pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New microstocker :)  (Read 13496 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2010, 13:53 »
0
All the ten images I uploaded for review were reject for "Poor lighting/composition".  :-\


that's 123speak for 'we're to lazy to actually look at your images, so we're just using an ambiguous phrase to make it lok like we doing something'

as others have said - dont bother w 123 until you have extra time after submitting to the other sites

i just had 3 batches, totally over 250 images rejected by them after a long wait. the actual images ran full gamut from early dawn on the ganger, to saturated market shots to blue sky ski days

if anyone's interested in seeing what 123 rejected - just look at my latest additions to my ss, dt and big portfolios

steve


lisafx

« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2010, 16:03 »
0
Thank you steheap and magnum. Could you tell me how to improve my composition and lighting?

Many thanks
Sauron

Here's another one I submitted:

http://bit.ly/asyR5k


This is not a bad picture, but I see a LOT of purple fringing.  If you shot in RAW and use Lightroom or ACR you can use the chromatic abberation sliders under lens-correction to fix it.  If it was shot jpeg, experiment using the hue/saturation in PS and slide the purple and magenta sliders all the way to the left. 

Also, I noticed what you shoot seems to have the subject dead center.  Try using more creative framing, or at a minimum, rule of thirds. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #27 on: April 24, 2010, 04:56 »
0
Thank you, everyone.

Did you get accepted yet there?
If you want to do microstock seriously, you should. You can't say you've driven a car until you drove a BMW.

Well, I sent my three photos for review about a week ago. Since I did not hear from them yet, and I didn't want to contribute to them anyway; I've written to them to terminate my account. I currently am going to upload only on 123RF for a while.  :)
From what I've heard, it's taking two week or so for new reviews to be made, maybe longer right now because of some site problems and several of the inspectors being at a junket in Cannes.
You certainly need more patience in the microstock game.
I'd be really interested in why you applied there when you "didn't want to contribute to them anyway".
As for the percentage business, when I started off, I submitted RF to iStock (20% non-exclusive) and a small UK specialist agency (RM; 40% to photog.) With the RM agency in over 3 years I've had one sale, netting me less than I currently get in iStock in each week of this year except this week. I've got about 600 pics in Alamy (60% to photog) and in a year I've made 4 sales, the total of which is less than I've earned on iStock every week this year except this week. (To be fair, I've got less than 200 files in the UK agency, and haven't uploaded anything for about 2 1/2 years, since they were moving their main focus from 'UK' to specifically Welsh. And I've just gone over the 2000 files on iStock, so it's slightly apples and oranges).
However, as Sean would say, if you don't contribute to iStock, that's less opposition for the rest of us.  :-*

« Reply #28 on: April 24, 2010, 07:42 »
0
From what I've heard, it's taking two week or so for new reviews to be made, maybe longer right now because of some site problems and several of the inspectors being at a junket in Cannes.
You certainly need more patience in the microstock game.
I'd be really interested in why you applied there when you "didn't want to contribute to them anyway".
As for the percentage business, when I started off, I submitted RF to iStock (20% non-exclusive) and a small UK specialist agency (RM; 40% to photog.) With the RM agency in over 3 years I've had one sale, netting me less than I currently get in iStock in each week of this year except this week. I've got about 600 pics in Alamy (60% to photog) and in a year I've made 4 sales, the total of which is less than I've earned on iStock every week this year except this week. (To be fair, I've got less than 200 files in the UK agency, and haven't uploaded anything for about 2 1/2 years, since they were moving their main focus from 'UK' to specifically Welsh. And I've just gone over the 2000 files on iStock, so it's slightly apples and oranges).
However, as Sean would say, if you don't contribute to iStock, that's less opposition for the rest of us.  :-*

Maybe I should have clarified a bit more on "didn't want to contribute to them anyway." Being new to stock photography, I didn't know much about it when I applied for an account. After some research, I found out what my work -mainly interested in wildlife- was better off with RM in a traditional stock agency like Alamy.

And for those of who contribute quality work to microstock, I have a question- why do it? You get an unfair payment for the time you spent in getting the shot. Those of you who say you do it for fun, not money- why not contribute your good works to macrostock, and not so good to micro?

« Reply #29 on: April 24, 2010, 07:43 »
0
Thank you for the critique of my pictures. Much appreciated.  :)

« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2010, 08:57 »
0
From what I've heard, it's taking two week or so for new reviews to be made, maybe longer right now because of some site problems and several of the inspectors being at a junket in Cannes.
You certainly need more patience in the microstock game.
I'd be really interested in why you applied there when you "didn't want to contribute to them anyway".
As for the percentage business, when I started off, I submitted RF to iStock (20% non-exclusive) and a small UK specialist agency (RM; 40% to photog.) With the RM agency in over 3 years I've had one sale, netting me less than I currently get in iStock in each week of this year except this week. I've got about 600 pics in Alamy (60% to photog) and in a year I've made 4 sales, the total of which is less than I've earned on iStock every week this year except this week. (To be fair, I've got less than 200 files in the UK agency, and haven't uploaded anything for about 2 1/2 years, since they were moving their main focus from 'UK' to specifically Welsh. And I've just gone over the 2000 files on iStock, so it's slightly apples and oranges).
However, as Sean would say, if you don't contribute to iStock, that's less opposition for the rest of us.  :-*

Maybe I should have clarified a bit more on "didn't want to contribute to them anyway." Being new to stock photography, I didn't know much about it when I applied for an account. After some research, I found out what my work -mainly interested in wildlife- was better off with RM in a traditional stock agency like Alamy.

And for those of who contribute quality work to microstock, I have a question- why do it? You get an unfair payment for the time you spent in getting the shot. Those of you who say you do it for fun, not money- why not contribute your good works to macrostock, and not so good to micro?
It is actually possible to make good money on micros. Volume sales.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 08:59 by averil »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #31 on: April 24, 2010, 09:03 »
0

Maybe I should have clarified a bit more on "didn't want to contribute to them anyway." Being new to stock photography, I didn't know much about it when I applied for an account. After some research, I found out what my work -mainly interested in wildlife- was better off with RM in a traditional stock agency like Alamy.

And for those of who contribute quality work to microstock, I have a question- why do it? You get an unfair payment for the time you spent in getting the shot. Those of you who say you do it for fun, not money- why not contribute your good works to macrostock, and not so good to micro?

I thought I'd already pointed out that I make more in a week at iStock than I have in a year on Alamy.
And for wildlife, just check out everyone else's port on any of the macro sites and realise that's what you're competing against. It's a vastly oversubscribed subject area. (I'm really only interested in wildlife, I just shoot other things to push me to try different things and to see what sells. Besides, I can't be out in the field all the time.  :'( And even if I could, the weather and light here usually aren't up to much.  :'( )
Honestly, whatever wildlife pics you've got, do searches for similars in all the macros and micros and see what you're up against. Some of the macros, are only interested in 'coffee table book'-style photos. You might get lucky with rarer species doing unusual things, but they still have to be in at least 'good' light, unobscured composition and technical excellence - buyers aren't interested in your story of how you had to crawl for five hours through an alligator infested swamp through the night to glimpse your subject through a bush at dawn. Of course, if you find the Loch Ness Monster, it won't matter if you photograph it with a Box Brownie.
You'll also find that most photos which are published of 'less usual animals doing less usual/interesting things are taken by the authors of the article they accompany. (That could be a niche worth exploring).

« Reply #32 on: April 24, 2010, 10:12 »
0

I thought I'd already pointed out that I make more in a week at iStock than I have in a year on Alamy.
And for wildlife, just check out everyone else's port on any of the macro sites and realise that's what you're competing against. It's a vastly oversubscribed subject area. (I'm really only interested in wildlife, I just shoot other things to push me to try different things and to see what sells. Besides, I can't be out in the field all the time.  :'( And even if I could, the weather and light here usually aren't up to much.  :'( )
Honestly, whatever wildlife pics you've got, do searches for similars in all the macros and micros and see what you're up against. Some of the macros, are only interested in 'coffee table book'-style photos. You might get lucky with rarer species doing unusual things, but they still have to be in at least 'good' light, unobscured composition and technical excellence - buyers aren't interested in your story of how you had to crawl for five hours through an alligator infested swamp through the night to glimpse your subject through a bush at dawn. Of course, if you find the Loch Ness Monster, it won't matter if you photograph it with a Box Brownie.
You'll also find that most photos which are published of 'less usual animals doing less usual/interesting things are taken by the authors of the article they accompany. (That could be a niche worth exploring).

I went through your profile on iStock.

First, let me congratulate you on your fantastic pictures. They were a real pleasure to look at. I noticed that most of your wildlife shots weren't really being downloaded. Why not put them on a traditional stock agency like Alamy; even if you get just one sale an year, you'll make more than the pennies you get here.

As I stay in India, I guess I'll have to settle for finding the yeti. :)
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 10:16 by sauron »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #33 on: April 24, 2010, 10:20 »
0

I thought I'd already pointed out that I make more in a week at iStock than I have in a year on Alamy.
And for wildlife, just check out everyone else's port on any of the macro sites and realise that's what you're competing against. It's a vastly oversubscribed subject area. (I'm really only interested in wildlife, I just shoot other things to push me to try different things and to see what sells. Besides, I can't be out in the field all the time.  :'( And even if I could, the weather and light here usually aren't up to much.  :'( )
Honestly, whatever wildlife pics you've got, do searches for similars in all the macros and micros and see what you're up against. Some of the macros, are only interested in 'coffee table book'-style photos. You might get lucky with rarer species doing unusual things, but they still have to be in at least 'good' light, unobscured composition and technical excellence - buyers aren't interested in your story of how you had to crawl for five hours through an alligator infested swamp through the night to glimpse your subject through a bush at dawn. Of course, if you find the Loch Ness Monster, it won't matter if you photograph it with a Box Brownie.
You'll also find that most photos which are published of 'less usual animals doing less usual/interesting things are taken by the authors of the article they accompany. (That could be a niche worth exploring).

I went through your profile on iStock.

First, let me congratulate you on your fantastic pictures. There were a real pleasure to look at. I noticed that most of your wildlife shots weren't really being downloaded. Why not put them on a traditional stock agency, instead of making pennies here?

As I stay in India, I guess I'll have to settle for finding the yeti. :)

You'll need to read what I wrote above. I have wildlife photos also on Alamy. The four pics I've sold there have not been wildlife.
It's almost impossible to get into the big agencies: most of them need a huge initial upload, and a commitment to upload a fairly high number of other images monthly or quarterly. And, as I said, just look at the existing opposition at any of the other sites.
I've posted my story here before, so to avoid repetition, I'll SM you.

Honestly, 20% of $1000 is better than 100% of 0.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 10:57 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: April 24, 2010, 11:09 »
0
Why not put them on a traditional stock agency like Alamy; even if you get just one sale an year, you'll make more than the pennies you get here.

That information is not always true. Of course, some photos, not necessarily the most outstanding, might be sold with extensive exclusive rights and you'll make your fortune.
However, many of the editorial photos are sold to educational publishers and newspapers for surprisingly low prices.
Your brain seems to be filtering out what I wrote above. In a full year I've sold only four photos on Alamy, and the total $$ is less than I made on iStock every week this year other than this week, which has been slow.

« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2010, 11:46 »
0
Maybe I should have clarified a bit more on "didn't want to contribute to them anyway." Being new to stock photography, I didn't know much about it when I applied for an account. After some research, I found out what my work -mainly interested in wildlife- was better off with RM in a traditional stock agency like Alamy.

Ah, wildlife.  Nature.  Well, no wonder. 

Quote
And for those of who contribute quality work to microstock, I have a question- why do it? You get an unfair payment for the time you spent in getting the shot. Those of you who say you do it for fun, not money- why not contribute your good works to macrostock, and not so good to micro?

I'm a masochist.

lisafx

« Reply #36 on: April 24, 2010, 13:43 »
0

Quote
And for those of who contribute quality work to microstock, I have a question- why do it? You get an unfair payment for the time you spent in getting the shot. Those of you who say you do it for fun, not money- why not contribute your good works to macrostock, and not so good to micro?

I'm a masochist.

^^ My favorite quote of the day ;D

« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2010, 15:23 »
0
Maybe I should have clarified a bit more on "didn't want to contribute to them anyway." Being new to stock photography, I didn't know much about it when I applied for an account. After some research, I found out what my work -mainly interested in wildlife- was better off with RM in a traditional stock agency like Alamy.

Ah, wildlife.  Nature.  Well, no wonder. 

Quote
And for those of who contribute quality work to microstock, I have a question- why do it? You get an unfair payment for the time you spent in getting the shot. Those of you who say you do it for fun, not money- why not contribute your good works to macrostock, and not so good to micro?

I'm a masochist.

hahah.

anc

« Reply #38 on: June 22, 2010, 15:23 »
0
welcome!!

« Reply #39 on: June 22, 2010, 19:53 »
0
From what I've heard, it's taking two week or so for new reviews to be made, maybe longer right now because of some site problems and several of the inspectors being at a junket in Cannes.
You certainly need more patience in the microstock game.
I'd be really interested in why you applied there when you "didn't want to contribute to them anyway".
As for the percentage business, when I started off, I submitted RF to iStock (20% non-exclusive) and a small UK specialist agency (RM; 40% to photog.) With the RM agency in over 3 years I've had one sale, netting me less than I currently get in iStock in each week of this year except this week. I've got about 600 pics in Alamy (60% to photog) and in a year I've made 4 sales, the total of which is less than I've earned on iStock every week this year except this week. (To be fair, I've got less than 200 files in the UK agency, and haven't uploaded anything for about 2 1/2 years, since they were moving their main focus from 'UK' to specifically Welsh. And I've just gone over the 2000 files on iStock, so it's slightly apples and oranges).
However, as Sean would say, if you don't contribute to iStock, that's less opposition for the rest of us.  :-*

Maybe I should have clarified a bit more on "didn't want to contribute to them anyway." Being new to stock photography, I didn't know much about it when I applied for an account. After some research, I found out what my work -mainly interested in wildlife- was better off with RM in a traditional stock agency like Alamy.

And for those of who contribute quality work to microstock, I have a question- why do it? You get an unfair payment for the time you spent in getting the shot. Those of you who say you do it for fun, not money- why not contribute your good works to macrostock, and not so good to micro?
As I stay in India, I guess I'll have to settle for finding the yeti.

Are you lost child of "our" member who has multiple nicks? eg "OldHipie, Macrosaur, etc .....
Ask them (him) for advice.
It will be the perfect event how two lost souls are meet in one fish bowl.....
 ;D

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #40 on: June 22, 2010, 20:05 »
0
welcome!!

Well, I guess welcomes are better 2 months late than never.

« Reply #41 on: July 01, 2010, 17:10 »
0
Welcome! I am new as well :)


RT


« Reply #42 on: July 01, 2010, 17:42 »
0
I agree that 20% is not enough....My accountant laughed at me when i said I only get 20% from a distributor ....

My advice would be to get an accountant that understands the business, the biggest agency in the world (Getty) pays 20% for RF. If you want to enter this business and do it seriously you need to forget about percentages and concentrate on where you will get the best nett return for your images.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3359 Views
Last post September 15, 2009, 21:49
by bad to the bone
17 Replies
4260 Views
Last post May 03, 2015, 07:15
by ShadySue
178 Replies
98699 Views
Last post March 06, 2024, 03:03
by ribtoks
52 Replies
12547 Views
Last post December 01, 2016, 15:31
by Pauws99
5 Replies
808 Views
Last post October 23, 2023, 13:05
by f9photos

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors