MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Crap doesn't sell at IS  (Read 8598 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wut

« on: July 14, 2012, 05:48 »
0
I just noticed that going through my sales by age. When I was looking at sales from my bad/worst series it was like looking at binary code (10001110001101011010101111000). Well almost, some got 2,3 or even 4 sales. In 6 months or even a year. I think that says a lot about them, they sell quality and/or their buyers are better educated regarding photography. At other sites, especially subs based you at least get something on all that crap. But I somehow like stuff doesn't sell if it's crap and you really get rewarded if you make something good (then it can sell a lot better than on the other sites). When I think about it, a lot of ppl here say they have crappy sales there and often the reason is just that, they shoot crap (if you look at their port) and because they shoot a lot they somehow get a 4 digit payout every month (some of course don't but those don't sell much anywhere anyway). Yup, I know some ppl will hate me for saying that. As you all know by now, I don't care about that and I say what I think.

Of course a lot of crap was sold in the old days, but it was like that on all sites, there were only amateurs shooting and many of those with lots of crap and nice sales became diamonds, that now sell 100-200 images a month, which also tells a story. I hope it continues like that, so that the ppl shooting crap get washed out (but for that their old crappy files have to stop selling, they only do because of good search positions) and those that know what they're doing finally get their fair share of the pie.


Poncke

« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2012, 05:59 »
0
Everyone emptied their HDs 6 years ago, and the stock sites encouraged them to do so.  Crap is no longer accepted as far as I know. But at least you acknowledge there is also crap in your own port  8)

wut

« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2012, 06:10 »
0
That's just the problem, crap (not talking about IQ) is accepted across the board. Of course I admit I have crap in my port, I'm a no one in stock photography, nor am I a great photographer. Just better than the vast majority doing MS. Which is not really an achievement...But what I wanted to say at least crap doesn't sell, if they still accept it, at least something :)

« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2012, 06:53 »
0
The "crap" might sell when IS gets the Dollar Bin working again.

« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2012, 08:23 »
0
Seems to sell on Alamy judging by some of the diabolically bad photography they accept on there.

Lagereek

« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2012, 08:28 »
0
Everyone has got crap in their port, mee too. Funny but IS, is the only agency selling exclusive crap from amateurs and snappers, while the good serious stuff seems deep buried in dungeons.

wut

« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2012, 09:55 »
0
Everyone has got crap in their port, mee too. Funny but IS, is the only agency selling exclusive crap from amateurs and snappers, while the good serious stuff seems deep buried in dungeons.

These are old files (like I was saying), I agree with that assessment in that case. But newer files, think 2011 and 2012, don't.

« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2012, 09:59 »
0
Seems to sell on Alamy judging by some of the diabolically bad photography they accept on there.

Alamy has no QC process to speak of. They just do random spot checks. Also, IIRC, it wasn't too many years ago that they only accepted tiff files that were at least 48 mb files or larger. Back then many people were shooting digital with 4, 6, or 8 megapixel cameras, so they had to upsize just to pass the size requirement. (Alamy is one of few agencies that allows upsizing). So there are millions of files on there that have been upsized, which only accentuates any flaws.

The ironic thing is that many of the old time "pro" shooters on that site look down their noses at microstockers, when in fact some of them couldn't even get accepted at Istock or SS.

Of course there are also a lot of excellent photogs at Alamy who can provide stunning travel, landscape and nature images for the big magazines and art books.

« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2012, 10:02 »
0
Seems to sell on Alamy judging by some of the diabolically bad photography they accept on there.
There is often a need for this "bad" photography. Editorial usages are not about commercial aesthetic but about conveying a story. Stories aren't always about big bright teeth and perfect figures. It's just that big bright teeth and perfect figures usually sell more because of market size.

« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2012, 10:23 »
0

ShadySue

« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2012, 10:42 »
0

wut

« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2012, 10:48 »
0
You two got me thinking ;D

« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2012, 11:04 »
0
Wow sue.  That one has more visual impact...more poopy.

Wut I hope you have "clean" thoughts ::)

« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2012, 11:11 »
0
One thing about stock you never know what will sell and sell well. There is no way I thought that this would be a flame in under 6 months. And I have sold a lot of horse crap over the years.

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18979752-home-interior-mold.php

wut

« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2012, 11:29 »
0
Wut I hope you have "clean" thoughts ::)

There's nothing clean crap so it only makes sense to not have 'em ;)

ShadySue

« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2012, 12:07 »
0
One thing about stock you never know what will sell and sell well. There is no way I thought that this would be a flame in under 6 months. And I have sold a lot of horse crap over the years.

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18979752-home-interior-mold.php


Hope it's paid for its treatment  :)

« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2012, 12:25 »
0
crap will be coming in again once they start accepting smart phone images - everyone and their grandmother will be submitting their pics thinking it will result in an easy payday

lets face it - to make decent images you need a real camera, some decent lighting, besides good taste for subject matter and composition... those shooting with phones are not in that category - the only real benefit of shooting with phone is to catch an unusual  situation or event that you wouldnt have caught otherwise

« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2012, 12:28 »
0
Seems to sell on Alamy judging by some of the diabolically bad photography they accept on there.
There is often a need for this "bad" photography. Editorial usages are not about commercial aesthetic but about conveying a story. Stories aren't always about big bright teeth and perfect figures. It's just that big bright teeth and perfect figures usually sell more because of market size.
I agree.  I think people should spend more time looking through what's being used.  A lot of it isn't the best.  Sometimes I think people doing an article or trying to get a message across with words don't want an image that's too good to go with it, they might want something that looks like a cheap snapshot.  There's times when great images are required but there's also times when all they want is something to illustrate their work and it doesn't need to be that good.  I like to look at the recently purchased images with CanStockPhoto and see all the ones that would of been rejected by the big 4.

wut

« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2012, 13:24 »
0
crap will be coming in again once they start accepting smart phone images - everyone and their grandmother will be submitting their pics thinking it will result in an easy payday

lets face it - to make decent images you need a real camera, some decent lighting, besides good taste for subject matter and composition... those shooting with phones are not in that category - the only real benefit of shooting with phone is to catch an unusual  situation or event that you wouldnt have caught otherwise

You're missing the point. It's about whether the photos are good (when you look at them downsized, 500 px or whatever the site uses), not IQ. And a good tog can make better photos with his mobile phone than an average with his top notch lighting, camera, lenses and props. It's about knowledge, ideas and originality. And shooting what the buyers need. Not to mention bad togs. You got it right in the last sentence, well that's just a part of it.

wut

« Reply #19 on: July 14, 2012, 13:29 »
0
Seems to sell on Alamy judging by some of the diabolically bad photography they accept on there.
There is often a need for this "bad" photography. Editorial usages are not about commercial aesthetic but about conveying a story. Stories aren't always about big bright teeth and perfect figures. It's just that big bright teeth and perfect figures usually sell more because of market size.
I agree.  I think people should spend more time looking through what's being used.  A lot of it isn't the best.  Sometimes I think people doing an article or trying to get a message across with words don't want an image that's too good to go with it, they might want something that looks like a cheap snapshot.  There's times when great images are required but there's also times when all they want is something to illustrate their work and it doesn't need to be that good.  I like to look at the recently purchased images with CanStockPhoto and see all the ones that would of been rejected by the big 4.

That's all fine. But I think it's good at least one agency is taking the different approach. There's enough agencies that offer crap and the supply of crap is neverending anyway (not only in photography, look at X factor etc). And honestly, agencies like CS won't get the good stuff, well they will, but on a smaller scale, since many good togs are not willing to sell great works for pennies (their prices are just ridiculous).

ShadySue

« Reply #20 on: July 14, 2012, 14:21 »
0
crap will be coming in again once they start accepting smart phone images - everyone and their grandmother will be submitting their pics thinking it will result in an easy payday

lets face it - to make decent images you need a real camera, some decent lighting, besides good taste for subject matter and composition... those shooting with phones are not in that category - the only real benefit of shooting with phone is to catch an unusual  situation or event that you wouldnt have caught otherwise

You're missing the point. It's about whether the photos are good (when you look at them downsized, 500 px or whatever the site uses), not IQ. And a good tog can make better photos with his mobile phone than an average with his top notch lighting, camera, lenses and props. It's about knowledge, ideas and originality. And shooting what the buyers need. Not to mention bad togs. You got it right in the last sentence, well that's just a part of it.

What's good and what's not good is purely subjective. Just because something sells as microstock doesn't necessarily make it 'good' in any other way than it's a highly selling microstock image, which is what it's good at. What sells for many thousands of dollars in an art sale, like that IMO boring canal photo, may be 'crap' to you and 'boring' to me, but presumably it had some 'good' qualities to the person who bought it.

@noodles: I'd modify your 'good lighting' to 'good light', and that's subjective. Good light as judged by an inspector who knows little about natural light may be totally wrong/'crap' for a particular subject.

@wut: "It's about knowledge, ideas and originality. And shooting what the buyers need." These parameters are often mutually exclusive. Hence many of the top selling micro shots are not in any way beautiful or memorable. And that's also subjective.

E.g., I sent a series to Alamy. The one which has already sold was IMO the least 'good' from the set, but I felt it had to be added to complete the series. But it sold as a standalone image.
"You never can tell what will sell".
« Last Edit: July 14, 2012, 15:17 by ShadySue »

« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2012, 15:05 »
0
I was being facetious of course. I was amazed at how poor the images were in the Getty portfolio of that guy that did the Olympic pictures the other day. I thought Getty was supposed to be an edited collection?

« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2012, 15:07 »
0
What's good and what's not good is purely subjective. Just because something sells as microstock doesn't necessarily make it 'good' in any other way than it's a highly selling microstock image, which is what it's good at. What sells for many thousands of dollars in an art sale, like that IMO boring canal photo, may crap to you and boring to me, but presumably it had some 'good' qualities to the person who bought it.

@noodles: I'd modify your 'good lighting' to 'good light', and that's subjective. Good light as judged by an inspector who knows little about natural light may be totally wrong/'crap' for a particular subject.

@wut: It's about knowledge, ideas and originality. And shooting what the buyers need. These are often mutually exclusive. Hence many of the top selling micro shots are not in any way beautiful or memorable. And that's also subjective.

E.g., I sent a series to Alamy. The one which has already sold was IMO the least 'good' from the set, but I felt it had to be added to complete the series. But it sold as a standalone image.
"You never can tell what will sell".

Absolutely - Eye of the beholder  :)  Stuff that's good and "good stock" is that overlap on the venn diagram.

lisafx

« Reply #23 on: July 14, 2012, 16:29 »
0
Completely agree with Liz.  One person's "crap" is another person's treasure.  FWIW, I see stuff sell all the time on all the sites, including Istock, that I would consider crap.  Some of it is mine (older stuff - hope I'm not still producing crap, but again, it's subjective). 

antistock

« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2012, 01:46 »
0
Seems to sell on Alamy judging by some of the diabolically bad photography they accept on there.

on one side i blame the photo buyers for this, some of the images sold there are absolutely awful, it only shows that some
photo editors are either smoking something or have a particular bad taste.

on the other side it's a smack in the face for the edited collections who think to know better what the buyers want.
it seems alamy is getting it right and that buyers love bad photos, so who are we to judge ?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2605 Views
Last post August 01, 2009, 15:52
by Magnum
4 Replies
2522 Views
Last post April 15, 2011, 09:04
by stockastic
11 Replies
2086 Views
Last post April 03, 2013, 04:03
by rubyroo
29 Replies
5604 Views
Last post May 09, 2017, 16:15
by suwanneeredhead
6 Replies
2769 Views
Last post November 04, 2017, 00:44
by tickstock

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results