Author Topic: How much do you like Istockphoto? (Read 36732 times)

ap · « **Reply #75 on:** December 14, 2009, 13:11 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 14, 2009, 12:59

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on December 14, 2009, 12:52
Istock would make way more money and people that have been shooting for years in stock would be able to add all their images and start shooting ( exclusive shoots ) for Istock like the entire rest of the industry allows.

I prefer to keep your 15,000 images out of the collection. That's just me being greedy. Cheers!

jonathan, i absolutely love your macro collection of photos and i'm happy for you that your income there continues to be solid. but to flood the micro market with your images is almost a monopolistic move. if someone like sean feels threatened, what about other microstockers?

by the way, i don't compete in your categories, so it wouldn't affect me personally.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #76 on:** December 26, 2009, 16:41 »

Ok... For the rest of you: Suljo got most of the points i have too!

Most of You think that macro is not worth so as micro? I doubt so because that are different worlds with different buyers... And many other different details.

1. I don't give my portfolio link because I am protecting my work in terms of concepts and ideas.
2. I have successful micro pictures but I won't tell you under which name I am selling.
3. My micro pictures aren't the same as my macro pictures.

Have you tried to upload to Moodboard micro? I am sure that your micro images will be rejected in great numbers... Just try that and you will get idea over your accepted there what sells as macro ;-)

So... Thanks for your thoughts about Istock... I am still determined not to upload there as long as they have editors who are uploading their stuff ;-) Editor should be someone who knows what is needed to sell - not to fill in with his own pictures!

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #77 on:** December 27, 2009, 14:56 »

IS is my highest $$ earner... (SS is my highest by volume sales)

all the top agencies have their pros & cons(lower down the food chain the cons increase) there is no perfect agency...

could I be happier? Yeah... I need a new vacation home in the mountains, an Aston Martin DB9 along with a new H2 hummer, better health insurance, steak every night, a bar with top shelf booze fully stocked all the time, 10 weeks vacation instead of 5, a Canon 1d instead of a 5d mark II.... a few other (hundred) things.. oh yeah and a perfect stock agency...
wonder which I'll get first? LOL

There's no perfection out there anywhere in anything...

=tom

Digital66 · « **Reply #78 on:** December 27, 2009, 17:21 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on December 26, 2009, 16:41

... they have editors who are uploading their stuff ;-) Editor should be someone who knows what is needed to sell - not to fill in with his own pictures!

I've always thought this is something Istock should change. Contributors SHOULD NEVER be editors.

Otherwise, sometimes the reason by which editors accept or refuse an image could be biased, unreasonable, and unfair.

gostwyck · « **Reply #79 on:** December 27, 2009, 19:21 »

Quote from: Digital66 on December 27, 2009, 17:21

[I've always thought this is something Istock should change. Contributors SHOULD NEVER be editors.

Otherwise, sometimes the reason by which editors accept or refuse an image could be biased, unreasonable, and unfair.

It's a very small and insignificant issue. Reviewing is always a subjective process and therefore somewhat inconsistent by nature. To refuse to upload to the microstock market leader, on the basis that a tiny percentage of your images may be refused (due to a reviewer guarding their own interests), is frankly absurd __ although I'm very happy for you to do so.

loop · « **Reply #80 on:** December 27, 2009, 20:53 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on December 26, 2009, 16:41

Ok... For the rest of you: Suljo got most of the points i have too!

Most of You think that macro is not worth so as micro? I doubt so because that are different worlds with different buyers... And many other different details.

1. I don't give my portfolio link because I am protecting my work in terms of concepts and ideas.
2. I have successful micro pictures but I won't tell you under which name I am selling.
3. My micro pictures aren't the same as my macro pictures.

Have you tried to upload to Moodboard micro? I am sure that your micro images will be rejected in great numbers... Just try that and you will get idea over your accepted there what sells as macro ;-)

So... Thanks for your thoughts about Istock... I am still determined not to upload there as long as they have editors who are uploading their stuff ;-) Editor should be someone who knows what is needed to sell - not to fill in with his own pictures!

ok, message understood. Don't upload.

MichaelJay · « **Reply #81 on:** December 29, 2009, 05:30 »

Quote from: Digital66 on December 27, 2009, 17:21

I've always thought this is something Istock should change. Contributors SHOULD NEVER be editors. Otherwise, sometimes the reason by which editors accept or refuse an image could be biased, unreasonable, and unfair.

Well, this can be argued both ways. Personally, I always found that iStock inspectors have the advantage that they have gone through the same process as we do - I doubt I would have learned so much about phography from people who are not photographers having to deal with thie same problems all the time.

I also doubt anyone abusing the system for personal reasons will be found by the admins and the Scout system, so I have no worries about that. By the way, there are far more than 100 inspectors around the world nowadays, so any hope of one inspector to be able to limit competition to their own portfolio would be a waste of time since they won't be able to control 99% of the incoming images anyway.

pdtnc · « **Reply #82 on:** December 29, 2009, 06:51 »

I like the regular earnings, but what i don't like is the 25c partner program subs commission and the lack of any pay rises for Non-Exclusives.

Its high time that changed, the 2010 changes are effectively a downgrade for the Non-Exclusives!

Dreamstime would be more choice for the fairness of commissions and most progressive of the agencies, iStock could take some tips from them on how to pay their contributors fairly.

ShadySue · « **Reply #83 on:** December 29, 2009, 06:56 »

Quote from: pdtnc on December 29, 2009, 06:51

I like the regular earnings, but what i don't like is the 25c partner program subs commission and the lack of any pay rises for Non-Exclusives.

I'm sure non-exclusives will get more downloads when exclusive prices are raised, at least in areas where exclusives and nons are competing.

FD · « **Reply #84 on:** December 29, 2009, 08:09 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 29, 2009, 06:56

I'm sure non-exclusives will get more downloads when exclusive prices are raised, at least in areas where exclusives and nons are competing.

I really doubt that since it has been said already many times: buyers don't mind that much about the price (within reasonable limits) if the image is right. What might affect independents' sales is the change in the best match.

What I personally don't like about iStock is my very low RPD there. I made a quick calculation of my RPD of the last downloads last night and it was close to that of SS, around 0.50$ (compare DT: 1.24$ on average, 1.27$ this month). Perhaps that's due to the fact I only sell small sizes on IS.
If that's the case, I can't possibly see how the investment in a 21MP 5DII can pay off on IS, for me. So from now on, they'll get only the 5MP downsized versions, just like SS does. Downsizing from 21 to 5MP should also eliminate the mysterious rejects for artifacts and feathering.

fotografer · « **Reply #85 on:** December 29, 2009, 11:21 »

Just checked my RPD for the last month on IS and it is almost 1.37$. Don't know why you sell so many small images as that isn't the case for me.

Quote from: FD-amateur on December 29, 2009, 08:09

What I personally don't like about iStock is my very low RPD there. I made a quick calculation of my RPD of the last downloads last night and it was close to that of SS, around 0.50$ (compare DT: 1.24$ on average, 1.27$ this month). Perhaps that's due to the fact I only sell small sizes on IS.

vonkara · « **Reply #86 on:** December 29, 2009, 12:03 »

My RPD is also around 1.50$ at Istock, if not more. I tend to sell big sizes quite often. I can't accurately say why though, but some images have very small amount of XS and S downloads. Some others that aren't photoshop collage sell a lot more at small sizes.

Medium Regular 1.62
Medium Regular 1.68
Large Regular 3.00
Small Regular 0.87
Medium Regular 1.50
Medium Regular 1.80
XSmall Regular 0.29
Small Regular 0.87
Medium Regular 1.74
Large Regular 3.36

XSmall Regular 0.30
Small Regular 0.84
Medium Regular 1.74
Large Regular 3.48
XSmall Regular 0.25
Small Regular 0.60
Small Regular 0.84
Small Regular 0.87
XSmall Regular 0.23
XSmall Regular 0.19

It look like there is some images made for websites or blogs and other made for bigger advertisement designs

lisafx · « **Reply #87 on:** December 29, 2009, 12:20 »

Interesting. My RPD at IS is currently at 1.04. It has never been much over 1.10.

My average across all sites is .99, so IS is only just barely above the average. Acceptable, but could be better.

I suspect the best way to get that to go up is to go exclusive.

Snufkin · « **Reply #88 on:** December 29, 2009, 13:22 »

Mine is 1.46 for 2009. In 2008 it was 1.26.
It depends on the subject matter, I guess.

Digital66 · « **Reply #89 on:** December 29, 2009, 14:57 »

... there are far more than 100 inspectors around the world nowadays, so any hope of one inspector to be able to limit competition to their own portfolio would be a waste of time since they won't be able to control 99% of the incoming images anyway.
[/quote]

According to the info at http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=147 the total number Istock inspectors is only 40 around the world.

Digital66 · « **Reply #90 on:** December 29, 2009, 15:00 »

Quote from: MichaelJay on December 29, 2009, 05:30

...there are far more than 100 inspectors around the world nowadays, so any hope of one inspector to be able to limit competition to their own portfolio would be a waste of time since they won't be able to control 99% of the incoming images anyway.

According to the info at http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=147 the total number Istock inspectors is only 40 around the world. That's a very small number.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #91 on:** December 29, 2009, 15:24 »

Quote from: Digital66 on December 29, 2009, 15:00

Quote from: MichaelJay on December 29, 2009, 05:30
...there are far more than 100 inspectors around the world nowadays, so any hope of one inspector to be able to limit competition to their own portfolio would be a waste of time since they won't be able to control 99% of the incoming images anyway.

According to the info at http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=147 the total number Istock inspectors is only 40 around the world. That's a very small number.

And that's a very old article.

FD · « **Reply #92 on:** December 31, 2009, 14:42 »

Quote from: Vonkara on December 29, 2009, 12:03

My RPD is also around 1.50$ at Istock, if not more. I tend to sell big sizes quite often.

Perhaps because you have mainly illustrations. I just re-checked and at IS my RPD over 2009 is 1.12$ and over December alone 1.02$. Compare with 1.22$/.28$ at DT. Not that the sizes there are larger, but I sell disproportionally more level 3 and up (those are more xpensive).

vonkara · « **Reply #93 on:** December 31, 2009, 16:24 »

lol I don't have any illustrations. But I think I know what you mean. Those selling at big sizes are kind of collage made with images took separetely. It's either give a bigger available size, but they are also isolation.

I worked with isolated images for doing designs at small sizes. It's easier to match a design with bigger images and then downsize the final product. Though that's just a guess and how I like to do things

modellocate · « **Reply #94 on:** January 02, 2010, 14:03 »

Quote from: KB on November 28, 2009, 16:42

Quote from: lisafx on November 28, 2009, 14:38
Overall one of the things I most LIKE about istock is the consistency of it's inspections. Frankly it would be nice if all sites' reviews were as reasonable as Istock's.
Amen, Amen, AMEN!

Maybe it's because my images were borderline, but I've uploaded two images that were technically identical (different pose, same shoot) and have had one rejected for noise, the other accepted -- only difference is uploading a week apart. This happens a lot at IS for me (again, maybe it is because of my images) but the judgement call on noise, isolation, lighting, etc. can vary depending on when you upload.

willie · « **Reply #95 on:** January 03, 2010, 11:36 »

Quote from: modellocate on January 02, 2010, 14:03

Maybe it's because my images were borderline, but I've uploaded two images that were technically identical (different pose, same shoot) and have had one rejected for noise, the other accepted -- only difference is uploading a week apart. This happens a lot at IS for me (again, maybe it is because of my images) but the judgement call on noise, isolation, lighting, etc. can vary depending on when you upload.

well, i wouldn't go so far as to "accuse" IS of exclusive judges being ignoramus to fend off competition to reject your hot images if they happen to be threatening their own portfolio.
i might say that perharps there are a handful of nasty exclusives who are committing this gross conflict of interest.
but it certainly would not be commonplace.
eg. i cannot see someone as established as Mr Locke, and other superstars of IS doing this if even Mr. Locke is a reviewer, which i think he is not.
But, my point is, since i started with IS only 4-6 months ago.., i have been getting reviews on my glamour images from IS exclusives. i also have been getting exemplery support from other IS exclusives in the forum.

so, maybe yes, there are a handful of rogue IS exclusives who are playing dirty as reviewers to new independents, but i wouldn't paint them with a broad brush to say all IS exclusives are anally suspicious. which i would attest that it is not so.

there are some bad eggs, and i think IS support should investigate

granitepeaker · « **Reply #96 on:** February 03, 2010, 12:53 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on November 16, 2009, 17:06

I know that many of people who have to say anything will stay silent because they are afraid of istock administators wraith. Maybe you who are customers as well you who got bullied there have something to say? Maybe someone isn't afraid?

... I'm Afraid

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How much do you like Istockphoto? (Read 36732 times)

ap

Albert Martin

a.k.a.-tom

Digital66

gostwyck

loop

MichaelJay

pdtnc

ShadySue

FD

fotografer

vonkara

lisafx

Snufkin

Digital66

Digital66

Sean Locke Photography

FD

vonkara

modellocate

willie

granitepeaker

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors