Author Topic: How much do you like Istockphoto? (Read 32706 times)

Albert Martin · « **on:** November 16, 2009, 17:06 »

I am not member of istockphoto and I don't plan to become one either. But, considering some words I saw here and there I have very justified reasons to suspect that istockphoto contributors are not very pleased with their administration as well with policies.
So, I'd like to see if I am right or wrong about my suspicion... I know that many of people who have to say anything will stay silent because they are afraid of istock administators wraith. Maybe you who are customers as well you who got bullied there have something to say? Maybe someone isn't afraid?

nruboc · « **Reply #1 on:** November 16, 2009, 17:19 »

Well, of the 10 agencies I've submitted too, I would place them as my tenth favorite.

epantha · « **Reply #2 on:** November 16, 2009, 17:23 »

I like IS just fine.

And they are my top selling agency by far.

vonkara · « **Reply #3 on:** November 16, 2009, 17:24 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on November 16, 2009, 17:06

I know that many of people who have to say anything will stay silent because they are afraid of istock administators wraith. Maybe you who are customers as well you who got bullied there have something to say?

?? Seriously, Istock is not spying their contributors to watch if they say things about them. There is DT and FT who over control their forums, but I don't see where people can be affraid...

Quote from: Albert Martin on November 16, 2009, 17:06

I am not member of istockphoto and I don't plan to become one either. But, considering some words I saw here and there I have very justified reasons to suspect that istockphoto contributors are not very pleased with their administration as well with policies.

They are still the only one where subscription give a good share of the purchase. Also the only one who give me 6$ and more for a full size image. They are picky about image quality but they still have the most sensible reviewers.

I am not affraid of Istock administration. I putted the opt out label on my avatar when they wanted to introduce subs. They finally looked at each posts in the sub thread and made something more equal for contributors...

Except if you had a bad experience with them, I don't see what you mean by their policies. You should put some quotes or links showing what you saw/heard

le_cyclope · « **Reply #4 on:** November 16, 2009, 17:26 »

Well, of the 12 agencies I submit to, iStock counts for 37% of my revenues...

Claude

sharpshot · « **Reply #5 on:** November 16, 2009, 17:30 »

I could write a long list of positives and negatives but I hate typing. The only real reason I am there is because they have big sales volume, it really hurts to take just 20% commission but they are my second highest earning site. They keep adding incentives to go exclusive but their low upload limits made that impossible for me from the start. It is a strange strategy that I have never understood. It would prefer it if they let the higher earners upload more and those with low selling portfolios were penalized.

Just as I was starting to feel more positive about them, they have ruined it with the photos.com fiasco. I just hope the management there know what they are doing, as their strategy with photos.com baffles me.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** November 16, 2009, 17:35 »

Since you're just a troll who won't post their portfolio and has no interest in submitting to microstock, I'm wondering why you are concerned?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/profile/Albert%20Martin/?sa=showPosts

"Hopefully I will retain my sales on macros due to my production isn't so cheap as most of what I saw on micros. I might upload some of my crap-shots and tests on micros, just to see how it goes ;-)"

Anyways...

"I have very justified reasons to suspect that istockphoto contributors are not very pleased with their administration as well with policies. So, I'd like to see if I am right or wrong about my suspicion"

So, great, you have a buddy who had a bad experience with something. You will probably run into another person or two who had a bad experience in some sense here. I don't know what that proves to you, but if you want to feel right, it probably doesn't matter what anyone says, so go ahead and feel right.

loop · « **Reply #7 on:** November 16, 2009, 17:50 »

For me IS is rigth. The only agency that sells subs without harming the contributor, the creator of the concept of microstock... and a decent site that works fine for me, as exclusive. I have my own private grudges too, but, being private, I will keep them private.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 16, 2009, 18:32 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 16, 2009, 17:35

Since you're just a troll who won't post their portfolio and has no interest in submitting to microstock, I'm wondering why you are concerned?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/profile/Albert%20Martin/?sa=showPosts

"Hopefully I will retain my sales on macros due to my production isn't so cheap as most of what I saw on micros. I might upload some of my crap-shots and tests on micros, just to see how it goes ;-)"

Anyways...

"I have very justified reasons to suspect that istockphoto contributors are not very pleased with their administration as well with policies. So, I'd like to see if I am right or wrong about my suspicion"

So, great, you have a buddy who had a bad experience with something. You will probably run into another person or two who had a bad experience in some sense here. I don't know what that proves to you, but if you want to feel right, it probably doesn't matter what anyone says, so go ahead and feel right.

I agree with Sean. No one really goes out and says "I love this agency". They will mostly post bad news about it or bad experiences. There is a bias in favour of the negative.

KB · « **Reply #9 on:** November 16, 2009, 18:42 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on November 16, 2009, 18:32

Quote from: sjlocke on November 16, 2009, 17:35
Since you're just a troll who won't post their portfolio and has no interest in submitting to microstock, I'm wondering why you are concerned?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/profile/Albert%20Martin/?sa=showPosts

"Hopefully I will retain my sales on macros due to my production isn't so cheap as most of what I saw on micros. I might upload some of my crap-shots and tests on micros, just to see how it goes ;-)"

Anyways...

"I have very justified reasons to suspect that istockphoto contributors are not very pleased with their administration as well with policies. So, I'd like to see if I am right or wrong about my suspicion"

So, great, you have a buddy who had a bad experience with something. You will probably run into another person or two who had a bad experience in some sense here. I don't know what that proves to you, but if you want to feel right, it probably doesn't matter what anyone says, so go ahead and feel right.

I agree with Sean. No one really goes out and says "I love this agency". They will mostly post bad news about it or bad experiences. There is a bias in favour of the negative.

Well, I am not afraid, and I will say it: I love this agency. :-)

That doesn't mean I love everything about them. But they are my #1 earner, and for me, as a relatively low producer, 15-20 images / week is fine. I can understand how it's a major obstacle for some, though.

One thing I really appreciate about them is the relatively high quality of the reviewers, and the Scout system for when the quality fails.

I don't love the 20% commission rate, but as a seller, I love the bottom line. Their prices are higher (which is bad for buyers), but they sink the money into ads and infrastructure which helps grow the business. Their higher prices mean, even though I get just a measly 20%, I'm still getting as much or more per sale than at other agencies.

I'm also not afraid to say I really hate what they did with StockXpert. All they needed to do to keep me happy was give me my same, already indecent, $0.30/sale that I was getting. Well, they can keep their nickel -- and the quarter, because they won't be giving it to me.

cthoman · « **Reply #10 on:** November 16, 2009, 19:34 »

I'm also a big fan of istock. Sure, I've had my little quibbles here and there, but in the end I think they're one of the best. I'd probably go exclusive there if they were closer to 50% of my income, but it is usually around 30%.

lisafx · « **Reply #11 on:** November 16, 2009, 19:56 »

Quote from: KB on November 16, 2009, 18:42

I'm also not afraid to say I really hate what they did with StockXpert. All they needed to do to keep me happy was give me my same, already indecent, $0.30/sale that I was getting. Well, they can keep their nickel -- and the quarter, because they won't be giving it to me.

Yeah, I have been really disappointed about this too. I would have been perfectly happy to opt in my images for .30.

Like other posters in this thread, Istock is my #1 earner with roughly 40% of my earnings. Next highest earner is under 20%. I like making money

I like Istock's administration, excellent customer service, and consistent reviewers. I also really like their profile page and the way they make it easy for us to put up an individualized storefront, of sorts. Plus they were my first site, so there is some residual loyalty because of that.

What I don't like is the fickleness of their best match. It's great when I am up, but the downturns seem arbitrary and fairly extreme, even after the BM2 and keyword weighting were supposed to stabilize things. Istock also has the most site slowdowns and outages and most bothersome upload process of any micro I contribute to.

So to sum it up overall I like them, but I think there is definitely room for improvement.

stockastic · « **Reply #12 on:** November 16, 2009, 20:24 »

PITA. Way too hard to submit, too many hoops, their 'controlled vocabulary' means no 'concept' shots. They do sell a lot of images.

FD · « **Reply #13 on:** November 16, 2009, 20:52 »

November, 2009: $8.27 royalties
I only sell 2-5 years old crap there.
Although I have a good acceptance ratio on my newest images, they simply don't sell. They fall right into oblivion in the search engine after acceptance. So for November, even StockXpert made me more.
Istock is great, but we obviously don't match.

helix7 · « **Reply #14 on:** November 16, 2009, 23:08 »

istock has the most buggy, problem-ridden site in microstock. It is down or otherwise disabled more than any other microstock site I work with, and in fact the site was unusable just this morning for a couple of hours. They reject more of my images than any other agency, and they have the most time-consuming upload process.

istock is also the most profitable site I work with, accounts for 30-40% of my monthly earnings in microstock, and the site is so buggy and prone to problems because they also have the most robust search functions and site features. Technologically the site is leaps and bounds ahead of most other microstock sites, although I've always wished the site functioned more like the Getty site when comes to searching and overall buyer experience. And average earnings per sale at istock are higher than anywhere else.

istock has it's ups and downs, and the site bugs and glitches are very frustrating. But the problems with istock are the result of the company pushing the limits of the site and wanting to make it the best it can be. And at the end of the month, istock is always at the top of my earnings spreadsheet.

Fran · « **Reply #15 on:** November 17, 2009, 06:17 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on November 16, 2009, 20:52

November, 2009: $8.27 royalties
I only sell 2-5 years old crap there.
Although I have a good acceptance ratio on my newest images, they simply don't sell. They fall right into oblivion in the search engine after acceptance. So for November, even StockXpert made me more.
Istock is great, but we obviously don't match.

Same for me, I like them, very professional, I like the reviews... It just doesbt sell my stuff, not that I ever claimed it was worth to be sold

travelstock · « **Reply #16 on:** November 17, 2009, 06:37 »

While its easy to complain about Istock, for many they are a good, reliable source of income. Sure there are fluctuations with the best match, but that's true of all sites.

At the moment sales there are particularly strong... no reason to complain.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #17 on:** November 17, 2009, 06:50 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 16, 2009, 17:35

Since you're just a troll who won't post their portfolio and has no interest in submitting to microstock, I'm wondering why you are concerned?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/profile/Albert%20Martin/?sa=showPosts

"Hopefully I will retain my sales on macros due to my production isn't so cheap as most of what I saw on micros. I might upload some of my crap-shots and tests on micros, just to see how it goes ;-)"

Anyways...

"I have very justified reasons to suspect that istockphoto contributors are not very pleased with their administration as well with policies. So, I'd like to see if I am right or wrong about my suspicion"

So, great, you have a buddy who had a bad experience with something. You will probably run into another person or two who had a bad experience in some sense here. I don't know what that proves to you, but if you want to feel right, it probably doesn't matter what anyone says, so go ahead and feel right.

Hey dude... keep calm and stay on topic.... I asked about istock - not about trolls ;-)

Allsa · « **Reply #18 on:** November 17, 2009, 07:37 »

iStock used to make me crazy the way they would accept marginal images into my portfolio, and then reject my best work. But that frustration was resolved when they fixed the Scout system. Now that I know my best images won't be randomly consigned to oblivion, I'm happy with iStock. I like the way the reviewers will work with you, and let you fix and resubmit; this has helped me to improve the quality of my work. They are also my highest earning site, and the best paying for subscriptions.

Tim Markley · « **Reply #19 on:** November 17, 2009, 07:47 »

I've been with Istock since 2004 it has always been my top earner and generally easy to work with. While I find the upload process tedious I can't complain with results. The reviewers are good as well.

cathyslife · « **Reply #20 on:** November 17, 2009, 09:01 »

Quote

istock has the most buggy, problem-ridden site in microstock. It is down or otherwise disabled more than any other microstock site I work with, and in fact the site was unusable just this morning for a couple of hours. They reject more of my images than any other agency, and they have the most time-consuming upload process.

istock is also the most profitable site I work with, accounts for 30-40% of my monthly earnings in microstock, and the site is so buggy and prone to problems because they also have the most robust search functions and site features. Technologically the site is leaps and bounds ahead of most other microstock sites, although I've always wished the site functioned more like the Getty site when comes to searching and overall buyer experience. And average earnings per sale at istock are higher than anywhere else.

istock has it's ups and downs, and the site bugs and glitches are very frustrating. But the problems with istock are the result of the company pushing the limits of the site and wanting to make it the best it can be. And at the end of the month, istock is always at the top of my earnings spreadsheet.

My sentiments exactly.

iclick · « **Reply #21 on:** November 28, 2009, 04:14 »

Okay what I like about istockphoto is that my Downloads are healthy and consistent regardless of the occasional curv ball which is thrown usually with non Exclusives taking the hit. I do wish IS was more supportive of ALL Contributers

disorderly · « **Reply #22 on:** November 28, 2009, 10:04 »

What do I like about iStock? They've been a consistent performer for me, earning around 20% of my microstock income and behind only Shutterstock in that regard. What I don't like: their upload process (lack of FTP, disambiguation, the changing rules regarding model releases), their upload limits, and their payout percentages. My port on other sites is twice as big as on iStock, and combined with a more equitable percentage, how much more could I be making? Still, what I do make keeps me coming back. And no one seems likely to challenge them for that #2 spot.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #23 on:** November 28, 2009, 10:14 »

Quote from: iclick on November 28, 2009, 04:14

Okay what I like about istockphoto is that my Downloads are healthy and consistent regardless of the occasional curv ball which is thrown usually with non Exclusives taking the hit. I do wish IS was more supportive of ALL Contributers

Yup... It is very huge problem there. Exclusives are inspectors and they decide what is stock and what isn't regarding to that what THEY have in their own portfolios. So if they see anything even far similar to their work or to their fellow inspectors they just reject it as not for stock... That is called abusing power to protect their positions. Also, they seems to work as team and that is what is wrong there.

How I know that? Well I can say that I am very well informed person of what is going on where ;-)
I know many people doing stock as well those on micros too... They all have very great experience when combined on one place.

Where Inspectors should be objective they aren't due to that they are also submitters... That is wrong there! With having such organization there will be always biases and not logical consequences on anyone who isn't part of inspectors team!

So, just upload there and boost your inspectors earnings - I won't!

sgcallaway1994 · « **Reply #24 on:** November 28, 2009, 12:12 »

I'm bugged by the simple fact that SOOO many of my imags get refused for artifacting! I look at them at 100%, but darnned if I can see what they are talking about.

That being said, I LOVE the fact my images accepted there sell like crazy. I have less than 50 photos in my portfolio, but I've had at least double that in sales! I've even made it to payout, which is very unfathomable with such a small portfolio.

My only wish is to have more of my images accepted so I could build my sales.

Graffoto · « **Reply #25 on:** November 28, 2009, 12:16 »

I liked IS enough that I went exclusive. 'Nuff said.

lisafx · « **Reply #26 on:** November 28, 2009, 14:38 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on November 28, 2009, 10:14

Yup... It is very huge problem there. Exclusives are inspectors and they decide what is stock and what isn't regarding to that what THEY have in their own portfolios. So if they see anything even far similar to their work or to their fellow inspectors they just reject it as not for stock... That is called abusing power to protect their positions. Also, they seems to work as team and that is what is wrong there.

Sorry, I am afraid I can't agree with this. I am a non-exclusive and I have managed to maintain over a 90% acceptance rate with istock. I shoot a lot of very commonplace subjects that I am sure one or probably several inspectors have also covered.

I have speculated there may possibly be a small bias in favor of exclusives on borderline images (though I don't know this for a fact), but to be honest I think that would be justified because exclusives have no other RF outlet.

Overall one of the things I most LIKE about istock is the consistency of it's inspections. Frankly it would be nice if all sites' reviews were as reasonable as Istock's.

KB · « **Reply #27 on:** November 28, 2009, 16:42 »

Quote from: lisafx on November 28, 2009, 14:38

Overall one of the things I most LIKE about istock is the consistency of it's inspections. Frankly it would be nice if all sites' reviews were as reasonable as Istock's.

Amen, Amen, AMEN!

Albert Martin · « **Reply #28 on:** November 28, 2009, 17:04 »

Amen indeed ;-)

dbvirago · « **Reply #29 on:** November 28, 2009, 17:16 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on November 16, 2009, 17:06

I am not member of istockphoto and I don't plan to become one either. But, considering some words I saw here and there I have very justified reasons to suspect that istockphoto contributors are not very pleased with their administration as well with policies.
So, I'd like to see if I am right or wrong about my suspicion... I know that many of people who have to say anything will stay silent because they are afraid of istock administators wraith. Maybe you who are customers as well you who got bullied there have something to say? Maybe someone isn't afraid?

I've read this several times and I still can't quite follow. You want to know if people aren't happy with a site that you aren't going to join? I'm not going to paint my house green. How does everyone feel about green?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #30 on:** November 28, 2009, 17:50 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on November 28, 2009, 10:14

Yup... It is very huge problem there. Exclusives are inspectors and they decide what is stock and what isn't regarding to that what THEY have in their own portfolios. So if they see anything even far similar to their work or to their fellow inspectors they just reject it as not for stock... That is called abusing power to protect their positions. Also, they seems to work as team and that is what is wrong there.

How I know that? Well I can say that I am very well informed person of what is going on where ;-)
I know many people doing stock as well those on micros too... They all have very great experience when combined on one place.

Sorry Albert, but you're just full of it. Your conspiracy theories don't hold water.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #31 on:** November 28, 2009, 22:01 »

There is no agency that every contributors will like. We often see topics about bad things that agencies do to us, so I am sure that any answer you are going to find here won't be relevant.
But, it would be nice of you if you could be honest and tell as the truth behind your story. Why would anybody want to know what we like/dislike about IS if that person doesn't want to have any business with IS. I consider myself very curious person, but still, I don't care what anybody here thinks about any agency I'm not, and I don't plan to be with.
Maybe we could help you if we know what really bothers you.

mwp1969 · « **Reply #32 on:** November 28, 2009, 23:38 »

The 15 image upload limit is very restrictive. This hurts me as I currently appx. 400+ image backlog waiting to be uploaded into their queue.

On the upside my sales on my small portfolio of images have been growing. Each of the my last three months has been higher than the preceding month.

In comparision:

My SS Portfolio: 485
My IS Portfolio: 35 (Application approved at the end of April)

I will keep uploading there as fast as the upload restrictions will allow ...

-Mark

FD · « **Reply #33 on:** November 29, 2009, 01:36 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 28, 2009, 17:50

Quote from: Albert Martin on November 28, 2009, 10:14
Yup... It is very huge problem there. Exclusives are inspectors and they decide what is stock and what isn't regarding to that what THEY have in their own portfolios. So if they see anything even far similar to their work or to their fellow inspectors they just reject it as not for stock... That is called abusing power to protect their positions. Also, they seems to work as team and that is what is wrong there.

How I know that? Well I can say that I am very well informed person of what is going on where ;-)
I know many people doing stock as well those on micros too... They all have very great experience when combined on one place.

Sorry Albert, but you're just full of it. Your conspiracy theories don't hold water.

Milinz is back.

eppic · « **Reply #34 on:** November 29, 2009, 02:30 »

Istock accounts for over half of my earnings, so I like Istock for that reason.

FD · « **Reply #35 on:** November 29, 2009, 05:17 »

Quote from: eppic on November 29, 2009, 02:30

Istock accounts for over half of my earnings, so I like Istock for that reason.

SS earned me 3x as much as IS, and DT 2.4x as much, so I love them all, but not in the same amount

LostOne · « **Reply #36 on:** November 29, 2009, 05:34 »

Quote from: sgcallaway1994 on November 28, 2009, 12:12

I'm bugged by the simple fact that SOOO many of my imags get refused for artifacting! I look at them at 100%, but darnned if I can see what they are talking about.

Same here, just had 3 from the batch declined for that reason. It's funny to read their instructions about jpeg compression and stuff like that especially if you shoot a studio picture in raw mode, ISO 100, with just tiny ammount of contrast boost and only saving the picture in jpg as the final step. Looks like my camera produces artifacting out of the box

Appart from that and troublesome upload procedures I quite like IS. Earns a lot of money even with less images online

ShadySue · « **Reply #37 on:** November 29, 2009, 05:46 »

I'm currently exclusive, though my sales have been in freefall all year. E.g. this is my best month of the year, and my downloads are 30% below Nov 07 and over 50% below Nov '08. so I may have to revisit - if only time weren't so much of an issue.
However, what I dislike most is the doublespeak, for example, on the enticement to become exclusive, it says:
"Protection and resolution
Exclusivity makes it easier for us to protect our contributors. We can better enforce compliance issues when we know an image came from us and must follow our licensing agreement."

However, in the actual badly-written, ambiguous and obfuscating Exclusivity Agreement, it says:

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, given the exigencies of the stock photography business and the prevalence of royalty-free content, iStockphoto cannot take responsibility for the compliance by purchasers and licensees of the terms of such agreements. Accordingly, you acknowledge and agree to the possibility of Exclusive Content being used in a manner that is not contemplated in this Agreement or the Content License Agreement or any distribution partner license agreement, and you agree that notwithstanding any rights you may have to pursue the licensees of such Exclusive Content at law, iStockphoto shall have no liability to you or any person claiming through you for any breach by a licensee of the terms of any agreement respecting Accepted Exclusive Content."

So basically, if someone uses one of your models and portrays them as a member of the British National Party (as has happened) or the KKK (nearest US equivalent, which AFAIK, hasn't happened), any legal case is on your own and at your own expense, even if exclusive.

IMO, that is grossly misleading (the 'enticement' vis a vis the actuality) and unfair - and basically gives buyers carte blanche knowing that individuals are unlikely to have the wherewithal to pursue. I have heard of cease and desists for inappropriate web uses, but what happens if, as in the BNP scenario, the photo is distributed in print to thousands of homes?

sharpshot · « **Reply #38 on:** November 29, 2009, 06:13 »

I love these internet conspiracy theories, 99.9% are wrong but people still believe in them. In my experience, there are categories of images that istock don't like, they sometimes seem to check images at 400% to find problems that aren't really there but I have never felt that there is a bias towards exclusives from the reviewers. I sometimes disagree with reviews on most sites and I like the istock scout system. If an image is rejected by scout, there is almost certainly something wrong with it or it isn't something istock are interested in.

There are lots of things I don't like about istock, the 20% commission probably being the big one but it looks like Albert is the biased one here, not the istock inspectors.

FD · « **Reply #39 on:** November 29, 2009, 09:42 »

Quote from: sharpshot on November 29, 2009, 06:13

...but it looks like Albert is the biased one here, not the istock inspectors.

If I got it right, "Albert" is not even a member of, let alone an uploader to iStock. How then he can judge about rejection reasons and practices on that site?

lisafx · « **Reply #40 on:** November 29, 2009, 11:55 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 29, 2009, 05:46

However, what I dislike most is the doublespeak, for example, on the enticement to become exclusive, it says:
"Protection and resolution
Exclusivity makes it easier for us to protect our contributors. We can better enforce compliance issues when we know an image came from us and must follow our licensing agreement."

However, in the actual badly-written, ambiguous and obfuscating Exclusivity Agreement, it says:

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, given the exigencies of the stock photography business and the prevalence of royalty-free content, iStockphoto cannot take responsibility for the compliance by purchasers and licensees of the terms of such agreements. Accordingly, you acknowledge and agree to the possibility of Exclusive Content being used in a manner that is not contemplated in this Agreement or the Content License Agreement or any distribution partner license agreement, and you agree that notwithstanding any rights you may have to pursue the licensees of such Exclusive Content at law, iStockphoto shall have no liability to you or any person claiming through you for any breach by a licensee of the terms of any agreement respecting Accepted Exclusive Content."

I am totally stunned by this. You are right, Sue - the ability to enforce license compliance and protect your images from misuse has been touted by Istock for years as a major reason to be exclusive.

If the exclusivity contract itself negates that protection it diminishes the attractiveness of exclusivity quite a lot in my eyes.

I have already had to fight my legal battles over misuse of an istock image, but at least I have the extra income from being independent (20% over what I would make as a diamond exclusive) to pay the legal costs.

abimages · « **Reply #41 on:** November 30, 2009, 11:42 »

Quote from: KB on November 28, 2009, 16:42

Quote from: lisafx on November 28, 2009, 14:38
Overall one of the things I most LIKE about istock is the consistency of it's inspections. Frankly it would be nice if all sites' reviews were as reasonable as Istock's.
Amen, Amen, AMEN!

Gotta agree with this! Plus their support are the most professional and helpful I have come across.

Dan · « **Reply #42 on:** November 30, 2009, 16:49 »

Haven't made it in yet. Maybe my next batch will be accepted. Sounds like a great place.

le_cyclope · « **Reply #43 on:** November 30, 2009, 18:14 »

Quote from: lisafx on November 29, 2009, 11:55

Quote from: ShadySue on November 29, 2009, 05:46

However, what I dislike most is the doublespeak, for example, on the enticement to become exclusive, it says:
"Protection and resolution
Exclusivity makes it easier for us to protect our contributors. We can better enforce compliance issues when we know an image came from us and must follow our licensing agreement."

However, in the actual badly-written, ambiguous and obfuscating Exclusivity Agreement, it says:

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, given the exigencies of the stock photography business and the prevalence of royalty-free content, iStockphoto cannot take responsibility for the compliance by purchasers and licensees of the terms of such agreements. Accordingly, you acknowledge and agree to the possibility of Exclusive Content being used in a manner that is not contemplated in this Agreement or the Content License Agreement or any distribution partner license agreement, and you agree that notwithstanding any rights you may have to pursue the licensees of such Exclusive Content at law, iStockphoto shall have no liability to you or any person claiming through you for any breach by a licensee of the terms of any agreement respecting Accepted Exclusive Content."

I am totally stunned by this. You are right, Sue - the ability to enforce license compliance and protect your images from misuse has been touted by Istock for years as a major reason to be exclusive.

If the exclusivity contract itself negates that protection it diminishes the attractiveness of exclusivity quite a lot in my eyes.

I have already had to fight my legal battles over misuse of an istock image, but at least I have the extra income from being independent (20% over what I would make as a diamond exclusive) to pay the legal costs.

I think that there is no contradictions in these two statements. In the first, IS states that they will do their best to defend its contributors.

But in no ways, IS should be held responsable in case of a buyer mis-using a photo. I think that there is a huge difference betwen helping someone against a «fraud» and being «responsable» for that fraud.

So the question is: How much help will IS provide accordingly to their first statement?

Claude

lisafx · « **Reply #44 on:** December 01, 2009, 12:17 »

Quote from: le_cyclope on November 30, 2009, 18:14

I think that there is a huge difference betwen helping someone against a «fraud» and being «responsable» for that fraud.

So the question is: How much help will IS provide accordingly to their first statement?

Good point Claude. Would be interesting to hear from exclusives who have had usage issues as to how much help IS provided.

ericfoltz · « **Reply #45 on:** December 01, 2009, 15:58 »

I used to submit to multiple agencies with IS consistently outselling them all combined.

I went exclusive back in 2007 and IS provided 40% of my income with print sales making up the other 60%.

With the collapse of the Art market last year, IS has made up 90% of my income for over a year now and my royalties have been increasing steadily since I joined.

Sorry, but I'm a loyal exclusive.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #46 on:** December 01, 2009, 18:05 »

Quote from: ericfoltz on December 01, 2009, 15:58

I used to submit to multiple agencies with IS consistently outselling them all combined.

I went exclusive back in 2007 and IS provided 40% of my income with print sales making up the other 60%.

With the collapse of the Art market last year, IS has made up 90% of my income for over a year now and my royalties have been increasing steadily since I joined.

Sorry, but I'm a loyal exclusive.

It is nice to see someone loyal these days indeed.
I just said my own opinion based on other people experience - most of them are not exclusive and some of them are exclusive on iStock.

Anyway, I love my macro outlets and am making very nice few figures and much higher royalty percentage a year with much lower quantity of sales than many microstockers.

BImages · « **Reply #47 on:** December 01, 2009, 18:10 »

If Istock was not there, I would have to work 40hrs a week for someone else. For less money...

Albert Martin · « **Reply #48 on:** December 01, 2009, 18:27 »

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on December 01, 2009, 18:10

If Istock was not there, I would have to work 40hrs a week for someone else. For less money...

Are you sure? Why you didn't tried Corbis or Alamy? I love them ;-)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #49 on:** December 01, 2009, 19:06 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on December 01, 2009, 18:27

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on December 01, 2009, 18:10
If Istock was not there, I would have to work 40hrs a week for someone else. For less money...

Are you sure? Why you didn't tried Corbis or Alamy? I love them ;-)

Yeah, I love reading the Alamy forums where guys with portfolios of 5,000 pictures get 5 $90 sales a month.

gostwyck · « **Reply #50 on:** December 01, 2009, 22:54 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on December 01, 2009, 18:27

Are you sure? Why you didn't tried Corbis or Alamy? I love them ;-)

Actually, based on the last quarter they published, Alamy generates about 1/10th of the commission (paid to the contributor) per image/year compared to IS. The revenue graphs are going in dramatically different directions too. How much longer can Alamy survive with it's current business model? All Corbis ever admit is that they've lost more of Bill's money every year that they've been operating and it's reasonable to assume that they're not immune to the current economic climate.

BImages · « **Reply #51 on:** December 03, 2009, 11:05 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on December 01, 2009, 18:27

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on December 01, 2009, 18:10
If Istock was not there, I would have to work 40hrs a week for someone else. For less money...

Are you sure? Why you didn't tried Corbis or Alamy? I love them ;-)

From what I saw in others forums, the average revenues per picture for those two, are pretty low.

stockastic · « **Reply #52 on:** December 03, 2009, 16:24 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 01, 2009, 19:06

Yeah, I love reading the Alamy forums where guys with portfolios of 5,000 pictures get 5 $90 sales a month.

And then I start thinking how long it would take me to upsize 5000 photos to 50 mb, and upload them - even if I had 5000 photos.

For a tiny microstock minnow like myself, Alamy is just a giant haystack to which I would submit a few needles.

lisafx · « **Reply #53 on:** December 03, 2009, 16:41 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 01, 2009, 19:06

Yeah, I love reading the Alamy forums where guys with portfolios of 5,000 pictures get 5 $90 sales a month.

Too funny. I don't post in the Alamy forums, but this EXACTLY describes my situation with them - 5k pictures and roughly five sales a month. Of which at least three are under $100.

Could be because much of my Alamy port is already on the micros, or because I don't have any RM, or because their buyers just don't like my stuff. Who knows?

sharpshot · « **Reply #54 on:** December 03, 2009, 17:26 »

But there are also people with 5,000 images who make more than anyone does with microstock and every now and then you see someone who makes $10,000 selling one image. It is a bit like doing the lottery, most people wont make much but some hit the jackpot.

I also think alamy does well with images that wont make much on the microstock sites and they don't do as well with good microstock images. This should be good for us, a completely different market to get in to.

madelaide · « **Reply #55 on:** December 04, 2009, 18:37 »

It's fun that everytime I see these discussions "macro vs micro", I have the impression people want macros to go down, so they can say "See, I was right".

Suljo · « **Reply #56 on:** December 04, 2009, 22:19 »

Eh lets see this first

From Albert Martin
Quote from: Albert Martin on November 28, 2009, 10:14

Yup... It is very huge problem there. Exclusives are inspectors and they decide what is stock and what isn't regarding to that what THEY have in their own portfolios. So if they see anything even far similar to their work or to their fellow inspectors they just reject it as not for stock... That is called abusing power to protect their positions. Also, they seems to work as team and that is what is wrong there.

and Lisas and Sheans observations

From Lisa
Sorry, I am afraid I can't agree with this. I am a non-exclusive and I have managed to maintain over a 90% acceptance rate with istock. I shoot a lot of very commonplace subjects that I am sure one or probably several inspectors have also covered....

From Shean
Sorry Albert, but you're just full of it. Your conspiracy theories don't hold water.

I can say that Albert is right in some sense. It is not problems with photo images, it is problem with vector and 3D files which you booth dont have in you port or you have but they are too old when limits are been down from today way of quality.

I dont know if I can prove that. I have my best selling vector background which I signed under Microstokgroup banner on Istok for promoting community. After that I make first similar and after that upgraded version of that lets say concept and all of that are rejected of reason of:
We're sorry, but we found the overall composition of this file lacking visual impact and therefore not suitable as stock. With the rapid growth... bla bla

What you will you think after that?

I think that my file is somehow in row between files of exlusives who send similar concept an reviewer clicking Yes, yes, yes... ups ... bah let it live than yes yes. Or some of major Vector Gonzos are on some of Stokalypses so new green reviewer give me pass.

I really dont know why they are doing that because they earn 80% of my image sold?!

For photo concepts I am not so shure but I think there is more perfid ways to reject photos because there is very thin border between overfitered an overuse of noise software...

I dont want to speak about conspiracy as Shean spoke but some is very very smelly there.
Any how I realize that they earn me 20% of all sites and thats it, and I dont bother and waste time in they noncoinstency.

One time I send complain to one image when I get some stupid rejection. After that two weeks are passed for answer EG...
reviewer is mispeled something but unfortunately we reject you sht....
After that I dont use this "fabulous" option for complaining.

What else to say about?
Aaa bugy upload and reset after more than 50 keywords when you loose 10 mins of you life time.

No readings from ITPC data from vector files even they are on submitted jpeg file?!

They Forum? Haha is that forum? Max forum thread is long 2 or 3 pages with xxxx similars because after answer on one question thread is locked? Best is when they try to redirect you on other locked thread in which is no answer too.

Too fckin small and nonresizable window for keywords.

Licking with thirdpart application like DeepMeta which is always in Anfa, Beta Phase and after that that UltraFinalBetaShita is not developed for my OS???

Experimenting to educate buyers how to buy with best match, best match 2 or etc...

What else to say? My Liebe iStock

Take it or leave it...

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #57 on:** December 12, 2009, 01:10 »

Hi All,

Please remember who they are. Alamy is not considered to be anything close to an RM /RF Macro site of any value in this industry so they are a terrible example of sales for these markets. I don't have a single image there neither do any of the photographers I know that submit to Macro. Not to my knowledge at least.
Corbis cannot be grouped with the likes of Alamy they are an entirely different animal.If I had a stock agency and was looking to sell through it as a distributor Alamy wouldn't even be on the list.
I agree Madelaide. There was a time when Macro photographers were the angry vengeful ones, seems the tables have turned a bit. It also seems impossible to get these two camps together. Its a shame.

Best,
Jonathan

RacePhoto · « **Reply #58 on:** December 12, 2009, 03:25 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 03, 2009, 16:41

Quote from: sjlocke on December 01, 2009, 19:06
Yeah, I love reading the Alamy forums where guys with portfolios of 5,000 pictures get 5 $90 sales a month.

Too funny. I don't post in the Alamy forums, but this EXACTLY describes my situation with them - 5k pictures and roughly five sales a month. Of which at least three are under $100.

Could be because much of my Alamy port is already on the micros, or because I don't have any RM, or because their buyers just don't like my stuff. Who knows?

So you are complaining because you make $500 a month there, $100 a download average, with the same photos that get $1.50 a download on Micro? (humor intended)

Below is not directed at you Lisa, it's continuing the thread.

I don't know why this discussion comes up once a month, but you and I know that Alamy is not Macro and it's not Micro. What anyone sells there may not even get accepted on Micro, and many of us can't get in the door at Corbis or Getty. Alamy is a middle option, with an open door policy, as far as I can see it.

Some people have hundreds of images and time wasted uploading to sites that don't even make the forum here. What's the difference, those sites down the list are just as bad. One to four downloads a month for a buck. In which case, if they had the same images up on Alamy and made one sale a year, would be making more money. Of course they would have to blow them up to 48MB which may be why so many don't try there. Maybe I'm reading some sour grapes? Just like the old timers who can't get accepted on micro sites, because of the strict standards, some micro shooters can't seem to grasp that Alamy is not a volume proposition.

For me I sell my Editorial material exclusively on Alamy and the same files will never be on any micro site. I didn't pick the name Racephoto because I shoot racy photos.

Odd co-incidence, nothing I sell on Micro sites gets uploaded to Alamy. (maybe a couple, but generally, no RF crossovers)

They are different markets, and I'll risk repeating the obvious. Alamy is not Microstock! The buyers are different, the market is different and what sells is different.

RPI is only one measure and the people who keep pushing that, don't always look at dollars per sale, which suddenly Alamy cleans house. If we are going to compare apples to oranges, lets look at the bottom line. How much do they cost per pound? In other words, how many dollars does any agency bring in per year, not how it gets to that total.

lisafx · « **Reply #59 on:** December 12, 2009, 11:20 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 12, 2009, 03:25

So you are complaining because you make $500 a month there, $100 a download average, with the same photos that get $1.50 a download on Micro? (humor intended)

Not at all! On a $ per sale basis I still come out way ahead.

Just for clarification, though, that hypothetical $500/month would be gross sales. My take from that would be $300 if they were all Alamy sales and no partner sales. Which never happens.

About half the sales I get are partner sales, so from $500 gross sales a month I actually get somewhere in the $260 range. Which is just barely enough for a payout. That puts Alamy just level with the bottom tier of micros I consider it worth contributing to. Worthwhile, to be sure, but somewhat of a disappointment.

And of course you are absolutely right about the fact that all my images on Alamy are RF and most are also available in micro being a likely culprit for my low sales there.

FWIW I wasn't complaining. Just found it amazing that the hypothetical numbers Sean threw out there were so very close to my own actual numbers.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #60 on:** December 12, 2009, 13:07 »

That's why I put the big

after complaining about making money. None of do usually.

I think we're getting into something out of the ordinary. You have 5000 big photos. How many micro shooters have 200 photos that they could get onto Alamy? Now the numbers start to change. One sale is a big deal. (and yes I know, it takes four or five to cash out) Well on Micro it takes about 100 sales to cash out!

Must be something I'm drinking, but I'd rather get paid $80 per download (which is my actual commission average on Alamy) and get $300 for four sales, than IS, sell 200 photos and get $300 or with SS sell 600 photos and get that same $300. Of course what we want and what we get are two different things.

Everyone is different and depending on what camera and what material they shoot, might do better or worse on Alamy vs Micro.

Just like you are the top end of files and micro, my portfolio is slanted the opposite direction. I think I have between 100 and 200 RF photos on micro now. (been doing some house cleaning, whole different topic) and last I looked over 1300 Editorial on Alamy. Target is 2000 by the end of the year on Alamy. Of course I'm going to do better on Alamy!

What I was trying to get at, for other people is, Alamy is NOT microstock! I wish they would stop comparing RPI micro style, volume stats and look just once at Return Per Download. It's a whole different world.

Alamy will soon have 18 million photos to compete against. They are selling in many cases to a different market. No one is going to pay $120 for a webpage thumbnail or vector! Hundreds of people will pay $3 for an icon or small image. But someone who wants a book cover showing Machu Picchu Peru, or a full page spread, isn't going to a micro site looking for a 2400 x 1600 size image.

I'm not sure I'll ever sell a RF or RM file on Alamy, but so far I'm pleased with the Editorial results.

What we need is someone with more balanced numbers. Something like 500 shots on Micro and 500 on Alamy, and then see how they are doing. We are good examples of BAD examples.

Hey, how much do I like iStock? That was the original question. I'll be answering that in January. But the short answer is, one of the two best micro agencies.

Quote from: lisafx on December 12, 2009, 11:20

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 12, 2009, 03:25

So you are complaining because you make $500 a month there, $100 a download average, with the same photos that get $1.50 a download on Micro? (humor intended)

Not at all! On a $ per sale basis I still come out way ahead.

Just for clarification, though, that hypothetical $500/month would be gross sales. My take from that would be $300 if they were all Alamy sales and no partner sales. Which never happens.

About half the sales I get are partner sales, so from $500 gross sales a month I actually get somewhere in the $260 range. Which is just barely enough for a payout. That puts Alamy just level with the bottom tier of micros I consider it worth contributing to. Worthwhile, to be sure, but somewhat of a disappointment.

And of course you are absolutely right about the fact that all my images on Alamy are RF and most are also available in micro being a likely culprit for my low sales there.

FWIW I wasn't complaining. Just found it amazing that the hypothetical numbers Sean threw out there were so very close to my own actual numbers.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #61 on:** December 13, 2009, 01:59 »

Hi All

If you are going to compare apples to apples when comparing what an RM shooter makes in RPI compared to a Micro shooter you should compare the top two agencies to one another. I think that would be a much more realistic account on the difference of return. Using the two biggest companies for comparison, Istock and Getty Macro.
I am not sure what Istock returns in it's lifetime on an average RPI but Macro RM at Getty pays into the 4 figure range by the time you are done if you know what to shoot. Even an RPI of $400 would blow my Micro sales our of the water.
My third party Macro RF companies are returning me over $50 RPI a year for the past 6 years without any new uploads for 3 years, that's an RPI of $300 in RF without constant uploading and they are still selling at $50 a piece with a 95% acceptance rate on edits. Please let's put aside poor comparisons to make a situation that seems more threatening than ever for todays photographers, it is not true.
Micro is great but so is the real Macro companies for returns its more where you are happy because all three markets make their photographers money. Try it you'll like it. Ask jimmy, he'll eat anything : )

Best,
Jonathan

gostwyck · « **Reply #62 on:** December 13, 2009, 08:51 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on December 13, 2009, 01:59

Hi All

If you are going to compare apples to apples when comparing what an RM shooter makes in RPI compared to a Micro shooter you should compare the top two agencies to one another. I think that would be a much more realistic account on the difference of return. Using the two biggest companies for comparison, Istock and Getty Macro.
I am not sure what Istock returns in it's lifetime on an average RPI but Macro RM at Getty pays into the 4 figure range by the time you are done if you know what to shoot. Even an RPI of $400 would blow my Micro sales our of the water.
My third party Macro RF companies are returning me over $50 RPI a year for the past 6 years without any new uploads for 3 years, that's an RPI of $300 in RF without constant uploading and they are still selling at $50 a piece with a 95% acceptance rate on edits. Please let's put aside poor comparisons to make a situation that seems more threatening than ever for todays photographers, it is not true.
Micro is great but so is the real Macro companies for returns its more where you are happy because all three markets make their photographers money. Try it you'll like it. Ask jimmy, he'll eat anything : )

Best,
Jonathan

Your comparison is unrealistic for a number of reasons. For starters most shooters can't just 'choose' to be part of Getty/Corbis so if the choice isn't there in the first place then any comparison is fairly meaningless. From what I understand, even if you are accepted, then they are much more picky about which images they'll accept __ maybe one or two from a series rather than the 10-20 you might get accepted on the micros. If both options were to produce the same income for example then the macro images would obviously have a much higher RPI but the money in the photographers pocket would still be the same. We have several regular contributors here who are on Getty/elsewhere and none of them report stellar earnings in comparison to what they get on micro.

You are also speaking as if the situation were static __ which it isn't. Both Getty and Alamy have been reporting plummeting sales for some time whilst the micros are booming with no sign of a slowdown yet. IS have just reported that they have 125K new members joining every month. There's only one way the market is heading and it's moving fast.

When you talk about 'lifetime RPI' are you talking gross or net figures? I note that macro shooters always seem to talk in gross terms whereas micro shooters always use net. I've no idea how I am supposed to work out what my 'lifetime RPI on Istock' is as I hope all my images will continue to sell for a long time yet.

There are also several examples of very experienced stock shooters who seem to know what they are doing __ MonkeyBusiness, Yuri, Andres, etc, etc __ who we know have explored all outlets for their images and yet they mainly appear to concentrate their efforts on micro. Why do they do that if other outlets are so much more lucrative? Judging by her sales MonkeyBusiness generated about $200K in her first year on micro and that figure will more than double in this her 2nd year. She's spent most of her lifetime in the industry and is a very astute businesswoman. I can't think why she would be wasting her vast effort and resources, averaging over 850 new images per month, if she wasn't pretty confident where the future of stock lay.

Perry · « **Reply #63 on:** December 13, 2009, 10:32 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 13, 2009, 08:51

Both Getty and Alamy have been reporting plummeting sales for some time whilst the micros are booming with no sign of a slowdown yet. IS have just reported that they have 125K new members joining every month.

Those are both bad things.

Quote from: gostwyck on December 13, 2009, 08:51

When you talk about 'lifetime RPI' are you talking gross or net figures? I note that macro shooters always seem to talk in gross terms whereas micro shooters always use net.

I have a feeling it's the other way around. Many (non-full-time) micro shooters tend to "forget" about their investments in gear, gasoline and hours of work.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #64 on:** December 13, 2009, 12:58 »

Hi Gostwyck,

You said if you are not at a company than the comparison is meaningless, I disagree you don't have to be with an agency when we are talking numbers, strictly numbers. Yuri is now focused on Macro this year big time. Monkey business is about to release something that changes their complete distribution structure to expand. Beside they are a rep, they represent photographers they are not their own photographer, they asked me to join them. I have been in the business much longer than they have by a long shot with personal sales in Macro and I do not split my returns with other photographers like MB does. MB is making a good move but they had to go to representation to make serious money. I make a great deal more than $200k a year by multiples of that number on my own ( not bragging just trying to share a point ) I also said that my acceptance rate is 95% in Macro. They take everything I give them, more than Micro does.
If you have ever read one of my posts here on calculating figures you will find I am one of the biggest advocates out here about talking NET figures, it is more often the Micro guys that don't take the toilet paper into account. I account for even that.
How did I become a Getty shooter or the other thousands of people that shoot for them? Do we posses some special E ticket to the fun park? Nope just hard work, a solid education in photography as well as being highly motivated. You will find the highest payed shooters almost "all" share these three qualities. There are a few that are not formally schooled but it is rare.
I never wrote this as a slam on Micro but like someone said earlier it looks like the Micro people are starting to become just as accusatory as the Macro groups these days. I was just sharing that there are three tiers that work together after there were very poor comparisons made between Macro and Micro by using Alamy which is not even considered as a direct outlet for images by Macro shooters.
Sure I might have photos up there but I didn't put them there one of the distributors might to add to my revenue stream. really please don't be offended and do some studies a lot of this will show I am correct.
Yes there has been a tremendous fall in Macro over the past few years ( due in part to Micro ) from $1500 RPI over lifetime to $400 over lifetime but the return is still much bigger than Micro if you know what to shoot and how to keep your overhead down to a small number. I spend $50 dollars a shot NET and they average $400 NET in their life. I have Macro "RF" photos that have made $14,000 in their life.
If I had produced 3500 new shots for Macro instead of Micro my per image cost would have doubled but my return would more than make up for it. 3500 times 400 equals $1.4 million dollars. I don't expect I will ever see those numbers in Micro from 3500 images, at least not what I have seen in the year+ that I have been involved ( I have made just over 55,000 in the first year at Micro, one dollar per image short of covering my overhead per image on all 3500 images ) that would be an annual RPI somewhere around 15-16 dollars a shot, no where near what Macro returns my efforts. I don't dislike Micro that is why I am here writing and adding images to the market I just wanted to compare apples to apples and show that there are still three healthy tiers for photographers to choose from, it is not a battle between models. Micro might be a good device for selling motion since the use will be almost entirely web based so there are lots of good opportunities in Micro. But more than that, if you like it then that is the best reason of all to stay in your comfort zone
I also looked strongly into Micro adding 3500 images at 10 agencies so I think I probably have a pretty good observation point in all these markets as a private photographer.
One last thing I am co-owner in two Macro sites so I have some great access to numbers in this business from hundreds of photographers right off the spread sheet. This also helps me arrive at my previous statements. I am sorry you disagree. Bad information is not good for anyone.
I will still say it, there is room for all three tiers and this is not a war between those tiers. I am sorry this was not clear. I hoped I was able to make my point a bit more valid.

Best,
Jonathan

PixelBitch · « **Reply #65 on:** December 13, 2009, 14:12 »

Thank you Jonathan, I think this says it all very clearly and succinctly. I agree there is a place for all 3 business models...we all just need to find our place in there.

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on December 13, 2009, 12:58

Hi Gostwyck,

You said if you are not at a company than the comparison is meaningless, I disagree you don't have to be with an agency when we are talking numbers, strictly numbers. Yuri is now focused on Macro this year big time. Monkey business is about to release something that changes their complete distribution structure to expand. Beside they are a rep, they represent photographers they are not their own photographer, they asked me to join them. I have been in the business much longer than they have by a long shot with personal sales in Macro and I do not split my returns with other photographers like MB does. MB is making a good move but they had to go to representation to make serious money. I make a great deal more than $200k a year by multiples of that number on my own ( not bragging just trying to share a point ) I also said that my acceptance rate is 95% in Macro. They take everything I give them, more than Micro does.
If you have ever read one of my posts here on calculating figures you will find I am one of the biggest advocates out here about talking NET figures, it is more often the Micro guys that don't take the toilet paper into account. I account for even that.
How did I become a Getty shooter or the other thousands of people that shoot for them? Do we posses some special E ticket to the fun park? Nope just hard work, a solid education in photography as well as being highly motivated. You will find the highest payed shooters almost "all" share these three qualities. There are a few that are not formally schooled but it is rare.
I never wrote this as a slam on Micro but like someone said earlier it looks like the Micro people are starting to become just as accusatory as the Macro groups these days. I was just sharing that there are three tiers that work together after there were very poor comparisons made between Macro and Micro by using Alamy which is not even considered as a direct outlet for images by Macro shooters.
Sure I might have photos up there but I didn't put them there one of the distributors might to add to my revenue stream. really please don't be offended and do some studies a lot of this will show I am correct.
Yes there has been a tremendous fall in Macro over the past few years ( due in part to Micro ) from $1500 RPI over lifetime to $400 over lifetime but the return is still much bigger than Micro if you know what to shoot and how to keep your overhead down to a small number. I spend $50 dollars a shot NET and they average $400 NET in their life. I have Macro "RF" photos that have made $14,000 in their life.
If I had produced 3500 new shots for Macro instead of Micro my per image cost would have doubled but my return would more than make up for it. 3500 times 400 equals $1.4 million dollars. I don't expect I will ever see those numbers in Micro from 3500 images, at least not what I have seen in the year+ that I have been involved ( I have made just over 55,000 in the first year at Micro, one dollar per image short of covering my overhead per image on all 3500 images ) that would be an annual RPI somewhere around 15-16 dollars a shot, no where near what Macro returns my efforts. I don't dislike Micro that is why I am here writing and adding images to the market I just wanted to compare apples to apples and show that there are still three healthy tiers for photographers to choose from, it is not a battle between models. Micro might be a good device for selling motion since the use will be almost entirely web based so there are lots of good opportunities in Micro. But more than that, if you like it then that is the best reason of all to stay in your comfort zone
I also looked strongly into Micro adding 3500 images at 10 agencies so I think I probably have a pretty good observation point in all these markets as a private photographer.
One last thing I am co-owner in two Macro sites so I have some great access to numbers in this business from hundreds of photographers right off the spread sheet. This also helps me arrive at my previous statements. I am sorry you disagree. Bad information is not good for anyone.
I will still say it, there is room for all three tiers and this is not a war between those tiers. I am sorry this was not clear. I hoped I was able to make my point a bit more valid.

Best,
Jonathan

RacePhoto · « **Reply #66 on:** December 13, 2009, 17:30 »

Quote from: Perry on December 13, 2009, 10:32

Quote from: gostwyck on December 13, 2009, 08:51
Both Getty and Alamy have been reporting plummeting sales for some time whilst the micros are booming with no sign of a slowdown yet. IS have just reported that they have 125K new members joining every month.

Those are both bad things.

That doesn't say photographers it says members on the site.

Micro is showing a sign of slowing down, for the smaller photographers, because the volume of new images is greater so the pie is cut into smaller pieces and more top level photographers are getting more of the sales. New cameras take new photos, larger, better photos. The slow down means that having 500 photos and sitting, the sales will drop even faster than they used to. Feed the beast or watch the sales drop.

Yes micro may be gaining a percentage but leeling off at this point. There's only so much business to take from macro. You can only get one gallon of water from a 1 gallon jug.

How does someone get into Getty or Corbis when they won't even answer an email or application. Come on Jonathan, tell us the secret of hard work getting them to answer an email?

That's why Alamy is better for many people, because waiting for the big two or uploading somewhere else, the Alamy choice will bring in 100% more return.

For some people Alamy is not a good place and they will do better on micro. There is the size requirment and equipment expense. For some people, Macro is not a good place for their photos. People need to think before they imagine that just getting into an agency is an automatic way to make more money. I might be a waste of time.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #67 on:** December 13, 2009, 18:15 »

Why is JJ even submitting to micro if it is so lucrative on the other side?

gostwyck · « **Reply #68 on:** December 13, 2009, 19:03 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 13, 2009, 18:15

Why is JJ even submitting to micro if it is so lucrative on the other side?

I wondered the same thing. He does make it sound as if every image he submits to the micros is effectively lost money/RPI he could have made elsewhere (ergo - why bother?). If I had three different markets for my work then I think I'd choose the one that paid the most.

PixelBitch · « **Reply #69 on:** December 13, 2009, 20:51 »

Like any attentive and sensible businessperson, he is exploring new markets for his images, assessing how much to invest in light of the returns...and whether it is worth it...no different from myself and quite a few other macro guys who have seen our macro RF cash cow starved by micro...

Quote from: sjlocke on December 13, 2009, 18:15

Why is JJ even submitting to micro if it is so lucrative on the other side?

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #70 on:** December 13, 2009, 21:03 »

Hi Gostwyck,

It's a shame that's all you got out of the opinion I offered but I have said it over and over "it's a big mistake stacking all your eggs in one basket" must of written it 20 times on this site already. I am now in the door at a reasonable level at all markets that is where you should be to be safe for the future in an unstable industry. I could not get straight facts without doing R&D in Micro so I did my education on the new emerging business model to see if it fits our work flow. I now have my facts from the past year but things are always changing. I only offered an idea please don't be threatened by it.
The information that was being offered on this site about Macro simply isn't true and you are reacting to my statements like they are personal. If people came on here and started making false comments or inaccurate statements about Micro sales there would be a hail storm.
I am always going to invest in new future markets as most analyzers do when they see a trend. That is all I offered were my facts, or if you like my opinions based on years of studying this industry. Once again you sound angry or threatened that I have offered the idea of a three tiered system, why does it frustrate you so? Who knows what tomorrow will bring but whatever it is I am going to be poised and ready to strike by already doing my homework and having my roots in the ground at all levels. Tell me how that is bad and I will listen.
Race I don't want to re-answer your question since you pm'd me and I already answered it but I admire your asking me the questions you did, that shows initiative and an effort at communication. I hope my advice was a bit helpful, at least you were open to discussion.
As for a couple others please remember what I said in my original statement, or you can just pick the words that you can use against me if that helps. Either way its all good with me. I think I said " What works for you is what matters most " I was just explaining that using Alamy as your example of Macro returns was not comparing apples to apples, I still don't.

Best,
Jonathan

P.S. I take it JJ is some sort of a put down since I have never referred to myself in that term but not to worry it still sounds like a boys name : )

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #71 on:** December 13, 2009, 23:02 »

Again, why waste time submitting to micro if it is so much more profitable to submit to macro. Research is done. Time to stop sending to micro:

"If I had produced 3500 new shots for Macro instead of Micro my per image cost would have doubled but my return would more than make up for it. 3500 times 400 equals $1.4 million dollars. I don't expect I will ever see those numbers in Micro from 3500 images, at least not what I have seen in the year+ that I have been involved ( I have made just over 55,000 in the first year at Micro, one dollar per image short of covering my overhead per image on all 3500 images ) that would be an annual RPI somewhere around 15-16 dollars a shot, no where near what Macro returns my efforts."

bittersweet · « **Reply #72 on:** December 13, 2009, 23:27 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 13, 2009, 23:02

Again, why waste time submitting to micro if it is so much more profitable to submit to macro. Research is done. Time to stop sending to micro:

"If I had produced 3500 new shots for Macro instead of Micro my per image cost would have doubled but my return would more than make up for it. 3500 times 400 equals $1.4 million dollars. I don't expect I will ever see those numbers in Micro from 3500 images, at least not what I have seen in the year+ that I have been involved ( I have made just over 55,000 in the first year at Micro, one dollar per image short of covering my overhead per image on all 3500 images ) that would be an annual RPI somewhere around 15-16 dollars a shot, no where near what Macro returns my efforts."

I could be way off, but wouldn't that number go up the longer the images are available for sale? Like any longer term investment, the profits accrue after the initial expenses have been covered. If he's $1 per image short of his overhead after the first year, and he made 55,000 on his 3,500 images... doesn't that mean that once he makes another $3,500 on those images, that the rest is gravy? Or am I missing something here?

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #73 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:52 »

Thanks Whatalife,

Some people really need things spelled out for them here. But I am happy to do so one more time. I try to make my points very clear but some days I must have trouble on this site. I said that I have planted myself at all levels of the market because you don't know what tomorrow will bring. Diversification not greed will win every time.
Some photographers approach is to back one company that is paying well, like betting on red at the roulette table and hope it keeps coming up red. I really hope it keeps coming up red for those involved in that strategy. I still think it is a risk through my previous experience in this industry and something I wouldn't follow until I absolutely was forced into the position by market change.
Go talk to a business analyst and present my first two emails and see what they say. I never meant them as a threat only to help show what I have learned, it was never a put down on Micro it was an observation from being in all three tiers for a reasonable time now.
If the money continues to grow at Micro I will be in position to start nearer the top rather than back at the bottom when everyone jumps Macro ship. If it doesn't and Micro levels out or slowly drops in sales for legal reasons or just a change in buyers attitudes I will also be in position to cover my family on the other two tiers. I really don't see what is so tough about understanding this strategy.
When I made those 3500 images for Micro I did not know what the return for my style were so I had to do some R&D to find out. I have now found out what I needed to know at little expense. Example: If Istock opens the flood gates for us Macro RF/RM people the direction of top sellers at Istock would change drastically just due to the shear numbers of images that would flood their site. I could add 15,000 photos if I wanted and so could so many others, if the money was there.
Istock would make way more money and people that have been shooting for years in stock would be able to add all their images and start shooting ( exclusive shoots ) for Istock like the entire rest of the industry allows. I believe this doesn't take place because Getty wants us all to stay in our specialized areas for them so they can make the largest return using all three tiers to their best advantage, their reason for buying the company ( Istock only made a portion of Getty's revenue last year, not enough to sustain the entire Getty company ). If Istock let me shoot exclusively I would add that to my collection as well, more diversification. Hope that helps because I am signing off of this topic, I think I said the same more or less now about 3-4 times.

Best,
Jonathan

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #74 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:59 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on December 14, 2009, 12:52

Istock would make way more money and people that have been shooting for years in stock would be able to add all their images and start shooting ( exclusive shoots ) for Istock like the entire rest of the industry allows.

I prefer to keep your 15,000 images out of the collection. That's just me being greedy. Cheers!

ap · « **Reply #75 on:** December 14, 2009, 13:11 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 14, 2009, 12:59

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on December 14, 2009, 12:52
Istock would make way more money and people that have been shooting for years in stock would be able to add all their images and start shooting ( exclusive shoots ) for Istock like the entire rest of the industry allows.

I prefer to keep your 15,000 images out of the collection. That's just me being greedy. Cheers!

jonathan, i absolutely love your macro collection of photos and i'm happy for you that your income there continues to be solid. but to flood the micro market with your images is almost a monopolistic move. if someone like sean feels threatened, what about other microstockers?

by the way, i don't compete in your categories, so it wouldn't affect me personally.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #76 on:** December 26, 2009, 16:41 »

Ok... For the rest of you: Suljo got most of the points i have too!

Most of You think that macro is not worth so as micro? I doubt so because that are different worlds with different buyers... And many other different details.

1. I don't give my portfolio link because I am protecting my work in terms of concepts and ideas.
2. I have successful micro pictures but I won't tell you under which name I am selling.
3. My micro pictures aren't the same as my macro pictures.

Have you tried to upload to Moodboard micro? I am sure that your micro images will be rejected in great numbers... Just try that and you will get idea over your accepted there what sells as macro ;-)

So... Thanks for your thoughts about Istock... I am still determined not to upload there as long as they have editors who are uploading their stuff ;-) Editor should be someone who knows what is needed to sell - not to fill in with his own pictures!

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #77 on:** December 27, 2009, 14:56 »

IS is my highest $$ earner... (SS is my highest by volume sales)

all the top agencies have their pros & cons(lower down the food chain the cons increase) there is no perfect agency...

could I be happier? Yeah... I need a new vacation home in the mountains, an Aston Martin DB9 along with a new H2 hummer, better health insurance, steak every night, a bar with top shelf booze fully stocked all the time, 10 weeks vacation instead of 5, a Canon 1d instead of a 5d mark II.... a few other (hundred) things.. oh yeah and a perfect stock agency...
wonder which I'll get first? LOL

There's no perfection out there anywhere in anything...

=tom

Digital66 · « **Reply #78 on:** December 27, 2009, 17:21 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on December 26, 2009, 16:41

... they have editors who are uploading their stuff ;-) Editor should be someone who knows what is needed to sell - not to fill in with his own pictures!

I've always thought this is something Istock should change. Contributors SHOULD NEVER be editors.

Otherwise, sometimes the reason by which editors accept or refuse an image could be biased, unreasonable, and unfair.

gostwyck · « **Reply #79 on:** December 27, 2009, 19:21 »

Quote from: Digital66 on December 27, 2009, 17:21

[I've always thought this is something Istock should change. Contributors SHOULD NEVER be editors.

Otherwise, sometimes the reason by which editors accept or refuse an image could be biased, unreasonable, and unfair.

It's a very small and insignificant issue. Reviewing is always a subjective process and therefore somewhat inconsistent by nature. To refuse to upload to the microstock market leader, on the basis that a tiny percentage of your images may be refused (due to a reviewer guarding their own interests), is frankly absurd __ although I'm very happy for you to do so.

loop · « **Reply #80 on:** December 27, 2009, 20:53 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on December 26, 2009, 16:41

Ok... For the rest of you: Suljo got most of the points i have too!

Most of You think that macro is not worth so as micro? I doubt so because that are different worlds with different buyers... And many other different details.

1. I don't give my portfolio link because I am protecting my work in terms of concepts and ideas.
2. I have successful micro pictures but I won't tell you under which name I am selling.
3. My micro pictures aren't the same as my macro pictures.

Have you tried to upload to Moodboard micro? I am sure that your micro images will be rejected in great numbers... Just try that and you will get idea over your accepted there what sells as macro ;-)

So... Thanks for your thoughts about Istock... I am still determined not to upload there as long as they have editors who are uploading their stuff ;-) Editor should be someone who knows what is needed to sell - not to fill in with his own pictures!

ok, message understood. Don't upload.

MichaelJay · « **Reply #81 on:** December 29, 2009, 05:30 »

Quote from: Digital66 on December 27, 2009, 17:21

I've always thought this is something Istock should change. Contributors SHOULD NEVER be editors. Otherwise, sometimes the reason by which editors accept or refuse an image could be biased, unreasonable, and unfair.

Well, this can be argued both ways. Personally, I always found that iStock inspectors have the advantage that they have gone through the same process as we do - I doubt I would have learned so much about phography from people who are not photographers having to deal with thie same problems all the time.

I also doubt anyone abusing the system for personal reasons will be found by the admins and the Scout system, so I have no worries about that. By the way, there are far more than 100 inspectors around the world nowadays, so any hope of one inspector to be able to limit competition to their own portfolio would be a waste of time since they won't be able to control 99% of the incoming images anyway.

pdtnc · « **Reply #82 on:** December 29, 2009, 06:51 »

I like the regular earnings, but what i don't like is the 25c partner program subs commission and the lack of any pay rises for Non-Exclusives.

Its high time that changed, the 2010 changes are effectively a downgrade for the Non-Exclusives!

Dreamstime would be more choice for the fairness of commissions and most progressive of the agencies, iStock could take some tips from them on how to pay their contributors fairly.

ShadySue · « **Reply #83 on:** December 29, 2009, 06:56 »

Quote from: pdtnc on December 29, 2009, 06:51

I like the regular earnings, but what i don't like is the 25c partner program subs commission and the lack of any pay rises for Non-Exclusives.

I'm sure non-exclusives will get more downloads when exclusive prices are raised, at least in areas where exclusives and nons are competing.

FD · « **Reply #84 on:** December 29, 2009, 08:09 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 29, 2009, 06:56

I'm sure non-exclusives will get more downloads when exclusive prices are raised, at least in areas where exclusives and nons are competing.

I really doubt that since it has been said already many times: buyers don't mind that much about the price (within reasonable limits) if the image is right. What might affect independents' sales is the change in the best match.

What I personally don't like about iStock is my very low RPD there. I made a quick calculation of my RPD of the last downloads last night and it was close to that of SS, around 0.50$ (compare DT: 1.24$ on average, 1.27$ this month). Perhaps that's due to the fact I only sell small sizes on IS.
If that's the case, I can't possibly see how the investment in a 21MP 5DII can pay off on IS, for me. So from now on, they'll get only the 5MP downsized versions, just like SS does. Downsizing from 21 to 5MP should also eliminate the mysterious rejects for artifacts and feathering.

fotografer · « **Reply #85 on:** December 29, 2009, 11:21 »

Just checked my RPD for the last month on IS and it is almost 1.37$. Don't know why you sell so many small images as that isn't the case for me.

Quote from: FD-amateur on December 29, 2009, 08:09

What I personally don't like about iStock is my very low RPD there. I made a quick calculation of my RPD of the last downloads last night and it was close to that of SS, around 0.50$ (compare DT: 1.24$ on average, 1.27$ this month). Perhaps that's due to the fact I only sell small sizes on IS.

vonkara · « **Reply #86 on:** December 29, 2009, 12:03 »

My RPD is also around 1.50$ at Istock, if not more. I tend to sell big sizes quite often. I can't accurately say why though, but some images have very small amount of XS and S downloads. Some others that aren't photoshop collage sell a lot more at small sizes.

Medium Regular 1.62
Medium Regular 1.68
Large Regular 3.00
Small Regular 0.87
Medium Regular 1.50
Medium Regular 1.80
XSmall Regular 0.29
Small Regular 0.87
Medium Regular 1.74
Large Regular 3.36

XSmall Regular 0.30
Small Regular 0.84
Medium Regular 1.74
Large Regular 3.48
XSmall Regular 0.25
Small Regular 0.60
Small Regular 0.84
Small Regular 0.87
XSmall Regular 0.23
XSmall Regular 0.19

It look like there is some images made for websites or blogs and other made for bigger advertisement designs

lisafx · « **Reply #87 on:** December 29, 2009, 12:20 »

Interesting. My RPD at IS is currently at 1.04. It has never been much over 1.10.

My average across all sites is .99, so IS is only just barely above the average. Acceptable, but could be better.

I suspect the best way to get that to go up is to go exclusive.

Snufkin · « **Reply #88 on:** December 29, 2009, 13:22 »

Mine is 1.46 for 2009. In 2008 it was 1.26.
It depends on the subject matter, I guess.

Digital66 · « **Reply #89 on:** December 29, 2009, 14:57 »

... there are far more than 100 inspectors around the world nowadays, so any hope of one inspector to be able to limit competition to their own portfolio would be a waste of time since they won't be able to control 99% of the incoming images anyway.
[/quote]

According to the info at http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=147 the total number Istock inspectors is only 40 around the world.

Digital66 · « **Reply #90 on:** December 29, 2009, 15:00 »

Quote from: MichaelJay on December 29, 2009, 05:30

...there are far more than 100 inspectors around the world nowadays, so any hope of one inspector to be able to limit competition to their own portfolio would be a waste of time since they won't be able to control 99% of the incoming images anyway.

According to the info at http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=147 the total number Istock inspectors is only 40 around the world. That's a very small number.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #91 on:** December 29, 2009, 15:24 »

Quote from: Digital66 on December 29, 2009, 15:00

Quote from: MichaelJay on December 29, 2009, 05:30
...there are far more than 100 inspectors around the world nowadays, so any hope of one inspector to be able to limit competition to their own portfolio would be a waste of time since they won't be able to control 99% of the incoming images anyway.

According to the info at http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=147 the total number Istock inspectors is only 40 around the world. That's a very small number.

And that's a very old article.

FD · « **Reply #92 on:** December 31, 2009, 14:42 »

Quote from: Vonkara on December 29, 2009, 12:03

My RPD is also around 1.50$ at Istock, if not more. I tend to sell big sizes quite often.

Perhaps because you have mainly illustrations. I just re-checked and at IS my RPD over 2009 is 1.12$ and over December alone 1.02$. Compare with 1.22$/.28$ at DT. Not that the sizes there are larger, but I sell disproportionally more level 3 and up (those are more xpensive).

vonkara · « **Reply #93 on:** December 31, 2009, 16:24 »

lol I don't have any illustrations. But I think I know what you mean. Those selling at big sizes are kind of collage made with images took separetely. It's either give a bigger available size, but they are also isolation.

I worked with isolated images for doing designs at small sizes. It's easier to match a design with bigger images and then downsize the final product. Though that's just a guess and how I like to do things

modellocate · « **Reply #94 on:** January 02, 2010, 14:03 »

Quote from: KB on November 28, 2009, 16:42

Quote from: lisafx on November 28, 2009, 14:38
Overall one of the things I most LIKE about istock is the consistency of it's inspections. Frankly it would be nice if all sites' reviews were as reasonable as Istock's.
Amen, Amen, AMEN!

Maybe it's because my images were borderline, but I've uploaded two images that were technically identical (different pose, same shoot) and have had one rejected for noise, the other accepted -- only difference is uploading a week apart. This happens a lot at IS for me (again, maybe it is because of my images) but the judgement call on noise, isolation, lighting, etc. can vary depending on when you upload.

willie · « **Reply #95 on:** January 03, 2010, 11:36 »

Quote from: modellocate on January 02, 2010, 14:03

Maybe it's because my images were borderline, but I've uploaded two images that were technically identical (different pose, same shoot) and have had one rejected for noise, the other accepted -- only difference is uploading a week apart. This happens a lot at IS for me (again, maybe it is because of my images) but the judgement call on noise, isolation, lighting, etc. can vary depending on when you upload.

well, i wouldn't go so far as to "accuse" IS of exclusive judges being ignoramus to fend off competition to reject your hot images if they happen to be threatening their own portfolio.
i might say that perharps there are a handful of nasty exclusives who are committing this gross conflict of interest.
but it certainly would not be commonplace.
eg. i cannot see someone as established as Mr Locke, and other superstars of IS doing this if even Mr. Locke is a reviewer, which i think he is not.
But, my point is, since i started with IS only 4-6 months ago.., i have been getting reviews on my glamour images from IS exclusives. i also have been getting exemplery support from other IS exclusives in the forum.

so, maybe yes, there are a handful of rogue IS exclusives who are playing dirty as reviewers to new independents, but i wouldn't paint them with a broad brush to say all IS exclusives are anally suspicious. which i would attest that it is not so.

there are some bad eggs, and i think IS support should investigate

granitepeaker · « **Reply #96 on:** February 03, 2010, 12:53 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on November 16, 2009, 17:06

I know that many of people who have to say anything will stay silent because they are afraid of istock administators wraith. Maybe you who are customers as well you who got bullied there have something to say? Maybe someone isn't afraid?

... I'm Afraid

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How much do you like Istockphoto? (Read 32706 times)

nruboc

vonkara

lisafx

helix7

lisafx

dbvirago

lisafx

abimages

lisafx

lisafx

RacePhoto

lisafx

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

bittersweet

vonkara

lisafx

vonkara

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors