies here in the UK, they employ 24 designers and they all say the same thing - they would rather have a well lit subject on a grey background than a blown out one on a pure white background, sometimes trying to meet the demands of sites like iS in getting isolated shots accepted actually renders the image worthless if a buyer wants to use the subject in a background that does not look like it's ten feet from the sun!

Reviewers can be trained to review to what ever standards a site dictates, it doesn't have to be microstock standards.

And re your comment about checking it out before I make a judgement, if you check back you'll see I got involved with the site in the early days and as a result of comments I made on the forum the site owners designed and implemeted a better watermark for all our images.

[Arian]

Hello Richard (RT)!

I don't know if you have seen my previous posts here regarding the rating system. The rating has a very low impact on the index. So just see the ratings and comments as fun thing.


* The MPI is partly built up around the votes, comments and views your picture has.
* The MPI also looks on the persons that voted, commented and viewed the photo.
* The clicks that a photo gets has a very big impact on the MPI.
* The way buyers act on the site has a very large effect on the MPI.



Regarding to the quality issue that you brought up:
We will try our best to keep an open community that is self-filtrating.
1) You can always zoom on all the photos to determine the quality.
2) If you find a photo with really poor quality you can always report it via the report button. Photos that get more than x number of reports from different users will automatically be set in quarantine.


Arian

[mwp1969]

All,
 
During recent email "conversations" with MostPhotos personnel I was told the following which I would like to share with you:
 
Mostphotos has during the past months worked extremely hard on attracting photo-buyers to the site in order to increase their sale numbers.
 
The number one request that is coming from potential buyers is that they want to see MostPhotos Image Library much larger.

According to MostPhotos, several large buyers have been registered and having made significant cash deposits purchasing credits and are ready to buy. Many of these buyers have commented on the fact that they find photos at MostPhotos that they do not find elsewhere.

I have heard that MostPhotos is selling photos daily and sales are growing rapidly. In order to capitalize on this growth spurt, MostPhotos needs more images and portfolios to further accelerate its growing buyer base.
 
If you find this information was helpful and are considering joining MostPhotos in the future here is my referral link: http://mostphotos.com/index.php?mwp1969=3065
 
 
Mark

My take on what I heard ... in an effort to get this thread back on track as there are other threads here on MSG for the entire "voting" issue ... is that they've landed a large group of buyers and they have their cash deposits in hand. Sales are increasing daily and they are growing rapidly ...

If this is true ... it sounds like they are turning on all wheels.

Mark

[RT]

Hello Richard (RT)!

I don't know if you have seen my previous posts here regarding the rating system. The rating has a very low impact on the index. So just see the ratings and comments as fun thing.

Hi Arian,

Firstly thanks for replying, but in response to your above comment:

Why have it then, what is the point in having a feature that serves no purpose other than being a 'fun' thing, do you want to be a stock imaging site or a photo club?

Whenever I look at a new site I try to view it as a buyer, what does it have to offer that the hundreds of other similar sites don't have, and where and how will it either save me time or money, having to spend extra time zooming in on each thumbnail that takes my fancy is a time consuming process, why would I do this when I could go to another site where I know the images are examined for technical quality.

I just went onto the site, on the first page of most popular images I clicked on a photo of a tree covered in white frost, great image and good sharp detail when I zoomed in, the second image (which I won't identify obviously) that I clicked on looked great as a thumbnail, when zoomed in the whole image was out of focus,no reviewer in the world would have accepted this image once they'd seen it at 100% and yet here it is on the front page of most popular images although it's not had any sales yet!!

This is my point, if you must have a voting/rating system make sure that people can only vote after having zoomed in on the image, people vote on anything in the hope the person will return the favour and as such the whole system is flawed.

Clicks/Views/Sales works for Getty, Corbis, Alamy, Jupiter etc

Mark has tried to get his original thread back on track, so in response to his initial comment of :

"The number one request that is coming from potential buyers is that they want to see MostPhotos Image Library much larger."

What is it do you think is putting people off uploading ??

[mwp1969]

"What is it do you think is putting people off uploading ??"

Actually its not

MostPhotos is experiencing phenomenal growth so I have no worries ...

For anyone that has previously show their interest in MP or continues to be curious about what is being said their, please refer to my original post in this thread at the top.


Mark

[null]

* The way buyers act on the site has a very large effect on the MPI.

That doesn't seem to be the case. My points stays very low all the time around 25, even after I had two sales in a row. What's more, those two sales are not represented in my "most popular". Strange.

I guess therefore that "most popular" is driven not by sales but by the community thing (rating, commenting). Those observations contradict your claim that buying has the most impact on the funny number (MPI?). It doesn't seem to have any effect at all.

I got a number of very dumb comments write your comment here, obviously from players that are too lazy to write an actual comment but just want to collect points.

Since I don't have time for this totally useless commenting/rating game, my points only go up now with number of logins (0.5pt). How hilarious. Not even portfolio size is taken into account (658 images all accepted at at least 3 RF sites). I have only 18 logins till now, since I keep all my sites open day and night in several tabs.

So I figured what to do about my appalling community spirit. Write a small script to login/logout every 2hrs and let that run on one of my junk PCs in the corner. I'd even like to write a script to put silly comments like great shot, well done, marvelous shallow DOF, nice blurr, great noise at random shots 

Sign ins (0.5p):   18 (36st)
Votes on images (0.25p):   3.5 (14st)
Forum posts (0.5p):   0 (0st)
Comments (0.5p):   3.5 (7st)
Total :   25
Current level:   New user

Hahaha, I'm on the site since September 2006 with soon 700 shots and I'm still a beginner. 

[DanP68]

And re your comment about checking it out before I make a judgement, if you check back you'll see I got involved with the site in the early days and as a result of comments I made on the forum the site owners designed and implemeted a better watermark for all our images.

Yes this is true.  In fact I just finished rating RT's images as 1's and 2's.   

Seriously though, I recognize a lot of names from this board on MostPhotos.  And I agree with Suwanneeredhead that there are a lot of interesting images available, that you won't find elsewhere because microstock sites tend to all shoot for a very similar "look."

But I also see RT's point, as I have found images which are clearly out of focus even viewed on the thumbnail view.  Stuff which is just flat out horrible, and possibly detracts from MostPhoto's image.  It is a fine line to walk.  I wonder most about images which are possibly crossing IP lines, but are being sold as non-ed. 

[DanP68]

...surely the highest accolade an image can get is to be bought and to me that's the most important rating system there is.

I could not agree more, which is why I love the Shutterstock model.  "Most Popular" is defined by the number of sales per time on line, period.  No Best Match hocus pocus.  No exclusivity games to play.  If you create strong images on Shutterstock and keyword them properly, they will sell.  Why other sites feel a need to reinvent the wheel I have no idea.  The only thing which matters about an image is whether or not the customers are interested in purchasing it.

[Alatriste]

Last day I logged in I found a mid-grey corrupted image in the list of images in the front page.
Not a very professional site I think...

[Arian]

Can I say something and this I say from my own experience as a photo-buyer and also based on the material that I have seen being sold on MP:

It is not always the quality that matters. Often buyers want a specific photo and when they find the right one they often can live with some grains or out of focusness.

All the fun stuff like, ratings, comments, and points or even the index is not visible for the buyers so just don�t worry about that. The points that you mention is a figure to keep track of how active the member are. It has nothing to do with you being a good or bad photographer.
Then there are always people that can cheat the system by making scripts that can fake logins and comments. But that actually wont make you sell more photos.

There are in fact a lot of members that dont sell on regular bases. But they surely enjoy the community, and that keeps them still on the site. So as a matter of fact some functionality it does have or else it would not bee there.
We are 8 dudes working on MP and all the functions that we build in and decisions that we take are carefully planned out and discussed on our forum on the site, we have no secrets.

I really don't want you guys to take me as a cocky fellow, that I am not. It is not my intentions to make personal-attacks. But sometime I just want to stand my ground when I see some points being misunderstood. I hope it�s ok.
 

[runamock]

The site for me is quite refreshing and it does have a strong following amongst many of its members. For good reason. It doesn�t feel as corporate and distant as some and it does try to include its members in decisions and asks instead of forcing policies through. They are trying to offer something different and to get a better deal for their photographers. In short it�s a nice place to be. A point that I also feel will be important to the buyers as well.

I too have had reservations about the rating system and have taken this up with Arian. He has gone through this in some detail both here and with myself. The site is quite new, for now I think we have to trust him.

But to get back to Mark�s point of buyers waiting to buy and increasing sales. Surely that�s a good position to be in. The site is looking for more pictures to really get things moving. I hope more of you join now rather than waiting to see what happens, for it�s now that you can make a difference. MP is a democratic site but as in any democracy you need to take part for it to work.

[null]

I really don't want you guys to take me as a cocky fellow, that I am not.

Not at all, and the fact there is critique on some marginal aspects of MP shouldn't obfuscate some great concepts that are very innovative.

A very good thing is that MP accepts all photos and lets the market decide what's commercial. By this Darwinian approach you will get totally different photos than the established MS sites, that regularly use a very subjective "non commercial" reason in rejects. The rediscovery of editorial is certainly a very important aspect because SS and DT reject much of my editorial for far-fetched reasons. I stopped uploading most editorial there because it brings my approval rate down. Sites like MP and YAY (your future competitor) will get a unique collection this way. And that's a very strong asset in a time where most MS sites offer almost the same content.

As to the technical aspect, there is the full-size preview which works well, so a buyer won't buy a cat in a bag like on sites without preview like SS and DT. Before spending 50 Euro, I as a buyer would certainly have a quick preview.

Another important difference with tradional MS is the absence of a subscription model. That makes that you will get full-resolution shots without hesitation. SS never gets my 10MP.

My only point was that the "sold" criterium should play a larger role in the popularity and in the search engine results. For instance, the sold pictures should enter the personal "most popular" group, because that's what a buyer sees when he clicks on a photogs profile.

[Freezingpictures]

I must say I am quite impressed, I have joined just today and what they build up impresses me. But I really not sure if this site will be successful. Future will tell. The only thing I fear is that if I do not spent time in rating and commenting at other peoples images that I will receive less rating as well and in turn my images will be less popular.

[DanP68]

I wonder this myself. 

I'll happen over to your images Freezing, and blast you with low ratings like I did RT.     Just kidding.  So far I have not run into any "snipers" looking to drag other photographers down.  But the amount of discussion on this board regarding it suggests it is a real problem.

[Arian]

The ratings has not such a big impact on the index.!!!
You can not lower the index by giving a photo 1 or 2 in rating.
The system is more intelligent than that.
For example if you behave bad on the site, like in this case, voting low on pictures that does not deserve it, it will affect your trustworthiness. So what I want to say is that if you in someway behave badly, the site will notice that and your reliability will automatically go down and next time your word will be less worth.

But as I have said earlier the way buyers react is the main variable for the index.

[Arian]

MP is a democratic site but as in any democracy you need to take part for it to work.

Amen to that 

[Calamity_John]

Hi All,

My first post .. I am pretty new at all this .. so take my comments in that context .. and also take in context that  being at MP for a few days on the whole I really like it.  The thing that scares and bothers me most about mostphotos is this lack of technical reviews.

I think I am the culprit behind the frosted tree that RT mentioned earlier (and with my luck probably the image he was trashing as well)  .. I have two frosted trees up in the top tier of the last three days at MP.  The one I am very comfortable with .. the other .. well .. it is a black and white of some hoar frosted trees along a river .. I love everything about the image .. except the amount of noise (Grain ; ) ...) in the river .. now .. that image has gotten by the review at a bunch of sites (including both DT and FT) .. the only place that rejected it for the grain was BigStock .. it has sold pretty well for me ..

Still rightly or wrongly with that image at DT, FT etc.  I feel like well it has a bit of noise but the reviewers at the site stamped it for approval so at least I am not alone in my culpability if a buyer is taken aback .. the site has put their stamp of approval on that product .. the site has taken an effort to be responsible for their product ..  I don't think I have every taken an image I consider perfect (at least for long) .. it always seems to be the degree of the faults.

MP scares me .. it feels like they are saying that I am responsible for the product at perhaps of .. their site .. and the buyer .. well they can zoom if they care .. and they should for 25 euros .. and my nightmare is that it seems if the buyer is taken aback after purchase MP would consider it is everybody's fault but their own ... This is really really amplified by the 25 euro price .... (I am not that brave at Featurepics).

btw ... thanks so much for all the wisdom I have gotten by lurking here for a while.

take care,

John

[suwanneeredhead]

MP scares me .. it feels like they are saying that I am responsible for the product at perhaps of .. their site .. and the buyer .. well they can zoom if they care .. and they should for 25 euros .. and my nightmare is that it seems if the buyer is taken aback after purchase MP would consider it is everybody's fault but their own ... This is really really amplified by the 25 euro price .... (I am not that brave at Featurepics).

Well it might just be a matter of "buyer beware" because as discussed in a recent post that I put into the General discussion on the MP forum, they stated that they do not require model releases to be on file because the photographer is ultimately responsible for that, and they are right. Perhaps they are disengaging from the stranglehold that the other microstock agencies have on photographers with regard to taking responsibility for the quality of the image as well as the liability issues.

Yes that is scary if the buyer doesn't realize they must be diligent with their selection process... but I am a graphic/web designer and I am VERY careful when I purchase an image, to make sure it looks good at 100% (unless I am using it as a blog-size image, then it doesn't really matter). I also am going through my port and labeling the image "Model Released" in the description so the buyer understands that I hold the release and they are not going to run into any liability with the image.

This is just a new paradigm ... good or bad, but the industry always finds its own level and evens the playing field, so we'll see what happens...

Just my two cents...

Stacey

[null]

I think I am the culprit behind the frosted tree that RT mentioned earlier (and with my luck probably the image he was trashing as well)

Out of sheer curiosity, I had a look at that tree at 100%. I don't know if it's the same tree but it looks gorgeous and no noise in the sky at all.

[null]

Well it might just be a matter of "buyer beware" because as discussed in a recent post that I put into the General discussion on the MP forum, they stated that they do not require model releases to be on file because the photographer is ultimately responsible for that, and they are right.

I guess it has to do with the difference between the American and the European legal practices around indemnifications. In Belgium for instance, no model can sue you or in case of slander, they will get 1 symbolical Euro as heartache money. In a public place, a person can be shot freely unless he objects immediately after you took the shot.
If MP doesn't open an American office, also MP can't be sued: see Dan Heller's post.
That doesn't mean American customers are safe. A creative European model might sue the US customer in the US if his shot was published there.

[RT]

I think I am the culprit behind the frosted tree that RT mentioned earlier (and with my luck probably the image he was trashing as well) 

Hi John,

You'll be pleased to know the other one wasn't a tree and wasn't one of yours :-)

Richard

[jorgeinthewater]

The ratings has not such a big impact on the index.!!!
You can not lower the index by giving a photo 1 or 2 in rating.
The system is more intelligent than that.
For example if you behave bad on the site, like in this case, voting low on pictures that does not deserve it, it will affect your trustworthiness. So what I want to say is that if you in someway behave badly, the site will notice that and your reliability will automatically go down and next time your word will be less worth.

But as I have said earlier the way buyers react is the main variable for the index.

I just noticed a photographer with more than 900 images online that has been blasted to a 1.5 index and 99 % of  his images show a -20 on the little thingy on top. The blaster has 15 images online and seems to hate girls in bikinis because he gave a 1 on comercial and a 1 on artistic to all the models with bikinis. Is a matter of fact the blaster has 49%  of the ratings given at 1 247 one's and counting (maybe I am next but I don't have girls with bikinis). Now how can a person with such low number of images on a web site that does'nt review making easy to dump your whole hard drive into it, have such a voting power over someone that I would say has a decent amount of good images? I still feel that once the image receives an initial rating based on the photographer's index there is no reason why it should drop because another image receives a low score from a lazy blaster that instead of working on his own images wants to play unofficial reviewer and adquire brownie points from HAL (the computer in the movie 2001 Space Odissey)
Just an observation I like the site but I have had to block 4 unofficial reviewers allready. I don't like the up and down numbers based on the blasters. 
By the way all of the images that I have online have been reviewed on other sites and are selling there. I'm not dumping my hard drive into MP.

[mwp1969]

MostPhotos has created a very unique community which I think is incredible when compared to all of the similar sites out there.  I do believe there is room for it and that it serves a void in the current marketplace.

One of the things that I like the most about MostPhotos is the fact that I get to be the judge of what I believe well sell. We all know there are photographers that have had a photo rejected for one reason or another only to have another agency pick it up and have it go on to be a best seller. However, along with the ability to upload anything comes with a distinct responsibility which I gladly accept.

I also like the way that MostPhotos has found a way to market a niche of more artistic photos that tend to get rejections at the traditional microstock agencies.

Mark

[leszek]

"He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone..."

MP may not be without faults - but they are trying hard and are open to suggestions. I like the site very much, I think it has potential, I think it may need to re-examine a couple of things...I think I will keep uploading 

[runamock]

Very well said!

[Phil]

MostPhotos has created a very unique community which I think is incredible when compared to all of the similar sites out there.  I do believe there is room for it and that it serves a void in the current marketplace.

One of the things that I like the most about MostPhotos is the fact that I get to be the judge of what I believe well sell. We all know there are photographers that have had a photo rejected for one reason or another only to have another agency pick it up and have it go on to be a best seller. However, along with the ability to upload anything comes with a distinct responsibility which I gladly accept.

I also like the way that MostPhotos has found a way to market a niche of more artistic photos that tend to get rejections at the traditional microstock agencies.

Mark

I agree.  whilst very hesitant I quite like it now, its something different from the normal micros, nice to be able to go a bit more artistic and not face the 'this is not stock' 'type of image' etc etc rejections.  hopefully we'll see sales improve and hopefully marketed towards the more artistic lines that the site seems to be moving towards.

Phil

[scorche]

Mostphotos - huh?
Well I signed up, but haven't started uploading yet. (so even though I dd use you as a refferal, don't expect any euros off my sales - for another year:)  anyway...
 Do you know if there is a way to search images by sales. I've been looking and browsing through the photos tis morning and haven't found one picture that didn't have 0 sales. -I'll keep looking

Also while getting 12EU for a sale and being able to skip any review process ar enice from the photographers views, I wonder how well they're doing in terms of attracting buyers. or what they're doing...

[mwp1969]

Mostphotos - huh?
Well I signed up, but haven't started uploading yet. (so even though I dd use you as a refferal, don't expect any euros off my sales - for another year:)  anyway...
 Do you know if there is a way to search images by sales. I've been looking and browsing through the photos tis morning and haven't found one picture that didn't have 0 sales. -I'll keep looking

Also while getting 12EU for a sale and being able to skip any review process ar enice from the photographers views, I wonder how well they're doing in terms of attracting buyers. or what they're doing...

Scorche,

Thank you for the referral. Shoot me an email over on the MP website when you get a chance and I'll be happy to help when your online.

There is no capability to search by number of sales although that may come in the future as the site is growing its sales daily from what we here. They have been attracting buyers who have been making cash deposits for credits from what I have heard and have posted elsewhere here on MSG.

As far as actually seeing a sale ... I have had my first sale there and from what I have heard, without mentioning any names,  several other regular MSG members have sold there as well. There is a post titled "Who has had sales at MP?" which you can check-out at the following link: http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,3620.0.html

We all hope for more sales in the near future

Best of luck to you Scorche !

Mark

[Arian]

There has been sales:
http://www.mostphotos.com/forumviewthread.php?thread=1017

And what has MP done:
http://www.mostphotos.com/forumviewthread.php?thread=1328

[rjmiz]

I made my first sale my very first day!

The MIZ

[null]

And what has MP done:
http://www.mostphotos.com/forumviewthread.php?thread=1328

Very interesting read. Of course, what customers tell is one thing and what they do is another thing. My two sales were plain conventional isolated model shots, not very artsy at all.
Therefore it would be very useful to have a page with "sold images", apart from a page with "popular images" that seem only to reflect what other photographers like.
The fun side of MP is great for lonely souls and chatters, but what counts in the end is sales. We are soooo greedy   

[PecoFoto]

Many of these buyers have commented on the fact that they find photos at MostPhotos that they do not find elsewhere.

They should employ reviewers then !!!!!!

NO... that's the point... reviewers tend to reject images that the buyers WANT... buyers are changing their paradigm to want shots that don't look too highly polished or overprocessed... reviewers are kind of stuck in that plastic-perfect "look" that the microstocks have long chased after.

This is the good thing about MostPhotos! Buyers want to be able to look at images that did not go through that narrow funnel we know as the approval/rejection process at the microstocks.

If buyers want something different to microstock then sites like MostPhotos and PhotoShelter offer these sorts of images.  However, unlike MostPhotos, PhotoShelter check for technical quality etc.

There are some really impressive 'arty' images on MostPhotos that would look great illustrating a technique article in a photography magazine.  It's only when you look at some of these 'arty' images at 100% that you realise that they are technically flawed.  Then there are the ones that have just had a couple of photoshop filters applied to perk up an otherwise poor image.  Of course a lot of them would be still be adequate for web use so it's possible they may have a commercial value.

I just noticed a photographer with more than 900 images online that has been blasted to a 1.5 index and 99 % of  his images show a -20 on the little thingy on top...

By the way all of the images that I have online have been reviewed on other sites and are selling there. I'm not dumping my hard drive into MP.

One of the regular posters here has received some very low votes which are totally undeserved. They are from a gentleman who is obviously very jealous of her style and professionalism.  She has over 1000 images in her portfolio so to find the person giving these low votes and block him before he wreaks havoc on her rating could take sometime.

Like you I'm only uploading images that have been accepted at other stock sites.  It does look like some people have not been able to resist the temptation to upload images that they know would be rejected for technical reasons elsewhere.

[PecoFoto]

And what has MP done:
http://www.mostphotos.com/forumviewthread.php?thread=1328

5) Photo-buyers want
They don't like watermarks. They want to be able to download a low-resolution sample to see if it suits their design ,before they go for the real stuff.

Mostphotos has done this
An active buyer that have credits on the site, will be able to see the photos without watermarks. This is a new function that we will add soon. The matter has been deeply discussed on the microstockgroup.com.

Have I missed this discussion on watermarks?

[madelaide]

Have I missed this discussion on watermarks?

It wasn't in the right forum area:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,3367.0.html

Regards,
Adelaide

[PecoFoto]

Thanks Adelaide

I've only just quickly read that thread, but the impression I got was that most people wanted to keep the watermark or at least have the option so to do.

[Arian]

The watermark is onley disabeled for buyers that have active credits. That meens that if a buyer have credits he will see all the photos without watermark, but if he dont buy any photos within a month his account will be inactive and the watermarks will be back on all photos.
Arian

[RT]

Wow... I didn't see that other thread either, and I've certainly not received any email about this.

I want to be sure before I take any action, but are you telling me that previous buyers now get to download a free non watermarked image for a comp.

If this is the case I'm pulling my portfolio.

[StockManiac]

The watermark is onley disabeled for buyers that have active credits. That meens that if a buyer have credits he will see all the photos without watermark, but if he dont buy any photos within a month his account will be inactive and the watermarks will be back on all photos.
Arian

I absolutely don't like that buyers can see non-watermarked images and feel that it is the wrong decision to make.

What this essentially means, is that a buyer can download an unlimited supply of blog size images for 25 euro.

What is to prevent a buyer from purchasing one image per month, and then downloading hundreds or thousands of FREE blog size images during that month (hence building their own library of images)?

I can't see any reason why a buyer "needs" a non-watermarked image.  None of the other stock sites do this.  iStockphoto and Shutterstock are the two largest microstock sites and neither of them displays non-watermarked images.  Neither do Dreamstime, Fotolia, StockXpert, or 123RoyaltyFree (the next largest agencies) allow this.

Most people don't understand copyright law and view the Internet as a FREE zone (as far as copyright law is concerned).  Software, music, and artwork are constantly being hacked, downloaded, and passed along as if they are all FREE products.

You are just perpetuating this thought process to your clients by offering a non-watermarked image.

Please reconsider your action and watermark ALL images.

[vphoto]

yes, please watermark ALL images !

[Pixart]

What StockManiac said.  But louder.

[rjmiz]

I don't watermark my images....why? Because if they want a free blog image they can have it.
It's good publicity, they don't make any money commercially with that size, and they are not
prime buyers anyway. People who use blog size images are not usually commercially motivated.

Anyone is is welcome to my images. I have thousands, I can't use them all anyway.

The MIZ

[Pixart]

How is it good publicity?  One right click and they do whatever they want with it, and I doubt that involves broadcasting where they stole it from or who created it.

[Arian]

First of all I would like to say that this is an action we took due to the previous thread where people where open for taking away the watermark for serious buyers. But as everybody knows MP has been "on the photographers side" ever since the beginning and all actions and decisions can be reversed. So be calm and understanding. Let us discuss the matter.

We have had some pressure from the buyers side to make this possible or else they will turn to sites like these below to name a few where photos are all without watermark:

http://www.alamy.com/
http://www.sxc.hu/
http://www.johner.se


The only reason why we has taken this action is because we want to increase sales. Everybody is shouting "don't lower the price" instead give the customers something more.
We are torn between to worlds, should we listen to the buyers and increase sales, or should we listen to sellers and get more photos. Like I have said we are on the photographers side, but it feels that some sort of sacrifice needs to be made in order to gain sales.

[rjmiz]

PS there is an option on MP NOT to watermark your images.....that is my choice that I have chosen.

[PecoFoto]

We have had some pressure from the buyers side to make this possible or else they will turn to sites like these below to name a few where photos are all without watermark:

http://www.alamy.com/

http://www.sxc.hu/

http://www.johner.se

With respect you cannot compare MostPhotos with image libraries like Alamy and Johner, I feel their client base would be totally different to yours.  They are more likely to be selling to large institutions and publishers who need high resolution images for editorial purposes.  Clients are more likely to be account customers rather than making purchases with a credit card.  Making watermark free comps available would probably not have an adverse effect on sales.

Alamy also monitor publications etc for copyright violations and act swiftly should they find an image being used without a license.

Alamy are bringing back watermarks sometime very soon -

http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2008/03/11/2723.aspx

Stock.XCHNG is a sister company of Stockxpert. If Stockxpert who watermark their images feel they can compete alongside their sister company I'm sure in time MostPhotos could as well.

I feel you should make removing the watermark optional.

[GeoPappas]

We have had some pressure from the buyers side to make this possible or else they will turn to sites like these below to name a few where photos are all without watermark:

http://www.alamy.com/
http://www.sxc.hu/
http://www.johner.se

Arian:

For what possible reason could a buyer want an image without a watermark?  How does not having a watermark help them?

I can't see a possible reason why a *legitimate* buyer would want an image without a watermark.  You can create mockups of just about anything just as easily with a watermarked image as you can with a non-watermarked image.

[Arian]

I don't think it is because making mockups. I just believe they are really irritating to them.

But since the members has shown this reaction now, we will put them back.

But I hope you guys are understanding our dilemma. We must have more sale arguments to increase the sales.
The other big stock-agencies, either has subscription packages, very low prices or no watermarks etc. They are giving up something to increase the sales.
MP:s unique selling point will be in its huge portfolio of "reality shots" and editorial shots of famous people. But the problem is that we dont have that huge portfolio right now. Catch 22, we need more photos.

[RT]

Catch 22, we need more photos.

Get rid of the voting system then, it will make the site look more like a stock photo site and less of a photo club.

[rjmiz]

I agree about the voting. I enjoy watching my images move up the ladder, however this is
more of a "lets have fun" and "party" atmosphere.

I must admit. It was a feature that caught my fancy in the beginning. But that was because it
entertained my ego. I occupied the #1 spot for the 3 day time period for quite a while.

RT is one I agree with though on this issue, from a contributors view. I don't have any idea
how a buyer feels. All in all it's a "fun" site, with the voting, chatting and the ability to improve your status, by making points.

We'll see what happens. I know I enjoyed getting a DL my very first day. So that also persuaded me to upload more than 350 images more.

The MIZ

[scorche]

ok ok... now me...
  I think the voting system is a deterring factor for potential sellers as it becomes a photo-club. This might be a good idea in initial stages, because you are (indirectly) forcing people to post messages, review photos  etc etc building a community. That's great. But what if someone , for arguments sake, has 500 photos? Wants to upload them and is only interested in selling photos and not in "socializing". His sales will be affected by his decision not to socialize and go around handing out thums up.
I think this peer review/rating is flawed and is deterring some serious sellers. Also some might argue that selling their higher quality images alongside John (filter fanatic) Doan that just discovered the polarizer, will cheapen their own photos and thus choose not to sell.
I immagine this is nothing new, and probably has been discussed within the creators, and inside the community, and outside, so what's one more?

anyway - I also STRONGLY agree with the watermark OPTION.
I personaly prefer the watermark off, but I don't see why people that chose to include their watermark are (or apear to be) offended by people who chose to not use them.
If you look at the top left corner of this website, you will see four images. This is pretty much how I immagine someone would use my potential images illegaly. At those resolutions they WILL NOT PAY 25EU, and most likely if they can't use mine they'll use somone elses. (which might explain the uproar about people not watermarking)
I guess at some other agencies you can buy photos at these tiny resolutions and there is a market for it and ravenue to be earned.

but if you are selling any image on mostphoto, is it really worth it selling it somewhere else?
I know when I'm looking for stock images I look at many sites and I notice the same pictures that keep popping up on different sites. If I'm going to a new stock image company such as mostphoto, chances are that I've already seen and gone through the big 5+, and if I see the same image on both, i will buy it at the cheaper place.

so I guess here's a question...
do you have the same images on mostphoto and another site?
and how do you justify it?

[ParisEye]

Quote from: Arian on Yesterday
We have had some pressure from the buyers side to make this possible or else they will turn to sites like these below to name a few where photos are all without watermark:

http://www.alamy.com/
http://www.sxc.hu/
http://www.johner.se


Alamy is planning to introduce watermark soon. They made some test and it currently slow the searches but as soon as this problem is solved, every picture there will have a watermark. I don't know the two others.

[PecoFoto]

I think MostPhotos need to take drastic action  - ditch the voting system and the comments, cull all the photographs that are not technically good enough at 100% and employ reviewers to maintain technical quality.

The site looks more like RedBubble than Alamy or Johner.  I think they need to decide if they're an art gallery that sells photographs or a stock photography agency.

[mwp1969]

All,

Right now I am experimenting with sending certain images only to MostPhotos. While these images that I will put up on MostPhotos are not "exlusive" images by their definition (probably should be "Sell The Rights") they will be sold at their RF prices and nowhere else. I plan to test around 20% of my portfolio with this midstock only type of strategy. I'll let everyone know if I see any results.

Mark

[mwp1969]

Vikavalter just had a sale on MostPhotos and I received one Euro ($1.59 as of today) for the referral sale 


Mark