Author Topic: What is Stocksy? - From an Outsider's Viewpoint... (Read 20106 times)

Tror · « **Reply #25 on:** September 23, 2013, 06:40 »

Quote from: bhr on September 23, 2013, 06:34

Seems to be some confusion here. That low contrast soft crushed blacks look which some people do so well (actually a whole range of different styles) is completely different from the look people get when they couple flat lighting with bad processing. It's also about the palettes used etc - ie about how the colors are processed. It's really simplistic to compare bad lighting and poor processing with a deliberate style used well and in context.

I don't have a stick in this fire. My work is rubbish. I need to change. But I definitely know good work when I see it and have a good sense of what is being used and where. Reading these threads I find myself wondering what blogs or magazines some people here are actually reading every day or whether they can see what they are looking at. And what other contemporary media they see everyday. Here, below for example, are 4 lifestyle sites / magazines which all have a deliberately contemporary look and feel. And have another look at, say, some of those beautiful Swedish, French and US design and lifestyle blogs (and add 20 or 30 to your daily feed). Look at where those pictures are being sourced from - ie who is actually using them. Then look at this year's crop of annual reports - even many of the big industrials have gone over to a much more contemporary style since the past few years. Ditto in-flight magazines etc. Great looking photography seems to be the norm now - certainly everywhere I look. Meanwhile - we get almost no junk mail anymore - the sort of print which used to feature the microstock stuff which was heavily used 8 or 10 or even 5 years ago.

http://www.kinfolk.com
http://marrowmag.com
http://collectivequarterly.com
http://www.puregreenmag.com

Cool. Thanks for the great post and links. Very inspiring.

jen · « **Reply #26 on:** September 23, 2013, 10:26 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 22, 2013, 07:26

What would be significant would be knowing whether it's the less usual styles of pics outlined above or the 'traditional micro' style (e.g. the top of their front page) which sells more.

I can answer that from my personal experience in the last few months. I am working with a relatively tiny amount of data here, so take this with a grain of salt. Out of my top 10 bestselling files on Stocksy:

#1 and 2 are from the same shoot. One was rejected with no resubmit on iStock for lighting, and the other only got a handful of sales in 4 years. I converted to black and white before submitting to Stocksy, and both are now selling like hotcakes (well... warmcakes). The one that was deemed by iStock to have such bad lighting it couldn't be saved was curated on Stocksy. (That has actually happened a lot. Almost every single iStock reject I've sent to Stocksy has been curated. Not that I'm sending them all my rejections, just the images I loved to begin with.)

#3 is from a pretty but basically commercially-useless dance series I had on iStock (several of which were in Vetta), but it's a way more artistic black & white version I never actually submitted to iStock. The other less processed ones are on Stocksy as well; most of them have sold once.

#4-7 are business images, but they're ones I took in natural lighting with no smiles, just people focused on their work. Which is what every single designer I've talked to has said they're looking for, but is the opposite of what used to sell for me on iStock.

#8 is another black and white similar to #3, from a newer shoot. And #9 and 10 are close up artsy studio portraits that never would have sold for me on iStock. I didn't realize until looking at my stats that 4/10 of my bestsellers are black and whites. I hardly ever sold b&w on iStock.

So I don't know if this information is useful at all, but maybe it satisfies the curiosities a bit?

ShadySue · « **Reply #27 on:** September 23, 2013, 11:04 »

Quote from: jen on September 23, 2013, 10:26

So I don't know if this information is useful at all, but maybe it satisfies the curiosities a bit?

Thanks, that's very interesting.

heywoody · « **Reply #28 on:** September 23, 2013, 15:33 »

Quote from: Sedge on September 23, 2013, 01:36

....However, the use of the word as a keyword for microstock imagery is fairly common. For example, doing a keyword search for just the word "conceptual" in Shutterstock will present you with 461,726 results. Obviously, a serious search would involve employing multiple keywords, but never-the-less that's a heck of a lot of photographers incorporating the keyword "conceptual" into their images' metadata.....

Wow!! Almost half a million images using a word that conveys absolutely nothing about the image - the archetypal spam word. Really the sites need to compile a list of these nonsense overused keywords, publish a ban list and auto-reject anything that come in with any of these attached.

CrackerClips · « **Reply #29 on:** September 23, 2013, 15:41 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 23, 2013, 05:49

Quote from: Ron on September 22, 2013, 22:18
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 22, 2013, 21:02
Quote from: gostwyck on September 22, 2013, 20:09
Personally I believe that almost any image good enough to be accepted on Stocksy, on an exclusive basis, would almost certainly earn far more as a non-exclusive image on multiple microstock sites.

Honestly, if I put the images I have on Stocksy on the other four sites I'm selling on, I doubt they would make more than a few dollars a month. There's an audience that wants what Stocksy is selling, and they're willing to pay a reasonable fee.

You are on 2 low tier and 2 middle tier agencies if I am correct. If the images go on the top 6 they would probably outsell Stocksy.

Sorry. The four "non-subscription" sites.

How'd you get out of selling subscriptions on Deposit Photos?

gillian vann · « **Reply #30 on:** September 24, 2013, 04:00 »

Quote from: bhr on September 23, 2013, 06:34

Reading these threads I find myself wondering what blogs or magazines some people here are actually reading every day or whether they can see what they are looking at. And what other contemporary media they see everyday. Here, below for example, are 4 lifestyle sites / magazines which all have a deliberately contemporary look and feel.

meanwhile a hip, urban mag I work for, has recently published not one, but TWO stories where the writer took the photos. ugh. sometimes it's about the $. they now also have guest bloggers... read: young people with dubious skills & an iPhone, who write for free.

gostwyck · « **Reply #31 on:** September 24, 2013, 08:23 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 22, 2013, 21:02

Quote from: gostwyck on September 22, 2013, 20:09
Personally I believe that almost any image good enough to be accepted on Stocksy, on an exclusive basis, would almost certainly earn far more as a non-exclusive image on multiple microstock sites.

Honestly, if I put the images I have on Stocksy on the other four sites I'm selling on, I doubt they would make more than a few dollars a month. There's an audience that wants what Stocksy is selling, and they're willing to pay a reasonable fee.

The 'Big 4' that you are not on account for 96% of my stock earnings. I haven't even bothered with the 'other four sites' that you sell on due to the low volume that most report. What you describe is not a realistic comparison. The stuff you have on Stocksy would certainly sell extremely well on SS, IS, DT and FT. Why wouldn't they? They are excellent stock images.

I can't actually tell the difference between the stuff you sell on Stocksy and the stuff you used to sell on Istock (other than the lack of certain genres like illustrations, etc). Your latest work is certainly some of your best ... but then hopefully that applies to most of us as we slowly improve our knowledge and skills. I certainly don't see how Sedge's point #1, saying how on Stocksy colours are not overly saturated and generally subdued, applies to your port? Unless there's something wrong with my monitor your port on Stocksy is full of super-bright and saturated images. They are outstanding stock images but I don't see how any of Sedge's points define your work on Stocksy from your other work. I get the distinct impression that 'curating' on Stocksy must be done with the flick on a coin. Unlike Sedge I can see no pattern or logic to it at all.

The only thing that surprise me about your Stocksy portfolio are the simple backgrounds of seeds, leaves and the like. I got the impression that in your Istock days you'd have dismissed such basic subjects as the territory of newbies. Is that because on Stocksy they are more worthwhile because the volume of similar images is so much less?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #32 on:** September 24, 2013, 08:42 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 24, 2013, 08:23

The only thing that surprise me about your Stocksy portfolio are the simple backgrounds of seeds, leaves and the like. I got the impression that in your Istock days you'd have dismissed such basic subjects as the territory of newbies. Is that because on Stocksy they are more worthwhile because the volume of similar images is so much less?

It doesn't hurt to be contributing to a collection that is still in need of subjects. And I like doing the backgrounds. I think they're useful for ads and articles. I was doing them at IS as well.

Magdalena · « **Reply #33 on:** September 26, 2013, 02:23 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 22, 2013, 20:09

Personally I believe that almost any image good enough to be accepted on Stocksy, on an exclusive basis, would almost certainly earn far more as a non-exclusive image on multiple microstock sites.

I started selling my images on few microstock sites and then I decided for iStock exclusivity. I was exclusive photographer four years and I was very happy there, but then iStock changed very much and also my sales and earnings decreased so finally I canceled my exclusivity few month ago. I started upload my images back to another microstock sites and now I have my portfolio on 9 sites including "Big 4". I think I have good comparison and I have to say that my images earned much more when they were exclusive only on iStock and I'm very sorry that this site changed so much. I don't think that exclusivity is profitable for all images, I believe that many photographers will earn more as non-exclusive, but some images will be more successful as exclusive on one site.

ShadySue · « **Reply #34 on:** September 26, 2013, 04:15 »

Quote from: Magdalena on September 26, 2013, 02:23

I started selling my images on few microstock sites and then I decided for iStock exclusivity. I was exclusive photographer four years and I was very happy there, but then iStock changed very much and also my sales and earnings decreased so finally I canceled my exclusivity few month ago. I started upload my images back to another microstock sites and now I have my portfolio on 9 sites including "Big 4". I think I have good comparison and I have to say that my images earned much more when they were exclusive only on iStock and I'm very sorry that this site changed so much.

Interesting, thanks for sharing this info.
However, we can't know whether you'd have benefitted or suffered from the Collections system, with exclusive images being undercut by non-selling exclusive images (which may have been low-demand, low supply and are now having their few sales at a much lower price) and indies. Or getting 'unworthy' files made more expensive by an auto-system. Or you might have benefitted. Who knows?
And certainly, most people who have expressed an opinion are finding that their new files aren't getting any interest or sales.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What is Stocksy? - From an Outsider's Viewpoint... (Read 20106 times)

Tror

jen

ShadySue

heywoody

CrackerClips

gillian vann

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

Magdalena

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors