MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: "Too Simplistic" ???  (Read 3197 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WarrenPrice

« on: October 26, 2011, 10:19 »
0
Here's a first (for me) from DT.  A motorcycle camshaft gear on white background was rejected -- along with several other motorcycle parts images -- because it was:

++This image is a little simplistic as a single image, please submit a more complex version, or submit a series of such works related by a concept, as one image.

So much for KISS.   ;D

PS: similar images are my best sellers at iS and SS and .... AT DREAMSTIME!!!   >:(


« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2011, 11:25 »
0
DT and SS are now making all sorts of value judgements like this.  You might think that after a certain period of time, and a certain number of sales, they'd accept that the photographer has some idea of what sells, and that's what he's spending his time on.  The numbers to substantiate this crazy assertion are right there in their database.

My best selling images are the simplest ones.  In some cases, almost comically simple.  Rejecting a stock photo for 'simplicity' is totally clueless.  

Speaking of clueless - I no longer feel that I have a clue what these agencies want.  I don't think they know, themselves, any more.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 11:28 by stockastic »

« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2011, 11:27 »
0
DT and the collages.. or you have one online or three but in a collage.. jeez, not easy and we keep on selling us cheap, what the heck can we do??

« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2011, 13:13 »
0
I really cannot understand the "collage" thing at DT. If I wanted the OP's high resolution image of the camshaft, should I really download some collage where the camshaft is small? Or should the OP make collages that are for example 25,000 * 25,000 pixels so he would not need to downsize the image? And then I would need to download the full size file just so I can get the d*mn camshaft in full size? Thinking about this makes my brain hurt...

« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2011, 14:36 »
0
Collages suck. I've done one set for Alamy with a dozen things on it but they go to the micros as single objects. Why should I put in the work it takes to create a dozen images and then spend time pasting them together just to get 24c for a subscription? That values photos at less than 2c.

I can see Dreamstime's idea, that it is a nice attraction to bring in buyers, but it is a rotten idea for artists.

« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2011, 14:52 »
0
I can see Dreamstime's idea, that it is a nice attraction to bring in buyers, but it is a rotten idea for artists.

for them too

« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2011, 14:57 »
0
I really cannot understand the "collage" thing at DT. If I wanted the OP's high resolution image of the camshaft, should I really download some collage where the camshaft is small? Or should the OP make collages that are for example 25,000 * 25,000 pixels so he would not need to downsize the image? And then I would need to download the full size file just so I can get the d*mn camshaft in full size? Thinking about this makes my brain hurt...



Did Jackie Chan sign a model release for that?  ;D

« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2011, 15:07 »
0
My experience with collages is positive. About a third of my sales are collages, and I saw it as a marketing tool a long time ago.
Just another way to set you apart from others.

« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2011, 15:13 »
0
My experience with collages is positive. About a third of my sales are collages, and I saw it as a marketing tool a long time ago.
Just another way to set you apart from others.

But you don't know if you would have sold twice as many images with less effort by not doing collages.

DT may calculate that it is a good idea for them because it brings in buyers who take a lot more than just some collages, so the loss to them from reduced sales as a result of the collages is compensated for by the increase across the whole site.

I do realise, thought, that the pricing levels reward a file that gets a large number of sales, which could offset the disadvantage somewhat
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 15:15 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2011, 15:25 »
0
I can see Dreamstime's idea, that it is a nice attraction to bring in buyers, but it is a rotten idea for artists.

But how about a client that need a high resolution image of a certain object? Why would they like to pay a XXL price for a size S image?

« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2011, 15:27 »
0
It was difficult for me to accept the fact that simple vector is bad vector in Microstock twisted logic (although my experience is - simpler vector - better sales). As for photography I don't understand it at all. Is it forbidden to upload images of unicolor objects on white background? Or spherical unicolor objects on white background? Anything on white background that is not zen stone?

I believe that collages sell well. But selling ten images for the price of one - it is such a great deal as uploading to PhotoSpin. Maybe it makes sense with old images with no or few downloads. But I wouldn't make collages of new images if they are accepted on other sites as single images.

I can see bright future of microstock clearly - no, we are not going to cut commissions anymore but now we accept only collages of minimum twenty images.

« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2011, 15:36 »
0
It was difficult for me to accept the fact that simple vector is bad vector in Microstock twisted logic (although my experience is - simpler vector - better sales). As for photography I don't understand it at all. Is it forbidden to upload images of unicolor objects on white background? Or spherical unicolor objects on white background? Anything on white background that is not zen stone?

I believe that collages sell well. But selling ten images for the price of one - it is such a great deal as uploading to PhotoSpin. Maybe it makes sense with old images with no or few downloads. But I wouldn't make collages of new images if they are accepted on other sites as single images.

I can see bright future of microstock clearly - no, we are not going to cut commissions anymore but now we accept only collages of minimum twenty images.

I think some of you are getting carried away by using the "ten images" template for a collage. It can be as simple as two images.
As far as clients not wanting to spend $40 for a hi-res image, you've got to be kidding. Most of these clients are high dollar ad agencies.

« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2011, 15:42 »
0
Collages suck. I've done one set for Alamy with a dozen things on it but they go to the micros as single objects. Why should I put in the work it takes to create a dozen images and then spend time pasting them together just to get 24c for a subscription? That values photos at less than 2c.

I can see Dreamstime's idea, that it is a nice attraction to bring in buyers, but it is a rotten idea for artists.


Surely collages are just taking microstock's business model ... one little step further. The individual images are usually hugely downsized, too small to be used on their own. Collages certainly seem to be popular with subscribers on SS and, if they wanted to, they could probably just download the full-size images from the same author within their download limit. Therefore they seem to be buying the additional composition work and probably use the collage directly within a design. A good composite of similarly themed images has lots of potential uses.

« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2011, 15:52 »
0
I think some of you are getting carried away by using the "ten images" template for a collage. It can be as simple as two images.
As far as clients not wanting to spend $40 for a hi-res image, you've got to be kidding. Most of these clients are high dollar ad agencies.

Yes, but if you don't get even a full resolution image with the $40, they might choose the "non-collage" image at $10.

Perhaps I need to explain my point once more.
Two photographers, Photographer A and Photographer B shoot an object with similar 24 mpix camera with 6000*4000 pixels resolution.
Photographer A resizes the image smaller to 1500*1000 pixels and put it in a collage with 11 other files. Photographer B submits the image as a separate image at 6000*4000 pixels.
Customer needs an image to fill out a whole spread in a magazine. Which image is he going to buy?
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 15:57 by Perry »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2011, 15:59 »
0
I think some of you are getting carried away by using the "ten images" template for a collage. It can be as simple as two images.
As far as clients not wanting to spend $40 for a hi-res image, you've got to be kidding. Most of these clients are high dollar ad agencies.

Yes, but if you don't get even a full resolution image with the $40, they might choose the "non-collage" image at $10.

Perhaps I need to explain my point once more.
Two photographers, Photographer A and Photographer B shoot an object with similar 24 mpix camera with 6000*4000 pixels resolution.
Photographer A resizes the image smaller to 1500*1000 pixels and put it in a collage with 11 other files. Photographer B submits the image as a separate image at 6000*4000 pixels.
Customer needs an image to fill out a whole spread in a magazine. Which image is he going to buy?

The point is, Rimglow, is that the image was rejected for being simple.  It it is too simple, why would I want to include it in a collage?

« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2011, 16:00 »
0
BTW I had shot some old brass letters on a building, isolated them and uploaded them. DT rejected them and wrote that I should submit the whole alphabet as a collage. Yes, a very bright idea considering I only had 7 or 8 different letters.

« Reply #16 on: October 26, 2011, 16:10 »
0
I think some of you are getting carried away by using the "ten images" template for a collage. It can be as simple as two images.
As far as clients not wanting to spend $40 for a hi-res image, you've got to be kidding. Most of these clients are high dollar ad agencies.

Yes, but if you don't get even a full resolution image with the $40, they might choose the "non-collage" image at $10.

Perhaps I need to explain my point once more.
Two photographers, Photographer A and Photographer B shoot an object with similar 24 mpix camera with 6000*4000 pixels resolution.
Photographer A resizes the image smaller to 1500*1000 pixels and put it in a collage with 11 other files. Photographer B submits the image as a separate image at 6000*4000 pixels.
Customer needs an image to fill out a whole spread in a magazine. Which image is he going to buy?

The point is, Rimglow, is that the image was rejected for being simple.  It it is too simple, why would I want to include it in a collage?

I understand your point. The reason for the rejection is ridiculous. I have an isolated toothpick that was accepted by Dreamstime and has sold. Can't get much simpler than that. But if you create a collage with 2 camshafts then you would probably get a different reviewer and get accepted. Sometimes you just have to play the game.

« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2011, 16:36 »
0
I think some of you are getting carried away by using the "ten images" template for a collage. It can be as simple as two images.
As far as clients not wanting to spend $40 for a hi-res image, you've got to be kidding. Most of these clients are high dollar ad agencies.

Yes, but if you don't get even a full resolution image with the $40, they might choose the "non-collage" image at $10.

Perhaps I need to explain my point once more.
Two photographers, Photographer A and Photographer B shoot an object with similar 24 mpix camera with 6000*4000 pixels resolution.
Photographer A resizes the image smaller to 1500*1000 pixels and put it in a collage with 11 other files. Photographer B submits the image as a separate image at 6000*4000 pixels.
Customer needs an image to fill out a whole spread in a magazine. Which image is he going to buy?

Why resize smaller?  I don't.  Why create a collage with 11 images?  The preview image would be so small no one would click on it.  Always consider what the preview will look like.
But to answer your question, the client will always choose the image that suites their needs the best.

« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2011, 16:57 »
0
I think the important point is that the reviewer probably had no clue what a camshaft gear was, or why anyone would want a photo of it.   So here's a crazy thought - why couldn't they just TRUST THE PHOTOGRAPHER, and assume maybe he knew something about the subject of the photo?   

WarrenPrice

« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2011, 18:46 »
0
I think they do know, Stock.  They know enough to reject images that are similar to previous submissions.  Perhaps there really is a push for collages? 

I agree with Rimglow about simple images.  Any object on white was an almost automatic acceptance until fairly recently.  It is more and more difficult to determine what any of the agencies want ... SS has also gotten very "picky."   :P


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
39 Replies
12674 Views
Last post March 23, 2010, 10:28
by donding
1 Replies
7067 Views
Last post March 14, 2011, 05:33
by fotorob
12 Replies
4647 Views
Last post March 03, 2010, 21:47
by RacePhoto
4 Replies
4784 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 18:38
by ShadySue
5 Replies
4812 Views
Last post September 17, 2011, 22:33
by PeterChigmaroff

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results