pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stocksy images for sale at CreativeMarket - Royalties?  (Read 23479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jen

« Reply #100 on: June 19, 2015, 10:11 »
+9

You misdirected yourself, I do make good money with stock, and I was hoping for stocksy to do even better with more artist freedom, instead it's the worst. Also it's not macro.

So what you have Stocksy do differently?

Imho, stocksy should sell most of the stuff that other micros do, but only the very-very best, premium versions of it + exclusivity. That would more than justify it being a special agency worth bookmarking, no need to narrow it to this childish instafilter hipster style. They started saying, and even advertised this on their front page, that they 'don't have stuff like people on white, shiny beauty shots, ppl just gesturing'... yeah great idea, lets ditch some of the stuff that outsells almost everything else everywhere. The 'stock that doesn't look like stock' mantra is nonsense, the stuff they accept still instantly looks like stock from a 100 miles away - thank god, or they would sell even less. If dropping pro style was a great idea, why don't companies just go around buying selfies from kiddies on FB? :) Once again, this whole concept is childish and counterproductive. What are they afraid of, that their art course visiting buddy with a handlebar moustache won't talk to them anymore, if he notices they sell beauties on white for example?

It sounds like Stocksy is not the right place for your work.  There's nothing wrong with that, but it's astoundingly arrogant to suggest they change their entire business model to cater to your <300 image portfolio.  That business model has been working very well for many of us, whose experiences have been far different from yours. 

Stocksy entered an extremely oversaturated market with very little, and in just 2 years has become a legitimate competitor to companies making billions of dollars.  How you can spin that into a failure, I don't know.


« Reply #101 on: June 20, 2015, 01:48 »
+4
I am appalled by the negativism some people are showing here. Yes, it has its flaws - the curation process and the whole agency has veered towards more bright and stocky images lately and they have relaxed the file acceptance process maybe a bit too much but it's still the best agency to be a contributor of and I am not talking only about the money. It sort of feels like a family. A place where your more artistic images can find their home and actually sell. A place where you do not worry about high ISOs or razor sharp focus. A place where you can experiment and actually focus on photography in its pure form. A VSCO filter will not make a bad image look better. A sharp image of a smiling girl eating a salad will not give that said image a soul. Forget this microstock mentality and just be happy that the industry has acquired places like Stocksy and Offset and that some of your fellow photographers have the opportunity to be part of this change. I believe that more similar agencies will come into existence. Places where the photographer receives a fair share of the pie (in the case of Offset it's not that big a slice but the higher prices are making it sweeter). If this industry continues on the same path we will soon see agencies offering images for free or as part of a freemium model (sort of like Spotify). Stop bashing at Stocksy and start demanding the same attitude it has towards its members from your agencies as well. Or we are all doomed.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2015, 01:54 by soundworks »

Semmick Photo

« Reply #102 on: June 20, 2015, 01:57 »
+4
Your talking from a contributor perspective. You must see it from a buyer perspective. Do you think buyers care about the warm relaxed environment of the agency when they pay 100 dollar for a  really really bad iPhone photo?

« Reply #103 on: June 20, 2015, 02:13 »
+2
I believe Stocksy's clients are getting what they want - (1) not drowning in a database of millions and millions of similar and plastic images where finding the right one is a very, very time consuming process and (2) images that are beautiful and moving. Enough with this pineapple affair. Stocksy is not an exhibition gallery with 100 select images where each one is a masterpiece. If I were a buyer who wants to illustrate that people are using their smartphones to take photos of pineapples I would buy that image. You should also provide some freedom to your contributors if you want them to develop as photographers and have richer imagination and original ideas in the future.

Did I say warm and relaxed? The competition among members is fierce. We also have the occasional copy cats or not getting your images curated all the time. However, these things are dealt with internally thanks to the good communication between members and the headquarters.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2015, 08:21 by soundworks »

Semmick Photo

« Reply #104 on: June 20, 2015, 02:47 »
+8
I think its bollocks to defend extremely poor quality work and justify it as purposeful work. Stop being a cult and just say that kind of poor quality is below Stocksy standard. I don't see people justifying poor work in microstock.

« Reply #105 on: June 20, 2015, 04:42 »
+1
Your talking from a contributor perspective. You must see it from a buyer perspective. Do you think buyers care about the warm relaxed environment of the agency when they pay 100 dollar for a  really really bad iPhone photo?

So: How often do you license images for $100?

Semmick Photo

« Reply #106 on: June 20, 2015, 05:33 »
+4
I don't. Does that justify poor images on stocksy as well.

I am baffled that all of a sudden poor images are acceptable.

« Reply #107 on: June 20, 2015, 05:44 »
+3

..it's astoundingly arrogant to suggest they change their entire business model to cater to your <300 image portfolio.


Troll. That's a total logical fallacy as the shots are up there, they accepted them. I produced the kinda shots for them they wanted, and they gladly took them.

...but wasn't that obvious from the start, from the fact that I'm in with a port there? Some of you people have some serious comprehension problems. What was your concept, that I was pushing blurfaced people isolated on white to them for a year, and they kept rejecting them, so I came here??? Or what, how... I'm sorry, I can't even guess, this is so naive...


Who is it a legitimate competitor to? Can you show some source / proof of that? A company like Shutter doesn't even have to care about Stocksy exactly because they just see a site that for some mysterious reason collects those mostly LCV pics, that they only keep around to show some variety.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2015, 05:50 by topol »

« Reply #108 on: June 20, 2015, 06:12 »
+2

 You should also provide some freedom to your contributors if you want them to develop as photographers and have richer imagination and original ideas in the future.


Stocksy is way more restrictive than micros. Not caring about noise or super accurate focus doesn't mean much when they want people presented in an extremely narrow style and manner. They also seem to be even more picky about model's prettiness than micros. Most of my models are severely attractive, and for a test out of curiosity I did submit somewhat less good looking ppl's pics - one of the reason was that general claim that they like having more 'authentic' stuff. They were still far better looking then average, but basically the whole series got rejected almost instantly. Just to understand why the reason is pretty clear: I had plenty of shots of accepted from a series on the same location, pretty much same lighting, same theme, but a very very attractive model. I'm not saying that's a problem, sure most ppl want their models as beautiful as possible, and I'm not even complaining about this rejection, I uploaded it to other places... but that's the point, all the others took them, and it's getting a nice amount of downloads. So it's pretty clear that others give you more freedom, and it works too.

« Reply #109 on: June 20, 2015, 06:16 »
+2
Please do us and yourself a favor and cancel your membership. You are obviously not satisfied with your sales and the buyers are not satisfied by your images. Otherwise you wouldn't have complained in the first place. There may be a better place for them and they may even bring you more money elsewhere. Let someone who appreciates what Stocksy is take your place. Believe me, there's a long line of people ready to do that.

A true competitor to Stocksy in terms of content and prices are Offset and 500px. Jen wanted to say that for instance Offset has a million dollar company behind its back and we are on our own and still kicking ass.

More restrictive? I've seen all kinds of models on Stocksy. You can't call an agency restrictive just because they have rejected one series.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2015, 06:44 by soundworks »

« Reply #110 on: June 20, 2015, 06:46 »
+3

 Let someone who appreciates what Stocksy is take your place. Believe me, there's a long line of people ready to do that.


Please do the forum a favor and quit trolling. Your problem is that stocksy isn't a fixed number board where the reason for taking up someone is an emptied seat. I will start removing pics from them by the dozens if things don't change and they can't deliver (I doubt I will be the only one), but that won't help you, because you can get in by being a "good enough photographer". How about that? :)

Btw, stocksy also has millions of dollars to back it, and it shows in some things, the site itself is very well put together f.e.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2015, 06:48 by topol »

« Reply #111 on: June 20, 2015, 06:56 »
+1
I don't. Does that justify poor images on stocksy as well.

I am baffled that all of a sudden poor images are acceptable.


What you call poor images are being sold for hundreds of dollars on the macros. I have files in smartphone collections that would probably make you cry if you look at them at 100%. But they sell, for prices that are higher than on stocksy.

The micros want technically superperfect images, because many times the files are used as design elements and are mixed together with many other files in photoshop, have lots of filters and layers applied etc...you need techinally very high quality for that. Macro images are more used "as is", with maybe a little text applied, so if you are not going to crop deeply into the image or are unlikely to add massive photoshop manipulation, it doesnt matter so much if the at 100% it is not fully in focus,has noise etc...

At least that is my explanation of the phenomenen and from seeing my files in use when I find them.

Another point might be the demand for "authentic" images, i.e. images that look like snapshots or what "normal people" would do and post on instagram and facebook.

These images dont have any kind of useful technical quality, they are all under or over exposed, massive noise, artifacts, out of focus. But it also makes it clear that it is a picture that comes from someone who is not a photographer, a real world look. And there seems to be massive demand for these files, otherwise the agencies wouldnt all be opening up smartphone/overfiltered instagram collections.

Customers are not stupid, if SS criteria of technical perfection where necessary for macro, then of course their editors would require it from their suppliers.

Just look at the eyeem collection on getty:

http://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?family=creative&license=rf&excludenudity=false&collections=EYM&Language=en-US
« Last Edit: June 20, 2015, 07:13 by cobalt »

Shelma1

« Reply #112 on: June 20, 2015, 07:08 »
+2
I don't think many buyers put micro and macro images into those categories or use them that differently. Different people and organizations have different budgets. Some are willing to pay more because it's the client's money, not theirs, that they're spending. Some are willing to pay more for quality. Some are willing to pay more for cachet. Some are willing to pay more for scarcity.Some are willing to pay more for convenience or time savings.

« Reply #113 on: June 20, 2015, 07:29 »
+5

Please do the forum a favor and quit trolling.

With all due respect, at the moment I am not sure who is doing the trolling... . You are perfectly entitled to a critical opinion about Stocksy, the way you express it though is disrespectful, condenscending and drips from arrogance. Sorry to say it this bluntly.

« Last Edit: June 20, 2015, 09:35 by Mellimage »

gillian

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #114 on: June 21, 2015, 05:00 »
0
+1 to that. everytime someone disagrees you label them a "troll". Are you using this word incorrectly? Your English seems really very good, so I'm afraid you are coming across as somewhat unhinged.

« Reply #115 on: September 25, 2015, 00:49 »
+3
I came to stock photography from a traditional graphic design background, having had my own business for nearly 25 years, sold a couple of years ago.

In the last couple of years, i was dealing with the NEW breed of Graphic designer, ones that could not actually draw and knew nothing about design, but could "use" computer programs, so they would look at images on their computers that they had got from somewhere or other and create low res pdf's for proofing. Everything thing looked fantastic on the screen, but when one received the final output file "Ready for Press", they would have rgb colours mixed in with cmyk, just about every image that was supplied was 72dpi and the scale in size changed because you can do that in a computer program, No bleeds, etc, etc.

And we wonder why places like Stockys amd Creative market place exist, it is because they are dealing with people that think what they see on a computer screen is how it will look at output. Both of these site promote themselves as hipsters and trendy but that is just an excuse for bad quality.

And in the end the our industries skills, knowledge and quality go down the drain.

You can't make a silk purse from a sows ear!!!!



« Reply #116 on: September 25, 2015, 01:59 »
+2
There are so called hipster agencies, traditional agencies that will simply knock the spots off places like Offset, Stocksy, Getty and so on. These agencies are as closed-doors for the average photographer. These places are used by many of the worlds leading Advertising-agencies and the prices for images normally runs in to a four figure amount.

I would classify places like Offset and Stocksy as shall we say the micro worlds " hipster" agencies, something slightly above all the average material but still way beneath the smaller agencies I am talking about.

Besides, this type of photography certainly isn't anything new, groundbreaking. Many used to achieve these "trendy" looks in the old film days, tweaking trannies, prints in the old dark-rooms. That took some skill actually. :)

« Reply #117 on: September 25, 2015, 03:29 »
+2


Just look at the eyeem collection on getty:

http://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?family=creative&license=rf&excludenudity=false&collections=EYM&Language=en-US


That's a very nice collection from eyeem.  I can see why Getty has pushed that collection to the front of the search results.

« Reply #118 on: September 25, 2015, 03:41 »
+1


Just look at the eyeem collection on getty:

http://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?family=creative&license=rf&excludenudity=false&collections=EYM&Language=en-US


That's a very nice collection from eyeem.  I can see why Getty has pushed that collection to the front of the search results.


Really nice collection, i already got a sale from Getty thru Eyeem.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
58 Replies
18026 Views
Last post February 15, 2010, 21:56
by RacePhoto
2 Replies
3365 Views
Last post June 13, 2014, 15:45
by TanyaLittle
18 Replies
4677 Views
Last post May 04, 2014, 21:43
by Jonathan Ross
127 Replies
26146 Views
Last post February 24, 2016, 19:54
by Jo Ann Snover
1 Replies
886 Views
Last post March 23, 2016, 21:08
by goober

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors