Author Topic: iStock exclusivity (Read 26432 times)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #50 on:** August 14, 2014, 10:01 »

Quote from: NCHANT on August 14, 2014, 05:16

Feel free to have a look at some of my work that isn't/won't all be available on iStock: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeymack/

You've got some nice stuff there.
PS: Don't worry about Shudderstock. He's just become all bitter about everybody here.

shudderstok · « **Reply #51 on:** August 14, 2014, 11:32 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 14, 2014, 10:01

Quote from: NCHANT on August 14, 2014, 05:16

Feel free to have a look at some of my work that isn't/won't all be available on iStock: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeymack/

You've got some nice stuff there.
PS: Don't worry about Shudderstock. He's just become all bitter about everybody here.

au contraire... just not a fan of the overwhelming negativity on offer or shall i say the herd mentality of dissaproval if you just happen to like and/or have success over at IS. it's the herd mentality that i find a bit silly. as a point of reference - this thread - there is no reason NCHANT should be so defensive in sharing that he is happy with IS. there is no shortage of negativity on MSG - especially if you really dig IS and have success. you can call that bitter about everybody if you want. just sayin.

MxR · « **Reply #52 on:** August 14, 2014, 11:37 »

Hey nchants!... wish luck to you!....!

Istock without PP o any Getty Sales is a 5% of my income... but i respect your decision!

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #53 on:** August 14, 2014, 11:50 »

Quote from: MxR on August 14, 2014, 11:37

Hey nchants!... wish luck to you!....!

Istock without PP o any Getty Sales is a 5% of my income... but i respect your decision!

looking at it objectively,

during one of my trips, i met a group of ppl from another country who found out what the min. wage is on my side of the pond. they went, "wow... that's like one month income for a doctor or a manager of a big firm where we live".
so really, 5% may be peanuts for us , but to someone else, that could be like the talk of the town
yo, man... global photographer.
looking back, even here on this forum, a decade ago, i remember reading someone saying
after he made $100 a month with IS that he is planning to build a house .
naturally most ppl then, chided him saying even with $1000 a month we don't even talk about planning
to buy a car, never mind build a house.

this could well be the OP situation why champagnes are pouring .

ShadySue · « **Reply #54 on:** August 14, 2014, 11:53 »

I've never heard that the cost of living is particularly low in NZ.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #55 on:** August 14, 2014, 12:10 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 14, 2014, 11:53

I've never heard that the cost of living is particularly low in NZ.

oh, is that where OP lives?
oh well, off with my objectivity theory

not being blant, but i guess OP is just someone who is easily satisfied. sites like ss is ft ,etc
must adore having new contributors like OP .

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #56 on:** August 14, 2014, 12:31 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 14, 2014, 12:10

Quote from: ShadySue on August 14, 2014, 11:53
I've never heard that the cost of living is particularly low in NZ.

oh, is that where OP lives?
oh well, off with my objectivity theory

not being blant, but i guess OP is just someone who is easily satisfied. sites like ss is ft ,etc
must adore having new contributors like OP .

He's not trying to make a living, he's just trying to get some pocket-money from his pictures. It's where an awful lot of us started from.

Thinking about it, the real old-timers like me, who started back in early 2004, were all easily satisfied. Then, after a few years the semi-pros and pros noticed that we were making very good money and jumped into the pool, trying to squeeze us out, now the pros/semi-pros are finding that it's just not worth the effort any more and a new generation of pocket-money hopefuls are popping up - though with far better skills than we had back at the beginning.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #57 on:** August 14, 2014, 12:43 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 14, 2014, 12:31

Thinking about it, the real old-timers like me, who started back in early 2004, were all easily satisfied. Then, after a few years the semi-pros and pros noticed that we were making very good money and jumped into the pool, trying to squeeze us out, now the pros/semi-pros are finding that it's just not worth the effort any more and a new generation of pocket-money hopefuls are popping up - though with far better skills than we had back at the beginning.

Mr. Trouser, do u still believe OP is as good or better than this old-timer when she first started out?
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/162596/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1a9fde01
The Madame does not seem to be being "squeezed out". She is still very much up there .
(I am bias, because she is my long time favourite from IS).

i agree with those who say to OP, not to celebrate too soon, the first puff of opiate is always free.
but i also agree that top performers will always do well because they keep ahead of the "better than when we started" newbies.
to cheers too soon is to encourage the sites like IS , SS, Getty,etc to continue to exploit the situation of over-supply and saturation of yoghurts, i mean, photos.

shudderstok · « **Reply #58 on:** August 14, 2014, 13:36 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 14, 2014, 12:31

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 14, 2014, 12:10
Quote from: ShadySue on August 14, 2014, 11:53
I've never heard that the cost of living is particularly low in NZ.

oh, is that where OP lives?
oh well, off with my objectivity theory

not being blant, but i guess OP is just someone who is easily satisfied. sites like ss is ft ,etc
must adore having new contributors like OP .

He's not trying to make a living, he's just trying to get some pocket-money from his pictures. It's where an awful lot of us started from.

Thinking about it, the real old-timers like me, who started back in early 2004, were all easily satisfied. Then, after a few years the semi-pros and pros noticed that we were making very good money and jumped into the pool, trying to squeeze us out, now the pros/semi-pros are finding that it's just not worth the effort any more and a new generation of pocket-money hopefuls are popping up - though with far better skills than we had back at the beginning.

Food for thought Paul... Old timers like you in microstock I get, but for some of us microstock was the last resort as the newbies such as yourself at the time came into a very profitable industry that "was". I beg to differ from your suggestion - rather that it was the newbies who fell for selling images at micro prices (where it's considered the norm now) squeezed us old timers out. I was just digging through my old "Stone" and "Getty" statements from 1996-2006 and what an eye opener that was. My royalties from the "was" era were consistent at 4K-6K and by the time the micros came vogue circa 2006 my royalties from the same agents had plummeted to a consistent 1K-2K due to selling images for a pittance - impossible to compete with that. That is about the time I jumped in to microstock dumping all my "rejects" from a healthy editing system that was in place back in "was" land. Within two years I was making my original 4K-6K from rejects of "was" land on IS, and my other royalties hover to where they remain today at a paltry 300-500 per month with the original surprise from a RM sale that is rather the way it "was". I am really glad I started when I did, even if you "old timers" squeezed us geriatrics out.

that all said, I am so glad I am not starting up today.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #59 on:** August 14, 2014, 13:39 »

Ms Gagne was iStock's star turn right from the beginning etudiante_rapide, it is ridiculous to project her as being the average 2004 (or 2002) istocker. I was the probably the average 2004 contributor. Unlike you, I'm not particularly a fan of La Gagne because I have some concerns about the amount of "inspiration" she took from the work of established macro-stock photographers.

PS: If you read my earlier post you would see that I also suggested that the OP should not be too excited by his first week's result.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #60 on:** August 14, 2014, 13:50 »

@ Shudderstock

Very interesting info there. Of course, we early microstockers were much hated by the trad lads and with good reason. But it wasn't our fault - times had changed and microstock was going to take off, the whinging on the trad forums was like Canute trying to hold back the tide. The trad agencies had effectively operated a closed shop, that was supported by the difficulty and expense of using film (a process I still enjoy, by the way). Digital changed everything. As did the Internet. Put the two together and microstock was inevitable. It's not so much that microstock devalued stock photography, it's the ease of creation that devalued it.

Now the easy microstock money is over. Some people who are really willing to work will still make a lot from it, but it will probably be the young and hungry who make that effort rather than the likes of me (neither young nor hungry), and the balance will be the good amateurs who a happy to stick a hundred bucks or so in their pocket once a month.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #61 on:** August 14, 2014, 13:51 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 14, 2014, 13:39

Ms Gagne was iStock's star turn right from the beginning etudiante_rapide, it is ridiculous to project her as being the average 2004 (or 2002) istocker. I was the probably the average 2004 contributor. Unlike you, I'm not particularly a fan of La Gagne because I have some concerns about the amount of "inspiration" she took from the work of established macro-stock photographers.

Trousers, who in business of art, photo (gagnon<macro), music(beatles, stone<chuck berry),etc were not "inspired" by those who were established at that time? Madame Gagne stardom was because she was shrewd enough to know that was what clients want. no one invented the wheel in stock photography.

but, i do get what u mean, "the average Istocker". point taken.

my point is like in the other thread on dt (poor sales), where one of other MSG-er say,
:lower expectation: so happy camper faster ,
or something like that.

so long as we let them persists, the lower expectation will be no lower than free. don't u agree,
that it's not wise to bring out the champagne with such expectations?
tomorrow, he will bring out the champagne for getting many taking the freebies.
ie. don't encourage the agencies to drop the lid off the bottom

heywoody · « **Reply #62 on:** August 14, 2014, 13:58 »

Quote from: NCHANT on August 13, 2014, 18:51

Quote from: heywoody on August 13, 2014, 17:40
Quote from: NCHANT on August 05, 2014, 22:11
Quote from: Digital66 on August 05, 2014, 11:45
Acceptance rate at iStock means nothing nowadays. They take whatever crappy image you upload, except when there is a copyright issue. So, no reason to be proud about a high acceptance rate (I don't mean to be rude, but that's the ugly truth!).

Fair point well taken, before the new standards came in I had an 80% acceptance rate

I bit the bullet and going to try exclusive for a while, fingers crossed it works out. The time-saving factor alone will have the wife happy, so that will make me happy too I'm not in this game professionally and don't expect to make a living wage out of it, just a bit of fun at the end of the day

The oldest images in your port seem to be mid 2013 - after the end of standards at IS

That's not the point of this thread I do however remember being in the the midst of the change when I was accepted as a contributor.
My images may suck as people are implying by the new standards vs old, but they are working for me and that's what I wanted to find out by going exclusive.

Just to be clear, I never said yours or anyone else’s work sucks – just pointing out that you haven’t actually been subject to the old standards OR the old levels of revenue. If you make double or more as an exclusive it might make up for not selling on SS and the others at the moment but the trend does appear to be going in one direction with a result that a lot of established exclusives are jumping or have jumped ship.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #63 on:** August 14, 2014, 14:03 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 14, 2014, 13:51

Trousers, who in business of art, photo (gagnon<macro), music(beatles, stone<chuck berry),etc were not "inspired" by those who were established at that time? Madame Gagne stardom was because she was shrewd enough to know that was what clients want. no one invented the wheel in stock photography.

I wasn't. Not intentionally, anyway, ever... unless you count one or two deliberate large format experiments mimicking early 20th Century photographers, which aren't stock anyway.

I think there is a line in a certain place and crossing it descends from inspiration to plagiarism. I suppose different people find it in different places. But, of course, we are all part of the culture we live in.

ShadySue · « **Reply #64 on:** August 14, 2014, 14:09 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 14, 2014, 12:43

http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/162596/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1a9fde01
The Madame does not seem to be being "squeezed out". She is still very much up there .

I see she has cranked up her work rate considerably, but like most, she's struggling to sell her newer images. Time was her stuff sold as soon as it went up.

shudderstok · « **Reply #65 on:** August 14, 2014, 14:14 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 14, 2014, 13:50

@ Shudderstock

Very interesting info there. Of course, we early microstockers were much hated by the trad lads and with good reason. But it wasn't our fault - times had changed and microstock was going to take off, the whinging on the trad forums was like Canute trying to hold back the tide. The trad agencies had effectively operated a closed shop, that was supported by the difficulty and expense of using film (a process I still enjoy, by the way). Digital changed everything. As did the Internet. Put the two together and microstock was inevitable. It's not so much that microstock devalued stock photography, it's the ease of creation that devalued it.

Now the easy microstock money is over. Some people who are really willing to work will still make a lot from it, but it will probably be the young and hungry who make that effort rather than the likes of me (neither young nor hungry), and the balance will be the good amateurs who a happy to stick a hundred bucks or so in their pocket once a month.

Completely agree with the exception it was not a closed shop. It was open to those who had talent and could prove it by showing a good consistent folio. Most microstockers would have never made it into any trad agency based on merit alone - and that is fact.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #66 on:** August 14, 2014, 14:44 »

Quote from: shudderstok on August 14, 2014, 14:14

Completely agree with the exception it was not a closed shop. It was open to those who had talent and could prove it by showing a good consistent folio. Most microstockers would have never made it into any trad agency based on merit alone - and that is fact.

It wasn't just talent, there were a host of requirements agencies set down, in some cases requiring photographers to be available for assignments worldwide. Others were closed to new applications, no doubt for practical reasons concerned with handling submissions etc. I think at least one elite agency was invitation only.

NCHANT · « **Reply #67 on:** August 14, 2014, 16:11 »

Awesome, thanks everyone for keeping this thread constructive, and yes fascinating reading for me as a newbie, thanks

I was happy to get a hundred bucks in my pocket a month, but now my goal is to get a couple hundred, and so far my expectations have been rewarded, and then some.

The way I see it, let's say someone's out there looking for a photo of a 'road' to use in their layout, there's thousands of road images out there so someone will definitely be making a sale sooner or later, regardless if one of our images is available or not. I would like my image to be available for that sale. otherwise I wouldn't have a chance.

And then there's the new standards, as a buyer as well as a contributor, sometimes you just don't need that top notch $3000 shot, but a nice simple $20 image that does the job it's intended for. It will also be retouched, cropped, scaled etc etc so the end product isn't usually the same. But looking at the trends, these 'lower quality' images are selling like pancakes, why not get in the game? it's a buyers world at the end of the day. I sold a shot of GRASS the other day and made $20, they could have easily gone and shot it but no, they'd rather spend a total of $80 for some grass.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #68 on:** August 14, 2014, 16:56 »

If you're the typical art director you probably don't have the time or equipment to go shoot grass, especially when you can find a nicely lit shot taken by a pro in a couple of minutes online.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #69 on:** August 14, 2014, 16:58 »

Quote from: shudderstok on August 14, 2014, 14:14

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 14, 2014, 13:50
@ Shudderstock

Very interesting info there. Of course, we early microstockers were much hated by the trad lads and with good reason. But it wasn't our fault - times had changed and microstock was going to take off, the whinging on the trad forums was like Canute trying to hold back the tide. The trad agencies had effectively operated a closed shop, that was supported by the difficulty and expense of using film (a process I still enjoy, by the way). Digital changed everything. As did the Internet. Put the two together and microstock was inevitable. It's not so much that microstock devalued stock photography, it's the ease of creation that devalued it.

Now the easy microstock money is over. Some people who are really willing to work will still make a lot from it, but it will probably be the young and hungry who make that effort rather than the likes of me (neither young nor hungry), and the balance will be the good amateurs who a happy to stick a hundred bucks or so in their pocket once a month.

Completely agree with the exception it was not a closed shop. It was open to those who had talent and could prove it by showing a good consistent folio. Most microstockers would have never made it into any trad agency based on merit alone - and that is fact.

You are right that most microstockers never made it into trads at the time. This support BTs saying it was a closed shop. Many top selling micro artist have said they were reject by trads before trying micro. This includes people who has each made millions in micro as top sellers. Its a closed shop if the Lise, Seans, Andres, Yuris etc. Could not get accepted.

shudderstok · « **Reply #70 on:** August 14, 2014, 17:59 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on August 14, 2014, 16:58

Quote from: shudderstok on August 14, 2014, 14:14
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 14, 2014, 13:50
@ Shudderstock

Very interesting info there. Of course, we early microstockers were much hated by the trad lads and with good reason. But it wasn't our fault - times had changed and microstock was going to take off, the whinging on the trad forums was like Canute trying to hold back the tide. The trad agencies had effectively operated a closed shop, that was supported by the difficulty and expense of using film (a process I still enjoy, by the way). Digital changed everything. As did the Internet. Put the two together and microstock was inevitable. It's not so much that microstock devalued stock photography, it's the ease of creation that devalued it.

Now the easy microstock money is over. Some people who are really willing to work will still make a lot from it, but it will probably be the young and hungry who make that effort rather than the likes of me (neither young nor hungry), and the balance will be the good amateurs who a happy to stick a hundred bucks or so in their pocket once a month.

Completely agree with the exception it was not a closed shop. It was open to those who had talent and could prove it by showing a good consistent folio. Most microstockers would have never made it into any trad agency based on merit alone - and that is fact.

You are right that most microstockers never made it into trads at the time. This support BTs saying it was a closed shop. Many top selling micro artist have said they were reject by trads before trying micro. This includes people who has each made millions in micro as top sellers. Its a closed shop if the Lise, Seans, Andres, Yuris etc. Could not get accepted.

I rest my case. Some of those names (won't say who) did not qualify cause they did not make the grade at that point in time and it really shows in their early work - which is not to say they have not improved to very high standards later in time, they just did not have the mojo at the time they got rejected. I also got rejected on my first go by TIB and a few years later I got much much better and finally got into the trads. But it was not closed shop by any means. You either had it or you did not, and only time and lot's of practice gets us all there potentially if you keep self improving.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #71 on:** August 14, 2014, 23:45 »

Quote from: shudderstok on August 14, 2014, 17:59

I rest my case. Some of those names (won't say who) did not qualify cause they did not make the grade at that point in time and it really shows in their early work - which is not to say they have not improved to very high standards later in time, they just did not have the mojo at the time they got rejected. I also got rejected on my first go by TIB and a few years later I got much much better and finally got into the trads. But it was not closed shop by any means. You either had it or you did not, and only time and lot's of practice gets us all there potentially if you keep self improving.

That exclusive policy work great for the trads. I bet their real happy with the result.

shudderstok · « **Reply #72 on:** August 15, 2014, 01:50 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on August 14, 2014, 23:45

Quote from: shudderstok on August 14, 2014, 17:59

I rest my case. Some of those names (won't say who) did not qualify cause they did not make the grade at that point in time and it really shows in their early work - which is not to say they have not improved to very high standards later in time, they just did not have the mojo at the time they got rejected. I also got rejected on my first go by TIB and a few years later I got much much better and finally got into the trads. But it was not closed shop by any means. You either had it or you did not, and only time and lot's of practice gets us all there potentially if you keep self improving.

That exclusive policy work great for the trads. I bet their real happy with the result.

it was not an exclusive policy. you either had the talent or you did not. simple as that. if you had game on you got in, if you were close to game on they said no. not too hard to comprehend. microstock took almost everyone regardless of game on. simple as that.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #73 on:** August 15, 2014, 01:54 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on August 14, 2014, 23:45

That exclusive policy work great for the trads. I bet their real happy with the result.

It worked brilliantly for 10 or 20 years at the end of the 20th Century. The agencies controlled the market - they were effectively a price-fixing cartel who monopolised the supply and sale of stock images. The price had to be a bit less than hiring a photographer to take the shot, but if you didn't hire someone the only way to get quality, released pictures was via an agency. The price limited demand: only the big boys could afford to put photos in their adverts and publishers would limit the number of images in cookery books and travel guides because of the costs. I was in newspapers back then and shops and service businesses relied on black and white text for adverts or maybe made use of crummy line art to promote themselves.

The arrival of digital created a big pool of images able to meet the pent-up demand and this came shortly after computers took over from cameras in the creation of colour separations. The cost of separations used to be huge, we paid hundreds of pounds to get the separations made just for the cover of our annual A4 magazine back in 85, the internal content was all black and white - today I could scan and separate that slide in minutes on the scanner and computer I have at home - a digital image is even easier, of course. It was a "black swan moment" for the trads - suddenly the trade they had controlled slithered through their fingers and there wasn't much they could do except try to adjust to the new market reality.

It wasn't just photography that was changing in the publishing industry during last decades of the century. During my time in papers we went from letterpress to offset lithography, from B&W printing to the regular use of colour, from camera-made colour separations to digital ones, from compositor-set text to journalist-set text, from hot-metal to cold film, we said goodbye to flongs and chases, galley proofs and the hiss and clang and smell of the linotypes and hello to resin-coated aluminium plates. We went from hard copy that clattered out of telex machines hours after an event to instant transmission via satellite. We no longer lost stories because someone had forgotten to put a new reel of paper in the telex machines overnight. In the 'togs section the Rolleis got thrown out and Nikon Fs became de-rigeur, then they got thrown out, too. Exciting times, but I suppose it was much the same in most industries during the last quarter of the 20th Century

shudderstok · « **Reply #74 on:** August 15, 2014, 10:32 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 15, 2014, 01:54

Quote from: PixelBytes on August 14, 2014, 23:45

That exclusive policy work great for the trads. I bet their real happy with the result.

It worked brilliantly for 10 or 20 years at the end of the 20th Century. The agencies controlled the market - they were effectively a price-fixing cartel who monopolised the supply and sale of stock images. The price had to be a bit less than hiring a photographer to take the shot, but if you didn't hire someone the only way to get quality, released pictures was via an agency. The price limited demand: only the big boys could afford to put photos in their adverts and publishers would limit the number of images in cookery books and travel guides because of the costs. I was in newspapers back then and shops and service businesses relied on black and white text for adverts or maybe made use of crummy line art to promote themselves.

The arrival of digital created a big pool of images able to meet the pent-up demand and this came shortly after computers took over from cameras in the creation of colour separations. The cost of separations used to be huge, we paid hundreds of pounds to get the separations made just for the cover of our annual A4 magazine back in 85, the internal content was all black and white - today I could scan and separate that slide in minutes on the scanner and computer I have at home - a digital image is even easier, of course. It was a "black swan moment" for the trads - suddenly the trade they had controlled slithered through their fingers and there wasn't much they could do except try to adjust to the new market reality.

It wasn't just photography that was changing in the publishing industry during last decades of the century. During my time in papers we went from letterpress to offset lithography, from B&W printing to the regular use of colour, from camera-made colour separations to digital ones, from compositor-set text to journalist-set text, from hot-metal to cold film, we said goodbye to flongs and chases, galley proofs and the hiss and clang and smell of the linotypes and hello to resin-coated aluminium plates. We went from hard copy that clattered out of telex machines hours after an event to instant transmission via satellite. We no longer lost stories because someone had forgotten to put a new reel of paper in the telex machines overnight. In the 'togs section the Rolleis got thrown out and Nikon Fs became de-rigeur, then they got thrown out, too. Exciting times, but I suppose it was much the same in most industries during the last quarter of the 20th Century

that is a nice theory, but agencies were around for much longer than 10 or 20 years and they did not control the market, it was a market and many agencies were in it. that all said, most agencies of the time charged for the usage of an image and/or space rate so a magazine cover was worth what it was worth roughly $1000 for an in flight magazine and the photographer got his 50% cut, whereas now you guys are happy to sell a photo for much much less than it costs to produce and get 0.38 royalty for the same cover 20 years later (as recently happened to a good friend of mine from SS). when RF first came out for the first time that cover then dropped to about $350. digital or not, microstock was a real game changer for the industry price wise and i personally don't see it as sustainable for the long run for photographers and it's here to stay so we all need to deal with it and try to accept it and the agencies that now run the industry could not give a hoot about the suppliers as we are now sadly called "liabilities" at the AGM's. i am so glad i invested my earnings in some other lucrative investments years ago, cause the ship in photography sailed long ago.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock exclusivity (Read 26432 times)

BaldricksTrousers

shudderstok

MxR

etudiante_rapide

ShadySue

etudiante_rapide

BaldricksTrousers

etudiante_rapide

shudderstok

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

etudiante_rapide

heywoody

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

shudderstok

BaldricksTrousers

NCHANT

Shelma1

PixelBytes

shudderstok

PixelBytes

shudderstok

BaldricksTrousers

shudderstok

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors