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 ?