Arkadia, will you write about it in every topic on this forum? Why spamming?

Quote from: Ariene on January 20, 2014, 13:41
Arkadia, will you write about it in every topic on this forum? Why spamming?

+1

Just took a look through the posts for the past several months here and I think that the two links Scott shared of "Pizza on Offset" and "Pizza on Shutterstock" are really instructive regarding the type of work they are looking for and how it differs from what they are licensing on Shutterstock.

Given how well shutterstock is doing, I'd love to get into Offset, though the bar seems extremely high. I think their photos are terrific.

The thing I've learned in taking classes with magazine photo editors and licensing my own stock directly to them is that the types of photos we would not submit to most agencies for fear of rejections from the micros and even from sites such as Alamy (e.g. photos that are out of focus, poorly lit, etc) are often the types of photos that a magazine editor will love because they have a soul - a feeling they are looking for. In terms of storytelling, as someone who shoots assignments, I'm often working with less than ideal lighting, though I may bring in strobes when it's feasible, but I'm not doing a studio shoot - rather I'm shooting at a location and getting a whole range of things for the editor to look at because it needs to support the story. The best shots may not be technically perfect, but it's traditional photography where the content of the photo - how it makes you feel - is more important than the technical specifics. That's the difference.

I often feel that shooting stock, while it has made me a technically more proficient photographer, can have its downside, which is why I try to go out and shoot just for the love of photography sometimes - to shoot for myself, for the art of it, without thinking about how I can sell it. I think shooting for Offset would be somewhere between those two extremes, being freer on the one hand, but with a specific purpose in mind as you obviously want to give them photos that they can sell.

I want to re-vitalize this thred because I read a lot of posts claiming that the quality of Shutterstock is, sometime, better or equal to the Offset one. I read many answers of Scott that patiently explain what Offset was conceived for. I don't know if Offset is going well, if the amount of pictures sold are enough to sustain the structure and to draw a smile on photographers' face. But I think to understand what they want to add to their archive.
According my interpretation of the posts, here, and without know yours ports, I have understood that there are many good professionals that have, unfortunately, a limited vision of the market. Nobody is guilty for that, is matter of chance in the life, of specialization, of personal interest.
I'm a bad microstock photographer, for instance, because I spent my life in reportage and for seven years I was hired by University to teach reportage - written, filmed and photographed - and «Grammar of a photographic narration». Thanks to my specialty I (maybe) understand what Offset want and the differences - sometime subtle - between stock and narration.
In written language microstock photos are «subjects», also when are describing an action (verb); An Offset single picture should be a complete narration with more elements (subject, verb, adjective, complement ecc...) and when it's not possible to have it needs to be part of a complete narration. This means uniformity of style and language among pictures that will contribute to depict a story. Microstock is also a big mass of picture different in all of this, and are perfect for a certain kind of users. I don't think that a good microstocker could earn less than an Offset contributor, is just matter of different approach.
To produce some of mine reportage I spent thousands of Euro, to produce my microstock I spend few bucks. Never I will mix this two kind of photographs (also because I' m a bad microstocker)

I did not applied Offset yet, and I will do when I will understand how to do it, but for sure I will not do like Red Dove, that write: «I'll get off my arse and  invest time/money into meeting their criteria», because to have a sustainable criteria you have to work with the covered expenses, with assignment of somebody else and use Offset as «extra revenue». This is the best way

I have to agree on that. Would not recommend working with AGE Fotostock for the same reasons as stated on those three points.

I don't know about the link, I just recommend anybody not to use agefotostock if you don't want:

1. Never to sell anything
2. Have troubles to recover your images
3. Keep your copyright

Be very careful with these people 
[/quote]