If you read down to the comments, you'd find this which does give some additional perspective......

\ istockphoto and shutterstock.com (which i use both for buying and selling) are like comparing apples to bananas. shutterstock.com has some of the WORST quality files along with search functionality. We get way more downloads on shutterstock BUT way more income from less downloads/files on iStock. Shutterstock accepts all our files (bar a few) and iStock only accepts a small selection. Quality vs quantity are the obvious synergies between these 2 companies(shutterstock the later). I really don�t see any value in comparing them, other than they are selling a product in a similar category. In the same way Audi and Lada sell cars ( i�d drive an Audi if i could afford it � customers will do the same). If you are a quality / pro producer of content and want a good volume of sales � iStock is your market place. If you are an amateur producer of content chances are you will get most of your files accepted to shutterstock. Hope this helps � JasV

If you read down to the comments, you'd find this which does give some additional perspective......

\ istockphoto and shutterstock.com (which i use both for buying and selling) are like comparing apples to bananas. shutterstock.com has some of the WORST quality files along with search functionality. We get way more downloads on shutterstock BUT way more income from less downloads/files on iStock. Shutterstock accepts all our files (bar a few) and iStock only accepts a small selection. Quality vs quantity are the obvious synergies between these 2 companies(shutterstock the later). I really don�t see any value in comparing them, other than they are selling a product in a similar category. In the same way Audi and Lada sell cars ( i�d drive an Audi if i could afford it � customers will do the same). If you are a quality / pro producer of content and want a good volume of sales � iStock is your market place. If you are an amateur producer of content chances are you will get most of your files accepted to shutterstock. Hope this helps � JasV

If that is the case, then I guess Ladas win hands down.

Shutterstock is much more selective than istock now.  I think they tightened up about 18 months ago and then moved the bar much higher than istock a few months ago.  And istock has always accepted low quality stock images.  There's millions of non-selling images on the istock site.  There are many top microstcok contributors that don't use istock or only have a small proportion of their images there.  The restrictive upload limit and tedious upload procedure together with the lowest commission in the industry puts people off.  The search should put all the lower quality images at the end, so there really shouldn't be much of a problem for buyers on either site.

If that is the case, then I guess Ladas win hands down.

Of course, we all know we'd choose a Lada over an Audi anytime. No contest.

Audi??  whats so special about another kraut car,  me: I drive Range-Rover, exclusivity my lads, eclusivity!

lobo has an account on MSG, but he's pieman. I have no idea who Vlad is, but I'd be surprised if lobo was operating two accounts here.

Quote from: jsnover on June 20, 2011, 10:57

lobo has an account on MSG, but he's pieman. I have no idea who Vlad is, but I'd be surprised if lobo was operating two accounts here.

Agreed; but wouldn't it be hilarious/ironic if so? 

I trust Leaf would "out" him if he was doing that. And send him a stiff PM.

I have to agree with JasV - quoted here by Vlad the Impaler.
Quality is very important.
So is variety, choice.
And a relevant search engine.
And in some cases, prices.

This is why Shutterstock, not IStock, is the market leader.

Because of quality, diversity and the search engine.
Please note - quality comes first.

Let's make this clear: files at Shutterstock are as good, or, at times, a lot better than what IStock has on offer. And there's  a lot more of them.

The idea that Shutterstock accepts 'the worst' and it's suitable for 'amateur producers of content chances' is an insult to Shutterstock submitters, and absolutely not true.
It's a myth (might have been true a long time ago) that needs to be put to rest, once and for all.

I would strongly advise JasV (whoever he is), to perform a few searches, on any subject, at IS and Shutterstock. There's a very good chance that the 'Audi' file he's so fond of, will be found on Shutterstock, rather than IS.
Faster and at a reasonable price.

There are many reasons why buyers leave IStock and move to Shutterstock. The quality of the collection plays a very important role. And it's there, on Shutterstock, undeniable.

I'm afraid I disagree on most if not all these points.

When I started submitting, I was very unsure of the quality of my work, but went ahead and submitted to all the sites.  All except one, iStock, accepted my stuff right out of the gate, and it started selling very well.

Even with great sales at all the sites, I continued to try to submit to iStock and was repeatedly turned down due to the quality of my work.  And frankly, in many of those rejections, I believe they were justified.  Still, however, the work continued to sell well on the other sites, and I finally got in to iStock, though they accept a minority of my submissions while Shutterstock takes 100%.  It's clear to me that the quality threshold of iStock is set higher than all the others.

Don't get me wrong, I love Shutterstock.  It's my best earner.  And I feel I do good work, but not so much on a technical level, but rather I think I'm figuring out some unique needs that other contributors aren't meeting.

So from my perspective, this is what it takes for a collection of images to meet a user's needs:

- Uniqueness (this could be why iStock is starting to flounder... it is keeping out a lot of images that buyers actually want, so they go elsewhere where the selection is wider)
- Best communicates the intended message (this is why so many contributors are reporting falling sales... their images "say" nothing unique.  You will continue to sink as the number of images just like yours increases, if you do nothing to set yourself apart in some way... make your images jump out and catch a buyer's attention by making it tell a story and scream a message.  This will trump technical quality every time.)
- Technical quality (not as important as you think... see above.)
- Price (if a buyer finds the perfect image, he/she won't care if it's $1 or $10.)

Hi Stockmarketer,

'The quality threshold of IStock is set higher than all the other sites' - you say, and I have to agree.
Absolutely true.
Except there's a catch.
It only applies to independent files.
There is plenty of crap on IStock, and by plenty I mean thousands and thousands of images. The vast majority of those questionable files come from exclusive contributors.
Not only newbies, bronze level, but also golds and diamonds. Thousands of images.
Submitted today, to SS, or Fotolia or even Dreamstime those files would not eveb come close to acceptance. Guaranteed.

There is a difference between the way IStock reviews independent versus exclusive files.
And it's understandable.

And I still stand by my point - perform any search, on IS and SS. Compare quality. Equal results, or even, at times, better on SS.
Plus, a lot more variety and a faster search.
Not to mention prices.
All in all, a better experience. Designers are not stupid. They know what to go for.

Just posted today:

Just another voice asking that iStock make it possible to filter on some type of price measure. I LOVE iStock and try to use it exclusively, but I'm already starting to use other sites just because I can't afford to spend a lot of time finding images only to find they are Vetta and consequently not usable for me at that price. Very frustrating to spend a lot time pulling together a lightbox and then having to go through manually one by one and eliminate the high priced images. I'm hanging in there, but it won't be for much longer.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330636&page=3

Hi Gannet77,
you're giving me a niche search. I don't expect many designers to use it, but so be it.
I tried the following searches : 'Highland Games Scotland', 'Scottish Highland Games' and 'Scottish Highland Games California'.
On both sites.
Results :
Quality wise - equal if not slightly better on Shutterstock
Relevancy - equal (with some Vetta images of 'Fly Fishing' and 'Mountain Bikers' tossed in on IStock for good measure)
Not to mention that 'Scottish Highland Games California' gives zero results on IStock and 21 on Shutterstock.
All in all, even on this niche search, including editorial, Shutterstock offers a better choice.

So yes, Gannet, really.


PS Ah, and by the way. I like Dreamstime a lot and went and searched for 'Highland Games Scotland'. 117 beautiful images. On this particular search Dreamstime might just come up on top. The main reason buyers leave IStock is because they can find same, or better quality images on the other sites. At affordable prices and using a faster, more user-friendly search engine.

what about promoting a website like stockfresh. . Untill now it is a very slow process and I don't know if it will pick up one day. But I like what they say

"Being photographers ourselves, we are passionate about what we do. We take pride in the fact that we give back as much to the community as it is possible. Our current minimum royalty rate is 50% which can go up to 62.5% because discounts are always on us!

We believe in fair compensation and fair pricing. We believe that creativity and excellence should be rewarded properly. We believe in quality over quantity. If you believe in the same ideas, join us and spread the word. "