pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Moving on from IS exclusive  (Read 29855 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

michealo

« Reply #100 on: January 31, 2012, 10:30 »
0
Similar numbers to stock Cube's I would have thought. I would be well happy with $100 a month (I get more with IS)


http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-272143p1.html


Her portfolio is better, a lot of your shots are peeling paint and urban snapshots, etc



« Reply #102 on: January 31, 2012, 10:33 »
0
You are both not precise enough. Sorry to say. Your photos are fine.  BUT they are not focused on the keyword.

« Reply #103 on: January 31, 2012, 10:37 »
0

« Reply #104 on: January 31, 2012, 10:38 »
0
You are both not precise enough. Sorry to say. Your photos are fine.  BUT they are not focused on the keyword.

I believe StockCube pics look well keyworded

« Reply #105 on: January 31, 2012, 10:45 »
0
Thats not the point.
its not about the keywords you add.

its about how you photograph the main keyword.

Like... Take the Famous tower of Pisa.
If you want  it to show up in a search for Pisa + tower.
You need a photograph of the tower and ONLY the tower.
And such the photo should be of only the tower, no distractions. No pizza, now gladiators no nothing.

if you do a shot with a tourist in front of the tower at would be applicaple to a search of
Italy+ tourism + pisa

By having a tourist inside the frame you really degrade your image / keyword relation.

« Reply #106 on: January 31, 2012, 11:00 »
0
of course, I believe we all know about distractions and I am not talking about hot woman, they can show up, no prob!

« Reply #107 on: January 31, 2012, 11:21 »
0
My first month was pretty bad too, but things did pick up.  Up to ~$175 this month, on between 200 and 250 images.  I think it does take time, just like like it does on all websites.

« Reply #108 on: January 31, 2012, 11:25 »
0
That is of course right.
and very untrue.

Which you know, we are making fun here.

If you place a woman from the swedish bikini team in front of the Pisa tower you will loose of your costumers.
All those knitting aunts graphic designers that cant cope with genuine competition.
and also dont have a reason to fit that image into a  design... and only men would have.

HOWEVER, if you add certain keywords to that picture, your target group will suddently be much bigger than the original.
You can imagine the keywords.
Cant you?

its all about keywords, and presition.

« Reply #109 on: January 31, 2012, 11:37 »
0
If you place a woman from the swedish bikini team in front of the Pisa tower you will loose of your costumers.

if they see her they might get her... and then she would ask to take the picture down.. lol

« Reply #110 on: January 31, 2012, 11:52 »
0
Herg, I think maybe we have gone about things in different ways - you have readied a large number of images and uploaded them all at once while I have uploaded slowly in small batches over time.  The benefit of this is that it has given me the opportunity to see what images are accepted at SS and which ones will sell and refine my future uploads accordingly.  I do not plan on uploading all my old iStock portfolio to SS or elsewhere.  I think I got lazy and complacent at iStock - it was easy just to shoot any old thing and upload it as it would often sell for a buck or two and it all adds up.  A lot of these sort of images would just get a 'LCV' rejection at SS.

I said on my blog that I think that going exclusive has made me a far better photographer than I was when I was at iStock.  I am not looking to pad out my portfolio with any old junk, I am now far more critical and only shoot and upload images that I think will sell.  I think SS has been largely responsible for further training my eye.  I think you can chose to deal with this situation by getting annoyed and pissed off about it or you can see it as a valuable lesson and try and learn from it.

There are a lot of similarities in our portfolios - we are both UK shooters without access to models so we have to strive extra hard to achieve downloads.  I think you have a great portfolio, but I am sure you can do better yet, particularly in regard to punchy colour and simplicity.  Think like a designer and best of luck,
Bridget

« Reply #111 on: January 31, 2012, 11:59 »
0
thats a very good way of thinking Bridget but honestly upload all you got, you wouldnt image the EL I had the other day :D you dont have anything to lose at SS, if you have iptc its just a few minutes to upload, go for it seriously

« Reply #112 on: January 31, 2012, 12:08 »
0
You should never put a new picture online that is not better than what you already have.

There is such a thing as competing woth yourself.
and there is such a thing as portefolio degredation.

RacePhoto

« Reply #113 on: January 31, 2012, 12:19 »
0
You should never put a new picture online that is not better than what you already have.

There is such a thing as competing woth yourself.
and there is such a thing as portefolio degredation.

In which case people shouldn't upload the same photos to price cutting sites, new "hopeful" agencies and low earners, because they are also competing with themselves. At least that's the way I came around to see it. Why compete with myself when I have 3000 people like you, with better images, to butt heads with.  :D

Funny that I have uploaded some "better" versions of just a few that sell and guess what? The old ones still sell and the new ones have languished. That whole new photo honeymoon died long ago, and now being buried under the weight of 17,839,898 royalty-free stock photos / 83,081 new stock photos added this week, there's even less of a new boost.

Hey do we get some kind of 20 Million pool started, day and hour, closest wins? (besides the admiration of the hoards here) New thread idea.

« Reply #114 on: January 31, 2012, 12:49 »
0
You should never put a new picture online that is not better than what you already have.

There is such a thing as competing woth yourself.
and there is such a thing as portefolio degredation.

In which case people shouldn't upload the same photos to price cutting sites, new "hopeful" agencies and low earners, because they are also competing with themselves. At least that's the way I came around to see it. Why compete with myself when I have 3000 people like you, with better images, to butt heads with.  :D

That's precisely why I would say you should still upload photos that might compete with some of your current ones.  Sure, you are competing with yourself, but also with 3000 other people.  It's all about getting a bigger slice of the pie.  Same reason soft drink companies keep introducing new types of soft drinks.

edited to clarify:  still not better than uploading photos which dont compete with your portfolio at all, but if you already have them, I think competing with yourself AND everyone else is better than not.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 12:54 by mtilghma »

« Reply #115 on: January 31, 2012, 12:51 »
0
You should never put a new picture online that is not better than what you already have.

There is such a thing as competing woth yourself.
and there is such a thing as portefolio degredation.

it depends on a lot of stuff actually, I honestly dont agree, if it is crap let them reject, it depends on the time you have, depends on the subject, depends if you have it online or not already, if I do a pic for stock and work on it I wil upload it (off course I see somehow it will be worth) come on, we arent here since yesterday, every new pic is worth (some more other less), really depends on what you would do instead of work/upload it, what would you do?? tv, going out, shopping?? are we talking about RPI?? seriously we can go now and delete half of our work.. and boy we will have much higher rpi
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 13:07 by luissantos84 »

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #116 on: January 31, 2012, 14:15 »
0
Similar numbers to stock Cube's I would have thought. I would be well happy with $100 a month (I get more with IS)


http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-272143p1.html


Her portfolio is better, a lot of your shots are peeling paint and urban snapshots, etc


Thanks for being so blunt.  Peeling paint does sell as well as the commercial stuff. These "snapshots" sell on IS. One thing I do see is that I can't get that colour punch with my Nikon D200. I don't have Photoshop, only the free Raw Shooter Essentials.

michealo- What about your work. Can we have a look ?  ;-)
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 14:26 by Herg »


« Reply #117 on: January 31, 2012, 15:00 »
0
These "snapshots" sell on IS.

Not all agencies are the same, as you are finding out.  Shutterstock is so big that anything that doesn't grab the buyer's attention will sink pretty fast.  You need Photoshop.  I can't see how you can be a photographer without it.  I am lagging a long way behind with CS2, but it is as essential as my camera.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 15:07 by StockCube »

« Reply #118 on: January 31, 2012, 15:09 »
0
ps - If you are a Nikon shooter then you must be using CNX no?  If not then you can download a free trial that lasts a month from the Nikon site.  You could do a lot of editing in a month.  ;)

Noodles

« Reply #119 on: January 31, 2012, 15:57 »
0
There are a lot of similarities in our portfolios - we are both UK shooters without access to models so we have to strive extra hard to achieve downloads.  I think you have a great portfolio, but I am sure you can do better yet, particularly in regard to punchy colour and simplicity.  Think like a designer and best of luck,

Funny enough this week I'm probably going to ask for a refund on two photos I bought because they were so over saturated the details were lost in the background and makes them useless for the purpose I require them for. But hey, they looked great at thumbnail and preview size.   I think this policy should be stopped.  Let the designer do the thinking!

Herg, I'm now almost certain uploading before you went live was your downfall.

« Reply #120 on: January 31, 2012, 16:45 »
0
Noodles, you're right and I wish that true.  The problem is, too many people dont plan on editing the photo, and just buy whichever one grabs them.  Therefore by not including that 'pop', a photographer will probably limit his sales, even you are right, they damaged the photo to get that.  In an ideal world, we could submit the exact same photo with and without the pop, and perfectly cater them to each different type of audience, but I don't see that ever happening.

« Reply #121 on: January 31, 2012, 20:20 »
0
As it is now, there is an oversupply of photographers and they compete heavily among eachother.
If photographers were a scarce species, the competition would be at other places.
And the photographeres would upload straight out of the camera and not bother to ajust anything.

and about competing with your self.

To not be left behind in this world of super competition. And with super competition I mean that both the number of available files and their quality increase exponentially.

Its important that you continue to be both innovative and improve the quality of your pictures AND increase the number of files you upload.
And funny enough... Noone can continue to do that for ever, its just a question of time before your sales level out, no matter how hard(er) you work.

So get your slice of the pie while you can.

A good thing is, that because you have been in this super competitive environment, you have earned qualifications that are competitive in other fields of photography.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #122 on: February 01, 2012, 04:55 »
0
And why on SS does my current earnings not match my overall earnings which are lower ? It doesn't make sense.

What has Photoshop got that is better than Raw shooter ?

« Reply #123 on: February 01, 2012, 05:02 »
0
And why on SS does my current earnings not match my overall earnings which are lower ? It doesn't make sense.

New month. Just use the drop-down menu to see January earnings.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #124 on: February 01, 2012, 05:11 »
0
Stll don't get it. Earnings this month $0. Overall earnings $14.76 and yet yesterday I had  $15.51  in my account.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
The "Get Moving

Started by Dreamstime News Microstock News

0 Replies
1380 Views
Last post May 14, 2007, 04:34
by Dreamstime News
5 Replies
4043 Views
Last post March 27, 2008, 16:07
by Alatriste
41 Replies
12346 Views
Last post January 16, 2011, 01:43
by RacePhoto
5 Replies
1742 Views
Last post May 27, 2013, 10:41
by MichaelJayFoto
29 Replies
5064 Views
Last post September 02, 2013, 09:43
by cathyslife

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results