Hi Artist...

1. Yes, the tool is free to use.

2. Currently, we don't offer a bulk keywording option because it would require a significant amount of resources to implement. As a freemium model, we need to balance the cost of offering such a feature with our ability to keep the tool accessible and free. However, we are working on adding a bulk option within our app, Pixify.

3. Images are not being stored. Once it's done with generating keywords, the image is deleted again.

Regarding your results.. Did you watch the video about how to improve your results by checking and qualifying / disqualifying keywords?

Quote from: jacoblund on October 25, 2022, 07:41

I'd strongly advise any contributors not to participate in providing content for datasets.

I agree, but is this even an option?

It has to be. I've contacted Shutterstock to get clarification on this.

I'd strongly advise any contributors not to participate in providing content for datasets.

Quote from: jacoblund on May 23, 2022, 04:15

I don't think the value per image is plummeting that much - I think the royalties ending up with content creators have been plummeting. The fact that agencies are willing to invest much money to acquire content proves that content is worth a lot. Also, I'd say after opening my online store, I'd seen professional clients are happy to pay for content. It's just that the agencies have put themselves in such a strong position between photographers and clients that we don't see the actual value of the content we provide.

Yes you are correct. I struggled to word my comment correctly. Closer to what I meant is that agencies have been so successful shifting costs and risk onto contributors I am surprised that they feel the need to buy images and reassume some of the risk with regards to image longevity, saleability etc. I guess it is explained by the pressure to increase shareholder returns, they will try any way they can to cut us out entirely, even if it means longer term they are left holding outdated images and we have all quit the industry.

That's a good way of putting it. The best I believe we can do is to prove our worth - to the clients. In the end, good work usually prevails.

Are there dark clouds over the stock photography business?

Over the past years, we�ve seen continuous changes making it harder and harder for stock photographers to survive in this competitive business. Are the stock agencies now preparing for the final death blow to separate themselves from the photographers?

If you are a stock photographer, I�m sure you know that making a living from selling your photos hasn�t gotten any easier over the past years. Although the need for digital content is higher than ever before, the competition between stock agencies has led content prices to drop year by year.

For those not involved in stock photography - you may be surprised to hear that most subscription sales on big agencies like Shutterstock only pay the photographer 10 cents per download. That�s not much. In fact, it�s so little that a photographer needs to �sell� a photo to a client at least 30 times to be able to afford a small Caffe Latte at Starbucks. On sales that are not coming from subscriptions, the stock agencies take roughly 70 - 90% of the commission on any sales.

There needs to be sustainability in any business for it to survive. Without sustainability, it can�t exist. Sustainability in stock photography is when clients pay for content, agencies take a cut for facilitating the sales and marketing of the content, and there�s a chunk left for the content creator to pay for their work and reinvest in new content production. But intensified competition and in attempts to maximize profits - the agencies are in constant search of ways to maximize their earnings, leaving less and less on the table for the content creators. And they meet little resistance; who is going to fight them? It�s David vs. Goliath. Big publicly traded corporations vs. solo photographers.

Now there�s a new strategy from stock agencies to increase their profits. It�s hard for them to lower royalties even further - so the next obvious step? Cut out the photographers entirely from the equation. That�s what is happening now.  At least two of the biggest and most well-known stock agencies are now aggressively acquiring content ownership by buying out photographers' portfolios. But then you might ask - if they are paying for it - what�s the problem?

The problem for content creators is that it�s like peeing your pants. It�s going to feel good for a minute, and then it will feel very, very cold. The agencies will give preference to any content they own before anything else (because there�ll be more profit there). If they get to the point where there�s a critical mass of content, they might be able to cover most basic content needs with this critical mass. This will make it even harder for photographers to get sales on their platform. Eventually, it will be impossible for photographers to find any financial incentive for shooting stock photography.

From the perspective of stock agencies, this move makes sense in the short run, but I can have my concerns about whether there are any considerations about the long-term effects of this. Is there an understanding of the long-term game it is to acquire quality content? For me, it took at least five years from I got involved in stock photography until I started to be able to produce any quality content. Stock agencies need photographers who can run a sustainable stock production business to continuously provide relevant quality content.

For the industry, this portfolio buying strategy is problematic as it can end the chain of sustainability. The fewer royalties that end with the content creators, the fewer content creators will be able to produce quality content. Then the agencies are eventually going to struggle with quality content acquisition.

Dark clouds are forming. Is this the end?
Change is inevitable in any industry. That�s a fact. The way I see these new strategies from stock agencies is a part of that inevitable change, and as photographers, the best we can do is to figure out how to adapt to this change proactively. My take is always to look at the long-term game of any of these deals and generally, I refuse offers that I find harmful to the industry. Remember that no employee at any stock agency has the same passion for your work as you do. For them, it�s a job. For you, it�s your life.


For the past year, I've also worked on figuring out ways to connect more directly with clients. That�s, in my opinion, a way more sustainable way for this industry to survive when agencies are squeezing photographers out. Ultimately most of the value for clients needing content comes from the content creators - they are literally the ones producing the content the clients are requesting. I see it a bit as a farm-to-table movement in photography, and I hope that more photographers will succeed in connecting directly with the clients out there. That�s why I also started building a Shopify app that can help more content creators create beautiful portfolio websites to sell their content. This project started more than two years ago, and we are finally getting very close to a public launch. It�s obviously hard to compete with the stock agencies who are spending millions of dollars on marketing - but at least it provides an alternative. And while photographers might not have big budgets for marketing - a bit of well-thought-out SEO takes you quite a long way.

To my colleagues in this business, I�d advise thinking twice before selling your portfolio to a stock agency. If they are willing to buy you out to earn the remaining 15-30% percent of the royalty split, it�s because they know they can make way more on it that they�ll pay you for any buyout bid. Then think about the next step. Because when the agencies own an extensive portfolio themselves, they�ll be pushing that over any new content you shoot for many years to come. And then what are you going to do for a living? I�d say: Hold on to your hard-earned work and find better ways to connect directly with clients in the future.

took a quick look at your beta-notes; some thoughhts:

costs build up  struck me was the costs - $29/mo for shopify + + fetchApp $10/mo + your monthly fee    [i ignored  paypal et al cost as that's a given for any site]

You can see it this way: Spend $10.000 - $100.000 USD  (+ operating expenses) on building your own e-commerce from scratch or tap into Shopify's system for $29 USD / month. Spend $20.000 USD (+ operating expenses) on building a digital delivery service or tap into FetchApp for $10 USD per month. There's no shortcuts or ways to avoid putting in either time or money to build something good. (The cost numbers are wild guesses from my side)

took a quick look at your beta-notes; some thoughhts:

besides such on-going fees, looks like making changes will require specific programming knowledge that even most web developers won't have, so add'tl costs for consultants (WP otoh can be modified by non-programmers )

There won't be a need to hire consultants. Shopify has a great options for doing some theme customisations + changing navigation items on the website without any coding skills. The theme we are providing will get you up and running.

===
is the amazon server fee part of the Pixify fee? if so, will it be pro-rated by portfolio size?

Yes this will a part of the fee. And yes there'll probably be some different tiers based on portfolio size. We still need to go through beta to monitor costs and find the best way to make a pricing structure.

===========
if you're storing all images, will there be a global search across all portfolios? (do you have access to pricing?)

This could be an interesting feature to build in the feature. Not something that we are looking at right now.

====
what sort of db are you using? is it accessible by artists who want their own reports, stats, etc?

All products will be shown in your Shopify admin where there's reporting. You can also install other forms of analytic software like Google Analytics which can run analytics on the whole e-commerce system.

Hey guys!

We are launching beta test of Pixify for a handful of people this week. If you are interested please read the latest newsletter that was sent out this evening: https://mailchi.mp/fc075b99d1d8/pixify-beta-test-launching-now

I've sent out a newsletter today explaining a little more details about what we are aiming to do with Pixify and some information about our beta test.

If anyone is interested it can be read here:
https://mailchi.mp/ad96271f08ad/what-does-pixify-actually-do

I set up a Dropbox Business account, and it's the best thing I've done for a long time.

The amount of money I've spend on harddrives (including a 48TB NAS-server configuration that required way too much maintenance) is ridiculous.

At the moment we have 58 TB stored on Dropbox. Everyone I work with can access any files from any shoot anywhere in the world at anytime. It's brilliant.  It especially comes handy when you collaborate with people remotely. But it comes at a price and requires a good Internet connection when we upload our shoots. 

Thanks for your feedback and questions.

Jo Ann Snover and alan b traehern
Regarding PRICING: Shopify plans starts at $29. The Pixify app will also have a recurring charge to cover costs of running servers, hosting, etc. We haven't started looking at what the price for the app will be, as we need more time testing what server configurations we need when we start to have multiple users on the app. I'm aware that many people compare this to Symbiostock - in that case it's probably going to be more expensive. But it's also going to be more plug and play. And once you are started - you are on a very powerful ecommerce platform with tons of apps that can help you improve your store.

For me personally this was a no-brainer. A recurring cost of $29 (+whatever the app costs will be) for having our own platform where we can showcase all our work is AMAZING. To me it's just one of those costs of running a photography business, and compared to what we spend on shoots and cameras, computers, etc. I believe this provides quite a lot of value.

We are looking into FTP-upload as well.

Would it work for video clips?
Great looking website.
I love your work!

Yes it will. It's one of the things we are working on right now - it's just a bit more complicated handling video. But we are getting there!

Low prices is never been good model for the authors, but following this logic should all of us stop supporting the subscription model too

Why we do not? Well it's because it brings us income. Ones Onepixel starts reporting regular sales(i think it will) the big part of contributors will go there. This is the reality lol

A lot of the big buyers already have its own collections of needed images, this collections are accumulated during the past 15 years and they have good source of images already bought. This old microstock buyers want as always to buy cheap, but now to not to be obligated to buy packages. I don't like cheap licences nor subscriptions, but again this is the reality.

This is way worse than subscription sales. Because while subscription sales does give you low royalty payouts, it does at the same time bring more sales to the contributors. This model (OnePixel) gives you subscription payouts, but without the extra sales. It competes with the good single sales that you would see at any other agency and can eventually lead to them lowering your prices.

Good luck with your portfolio there.