I deleted this post because it criticised one of the leading microstock photographers.  I don't like to criticise others so I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

I'll just say that I'm surprised at the deterioration in quality being submitted by some of the photographers with large portfolios (one in particular).

I don't believe that quantity will win over quality in microstock; the buyers will buy quality and relevance; photographers can try to saturate the market but unless they maintain quality they won't get the sales.

Maybe if he would follow the rules that everyone else abides by, then he wouldn't be such a target.

Maybe if he would follow the rules that everyone else abides by, then he wouldn't be such a target.

What rules are those?  Submitting to an agency and having a reviewer approve or refuse an image?

...or are you trying to beat a dead horse (again).

Funny how nobody ever brings this up and accuses folks like Bobby or Jaimie or Sean or Andres for "not playing by the rules" even though they've worked just as hard as Ron.

Come on guys, lets play nice and show some respect.

I don't believe that quantity will win over quality in microstock; the buyers will buy quality and relevance; photographers can try to saturate the market but unless they maintain quality they won't get the sales.

I've been on location and missed the original post. (By the way, we're open to any critique, comments and thoughts! No problem...) This is a new industry that's already in transition....

hatman12 is absolutely right! Relevance and production value is key. I gather that the original discussion regarded the submission of similars. Three thoughts:

1) Emphasizing what "digiology" said... microstock is a HUGE benefit to designers in that they can download a hundred images for the price of one in traditional RF just to make a design presentation before downloading a full-res version for the final project. Or simply to try out different angles, copy placement, etc. Our clients need choice- both of the photographer's vision and experience, and of angle, lighting and composition. Excellent article regarding image sets: http://www.luckyoliver.com/odditorium/post/43/make_more_money_with_image_sets


2) There's not an image that we submit that doesn't have market research or sales history knowledge behind it. We're a business and we're not going to waste time on shooting, color-correcting, retouching, keywording and submitting images that have a minimal chance of selling. That said, there's some images that might be "off-the-chart" wacky conceptual where we're trying out an idea on the customer base to see if there's any response. This aspect of our portfolio is 10%  or less.

3) Shooting a subject many ways is a great way to push your creative vision. The first few might look like what you had in your mind, but then you go beyond the obvious and start creating the images clients really want to set their work apart. Much like a maraton runner going past "the wall" we as shooters need to go beyond "the creative wall" to deliver something extraordinary.

Again, I really appreciate the opportunity to be part of this community, and all the comments, pro or con!

hatman12- We've found a couple ways to look at this problem:

1. Volume sales typically work if the series has breadth and quality- without the quality the series doesn't do very well.

2. One-off photos that fit a content need don't always have to be high quality- they're more about getting the right subject in the shot.  As we reach a saturation point in specific subjects this might change, but it's eaqually important to be in front of the customer.  Good meta data helps.

Bryan

Quote from: StockManiac on May 22, 2007, 12:11

Maybe if he would follow the rules that everyone else abides by, then he wouldn't be such a target.

What rules are those?  Submitting to an agency and having a reviewer approve or refuse an image?

How about the rule that states you aren't supposed to upsize images.  Many of his images are shot with a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II (from the EXIF data that is displayed with the image).  The Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II can only produce 17 megapixels, yet the image sizes are 21 megapixels.   That is over a 20% increase.

That is plainly against the rules.  Achilles (from Dreamstime) made the following statement on the DT forums regarding upsizing an image (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_522):

"All files submitted on Dreamstime have to use raw resolution, the maximum your digital camera can output."

Many sites would ban an artist for this sort of action.

And not only is it against the rules, but it is deceiving to buyers.

 Maybe Ron has the EOS 1Ds Mark III for testing( unofficially of course), who knows Why do you bother StockManiac. That should be Rons and DTs problem if there is something wrong, not yours..
Ron probably has a lot of experience in photography, probably more than you, if he deceived his customers he would not have any anymore and probably wouldn't be there where he is now. I guess the quality of his images is far better than the average of the images of most of us photographers.
I agree with ichiro, I have an image which has a resolution of about 40MP shot with a D60 6MP camera It was accepted everywhere except on SS, because it was to big. (The maximum at SS is 25 MP,as I discovered..)

Stockmaniac,

Personally I wouldn't worry about what Ron or Dreamstime is doing. At the end of the day the way I see it is his kind of contribution is going to raise the profile of the industry and that will have some knock on benefit for everyone. Everyone's work needs to sell on its own merits and if it isn't good enough then it wont sell. As the standards raise we all need to get better or fall by the wayside.

Any time looking at his EXIF data & comparing this against the allowed standards might be more profitably spent taking pictures yourself.

As for having lots of pictures from different angles then surely this is good for the buyer - I've bought artwork myself and have always appreciated being able to get many variations on a theme to better fit whatever vision I had at the time.

 

Quote from: hatman12 on May 22, 2007, 11:30

I don't believe that quantity will win over quality in microstock; the buyers will buy quality and relevance; photographers can try to saturate the market but unless they maintain quality they won't get the sales.

1) Emphasizing what "digiology" said... microstock is a HUGE benefit to designers in that they can download a hundred images for the price of one in traditional RF just to make a design presentation before downloading a full-res version for the final project. Or simply to try out different angles, copy placement, etc. Our clients need choice- both of the photographer's vision and experience, and of angle, lighting and composition. Excellent article regarding image sets: http://www.luckyoliver.com/odditorium/post/43/make_more_money_with_image_sets

I'm so glad you mentioned the Image Set thread at LO, Ron.  It changed the entire way I conduct my photo shoot, and by golly...wouldn't you know?  It actually worked in terms of sales, too!  The image sets I've created since reading the thread have been purchased multiple times as entire sets, not just one-offs like my previous sets.