Author Topic: change, what change? same ole same ole ! (Read 10516 times)

puravida · « **on:** June 13, 2009, 14:31 »

You remember that thread here by Mr Arcurs, and another one by Ellen B in DT forum, talking of new ideas ? They both said we must think "out of the box" to succeed in this "new" micro of 2009+ .
So, how many of you actually believed them, and uploaded these new ideas?
I am not even sure if the reviewers and editors of the Big 6 agreed with Yuri and Ellen, because I still see the same ole same ole as Featured Images.
Same thing for my downloads, I am still getting downloads from my "same ole same ole". Not that I am b!tching, a sale is a sale is a sale. But if I had believed what the gurus told us earlier in 2009, I would have ended up with less downloads.

So, who is "behind time" here? Reviewers? Buyers? Or is this "thinking out of the box" idea just another flash in the pan for writing an article.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** June 13, 2009, 14:47 »

I don't remember that. Can you link to it?

puravida · « **Reply #2 on:** June 13, 2009, 15:13 »

Quote from: sjlocke on June 13, 2009, 14:47

I don't remember that. Can you link to it?

This one Mr. Locke. http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/stock-buyers-are-geeks-are-you/
item 3) be different or be dead !...

And this one by Ms Bough
"The industry has made the mistake of creating too many of the same images over and over again. This is because instead of nurturing the photographers who have vision to combine both art and commerce to produce unique images within the standard salable subjects, they let creative decisions be driven by previous sales results and creative research based all on the same sources. This has resulted in a glut of images that all look alike. I like to call them the image de jour...everyone runs out and shoots the same style and subject with the same look on the same day, it appears."
http://ezinearticles.com/?Ellen-Boughn-and-the-Future-of-Stock-Photography&id=2252857

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** June 13, 2009, 15:22 »

Ah. I don't know. When I glance through the newest iStock images, I see lots of new creative stuff as well as refreshing of the old. I mean, there's all kinds of neat stuff here: http://www.istockphoto.com/weekly_archive.php?key=iotw

puravida · « **Reply #4 on:** June 13, 2009, 15:24 »

Quote from: sjlocke on June 13, 2009, 15:22

Ah. I don't know. When I glance through the newest iStock images, I see lots of new creative stuff as well as refreshing of the old. I mean, there's all kinds of neat stuff here: http://www.istockphoto.com/weekly_archive.php?key=iotw

hmm, you are right. Perharps it's only IS. The other 4 of the Big 5 are still featuring the same ole stuff .
Thanks Mr. Locke.

Adeptris · « **Reply #5 on:** June 13, 2009, 16:54 »

How should you take such blogs, if the authors really knew which direction stock image buyers will be taking in the future, they would keep quiet and position their own portfolio's for a killing.

They can however give their best guess in a blog, based on their experiences and what they have learnt from who they speak to.

A lot of Photographers including me jumped on the PhotoShelter media machine, they had the 'ear of the buyers' who told them the same things you can read in the two blog posted and have been linked to in this thread.

Look at it from a buyer perspective, this start up company takes you out wines and dines you, or sends you a questionaire and asks, 'what is wrong with stock photography', you would look a bit dumb if you said, 'the same images I see every day are fine and just what I need'.

You are the buyer or designer, a creative and artsy type, so you are expected to come up with something better, 'I find that the same images have become boring and we need a fresh new direction, the images need to look more real, more diverse, green living is the next big thing, in a familiar environment with a natural pose.

Then you go back to your artwork download the telesales girl with the headset, mic and cheesy grin, isolated over white for copy space, and think to yourself, 'I have never seen a telesales girl that looks like that, but that is the image the clients company want, and it would not be good marketing if they used one of the real operators'

So the 'same ole same ole' will do for now, until they can feed an idea into the laptop and the software will generate a perfect image everytime, no property or model releases required and the subjects look so good that it is impossible to tell what is real or false.

David

crazychristina · « **Reply #6 on:** June 13, 2009, 17:58 »

After looking at Jonathan Ross' talk it's obvious that those images are available, but at RM prices. Problem is designers want 'specialist' images (ie different and each with appeal to only a very narrow market) at micro prices. Please spend 10 grand setting up a unique image that I can use for my current project, and I'll download it for 10 credits, even though no one else will want it because it's not generic enough. It's only a short step from being doing a paid commercial/advertising shoot.

stockastic · « **Reply #7 on:** June 13, 2009, 18:29 »

Adeptris, interesting post. With regard to fake-looking "business people" shots, how can we explain the love/hate relationship that designers have with these images of a synthetic reality? I think it's a sociological question.

Although business dress is more casual than it was 30 years ago, the pendulum may be swinging back towards formality and stock images are being picked to foreshadow that future.

And the public is not comfortable seeing images of ordinary-looking people providing financial, medical, or technical services. We want a fantasy world of smarter, better-looking, more focused people. Designers may privately laugh at these images, but society seems to expect them. We don't want to see people that look like ourselves.

willie · « **Reply #8 on:** June 13, 2009, 18:45 »

Quote from: averil on June 13, 2009, 17:58

After looking at Jonathan Ross' talk it's obvious that those images are available, but at RM prices. Problem is designers want 'specialist' images (ie different and each with appeal to only a very narrow market) at micro prices. Please spend 10 grand setting up a unique image that I can use for my current project, and I'll download it for 10 credits, even though no one else will want it because it's not generic enough. It's only a short step from being doing a paid commercial/advertising shoot.

No kidding!

Well, here's my (expert) opinion on this?

I guess in general, everyone haven't a clue what the buyer wants. Even if we did, we still have to get past the reviewers. So we stick to the tried and true and guess what? Our approval rates get close to 100%. And (frustratingly), our downloads increase too.

Then there is that (inside info) we get from the sites, of what's wanted. And yes, we submit those (wanted urgently) images. And like averil pointed out so succinctly, we get one download of a few cents (30cents) to a dollar.
Yay! (no pun intended), it's time to open a champagne bottle, but ahem, it's only a cheap champagne!

And what happens to our (new ideas) ?
Well, we hold our breath that it is reviewed by a YuriA/EllenB believer so it gets approved instead of getting one of those (excellent image but sorry, no stock potential) rejections, and whatever gets approved we hope there is not that (no downloads, no views--- or many views no download) spectre that haunts us so often.

If so, it's back to the drawing board to (think out of the box) , or you throw everything up into the air and say, "Heck, let's upload the same ole same ole. Why bother when it's the only sure thing!".

So, it's back to the (same ole, same ole) as you call it !

null · « **Reply #9 on:** June 13, 2009, 20:01 »

Quote from: averil on June 13, 2009, 17:58

After looking at Jonathan Ross' talk it's obvious that those images are available, but at RM prices.

That was my impression about Avava's presentation too. He has a lot of very creative and wonderful stuff and I wondered if it would pass the LCV barrier of microstock.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #10 on:** June 13, 2009, 20:12 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on June 13, 2009, 20:01

Quote from: averil on June 13, 2009, 17:58
After looking at Jonathan Ross' talk it's obvious that those images are available, but at RM prices.

That was my impression about Avava's presentation too. He has a lot of very creative and wonderful stuff and I wondered if it would pass the LCV barrier of microstock.

LCV?

Pixart · « **Reply #11 on:** June 14, 2009, 00:57 »

Quote from: sjlocke on June 13, 2009, 20:12

Quote from: FlemishDreams on June 13, 2009, 20:01
Quote from: averil on June 13, 2009, 17:58
After looking at Jonathan Ross' talk it's obvious that those images are available, but at RM prices.

That was my impression about Avava's presentation too. He has a lot of very creative and wonderful stuff and I wondered if it would pass the LCV barrier of microstock.

LCV?

Sean, have you never had a Limited Commercial Value reject?

crazychristina · « **Reply #12 on:** June 14, 2009, 02:02 »

Sean's an istock exclusive and their equivalent is Not Suitable for Stock. I don't know if they use that much these days.

michealo · « **Reply #13 on:** June 14, 2009, 02:21 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 13, 2009, 18:29

Adeptris, interesting post. With regard to fake-looking "business people" shots, how can we explain the love/hate relationship that designers have with these images of a synthetic reality? I think it's a sociological question.

Although business dress is more casual than it was 30 years ago, the pendulum may be swinging back towards formality and stock images are being picked to foreshadow that future.

And the public is not comfortable seeing images of ordinary-looking people providing financial, medical, or technical services. We want a fantasy world of smarter, better-looking, more focused people. Designers may privately laugh at these images, but society seems to expect them. We don't want to see people that look like ourselves.

You nailed it. What people laugh at and what people use are often the same.

I can remember being at a meeting with Proctor and Gamble where someone slated them for their cheesy detergent ads, their reply was that their extensive research proved that the work.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #14 on:** June 14, 2009, 09:10 »

Quote from: Pixart on June 14, 2009, 00:57

Sean, have you never had a Limited Commercial Value reject?

Ah, thanks! Yes, the occasional one with 3d work or other illustrations they think are too simple.

null · « **Reply #15 on:** June 14, 2009, 23:16 »

Quote from: sjlocke on June 13, 2009, 20:12

LCV?

Low Commercial Value. Looking at the iStock homepage, it accepts more creative and "unusable" shots than for instance Dreamtime, that plays it more safe.

Phil · « **Reply #16 on:** June 14, 2009, 23:47 »

Quote from: michealo on June 14, 2009, 02:21

Quote from: stockastic on June 13, 2009, 18:29
Adeptris, interesting post. With regard to fake-looking "business people" shots, how can we explain the love/hate relationship that designers have with these images of a synthetic reality? I think it's a sociological question.

Although business dress is more casual than it was 30 years ago, the pendulum may be swinging back towards formality and stock images are being picked to foreshadow that future.

And the public is not comfortable seeing images of ordinary-looking people providing financial, medical, or technical services. We want a fantasy world of smarter, better-looking, more focused people. Designers may privately laugh at these images, but society seems to expect them. We don't want to see people that look like ourselves.

You nailed it. What people laugh at and what people use are often the same.

I can remember being at a meeting with Proctor and Gamble where someone slated them for their cheesy detergent ads, their reply was that their extensive research proved that the work.

makes me think of many years ago when i had a computer business, an advisor pointed out to me that everyone wants their company to be the classy business with gold embossed logos etc, when in reality it is gaudy that sells. He pointed out two businesses he had dealings with. The classy specialist was struggling, yet the shop with flouro green walls on the outside that everyone knew and hated the colour were raking in the cash.

Karimala · « **Reply #17 on:** June 15, 2009, 09:15 »

Something that drives me absolutely nuts about microstock (SS specifically) is when you do think outside the box, the image is rejected. And then comes along someone like Yuri who changes up his style, which turns out to be identical to what you did, and suddenly it becomes the style du jour. I can't tell you how many times this has happened to me. It's incredibly frustrating.

willie · « **Reply #18 on:** June 15, 2009, 10:27 »

Quote from: Karimala on June 15, 2009, 09:15

Something that drives me absolutely nuts about microstock (SS specifically) is when you do think outside the box, the image is rejected. And then comes along someone like Yuri who changes up his style, which turns out to be identical to what you did, and suddenly it becomes the style du jour. I can't tell you how many times this has happened to me. It's incredibly frustrating.

Fine point Karimala (one heart winner).
Remember how everything used to be isolated and has to be WHITE?
Now it's images that looked like you shot it with your mobile cam, except it's a 24MP resolution
megabucks camera and lense.

But it sells for 35 cents to a couple of dollars.
O how things change but still remain the same

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: change, what change? same ole same ole ! (Read 10516 times)

puravida

Sean Locke Photography

puravida

Sean Locke Photography

puravida

Adeptris

crazychristina

stockastic

willie

null

Sean Locke Photography

Pixart

crazychristina

michealo

Sean Locke Photography

null

Phil

Karimala

willie

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors