MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What is Stocksy? - From an Outsider's Viewpoint...  (Read 8360 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 21, 2013, 22:51 »
+8

I thought it might be productive to think about what you don't see on Stocksy:

1) Over-saturation of colors:  Actually, quite the opposite.  A lot of the imagery has a somewhat subdued color palette, very subtle in nature; the color doesn't shout at you.  Color is bright and vivid only where appropriate, such as party balloons, vividly painted objects, etc.

2) Very little post-processing:  I'd be willing to bet that most of Stocksy's images have been finished in Lightroom without the need for further editing in Photoshop.

3) Very little (if any) composite work or special effects:  For example, there are some nice star-trail images, but seemingly all done in-camera.  No fake water (Flood Filter) or related CG imagery.

4) Not a lot of conceptual work:  A keyword search for "conceptual" yields 21 results, although perhaps that's being too vague.  Here are some other related searches: "fantasy" 130 results, "surreal" 100 results (a lot of which the keyword doesn't even apply), "magical" 142, "mystery" 227 results, "strength" 233 results, "power" 308 results.  I have no doubt this category will grow as the collection matures.

5) Backgrounds are mostly object oriented and created in-camera:  No scans of old paper, or scans of paper made to look like old paper, no added grain, noise and/or textures, etc.  There's some really nice and cleverly produced images in this collection.

6) There's very little HDR imagery.

7) No illustrations (yet).

I'm sure others will add their opinions regarding the validity of this list.  What I do see on Stocksy, is primarily three styles: 

1) Classically straight photography, aimed at producing a more natural and elegant look by avoiding heavy post-processing and filtration.  Lighting is often soft and subtle.

2) Although the MSG folks on Stocksy may protest, there is a significant proportion of images that have, for lack of a better term, an "Instagram look."  There are a lot of images that exhibit faded colors, split-toning, and/or subtle cross-processing.  This isn't a criticism.  This look is very hot at the moment; there are numerous TV programs here in the US that employ this technique, not to mention countless ads in both print and television.  The best-selling photographers at Etsy use variations of this aesthetic to some degree (http://www.craftcount.com/category.php?cat=3&subcat=29).

3) There are many images, especially a significant portion of the landscapes, that have what I would call a "snapshot" quality.  It'll be interesting to see how this approach sells.  Personally, I feel this is the one weakness of the collection (just my opinion and probably worthless, so don't confuse this criticism with hate, please).

I'm really rooting for Stocksy.  Any agency that can offer an alternative to Getty and the Micros while also offering fair-trade business practices, deserves all the support it can get. 




mlwinphoto

« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2013, 23:21 »
0
Good for them.  They have what I consider a rather unique look among the current big hitters in the stock agency business (not that they are a big hitter but hopefully they will be some day).  Counterproductive for them to look like everyone else.




« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2013, 07:20 »
+1
Sedge..
Really interesting point of view, that can teach us a lot.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2013, 07:26 »
+3
Yes,  very interesting OP.
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.

gillian

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2013, 15:43 »
0
you are correct with the softer look, in fact they prefer blacks softer, natural skin tones and soft light. To me a lot of it looks like it's shot in Canada during winter as the light is muted, lucky buggars. Not all of it (I've seen some stuff there that is contrasty, HDRish, oversaturated and sharp), but certainly the curated stuff.

I'm not so sure about less post processing through, but I don't use Lr so I don't have the VSCO plug in that many seem to have. I think your "instagram" comment is valid and why not? it's on trend right now, and may well go on for a decade.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2015, 06:27 by gillian »

« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2013, 16:43 »
0
Hmmm...  Sounds like a boutique operation along the lines of peopleimages offering a certain look and feel subset of what is available on the main sites.  So these sites are not going to be quaking in their boots about the competition but, then, there are tons of software companies that are not microsoft or oracle that do very nicely, thank you very much.  Seems a reasonable chance that those that are in could do ok (which I guess is the whole point) and for the rest it's not particularly relevant.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2013, 16:55 »
0
Hmmm...  Sounds like a boutique operation along the lines of peopleimages offering a certain look and feel subset of what is available on the main sites.  So these sites are not going to be quaking in their boots about the competition
Well, iStock now has Yu-know-who as a pseudo-exclusive, and they're now toe deep in my native natural lighting, which previously was unacceptable there; so they may be taking notice.

gillian

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2013, 17:14 »
+1
are we all have a small smile and how natural lighting is "the latest thing". I agree that both SS and iS seem to be softening up a little.

I've only had a cursory look, but isn't OFFSET the same type of thing?

« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2013, 17:19 »
+1
Im currently working with an action that enhances contrasts, tone down colours and lay a sepia layer over everything.
The instagram look.

and so what?

I produced an action that could make microstock pictures look bright and shining, the opposite is just as easy.

gillian

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2013, 17:34 »
0
depends on where you live, I find my light here to be harsh so I reduce contrast on outdoorsy stuff, esp in summer, but if you're in northern Europe... nice. 

« Last Edit: June 11, 2015, 06:28 by gillian »

« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2013, 17:47 »
0
Hmmm...  Sounds like a boutique operation along the lines of peopleimages offering a certain look and feel subset of what is available on the main sites.  So these sites are not going to be quaking in their boots about the competition
Well, iStock now has Yu-know-who as a pseudo-exclusive, and they're now toe deep in my native natural lighting, which previously was unacceptable there; so they may be taking notice.
IS are accepting a lot of things they wouldn't have previously (including from me).  The point really is that IS, SS, DT, FT would all have this style, level of quality and subject matter but have all other styles catered for also.  On Stocksy / Offset it would just be easier to find and there maybe a slight "designer label" vibe for those who care about such things.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2013, 18:00 »
0
depends on where you live, I find the light here to be harsh so I reduce contrast on outdoorsy stuff, esp in summer, but if you're in northern Europe... nice.
It never used to be considered 'nice'.  ::)
Though admitedly, you have to be creative in getting rid of a bright white, or flat grey, sky.

« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2013, 18:03 »
0
I live in the desert and use the bright natural light here with (mostly) minimal post processing.  8)

I do a lot of experimenting on Flickr though with off camera lighting which is what they asked to see (weird). Guess that explains why my portfolio was rejected! It is extremely varied and probably confusing to sift through. Eh well. Still a neat/brilliant concept I wish them the best of luck!

gillian

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2013, 18:07 »
0
if you look at summer images (on Stocksy moreso than SS, who still love brights and whites) they often are quite muted. I suppose it's valid, but just like Christmas is considered to be winter and snowy, I consider summer to be bright, sunny and hot. people wearing jeans is NOT summer in my part of the world (tropical Australia), and people wearing jeans on the beach pretty much only happens in family portrait shoots. however, shooting in summer is hard work to get blue skies and nicely exposed skin. (actually I did a shoot in the middle of winter on a farm here and it was still super bright, harsh light and too contrasty.)

edit: i've since moved to a more mediterranean climate and no longer put my jeans away for 4 months. however, my upbringing still knows what "real" summer means., but it's not reflected much as London, Paris and NY seem to rule the world.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2014, 06:28 by gillian »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2013, 18:18 »
0
Oh, we had three weeks of hot weather here this summer, which was three full weeks longer than the last two years. Then it was jeans, jumpers [1], cagoules.
But of course, we can get harsh, contrasty natural lighting too, just not as often as you do. That's the days when passers-by say, "Oh, what a lovely day for taking pictures".

[1] That's the UK use of jumper meaning sweater, not the US meaning of pinafore dress. (apparently)
« Last Edit: September 22, 2013, 18:20 by ShadySue »

« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2013, 19:34 »
+2

4) Not a lot of conceptual work:  A keyword search for "conceptual" yields 21 results, although perhaps that's being too vague.  Here are some other related searches: "fantasy" 130 results, "surreal" 100 results (a lot of which the keyword doesn't even apply), "magical" 142, "mystery" 227 results, "strength" 233 results, "power" 308 results.  I have no doubt this category will grow as the collection matures

I don't understand why anyone would use "conceptual" as a keyword. What would it look like? How could I photograph it? All the other keywords you mentioned are definitely concepts in my opinion so I would disagree with your conclusion that there is not a lot of concept work.

« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2013, 20:09 »
0

I thought it might be productive to think about what you don't see on Stocksy:

1) Over-saturation of colors:  Actually, quite the opposite.  A lot of the imagery has a somewhat subdued color palette, very subtle in nature; the color doesn't shout at you.  Color is bright and vivid only where appropriate, such as party balloons, vividly painted objects, etc.

2) Very little post-processing:  I'd be willing to bet that most of Stocksy's images have been finished in Lightroom without the need for further editing in Photoshop.

3) Very little (if any) composite work or special effects:  For example, there are some nice star-trail images, but seemingly all done in-camera.  No fake water (Flood Filter) or related CG imagery.

4) Not a lot of conceptual work:  A keyword search for "conceptual" yields 21 results, although perhaps that's being too vague.  Here are some other related searches: "fantasy" 130 results, "surreal" 100 results (a lot of which the keyword doesn't even apply), "magical" 142, "mystery" 227 results, "strength" 233 results, "power" 308 results.  I have no doubt this category will grow as the collection matures.

5) Backgrounds are mostly object oriented and created in-camera:  No scans of old paper, or scans of paper made to look like old paper, no added grain, noise and/or textures, etc.  There's some really nice and cleverly produced images in this collection.

6) There's very little HDR imagery.

7) No illustrations (yet).

I'm sure others will add their opinions regarding the validity of this list.  What I do see on Stocksy, is primarily three styles: 

1) Classically straight photography, aimed at producing a more natural and elegant look by avoiding heavy post-processing and filtration.  Lighting is often soft and subtle.

2) Although the MSG folks on Stocksy may protest, there is a significant proportion of images that have, for lack of a better term, an "Instagram look."  There are a lot of images that exhibit faded colors, split-toning, and/or subtle cross-processing.  This isn't a criticism.  This look is very hot at the moment; there are numerous TV programs here in the US that employ this technique, not to mention countless ads in both print and television.  The best-selling photographers at Etsy use variations of this aesthetic to some degree (http://www.craftcount.com/category.php?cat=3&subcat=29).

3) There are many images, especially a significant portion of the landscapes, that have what I would call a "snapshot" quality.  It'll be interesting to see how this approach sells.  Personally, I feel this is the one weakness of the collection (just my opinion and probably worthless, so don't confuse this criticism with hate, please).

I'm really rooting for Stocksy.  Any agency that can offer an alternative to Getty and the Micros while also offering fair-trade business practices, deserves all the support it can get.


Nah. It's too far up it's own arse for my liking. Sorry but stock ... is stock ... is stock ... and good-old-fashioned basic 'stock' will always win out.

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. That's why I am not persuaded to join.

I like the general concept but I don't think it is strong enough to work commercially in the photographers' interests. Sorry but 50% of X is still a lot less than say 30% of 10X.

gillian

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2013, 20:22 »
0

[1] That's the UK use of jumper meaning sweater, not the US meaning of pinafore dress. (apparently)

yes got that, not to be confused with "sloppy joe" which in Australia means "jumper" (meaning sweater, not kangaroo) rather than a hamburger.

but what are cagoules? is this going to be some wet weather item I've never heard of?

edit: ah, a windcheater? yeah, we don't own those!

« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2013, 21:02 »
+3
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.

Ron

« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2013, 22:18 »
+1
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.

Ron

« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2013, 22:21 »
0

4) Not a lot of conceptual work:  A keyword search for "conceptual" yields 21 results, although perhaps that's being too vague.  Here are some other related searches: "fantasy" 130 results, "surreal" 100 results (a lot of which the keyword doesn't even apply), "magical" 142, "mystery" 227 results, "strength" 233 results, "power" 308 results.  I have no doubt this category will grow as the collection matures

I don't understand why anyone would use "conceptual" as a keyword. What would it look like? How could I photograph it? All the other keywords you mentioned are definitely concepts in my opinion so I would disagree with your conclusion that there is not a lot of concept work.
I have many images purchased on the word concept. Probably in conjunction with another word, but the word is used to search.

« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2013, 01:36 »
0

4) Not a lot of conceptual work:  A keyword search for "conceptual" yields 21 results, although perhaps that's being too vague.  Here are some other related searches: "fantasy" 130 results, "surreal" 100 results (a lot of which the keyword doesn't even apply), "magical" 142, "mystery" 227 results, "strength" 233 results, "power" 308 results.  I have no doubt this category will grow as the collection matures

I don't understand why anyone would use "conceptual" as a keyword. What would it look like? How could I photograph it? All the other keywords you mentioned are definitely concepts in my opinion so I would disagree with your conclusion that there is not a lot of concept work.

First, I'd ask that you re-read this part of my original post: "A keyword search for "conceptual" yields 21 results, although perhaps that's being too vague."   I wouldn't expect someone to do a search using just the single word "conceptual."  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.

Is there a lot of "conceptual" imagery on Stocksy?  Not when compared to their collections of lifestyle, travel, food, holidays, business, seasonal, etc.  It's really not a big deal anyway; what they have is very good and it's sure to grow. 

Perhaps what I should have stated in my original post is that a lot of what I call "conceptual" imagery involves heavy post-processing: image manipulations, composites, CGI, etc.; for example the kind of wonderful stuff that John Lund does.  You won't find this type of imagery on Stocksy (at least I couldn't find any).  Hopefully this should clarify my point #4.







« Last Edit: September 23, 2013, 01:39 by Sedge »

« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2013, 03:01 »
+3

I thought it might be productive to think about what you don't see on Stocksy:

1) Over-saturation of colors:  Actually, quite the opposite.  A lot of the imagery has a somewhat subdued color palette, very subtle in nature; the color doesn't shout at you.  Color is bright and vivid only where appropriate, such as party balloons, vividly painted objects, etc.

2) Very little post-processing:  I'd be willing to bet that most of Stocksy's images have been finished in Lightroom without the need for further editing in Photoshop.

3) Very little (if any) composite work or special effects:  For example, there are some nice star-trail images, but seemingly all done in-camera.  No fake water (Flood Filter) or related CG imagery.

4) Not a lot of conceptual work:  A keyword search for "conceptual" yields 21 results, although perhaps that's being too vague.  Here are some other related searches: "fantasy" 130 results, "surreal" 100 results (a lot of which the keyword doesn't even apply), "magical" 142, "mystery" 227 results, "strength" 233 results, "power" 308 results.  I have no doubt this category will grow as the collection matures.

5) Backgrounds are mostly object oriented and created in-camera:  No scans of old paper, or scans of paper made to look like old paper, no added grain, noise and/or textures, etc.  There's some really nice and cleverly produced images in this collection.

6) There's very little HDR imagery.

7) No illustrations (yet).

I'm sure others will add their opinions regarding the validity of this list.  What I do see on Stocksy, is primarily three styles: 

1) Classically straight photography, aimed at producing a more natural and elegant look by avoiding heavy post-processing and filtration.  Lighting is often soft and subtle.

2) Although the MSG folks on Stocksy may protest, there is a significant proportion of images that have, for lack of a better term, an "Instagram look."  There are a lot of images that exhibit faded colors, split-toning, and/or subtle cross-processing.  This isn't a criticism.  This look is very hot at the moment; there are numerous TV programs here in the US that employ this technique, not to mention countless ads in both print and television.  The best-selling photographers at Etsy use variations of this aesthetic to some degree (http://www.craftcount.com/category.php?cat=3&subcat=29).

3) There are many images, especially a significant portion of the landscapes, that have what I would call a "snapshot" quality.  It'll be interesting to see how this approach sells.  Personally, I feel this is the one weakness of the collection (just my opinion and probably worthless, so don't confuse this criticism with hate, please).

I'm really rooting for Stocksy.  Any agency that can offer an alternative to Getty and the Micros while also offering fair-trade business practices, deserves all the support it can get.


Nah. It's too far up it's own arse for my liking. Sorry but stock ... is stock ... is stock ... and good-old-fashioned basic 'stock' will always win out.

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. That's why I am not persuaded to join.

I like the general concept but I don't think it is strong enough to work commercially in the photographers' interests. Sorry but 50% of X is still a lot less than say 30% of 10X.

That's fine if you're happy being so reliant on SS.  I'm not so confident, having seen how my earnings can crash on other sites and having seen that it has already happened to some on SS.  Stocksy could be one way to diversify.  I liked it when my earnings were spread over many sites, as a non-exclusive that's hard to achieve now.

« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2013, 05:49 »
+1
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.

« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2013, 06:34 »
+5
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

Tror

« Reply #25 on: September 23, 2013, 06:40 »
0
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 »
+4
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? 
« Last Edit: September 23, 2013, 10:28 by jen »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #27 on: September 23, 2013, 11:04 »
0
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.

« Reply #28 on: September 23, 2013, 15:33 »
-2
....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.

« Reply #29 on: September 23, 2013, 15:41 »
+1
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

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2013, 04:00 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2015, 06:31 by gillian »

« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2013, 08:23 »
+1
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  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?

« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2013, 08:42 »
+1
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.

« Reply #33 on: September 26, 2013, 02:23 »
+4
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

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: September 26, 2013, 04:15 »
+1
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.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2013, 06:41 by ShadySue »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Stocksy is Alive

Started by Artist « 1 2 ... 5 6 » Stocksy

141 Replies
24707 Views
Last post December 30, 2013, 04:38
by topol
0 Replies
1237 Views
Last post April 03, 2013, 00:03
by goober
Stocksy in action...

Started by mattdixon « 1 2 3 4  All » Stocksy

98 Replies
12592 Views
Last post May 29, 2013, 00:53
by leaf
Stocksy - where are they?

Started by rene « 1 2 ... 6 7 » Stocksy

154 Replies
23885 Views
Last post December 02, 2013, 23:03
by Pixel-Pizzazz
26 Replies
3879 Views
Last post September 02, 2014, 10:16
by bunhill

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors