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.

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

Seems to sell on Alamy judging by some of the diabolically bad photography they accept on there.

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.

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.

Some crap sells better than others:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-769800-poop-02.php?st=04184e9

Wow sue.  That one has more visual impact...more poopy.

Wut I hope you have "clean" thoughts

Wut I hope you have "clean" thoughts

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

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

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.

Quote from: noodle on July 14, 2012, 12:25

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".

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.

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 ?

Some of you are mixing crap with candid, real images. That being said both can be good or crap. Alamy is like a junkyard. 31 mil, yes, that's why no one here (that I've heard of) makes no real money there, it's always just a few % of total earnings, on average I mean, I've never seen someone earn 20% of total earnings there, while most of top 4 sites reach that easily, while IS and way more often SS, reach or even exceed 50% quite often. And even if someone earned over 20% on Alamy (on average, not on a lucky month with a couple of huge sells) he'd have to have a lot more photos over there, than on the micros. Ppl always say you have to have a huge port to succeed there.

Quote from: wut on July 15, 2012, 03:37

...that's why no one here (that I've heard of) makes no real money there, it's always just a few % of total earnings...

It's a different site to the micros.  People uploading only their microstock portfolios wont make a huge amount there.  I do know some do very well there and looking at the alamy monthly earnings threads, there's people earning as much as some of the top microstock contributors.  They do have huge portfolios but it's easier to do that with alamy, as they accept almost everything.

This is great for some, but it's not for everyone. I can shoot things that don't interest me, but I think they could sell, but I'm always trying to do as best as I can. Even though some shoots are boring, I make a challenge out of it for myself and make it interesting, at least to some degree. If I didn't do that, I'd already quit, I couldn't just shoot quantity and no quality (nicer words for crap). You're just like a conveyor belt worker, a robot then...I'm always for quality over quantity as it can be seen in this thread and the one I started a few months ago. Some are the other way around (usually because they can't do quality) and that's just fine, everybody needs to find an agent (or more), that best represent their works. If not anything else, I find Alamy's UL process repulsive, it's 10 times worse and more time consuming that at IS that is already the worst in the MS industry

Hi Wut,
I'm (very) sick and can't be much active on this forum, but over the time I have read your posts and I've learned a bit about your port, the country you're coming from and your opinions.
You like telling it like (you feel) it is.
I'm going to play by that rule and hope you also accept it when other people do the same.
You like to use, and over-use, the word 'pathetic'.
Dreamstime is pathetic, Fotolia is pathetic, 123RF is pathetic too, BigStock, Deposit Photos, Veer and so on, are all pathetic. So is Alamy.
Hidden behind your anonymity you like to criticise the agencies and the work of other photographers, but you can never muster the guts to come out in the open and give your criticism a real face.
That policy is almost acceptable when it comes to agencies, but not so when you start crapping the ports of other people.
As a general rule, try not to talk about other people's work if you're too scared to show yours.
Your opinion becomes null.

Going back on topic, 'Crap doesn't sell at IStock', I have a few things to add.
You're wrong.
IStock sells plenty of crap. Just as much crap as all the other sites.
The difference is that IStock preferantialy sells their own, exclusive crap.
The image is exclusive, it wears a pretty crown made of pixels, but it's still just plain old crap.
And by the way, the vast majority of those crappy IStock exclusive images wouldn't even be accepted by the other sites today.
That's how really crappy they are.

You're planning on going exclusive at IStock.
(and now suddenly, they don't sell crap anymore!)
Your decision is based on earnings. Money is all that matters.
You don't take into consideration any other factors.
'I want money! Today!' - is all that counts to you.
That kind of attitude is doomed to fail. In *any* business.
Looking at the broader picture, taking into account everything that makes IStock today, considering their precarious future and the ownership of ghosts companies, in my opinion, IStock Photo is *the* most pathetic agency of them all.
By far.

Now, having said that, you're right.
IStock is the perfect place for you. It will fit you like a glove.
Looking forward to seeing you wearing a crown, and best of luck,
 

Hi Wut,
I'm (very) sick and can't be much active on this forum, but over the time I have read your posts and I've learned a bit about your port, the country you're coming from and your opinions.
You like telling it like (you feel) it is.
I'm going to play by that rule and hope you also accept it when other people do the same.
You like to use, and over-use, the word 'pathetic'.
Dreamstime is pathetic, Fotolia is pathetic, 123RF is pathetic too, BigStock, Deposit Photos, Veer and so on, are all pathetic. So is Alamy.
Hidden behind your anonymity you like to criticise the agencies and the work of other photographers, but you can never muster the guts to come out in the open and give your criticism a real face.
That policy is almost acceptable when it comes to agencies, but not so when you start crapping the ports of other people.
As a general rule, try not to talk about other people's work if you're too scared to show yours.
Your opinion becomes null.

Going back on topic, 'Crap doesn't sell at IStock', I have a few things to add.
You're wrong.
IStock sells plenty of crap. Just as much crap as all the other sites.
The difference is that IStock preferantialy sells their own, exclusive crap.
The image is exclusive, it wears a pretty crown made of pixels, but it's still just plain old crap.
And by the way, the vast majority of those crappy IStock exclusive images wouldn't even be accepted by the other sites today.
That's how really crappy they are.

You're planning on going exclusive at IStock.
(and now suddenly, they don't sell crap anymore!)
Your decision is based on earnings. Money is all that matters.
You don't take into consideration any other factors.
'I want money! Today!' - is all that counts to you.
That kind of attitude is doomed to fail. In *any* business.
Looking at the broader picture, taking into account everything that makes IStock today, considering their precarious future and the ownership of ghosts companies, in my opinion, IStock Photo is *the* most pathetic agency of them all.
By far.

Now, having said that, you're right.
IStock is the perfect place for you. It will fit you like a glove.
Looking forward to seeing you wearing a crown, and best of luck,
 

All I could picture in my mind after reading this post was Ace Ventura doing the violent pump action  and yelling  ;"Can you feel that?!  Huh? Huh?..."

Crap doesn't sell at IS�

IMO Crap doesn't sell at any micro stock site, as that is the definition of crap.

As micro stock is about selling as many images as possible, an image that doesn't sell is crap regardless of opportunity, composition, technical know how etc.

Please tho, that is not to say I don't have the up most respect for vetta and the like, I do wish and aim to be that good a photographer.

But I do believe, in the world of micro stock, that greatness, and crapness is measured by downloads and time period.

PS. although anonymity is a option I wouldn't like to see removed, I can't deny that linking to your portfolio adds weight to your posts, especially if its a corker.

Crap doesn't sell at IS�
IMO Crap doesn't sell at any micro stock site, as that is the definition of crap.

So the title of this pretty pointless thread should be "stuff that doesn't sell, doesn't sell".

It is indeed a bit pointless Wut
There a better things for us to do then starting threads we know will just end up flaming eachother.

The last useful thread I've read here was about the Veer/alamy issue. Now that was something to admire, contributors getting together trying to change things for the better.

Anyway, do as you please mate, whetever makes you happy

It is indeed a bit pointless Wut
There a better things for us to do then starting threads we know will just end up flaming eachother.

The last useful thread I've read here was about the Veer/alamy issue. Now that was something to admire, contributors getting together trying to change things for the better.

Anyway, do as you please mate, whetever makes you happy

I can't be bothered by that anymore Wim. I'm used to that. It seems there's just so many frustrated ppl, that either can't get their sales rolling and there's also a bunch of has beens, Gold/Diamonds that now struggle to get their DLs into 4 numbers. On a yearly basis of course . Or they're just so uptight they can't get a joke or their lives are so f-ed up or meaningless. I don't know and I don't really care. It's just a shame no one can stick to a topic. Luckily there are still some diamonds in the rough to be found, so it's worthwhile staying here. And some cool, funny and insightful ppl that aren't fake, politically correct and overly sensitive. Seems nowadays less and less ppl have the balls (or "the balls" in case of women)

But we can all agree, that it's easier to push crap on sub sites, can't we ? I mean if you have a high daily quota (of free images, in a way you) will DL some extra shots you might need, a couple more images from the same series etc. When it comes to credits sales, buyers really think about what they need before they buy it. But if you pay 250$ or so for 750 images, you don't care that much, you just shove stuff in your shopping cart.

So now we can finally conclude that IS sells less crap then the rest. Case closed

I'm flattered

As far I'm concerned, SS. If you search by age, there are huge series of extensive bad photos. Every single one is bad and they multiply it by 10, so there are series of 50+ photos that do nothing (they certainly don't sell) but push the good content down the pages. Buyers get frustrated, good images don't get enough DLs (I'm mean not always, but usually they do rise to the top) to get a good placement in the popular (default search setting) etc. So it's really triple damage we're talking about. That's the reason SS stopped the new image push a year ago, because there was just to much crap mixed in that all the good stuff would get enough attention. They should accompany that with stricter reviews. They did just that, but since ms inspectors are mostly a joke when it comes to photography knowledge they just blindly rejected stuff and cut down on new content that way. But it's not only SS of course, the problem there is only most obvious because they have the biggest library and because most of us earn most there and it hurts us most to loose sales there. At the end of the day they're still the best from the agencies that we can contribute to.

I don't really get your last paragraph

Quote from: wut on July 23, 2012, 08:15

I don't really get your last paragraph

He's looking for hard figures to back up your sweeping statements.

Who do you think I am, a company that does stats. As I said (a thousand times by now), this are my experiences, my numbers and observations of other togs. You can see ppl complaining about bad sales at IS constantly, right? That it's only their #5, #7 earner, but when you check their ports you see why. They sell crap. Most of the times. They can manage to get a sale here and there on other sites, but at IS (perhaps mostly because they don't really have subs) they just can't. Some of them have huge ports, ports of 3,4,5k or even more. Yet they only earn 1k a month or so. And have only 2 digit earnings at IS. Take your time and have a look for yourselves (meaning y'all doubters), click . out of those port links

Earth doesn't revolve around you Luis and your accusations are just ridiculous . Do you think I remember the names of bad togs? I forget most of the names of the best (I just had a discussion about it via pm yesterday and couldn't name more than a few;)

Earth doesn't revolve around you Luis and your accusations are just ridiculous

and I can say the other way too no?

actually who was I accusing? weren�t you the one talking about other portfolio/income, this and that?

When was I worried about other ppl's income. It looks like you can't even comprehend the point of this thread or better said, can't see the forrest for the trees

funny how you can see always so clear, nice day for you