MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: If you started before 2007 - iStock is your #1  (Read 11707 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 02, 2010, 15:16 »
0
IS *could* be the best if they didn't have strict upload limits
or maybe not: their rpi is so good just because they're picky
They are the BEST for those reasons.

- Their upload limits encourage everyone to submit their BEST shots
- Their quality is BEST because their standards are so high
- Their position in the market is BEST because their customers appreciate the high good stuff : garbage ratio.
- They have the BEST potential for smart microstockers who understand all of the above and produce high quality work to meet high standards

(And no, I'm not an IS cheerleader... they still frustrate me when they reject more than 40% of my work, though typically when I look back at the rejections I end up agreeing with them.  It inspires me to keep getting better.)


lisafx

« Reply #26 on: April 02, 2010, 16:24 »
0
I tend to agree with Powerdroid on Istock and its standards.  Istock are perfectly willing to accept saturated images with a lot of "pop" as long as you don't add artifacts in the process. 

If you shoot at ISO 100 and properly expose, you can add a fair amount of vibrance and contrast to the RAW file without introducing any artifacts and IS will usually accept them.

But to answer the original question, I started in 2005 and have pretty much the same images on every site.  IS is by far my best earner at 40%.  The next closest contender is Fotolia at 22%.

« Reply #27 on: April 02, 2010, 16:40 »
0
.... sorry leaf,  I stuttered on the enter key....
« Last Edit: April 02, 2010, 16:44 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #28 on: April 02, 2010, 16:43 »
0


I think you misunderstand me.  I think IS and SS have *different* standards.  IS prefers less editing at all.  SS prefers (and sells more) with higher contrast, higher saturation, more sharpened images.  It's two opposite approaches.  I have a hard time getting stuff in at IS (35-40% usually) and I'm not going to do what feels like a half-ass edit to make IS take it.  I want the image to look the best it can so it sells.  I don't think slightly undersaturated, slightly undersharp, slightly low contrast is a good image.  I know IS wants the designers to have leeway - and that's fine - but I'm not editing twice.  So iStock takes what they want from what I send em.  And like I said, I'm good with that.

I'm understanding you, mantonino.   I agree completely.   I just had a crappo upload with IS.  Shot down 75% of the pix..   why?    A lot of them were tweeked.  With IS  you dont even want to sneeze at the original file!!  Curiously, IMHO,  many of the pix were rich, yet not overdone. Personally, I don't like overly saturated images, they start to look totally fake...  but this is the kicker for me.   Many of the rejected ones were shot down for   "Flat/dull colors".   WTH?    Made no sense at all.   I'm not one to bellyache about rejections... 99.99% of the time, I couldn't care less.   But I have to admit,  this batch and the rejection reasons...  did... tick me off.  It takes so frackin long to upload to IS... and then to have 75% of it shot down,  especially for   flat/dull colors... kind of irked me,  cause they were anything but  flat & dull.
      For me  SS & IS  are about equal in payout $$..   however,  my port is about half as much on IS.  As far as which has higher standards???    SS takes stuff IS rejects on me... but also,  IS has taken stuff SS rejected..
so go figure.

   Ticked as I am today with IS...   I'll be back with another batch next week...   "It is what it is"
Rejections and  even  wacko rejections are the nature of the beast.   8)=tom

« Reply #29 on: April 02, 2010, 16:45 »
0
I tend to agree with Powerdroid on Istock and its standards.  Istock are perfectly willing to accept saturated images with a lot of "pop" as long as you don't add artifacts in the process. 


read your comment after I posted mine above... and I must admit Lisafx,  you are correct..  that was a problem with some of those that they rejected in my last batch...    8)=tom

lisafx

« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2010, 16:57 »
0
I tend to agree with Powerdroid on Istock and its standards.  Istock are perfectly willing to accept saturated images with a lot of "pop" as long as you don't add artifacts in the process. 


read your comment after I posted mine above... and I must admit Lisafx,  you are correct..  that was a problem with some of those that they rejected in my last batch...    8)=tom

Believe me, I learned the hard way.  They will kill you on those artifacts...

Do you use Lightroom or ACR to edit the RAWs?  The vibrance slider is great for upping saturation without artifacts.  Really helped my acceptance rate :)

« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2010, 17:14 »
0
Istock has came on 1st place from last month and still is there...

« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2010, 20:50 »
0
My mistake, I'm wrong.  iStock is the best.  They rule.  That's why they're #2 on the poll... Shutterstock users are just lying. ;)

Whatever - if you're happy with what you're doing,  you're fine.  I started in 2004 and iSuck is not my #1 - therefore the title of this post is in error.

« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2010, 22:37 »
0

Believe me, I learned the hard way.  They will kill you on those artifacts...

Do you use Lightroom or ACR to edit the RAWs?  The vibrance slider is great for upping saturation without artifacts.  Really helped my acceptance rate :)
I play with Photoshop 7 and  Elements 6... and do some stuff in  Micrografx.
I just recently started playing with the Beta 2 Lightroom (gotta upgrade to the new release).... and am not that deep into it yet....  just havent had the time to devote to it.   But I'll have to try your suggestion...  I must admit that I do get destroyed by artifacting...   
   You know, as you surf  IS... there is a boatload of pix that are obviously tweeked/saturated to the moon and back...  there is no way many of those pix came out of the cam that way..  so whats up with that? 
    The rejection I don't understand is 'flat/dull colors'   on images that are vibrant in color.  oh well....
thanx for the tip, Lis    8)=tom

« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2010, 07:32 »
0
My mistake, I'm wrong.  iStock is the best.  They rule.  That's why they're #2 on the poll... Shutterstock users are just lying. ;)

People who don't make much at iStock will rate it poorly.  It's easier to get accepted and quickly start selling at Shutterstock, which is why it's number 1.  But the whole argument here is that those who can master iStock will realize greater earning potential there.  Unfortunately it seems those who are doing so are in the minority.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2010, 07:34 by PowerDroid »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #35 on: April 03, 2010, 07:48 »
0
The rejection I don't understand is 'flat/dull colors'   on images that are vibrant in color.  oh well....
thanx for the tip, Lis    8)=tom
That's my most common rejection reason, in fact nowadays almost my only rejection, but common, as that's just our light here.
It generally means no enough contrast, not necessarily lacking in saturation - in fact in soft light you do often get well saturated colours.
It's subjective to reviewers (which the forums interpret as 'marginal'). For example, I uploaded a batch of images shot in low/soft light a couple of weeks ago.  I knew the light was very soft, but in a woodland, they're either soft or will be rejected for being 'too contrasty'.
They were uploaded over several days, and reviewed over about a week, so I'm guessing checked by various inspectors. The first one was rejected for flat light, the next 14, in virtually identical, very soft, light were accepted. Good job I didn't pull the others after the initial rejection.
Sometimes I resubmit with more contrast added, sometimes putting in more contrast adds artefacts, sometimes I won't add more contrast as it would make it 'too artificial' compared to the actuality. You have to make your own call on that, probably depending on subject matter.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2010, 13:14 by ShadySue »

michealo

« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2010, 08:01 »
0
Agree with Sharpshot sorta.  There are istock people and non-istock people.  I WANT to be an iStock person - but I'm simply not re-editing everything twice.  I don't do stock full time so for me to edit once for SS (which makes me $1000s a year) and once for iStock (which so far makes me about $100 a year) doesn't make sense.  I edit for SS and if iStock likes it, great.  If not, oh well.  I usually get buzzsawed at iStock reviews so then I don't sub again for a month.  I've been on since late '04 but refuse to push every week just to get them buzzsawed so I don't bother.  I cashed out $997 from stock last month - I'm happy enough with that.  Yes, I want to increase iStock but it's not a high priority for me.

if I'm correct your nil to mil?

well I think fixing your IS problem would make all your stock better

« Reply #37 on: April 03, 2010, 12:20 »
0
My mistake, I'm wrong.  iStock is the best.  They rule.  That's why they're #2 on the poll... Shutterstock users are just lying. ;)

People who don't make much at iStock will rate it poorly.  It's easier to get accepted and quickly start selling at Shutterstock, which is why it's number 1.  But the whole argument here is that those who can master iStock will realize greater earning potential there.  Unfortunately it seems those who are doing so are in the minority.

i started w istock in mid 2006 and istock as never been my top earner - DT surpassed it as soon as i joined them, and most months now is is my 5th ot 6th best.  for awhile i upl'd the limit every week, but now i rarely do.  myy port is heavily landscape,travel etc, so i do best by having a large port with fewer sales per image.  so it's not that i dislike is, i just recognize we don't have a good fit.

ap

« Reply #38 on: April 03, 2010, 13:29 »
0
IS is a strong performer for me and it's growth pretty much reflect how much i upload. so, i give it tops for consistency. however, i have just a slightly larger port on ss, not being a quantity person and its $ performance is just shy of is, in terms of downloads. but ss really blew is out of the water in the last two months with many el's, of which i have not gotten a single one at is. so, if the el performance continues at ss (fingers crossed), then, it's about 3-500%  better.

« Reply #39 on: April 03, 2010, 17:08 »
0
I suspect that the quality of the search engine has lots to do with sales results. It may be that IS offers a quicker path to those quality images most relevant.

lisafx

« Reply #40 on: April 03, 2010, 17:35 »
0
My mistake, I'm wrong.  iStock is the best.  They rule.  That's why they're #2 on the poll... Shutterstock users are just lying. ;)


I definitely think there's a strong argument to be made in favor of SS.  I don't think image quality issues are the only reason someone might make more there than IS.  Upload limits at IS are another big reason that some people might be doing better at SS.

Personally I don't often manage to output more than Istock's 30/week so it's a moot point for me, but for big producers it surely must have an effect.

« Reply #41 on: April 03, 2010, 18:34 »
0
Quote
If you started before 2007 - iStock is your #1

shutterstock is my best selling, however istockphoto is getting better and better.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
8098 Views
Last post June 03, 2008, 10:33
by stokfoto
114 Replies
17052 Views
Last post January 09, 2014, 14:04
by wiser
62 Replies
12649 Views
Last post January 14, 2015, 05:23
by Nikovsk
22 Replies
23343 Views
Last post April 13, 2015, 08:10
by pixsol
17 Replies
5144 Views
Last post December 19, 2015, 13:04
by Hongover

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle