Has anyone tried that? To sell their portfolio?

Like, did you have a port on fx shutterstock that you let somebody buy?
and how did you do it?

It looks like that shutterstock portfolios keep selling without being maintained so we do have a question.

I have been a digital photographer since 2005 and contributing to microstock since 2007.
Lately I have been in a couple of equipment debates and it made me think about how quickly things change in our business.
During my time as a microstocker with focus on wildlife, and nische photography I have waded through a lot of equipment such as:
4 cameras, 10-20 lenses, flashes, strobes, neat image, topaz, portrait pro, combine ZM, HDR programs, photoshop elements and photoshop.
now, since I was challenged with minuses in a debate, i took a look and looked at what equipment I have kept going all the time.
And that is interesting.

The most constant factor is the tripod, a manfrotto 190PROB! after that comes the cheap strobes, which I use on a daily basis. The expensive strobes up in the attic are not used much, neither are the 2 sb 600 flashes. Their programming is too japaneese.

Cameras? They always change. My most productive for many years was 2 nikon d 200.
Lenses? Constant is the Sigma 150 mm , 2,8 macro, that I had from the beginning.
Software? most constant is xnview that I still use, and photoshop elements.

What equipment was with you all the time, what was your constant factor?

I have an oppertunity here.

I ask you for advice and ideas.

The thing is that the Queen is visiting our  little island.
She is followed by a horde of security and press. Television and all. Its always major when the Queen comes.
On that little island my brother has a gallery and his wife has a jewellery shop. They have been notified by the court that the queen will stay there for 7 minutes. Thats a long time for queens.

I have been asked to produce photographs for one wall in the gallery. 4 images, One meter wide each.
They will be noticed, maybe sold to a high price, but certainly displayed in all media, IF they stand out. Else the cameras will slide away. Noticed only if they are striking enough.
I have hired (persuaded) a model to come, so we can take pictures. The pictures have to be of the island, but I  would like to add a model to the landscape, so it is more striking. Like a woman being worried and look out over the ocean and waiting for the fisherman to come home.
Or a modern tourist, being annoyed. Emotions are important.

So now I post here, to hear if you have any idears, if you can envision the scene and see something I cannot see.
I want something striking, do you have any idears?

SOLVED; MY MISTAKE.

I noticed something strange.
That days with the same number of sub downloads did noy yeild the same amount in dollars if there were ods on the same day.
An example:  march 06 I had 23 sub dls, which payed: 7,22. That is not 0.38 pr download but 0,31 and 1,52 less than 8,74 as it should be. The same day I had both ods and sods.

So what does that mean, that some of the sods and ods are subscriptions or taken out of the subsales.
?
How about you, is it only me, and do you know about this, and am I just late in finding out?

PROBLEM SOLVED.

I need help to search certain items used for commercial fishing.
Namely snap clips for long line fishing.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Long-line-snap-clips-100pieces-4-stainless-steel-clips-4-0-swivel-decoy-rigs-/221195728486?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item33804af666

I can find them for sale in America, but since there is a toll barrier its not practical to buy them form there and I want to go directly to the source: The manufacturer in China.
Can anyone help me conduct a search, and come into contact with a manufacturer or distributor in China?

These days people get banned from iStock.
is that funny, meaningless or rude?

Well, I think it is significant.

So let us make a list of us who are banned.
It can always be usefull, when we try to understand what is going on.

Im one.
I was banned because I asked istocklawyer questions of the kind that would hold water in court. Like: I have asked this question and you have replied, that means that you have seen the question and it is such not unknown to you and istock.

Now who else is in the club and for what?

Have you tried the new keyword beta on shutter?
I find it excellent, and easy.

And The selected images are SO GOOD.
Not only good but also relevant.
I wonder how they searched through the keyword spam, but they did.

No wonder why Shutter beats them all.

I posted a critical post on the iStock forum.
It took 8 minutes before it was deleted and gone.
What is your record?

Today I took 167 shots up in the studio.
Of a hunter in a camouflage suit.
You know, You look through the pictures and process the most striking of them.
Like pointing left or pointing right. You choose the most dynamic and put them into photoshop and pop them up.
Keyword them, it takes 10 minutes via dusegard.
Then mass upload some to one agency, others to other agencies where you think they can earn a little bit.
Then comes iStock and you press a button.

And you are stuck!
It takes so long time to click yourself through a single picture.
You do it, and it comes to category choices and you have to click many times and try to figure out where your image fits. Is it  nature or isolation or people in love.
Every stupid choice annoys you and feels meaningless.
Then the endless clicking to make keywords pass through. And My Good! the definitions of those keywords. Have they bought their dictionary in a flea market in Kansas? Its so far out. And again lots of choises of half meaningless things, is it a cow or a guitar brand you have never heard of?
You manage to get through with one of your pictures, the other prepared ones, you dont bother to upload. Its is not that it takes time, though thats bad enough, its is more the many impossible choices, because the categories are unnatural and the disambiguation is based on such a primitive data set.. We can always do that if it sells, you think. Then you stop and get a relief since you are not at work and have to do it and the is no boss who looks.
My guess is that iStock thinks they are mighty smart and only get the best of the best pictures that way.
Maybe so.

But they also gets a lot of annoy factor.

So that persons like me builds up such a deep and longgoing frustration that they cannot keep their mouth shot (as you see).

But there are many things iStock doesnt get:
Like variations of pictures in series.
Like the different picture with different keywords.
Like a lot of appropriate keywords its easier to wing out than to qualify.
There is more but I will spare you.
I wont even mention the word rejection.

Point is, There is so much iStock doesnt get.
and take a look, its visible in the searches.

phew rant over. Im sorry. I have now finished my uploading and spread my load of pictures to 4-5 sites. Istock got one.

What if we had an agency owned by the contributers?

What if the split was 50 /50 and the profit was shared as a yearly bonus?
Would you support it?

Such companies were common here some years ago, when farmers were tiered of always having prices lowered by the merchants. They then formed cooperative distribution companies. The cooperatives were commercially viable and the shareholders/ contributors were often happy, since they were guaranteed a certain minimum price and did not have to compete on profit.

The companies were usually founded in steps:
1...Having a list of contributers promise they would deliver exclusively.
2...Business plan.
3.. Financing by loans or contributers pay for shares, or both.
4.. Getting the business up and running.
5.. Competiveness set by both prices and the no need for profit.

I think a cooperative would be a serious thread to pure commercial agencies, simply because a cooperative does not need to produce profit, only sales and such it would be more competitive.

Now what IF?
I know Im only fantazising? But such companies would really be appreaciated in this world of internet tycoons.
I mean we are people here, behind every keybord is a human being being exploited.
We should not let the grinding machines mince us in their hunt for profit, based on content, we have produced.
It is US who produce the content. the agencies were nothing without us.

Would you join?

I think it is the first time I start a thread here in this forum. I used to be at shutterstock, but they kicked me out for controversy.

Here comes.

I think the internet is the most important thing that has happend to Mankind in the last 1000 years, or even since fire was invented.
WHY?
Because everybody can share.
All the information in the world is now at arms length.

Back in the times there were druids who were splendid astronomers and who were the only ones who could make a calender and tell you when to plant and harvest.
Thousand years ago Rome had an information monopoly that lasted 500 years. The dark ages. No news were ever spread, everything was vieled in superstition.
Then came the religious ages, when the local priest interpretated and told you what to know. That age lasted until about 1900.
Printed, wired and other media were a revolution in the 1900. Another group than priests could have their say. And they did. they spoke, typed and printed and broadcasted. Our whole self understanding is based on what the media said between 1900 and 2000.
They lied. They never published the stories of the little old lady who was shot by waffen SS for a chicken.

Now, with the Internet, things have changed. The traditional media has become obsolete, the world is interconnected. I hear about the Egyptian uproar from a friend stuck in the Cairo airport, about Fukushima from a microstocker in Japan and forest fires in California from a photographer in Los Angeles, whose house did not burn.
I check the news every morning, local news and global. But im disappointed. There are more interesting news in the different forums I visit. Both real news from vulcanoes and forrest fires and from the hensyard.
But more news. the media cannot keep up.
And that is good.
Because I believe what my friends have seen and they are trustworthy 1 degrees sources.
Source to source, no middleman. And since we can all read and write, its not a problem.

Whereas the media is full of crap and selling new subscriptions.

Ok end of the beginning as someone once said.
And then a question.

Now what has that got to do with pictures and sales?