MicrostockGroup

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.

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.

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?

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.

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


Mark