MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Photon on July 16, 2011, 08:31
-
When I did websites and designs I would spend hours looking through stock and finally find some photos close enough to what I wanted but I needed it to be at a slightly different angle or I need the lighting to be different.
When shooting your stock in the studio for example, you can shoot many varieties of the same subject (angle, lighting composition, etc) but although it is useful, do agencies allow you to upload sets of photos rather than just choosing a few from a stack of potentially useful photos.
-
It varies by agency. Shutterstock doesn't have a problem with it; I've submitted over a hundred images from a single model shoot and had them all accepted. Dreamstime's the opposite; they consider more than a few shots with the same model too similar and will reject . out them. Most other agencies are okay with sets, some more and some less.
-
I have two suggestions:
1. Don't upload all of the shots from the same set at once, do it in different batches.
2. Don't name the images from the set the same name, like Model Sitting 1, Model Sitting 2. IMHO, that just triggers the similars thing.
Unfortunately, some of the sites don't think there is value in having several images, shot at different angles, as a good thing. In their attempt to cut down on people uploading similars that have differences so slight, one can't even see them (which there is plenty of, for sure) they have kind of gone overboard.
-
Thanks for these comments and tips, their very useful.
I suppose one of the reasons to reject similar photos is to decrease the 'clutter' and boost the amount of variety in search results.
-
A smart contributor would realize that spreading downloads over an excess of very similar images is not a good strategy when a sort method may include downloads as a variable.
-
A smart contributor would realize that spreading downloads over an excess of very similar images is not a good strategy when a sort method may include downloads as a variable.
I might agree with that in certain way but DT is going very far on this matter.. they want a picture of a subject or a bunch into a set.. thats isnt going to help stock and also our pockets
-
A smart contributor would realize that spreading downloads over an excess of very similar images is not a good strategy when a sort method may include downloads as a variable.
I might agree with that in certain way but DT is going very far on this matter.. they want a picture of a subject or a bunch into a set.. thats isnt going to help stock and also our pockets
How isn't it going to help? Surely the probability of sale would rise due to the amount you can offer (sets). Of course assuming their all good quality useful shots.
-
Rather than submitting multiple files, perhaps joining the shots into one image document could be more effective?
Example: http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-94301p1.html#id=42588493 (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-94301p1.html#id=42588493)
The downside is of course the decrease in each shot's image resolution. You are sharing the max 8k with 4 subject shots giving each shot about only 2k each. If you wanted each of the 4 shots to have a 4k resolution the image document would come to a killer 16k which would probably bust the downloader's ram when opened.
Can you go beyond an 8k upload with Shutterstock?
-
What is a "k"?
You can upload 20MP/60MB images to SS and other sites.
DT likes composites put of a heap of related shots but I'm not happy with the idea of putting half-a-dozen high resolution shots into one huge canvas so that DT can then sell it as a subscription for and pay me 30c, which is 5c per image.
-
What is a "k"?
k = thousand. The max height or width is the 'k' in resolution. So, 1024x768 = 1k, 2048x1536 = 2k, 4096x2160 = 4k, for example.
-
What is a "k"?
k = thousand. The max height or width is the 'k' in resolution. So, 1024x768 = 1k, 2048x1536 = 2k, 4096x2160 = 4k, for example.
I've never seen anyone use that before. It's rather assuming standard aspect ratios, isn't it? So 8k would be around 35MP.
-
What is a "k"?
k = thousand. The max height or width is the 'k' in resolution. So, 1024x768 = 1k, 2048x1536 = 2k, 4096x2160 = 4k, for example.
I've never seen anyone use that before. It's rather assuming standard aspect ratios, isn't it? So 8k would be around 35MP.
This kind of language is used more with people in cgi. Yes, it is pretty much generalising aspect ratios.
8000 x 6000 = 48000000 = 48MP
8k = 48MP
-
A smart contributor would realize that spreading downloads over an excess of very similar images is not a good strategy when a sort method may include downloads as a variable.
Interesting point of view, I never thought it this way. I suppose this is particularly relevant in IS and DT, the latter because of the level structure.
I don't shoot people and I limit my sets to 6 photos, more often 4. Even then, I've had rejection for having the same setup with three different currencies (USD, EUR and BR), what is ridiculous because each aim a different market. I don't remember if this was DT.
I do find annoying to see the same setup in dozens of images just slightly different.
-
A smart contributor would realize that spreading downloads over an excess of very similar images is not a good strategy when a sort method may include downloads as a variable.
I might agree with that in certain way but DT is going very far on this matter.. they want a picture of a subject or a bunch into a set.. thats isnt going to help stock and also our pockets
How isn't it going to help? Surely the probability of sale would rise due to the amount you can offer (sets). Of course assuming their all good quality useful shots.
I guess you havenīt read my comment :)
The problem of DT is that you can have 1 or 2 pictures that they will think are SIMILAR.. if you try to upload a 3rd one they will rejected (unless you are a DT honey, which there are tons of them..) thatīs why if we want to have different angles and such we need to create this collages which like said here are paying us 35 cents for a 40 megapixels or more, imagine stock in 1 or 2 years?? designers will look only into this "big" pictures and we will be working for 5 cents instead of 35 cents per REAL photo.. thats going to screw stock but again agencies (mainly DT) is asking this to contributors, if we are doing them, we are accepting it.. but again?? what can we do?? leave one of the big 5 ??
-
I guess you havenīt read my comment :)
Yes sorry, I'm still very new to microstock so understanding these things way come with time.
-
(mainly DT) is asking this to contributors, if we are doing them, we are accepting it.. but again?? what can we do?? leave one of the big 5 ??
No. They urge us to do this, they don't force us to. Let them take one and reject the rest if that is what they want to do
I suppose it is possible a collage might sell more quickly, move up levels and make more money in their system than a set of individual pictures would. But I'm not convinced and the subscription option undermines that idea.
-
(mainly DT) is asking this to contributors, if we are doing them, we are accepting it.. but again?? what can we do?? leave one of the big 5 ??
No. They urge us to do this, they don't force us to. Let them take one and reject the rest if that is what they want to do
I suppose it is possible a collage might sell more quickly, move up levels and make more money in their system than a set of individual pictures would. But I'm not convinced and the subscription option undermines that idea.
exactly but the problem is having 2 pictures online when you produce like 5 or 6 that arenīt similar like they say.. we are losing market for sure, that talk of the levels etc etc is great but I donīt know what is better to have 6 pictures or 2 that might go INSANE!!!
-
If you put up collages with material that might go insane then you have the risk of it getting loads of subs sales and you can't take it down for six months if you feel it isn't working for you.
I might try something, sometime to see what happens.
But surely the thumbnails of any collages would look completely useless, undermining any sales potential they had?
-
So to review but with my own situation... I have multiple shots (say 10) of a isolated sculpture. What would you recommend? Upload 2-3, or composite them together or just choose the best one and submit that?
-
So to review but with my own situation... I have multiple shots (say 10) of a isolated sculpture. What would you recommend? Upload 2-3, or composite them together or just choose the best one and submit that?
DT is weird, they must have somekind of different types of reviews for different contributors.. so I would say upload all the 10 and wait to see how it goes..
-
I always wondered why no agency did ever serious consider image-stacking, of course the first image that you see in the stack should be defined by the contributor. But which would be a way to submit variations from a shoot without spamming the data-base with too many similiars.
-
I always wondered why no agency did ever serious consider image-stacking, of course the first image that you see in the stack should be defined by the contributor. But which would be a way to submit variations from a shoot without spamming the data-base with too many similiars.
This makes perfect sense to me, and I don't understand why it's not common practice among the sites. As a video producer, I've had occasion wherein I want several photographs of the same subject with only slight differences to create a rapid montage video. I might give each photo a fraction of a second, so if I want a three-second clip, I might use a dozen different photos; perhaps even more. I wouldn't be able to shop on DT because of their policy of rejecting more than two or three shots of the same subject for being too similar. I've had photos rejected at SS for the same reason, and my experience has been that all of the sites do it to some extent. It doesn't make sense to me, but the image-stacking idea certainly does. We might offer special pricing for purchasing the entire stack, but hell, we're already working for peanuts. :'(
-
What is a "k"?
k = thousand. The max height or width is the 'k' in resolution. So, 1024x768 = 1k, 2048x1536 = 2k, 4096x2160 = 4k, for example.
I've never seen anyone use that before. It's rather assuming standard aspect ratios, isn't it? So 8k would be around 35MP.
This kind of language is used more with people in cgi. Yes, it is pretty much generalising aspect ratios.
8000 x 6000 = 48000000 = 48MP
8k = 48MP
I'm sorry to all those who read this post.. I was wrong. Here are the proper ratios.
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y272/Sebwallace/res.jpg)
-
Ah, so it's the old "megapixels" language. :)