MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: fintastique on December 11, 2006, 05:49

Title: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: fintastique on December 11, 2006, 05:49
I’m not sure if this will be pouring oil on troubled waters or throwing oil on a chip pan fire.

I will admit I am not a fan of iStock and also I am not the greatest photographer in the world.

I believe some micro stockers upload only their very best work so have very tight portfolios with photos that they are proud of (an may sell) and others upload everything they can in the hope that someday a designer will want a photo of a road sign.

If anyone visits my new look website they will see I am very much in the latter category. I made the decision to start sending my best work to Alamy several months ago.

Personally I am in micro stock for the money and I am frustrated by the upload limits, I can live with a 50% acceptance rate (not happy with the 20% pay) but I suspect that with more liberal upload limits I could have double the portfolio and possibly double the earnings. Also my illustrations which are fairly basic but sell reasonably well elsewhere don’t reach iStocks standards. So there would be absolutely no point me signing up for being exclusive.

For those of you who report a healthy percentage of your microstock income from iStock when did you sign up? Have you managed to submit most of your photos to iStock?

I signed up in Feb 2006 when there were 10 photos/day limits (oh happy days!) but I didn’t have a decent back catalogue to upload.

One point about negative comments about iStock where else can micro stockers express them, on the iStock site?

On a more positive note regarding borderline images being accepted. With the tight upload limits non-exclusives aren't going to waste one of their precious uploads on a "non-pretty" photo that they may think will be rejected whereas exclusives with higher limits can risk sending one in which may get accepted as even though the photo may not be "pretty" it serves a purpose.

I have found for some sites that as my portfolio has grown the reviewers have become less picky.

Shall we start a few self deprecating threads worse photo that has been accepted and worse photo that has sold?
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: roman on December 11, 2006, 07:06
I agree with Steve on a lot of points.  My approach, however, is the first one he mentions.  I tend to be a bit more picky about my submissions in hopes of getting more downloads.  The reason for this is because it takes a lot of time to do the keywording, categories, etc.. If I invest my time into microstock photo it's because I believe that it will sell.  However, like Steve I had fairly large rejection rate at Istock... mostly because of the "lack of clear focal point" reason.  But I found this reasons rather strange when I submitted a batch of background textures, which were selling really well on FT and DT.  The point of backgrounds is that they don't have a focal point.  And, like Steve, I spend considerable time submitting to Alamy.  Although Steve and I have different strategies when it comes to microstock submissions, the result seems to be the same when it comes to Istock.  I think their strategy involves "weeding out" non-exclusives... to make it frustrating enough so people like Steve and me stop submitting to them altogether, while they can concentrate their resources on the exclusives.  But, from my point of view the whole "exclusive" practice is dodgy.  Almost no stock agency, including RM requires someone to be an exclusive photographer with that stock agency... some do require that the images submitted are exclusive (which makes sense).  I have photos that sell extremely well on one site and have no sales whatsoever on others.  After observing sales for a month, I then decide if I want to grant any one site exclusivity to an image.  But, Istock's practice is predatory, at best.  Essentially, they are playing monopoly with photographers, and if you are not exclusive, you are not an important piece to them.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: Indigo on December 11, 2006, 21:50
I am an exclusive contributor to iStock and make enough there to safely cover my monthly mortgage and bills, so I suppose you could say I am a full time iStocker.  I joined in January of 2003 so I'm coming up on my fourth year next month.  When I first started my acceptance rate was about 45%, it has gradualy improved (as has my work,) since then and it now sits at about 95% Acceptance.  Also when I first started there were no other microstock sites and in fact the microstock industry was only a very tiny blip, barley on the radar in the general stock industry.  I made $3.00 my first month and I was hooked! :)  Last year (November) my earnings were solid to the point that I quit my day job to focus on uploading.

I can't honestly say that I tried out any of the other agencies as a contributor, (sometimes as a buyer) though I did always try to research them thouroghly as they came along and consider myself still open minded to my exclusive status should it appear that I have a better opportunity through spreading my portfolio around.  At this time the three largest factors that keep me exclusive are the legal protection (I can easily prove that anyone in violation of a license on my images went through iStock, therefore they fight my legal battles for me,) I save a lot of time by only having to upload images to one site and have more time and energy to learn their standards, and three I genuinley feel that this company is still at the top of the microstock heap, not to say they don't have some solid competition, but I feel I'm betting on the winning horse.

It's a very personal business decision and one that has very real limitations as well as incentives.

As far as my uploading habits, I spend a lot of time researching what is marketable checking out the competiton. I try hard to make sure every image I upload has a good mix of originality and solid stock worth.  I think being an active designer helps alot in this respect as I am always looking for or activley creating imagery for client projects which gives me a wealth of ideas based on actual industry usage. 

With the rise of competing microstock sites, there will emerge diferences in business theory with each agency.  I think iStock's position is becoming more quality over quantity which may be influenced by their new parent company.  We now have stockholders to please so there is a lot more on the line all of a sudden.

I can also tell you that as far as acceptance goes at iStock, I think they have different expectations of different people.  I have discovered that the range of images they will accept from me now is judged by higher standards than 4 years ago.  However I see some of the same type of images being accepted by newer artists.

I honestly feel that they take the teacher/mentor role in trying to help mold a really good stock artist and I have found that if one really wants to succeed there, there are a lot of people who are very willing to help.  While you won't get a great reaction to a thread about a rejected image in the main forum, you will find people more than willing to help you out in the critique forum.  Sure rejections are always irritating (more so as an exclusive with no where else to put them,) but they are a fact of life.

In the end it all comes down to your business theory in microstock.  If you want to have the widest market coverage and learn at your own pace that's certainly a plausible business theory, as it could mean more sales overall in a shorter start up time, but it might mean less success at a more selective agency like iStock.  You definitley have to put a lot of time and effort in there to make a steady income, but it can be done.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: Freezingpictures on December 12, 2006, 05:41
That was an interesting post Indigo. In my opinion Istock has too many non-exclusive Photographers, so it would not do them good to totally weed out the non-exclusives. So I think non-exclusives allways will have a chance at IS. For me the Upload-limit as an non-exclusives is not an hinderance. I never reached the limit. That is because of the time consuming upload process.  So I upload just my best images, but still it is totally worthy. IS is my second best earner. But still only my second best from five main Microstock companies.
I totally understand your point Indigio. I would prefer to upload only to one stocksite. It is much more confortable. But if I will be an exclusive Photographer at IS, I would earn much less. So I believe would everyone. I wish you all the best for your future at IS, however if you consider to go to the other stockagencies, here are my referal links  ;D
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: meckoy on December 12, 2006, 08:43
Where do you guys get the idea that istock accepts crap from exclusives, while non-exclusives are rejected? Is see this mentioned repeatedly on this site - this is nothing but a bunch of crap.

I am myself an istock exclusive. I upload images every once in a while and about 60%-70% of these are rejected. I've been with istock for about three years, if you think that is of importance.
To me it sounds like Istock is aiming higher then your other agencies, that they want to have a library stuffed with nice quality images.

If a background is rejected for no focal point it might be a reason to that. I do not agree when you say that "The point of backgrounds is that they don't have a focal point".
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: leaf on December 12, 2006, 08:56
thanks for the post indigo.  I am glad to hear your opinion here.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: kosmikkreeper on December 12, 2006, 09:06
When Istock 1st offered exclusivity, I thought about it since, at the time, it was my biggest $$ maker. But I saw how Shutterstock was growing and decided to wait a little bit.

Istock is still (for the moment) my second biggest $$ maker but I now make 2.5x that on Shutterstock! I'm so glad I didn't become exclusive. For the short amount of time it takes to upload to SS I've now more than trippled my Istock earnings. Imagine if Lise Gagné decided to upload to SS! It wouldn't take her long to be a millionaire.  ;)

I also jumped the boat in Sept. and quit my day job to be a fulltime photographer. And my business model it to make as much $$ from microstock as I can.

I do agree that Istock standards ARE higher than the other sites. I pretty much get 95% acceptance on the other sites and about 75% on Istock. But their reasons are legitimate and it helps me become a better stock photographer for it.

I would never become exclusive because, even as an exclusive i find the upload limit quite low. I now have over 200 images backlogged for Istock and that's just bad business for me as it prevents $$ coming in.  DT and FT are slowly creeping up on IS in terms of $$ making and I predict that by July they'll both have surpassed IS due to the upload limit.

just my 2 cents...
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: fotografer on December 12, 2006, 09:10
Where do you guys get the idea that istock accepts crap from exclusives, while non-exclusives are rejected? Is see this mentioned repeatedly on this site - this is nothing but a bunch of crap.

I'm not exclusive but I agree with you completely.  I find them fairer than anyone with rejections and on a second look I always agree with them something I can't say about some of the other sites.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: meckoy on December 12, 2006, 18:28
And when we're talking about quality/rejections...

It would be easy for istock to make a profit from selling pictures of lousy (or not optimal) quality - The previews aren't very big and doesn't say much about the quality, so the customers will have to trust the agency in order to buy images.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: Keefo on December 12, 2006, 19:07
And when we're talking about quality/rejections...

It would be easy for istock to make a profit from selling pictures of lousy (or not optimal) quality - The previews aren't very big and doesn't say much about the quality, so the customers will have to trust the agency in order to buy images.

It would be easy to do that, once.  Then the customer would never come back, and word of mouth would kill them.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: meckoy on December 13, 2006, 11:45
Exactly.

Still people are whining about the high rejection rate....
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: Lizard on December 13, 2006, 12:42
And when we're talking about quality/rejections...

It would be easy for istock to make a profit from selling pictures of lousy (or not optimal) quality - The previews aren't very big and doesn't say much about the quality, so the customers will have to trust the agency in order to buy images.

I can agree on most of your points , IS has its standards and thats good. But if you are trying to say that all other sites are selling photos of worst technical  quality then you are wrong. I'm ready to bet that SS (for example) rejects more photos with technical problems and demands at least the same quality as IS. The reason that they have higher acceptance is because they don't refuse for too many similar photos on site or we don't  consider thats stockworthy   reasons , and In my opinion thats positive , if the work is technically good then let the buyer decide  if its worth buying or not ,  there can never be too much of good photos.

Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: meckoy on December 13, 2006, 18:23
You might be right. I'm not familiar with other agencies, so i probably should choose my words with caution.
Please note that my only intention here is to address possible reasons to the high rejection rate at istock. Since this seem to be a big issue here, you know...   
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: Bateleur on December 14, 2006, 04:37
I have no problem with their rejection rates at all. My view is that in the end it's their business so it's their decision what they accept/reject. Like a writer can't criticize a magazine for accepting/rejecting a piece s/he wrote.

I have also learned a lot from rejections and hope I will continue to learn. I believe that my photography is better for it.

What I do have a big issue with is their terms of exclusivity. Sure ... they can ask that an image is exclusive to them. That's obviously legitimate. But what they want is the photographer to be exclusive to them. That is ... if you become exclusive with iS you must not submit RF images of any sort, anywhere else in the world. Not even if they're totally different to what you have on iS.

What right have they to impose that condition? Who do they think they are?

That's like a magazine saying to a writer "you can only submit your work to us".

Now ... let's follow this logically. If a writer writes articles exclusively for one magazine then s/he is very likely to be an journalist employee of that magazine (assuming s/he can be published elsewhere if s/he wishes) and receiving a regular salary.

Are exclusives employees of iS?

No. The majority of them are still freelancers, at the mercy of 'ebb and flow', but on top of that they've had their hands tied by an unduly restrictive condition. I'm not even sure the restriction couldn't be legally challenged in some countries.

I don't know if anyone has read the novel about rabbits called 'Watership Down'. It's a great story about two wild rabbits seeking a new home because their old warren is about to be destroyed.

At one point the two wanderers come to another rabbit warren where all the rabbits are beautifully fat and sleek, but there's a strange mystery about them. The fat, sleek rabbits won't talk about it, and there's an air of 'not asking too many questions' and 'not rocking the boat' in the warren. The rabbits there are a bit too sycophantic, a bit too 'yeah ... it's great here'.

Then the two wanderers discover the secret. The farmer feeds the rabbits in the warren in order to fatten them up. Then once a week he takes two of them and kills them for the pot. No one knows who is going to be taken next ... and no one talks about it.

For some strange reason, when I was considering iStock's exclusivity deal, that story came into my mind. I wonder why.



Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: Freezingpictures on December 14, 2006, 09:41
Bateleur, you might not like exclusivity, but apparently some photographers like it. Its good for Istock, Istock has the most photographers who are exclusive that is an advantage regarding other agencies. However, I would not choose to be exclusive. But I would not say it is bad for everyone.
Istock has every right regarding exclusivity. It is a descision of the photographers. The photgraphers who decided to be exclusive to IS gave it to IS.
I cannot see any problem with that. And well if the "Exclusive Rabbits" get "killed" from IS, they still can have a life after that at DT, SS, StockXpert, 123RF, FP, BS, FT, SPM, CS and so on :-)
Out of curiosity, how fast can you gat out of the IS exclusivity deal as an photographer?
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: GeoPappas on December 14, 2006, 09:59
Out of curiosity, how fast can you gat out of the IS exclusivity deal as an photographer?


According to this site:

http://www.istockphoto.com/exclusivity_intro.php

you can cancel your exclusivity with a 30-day notice.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: roman on December 14, 2006, 15:50
I think I have been hard on istock because of the image upload limits and high rejection rate.  However, in all fairness they do provide you with a reason and sometimes a personal message from the reviewer, along with snipet of a problematic area.  They do a good marketing jobs and I grossed more on istock in a month with 20 percent of the files I have on DT.  However, I why thinking as to why the new upload limits are such a pain in a butt for me.  I prefer to prepare a big batch once a month and submit it all at once, rather than do it on a weekly basis.  Perhaps, Istock can learn for StockXpert and adopt a similar system.  There you can upload what you want at once, but they will only (no complaints here) let you prepare 50 images per day.  You can also mass edit (assign the same keywords, descriptions, etc) to a series of images and once the images are approved fine tune them.  I think it´s a much less frustrating system.  It still allows me to do my mass upload, organize my time more efficiently, and let the company review the images at their own convenience.  I would love if Istock introduced the folder feature found on stockxpert... I am beginning to like that system the most because it is most friendly to the way I organize and manage my submissions.  Still, all being said we all know that in the end of the month Istock brings in the cash...
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: Bateleur on December 14, 2006, 15:51
Bateleur, you might not like exclusivity, but apparently some photographers like it. Its good for Istock, Istock has the most photographers who are exclusive that is an advantage regarding other agencies. However, I would not choose to be exclusive. But I would not say it is bad for everyone.
Istock has every right regarding exclusivity. It is a descision of the photographers. The photgraphers who decided to be exclusive to IS gave it to IS.
I cannot see any problem with that. And well if the "Exclusive Rabbits" get "killed" from IS, they still can have a life after that at DT, SS, StockXpert, 123RF, FP, BS, FT, SPM, CS and so on :-)
Out of curiosity, how fast can you gat out of the IS exclusivity deal as an photographer?

Yes. Obviously some photographers like it, otherwise they wouldn't have any exclusives.   :)

And I agree ... it's not bad for everyone. If you're someone who doesn't have time, inclination or ambition to sell through other agencies, exclusivity is a great deal.

But there's the rub ... if you're not like that ... if you're someone who wants to retain the freedom to do with your images what you want (even ones which are not on iStock) then iStock's exclusivity deal stands right in your way. They're saying, "either you get completely into bed with us, or you take an inferior position".

That's forcing a photographer's hand, and I don't like it. I think it's unethical.

I'd have no problems with individual images being exclusive to them ... I'd submit loads, like a shot, if that was the deal.

It's the ... No RF images ... Anywhere else ... With anyone else ... At all ... that gets up my nose.

Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: XeniaII on December 14, 2006, 18:52
i dont like istock ... i am from germany my first problem there was that they want model-release in english...ok.. i organize it.. but most of my pictures are rejected ... because the release was not ok.. they want the phone-number of my model or something like this... idiots... in germany we need no witness for a contract.. that was my first problem...

why they dont work like german agencies... only i klick to i am the preducer of this picture... and ok is....

i dont like to give my modell 10,000 different releases befor we shoot... i have 18 images online there.. 21 downloads and i think i have enough other thinks to do... my downloadrate at fotolia as example 250 euros per month.. so i can laugh about istock...

PS... sorry my english is awfull
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: roman on December 15, 2006, 07:23
i dont like istock ... i am from germany my first problem there was that they want model-release in english...ok.. i organize it.. but most of my pictures are rejected ... because the release was not ok.. they want the phone-number of my model or something like this... idiots... in germany we need no witness for a contract.. that was my first problem...

why they dont work like german agencies... only i klick to i am the preducer of this picture... and ok is....

i dont like to give my modell 10,000 different releases befor we shoot... i have 18 images online there.. 21 downloads and i think i have enough other thinks to do... my downloadrate at fotolia as example 250 euros per month.. so i can laugh about istock...

PS... sorry my english is awfull

That´s true about Istock´s model releases.  Another annoying thing is that if you shoot a scene involving more than one person they want all the model releases merged into an individual jpeg file.  As far as witness is concerned, it is not required by US law to have a witness in order to form a contract.  A lot of travel photographers that I know carry model releases with them in language of the country they are visting.  Are you sure that it´s only available in English on istock.  With fotolia, I could even download one in Dutch.  Most agencies, including FT and DT, accept generic model releases as well.  Istock will only accept its own.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: CJPhoto on December 15, 2006, 09:15
Istock will only accept its own.
It will accept a generic one as long as it includes all the information that they require.  Most people I think just remove the istock logo, then use that MR for all sites, since it encompasses all terms included in any of the other sites MR>
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: leaf on December 15, 2006, 10:49
Istock will only accept its own.
It will accept a generic one as long as it includes all the information that they require.  Most people I think just remove the istock logo, then use that MR for all sites, since it encompasses all terms included in any of the other sites MR>

yeah that is true.

If you have a generic release with all the info that is allright.
I have used the istock release and just cropped the image of the release tight enough not to show the istock logo.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: leaf on December 15, 2006, 10:50
on another note.  The istock (as well as the dreamstime) release is available in the downloads section of this site (if you don't want to try and navigate on istock to find it)
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: roman on December 15, 2006, 13:42
Istock will only accept its own.
It will accept a generic one as long as it includes all the information that they require.  Most people I think just remove the istock logo, then use that MR for all sites, since it encompasses all terms included in any of the other sites MR>
I actually did that.  Got an entire batch rejected from DT with a message, this MR was designed for another agency please use our own or a generic one
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: fotografer on December 15, 2006, 15:59
I Had the same rejection but then I noticed that I had deleted the logo from the top of the release but had forgotten to take the istock name off the bottom of the release.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: roman on December 15, 2006, 16:35
Hee hee.... I see.  Indeed, there is a logo on the bottom.  OK.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: Dr Bouz on January 28, 2007, 05:33
 good post indigo.

 the main thing that drives me crazy on isp is not my rejections - i have to say that after re-reviewing of my images i agree with inspectors 98%  :(
 but when i see "latest uploads" - i see a lot of keyword violations and sometimes i really have my nerves breakdown.. i might be wrong, but i think that standards are less tight for exclusives (which i can understand), - but as i said - sometimes i got really nervous about that.
 otherwise, some tips from reviewers on my rejections are really helpful - on example difference between "over white" and "isolated". or crops with details that i missed (logo on zipper or button etc..).
  upload limits are also frustrating. but i know a few microstock reviewers personally, and it's really hard to believe what kind of (well...not so good) photos they receive every day for inspections.
 i personally got a site mail from one of isp inspectors - and he said that my photos were refreshing for that day for him.  (and few times on bigstockphoto too) - it made me feel good, i have to admit that.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: roman on January 29, 2007, 04:44
After all my complaining I came to a conclusion that I am very happy with istock after all.  The upload limits are frustrating thats true... but they are there for a reason.  I now use the limit to resubmit rejection from previous months.  I also have to say that I have learned a lot from the reviewers... I've rarely paid attention to the comments, but now I always do.  Very often they tell you specifically where the problems are.  It's a great learning experience.  I also have to say that now I have much higher acceptance rate and almost all of my rejects can be resubmitted. 
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: sharply_done on March 03, 2007, 00:25
My standards are quite high, and I only upload stuff that I think is good. I don't have a problem with a high rejection rate at any site I contribute to - they're all at least 85% acceptance rate. There are many images I see on stock sites - even on iStock - that I would have personally thrown out.

My main issue with iStock is with their undue pickiness towards images that are not technically "perfect" - I find that they often reject stuff that sells well at other sites. I cannot help but think that they are shooting themselves in the foot when they do this.

I also don't like the way their CV keywording works, and have found "hidden" keywords and categories that I would have normally lost out on. On the flipside, their keywording sometimes comes up with things I hadn't thought of. Overall, keywording at IS is a big pain - good thing that I only have to do it 3 times/day!
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: sharpshot on March 03, 2007, 03:48
istock is one of my favourite sites.  It took a while to work out what they want and to realise my illustrations were not up to standard. 

The first few months were slow but now they are my second biggest earner and I have some photos doing quite well there that don't sell as many on other sites.

The upload procedure doesn't bother me.  I would rather spend more time uploading files that sell than spend less time uploading files that don't sell.

The upload limit is a bit restrictive and I am not looking forward to losing uploads when I go on holidays.

I like being able to make lightboxes for collections of photos.  Not many sites have anything like that.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: stokfoto on March 03, 2007, 10:59
I am  also a non-exclusive contributer to istock and I share most of  concerns mentioned here  like uploading limits. but I am still happy with istockphoto despite all.
yes sometimes I do get rejections which I don't agree with. for instance  once one of my image was rejected for including the word 'coke' among my keywords ???  and once I got my image rejected because the title included illegal character(I had accidentally hit the wrong button:(

but what I like about istock is that   they really push you through creating high quality images otherwise you know they'd be rejected.also I am often happy with the detailed feedbacks from the approval team,which you don't often get from others.
anyway to me it's one of the most prestigious microstok sites and a good place to sell images nonetheless  I still do wish commissions were higher:)
 
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: hatman12 on March 04, 2007, 18:01
iStock's policy is to reward and support those who show a commitment.  Although I am a newbie, it is already apparent to me that the best price/volume benefits will come from iStock rather than elsewhere.  It is a question of building to gold/diamond status etc to reap the higher commissions.

One of iStocks successful contributors told me 'always upload the largest possible file, because you'll be surprised at how many large images are bought'.

In my first month at iStock half my sales have been at 'large'.  As a result my average commission is 74c.  I would need to sell three times as many images at SS to equal that.

A diamond exclusive would receive twice as much commssion as a newbie, making their take double at $1.44 per sale.  Their best photographers sell 50,000 - 100,000 images per annum at this level or higher.

I don't think that can be achieved elsewhere.

Remember also that at iStock exclusives get better upload limits (a diamond exclusive can upload 200 photos per week), exclusive distribution deals and a priority status.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: epixx on March 05, 2007, 05:55
A diamond exclusive would receive twice as much commssion as a newbie, making their take double at $1.44 per sale.  Their best photographers sell 50,000 - 100,000 images per annum at this level or higher.

I don't think that can be achieved elsewhere.

I was accepted at IS and at SS at the end of March last year. Since then, I've had more than seven times as many downloads at SS and nearly four times as much earnings. I don't think being exclusive at IS would beat that. The last three months, sales at DT has been better for me than IS as well, not by numbers but by amount.

Their exclusivity deal is much better for IS than it is for contributors, except those who don't want the extra work by uploading to multiple agencies.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: hatman12 on March 05, 2007, 17:18
Interesting statistics epixx.  Do you have the same portfolio at IS and SS?

Your numbers certainly make SS look appealing.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: yingyang0 on March 05, 2007, 20:55
Their exclusivity deal is much better for IS than it is for contributors, except those who don't want the extra work by uploading to multiple agencies.
I've had the opposite experience as epixx. I have about the same number of downloads on both IS and SS and I signed up at the same time (Plus I have almost the exact same number of photos on each site). I've also had many, many extended licenses at IS versus none at SS. Even at the bronze level I'll be making more as an exclusive at IS then I would at SS and IS combined as a non-exclusive. While I don't like all the changes to the best search algorithm, I'll probably go exclusive when I hit the 500 downloads.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: epixx on March 05, 2007, 22:15
Interesting statistics epixx.  Do you have the same portfolio at IS and SS?

Your numbers certainly make SS look appealing.

No, due to the upload restrictions at IS, I have more than twice the number of photos at SS, even if I've had more rejections with the latter. The upload limits make a fair comparison almost impossible, and long term, IS may even be a better deal if I chose to go exclusive, but with DT being a strong competitor as well, I don't see myself doing that.

This obviously also has something to do with photographic style. Some of my top sellers at SS hardly moves at all at IS and vice versa. Even within one theme, the differences can be big sometimes. That's probably a result of a number of things, like customer base, how the search engine works etc.

But as opposed to common "knowledge", my old photos at SS sell rather well, at least as long as I keep uploading new ones.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: ludesal on March 05, 2007, 22:37
I'm just starting and do the same on both IS and SS. I started uploading on IS and it was very slowly, with 71 images on line last month i made $30... i'm not very active, but i think is too slow...
I started with SS 02-19-2007 and 15 days after i made $29 with 50 images on line. Plus, on SS almost all my images sell and on IS i have one hit with 85 dls and the others hardly ever sell.
I owe IS the quality of my images, i learned a LOT there and still learning, they are relly helpfull on the forums... but SS wins when it comes to $$$, i get to shot what i want and it sells... so... learning to love SS  ;D
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: yingyang0 on March 06, 2007, 00:01
But as opposed to common "knowledge", my old photos at SS sell rather well, at least as long as I keep uploading new ones.
But as soon as you stop uploading, your downloads will take a dive (at least mine do every time I haven't uploaded in a while). At IS it is consistant.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: hatman12 on March 06, 2007, 00:48
I have only been uploading to microstock for exactly a month.  But I have learned much in that month.  I suspected all along that iStock would produce the goods better than elsewhere, but the upload limits are of course very restrictive for a newbie.

Nonetheless I now have 38 photos on line and have achieved 11 downloads in my first month.  That's an encouraging start given that I started the period without any photos on line.

I have also been contributing to Dreamstime, who take many more photos of course.

Although I have twice a s many photos with DT, I have achieved only 8 sales for slightly less commission per sale than IS.

In other words, IS is achieving twice as many sales per uploaded image.

Of course one month is too short a period to draw any firm conclusions.

Nonetheless, I am already aware that had I been a diamond exclusive with IS my earnings per upload would have been four times greater than with DT.

BigStock has achieved only minimal results.  One month is enough for me to decide not to continue with them (and I have already ditched 123RF and FT for other reasons).

I want to limit my uploading activity so that I can spend maximum time designing and shooting.

For me, at least, going exclusive with iStock is a definite plan.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: phildate on March 06, 2007, 01:13
I am not sure you should start making serious decisions about this business with only 38 images online at IS. You have a long long way to go...

I have 2800+ images at IS and my sales have been slowly declining now for a few months despite uploading what I can (I hate the upload limits and procedure!). My suspicion ever since the DA'ing fiasco and Best Match algorithm changes is that the search engine is favoring exclusives. I could be wrong but there is still much shuffling to be done in the industry and until things smoothen out, I would just go with the flow.

I suspect that this month IS will come in third overall for me, with the new prices at DT pushing it in to #2 spot, still with FT #1.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: CJPhoto on March 06, 2007, 02:42
Phil - have you DA at istock??

YOur not at SS?  Is this because you dont want to sell for 25c.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: KiwiRob on March 06, 2007, 07:25
Interesting statistics epixx.  Do you have the same portfolio at IS and SS?

Your numbers certainly make SS look appealing.



But as opposed to common "knowledge", my old photos at SS sell rather well, at least as long as I keep uploading new ones.

That's the wholøe problem with SS you have to keep uploading all the time, if you don't shoot a lot SS is probably the worst site out of all the stock sites I upload to. I'm not a pro I don't have tens of thousands of images, SS just doesn't work for a punter like me.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: phildate on March 06, 2007, 09:23
Phil - have you DA at istock??

YOur not at SS?  Is this because you dont want to sell for 25c.

Yup I have DA'ed my entire portfolio at IS. It cost me a lot of time and in the end, money to get it finished.

I am at SS but sales are not great for me there as of late. I upload when I can but these days you don't see the big spikes when you upload 20 or more files. SS was third last month for me behind FT and IS. This month will depend on sales at DT since I have a lot of higher level files there now.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: hatman12 on March 06, 2007, 13:07
Yes, it's early days for me Phil.

BTW, I got a large size download at DT overnight (I am in Australia) which paid a commission of $1.50.  That's a good rate and must reflect the new pricing structure.

I am of the opinion that microstock pricing is too low and over time prices and commissions will rise.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: roman on March 13, 2007, 19:16
I must say that my experience with istock has been better and better since I upload on a weekly basis.  I see a real increase in sales and also in acceptance rate--now if an image is rejected by istock they give me a tip 99 percent of the time as to what needs to be corrected.  DT was a dead site for me until January, then it picked up and now it's doing great.  FT, on the other hand, has been a disappointment.  I've increased my collection there there every month; however,  I don't see an increase in sales at all.  It always stays on the same level.  The reason I still upload to FT is I had five extended licenses sales there since June.  I am even considering going exclusive with istock once I reach 500 downloads...  I don't have so much time to upload to all the sites and istock has been best for me anyways.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: ludesal on March 13, 2007, 23:17
roman, if you want to be exclusive to istock, you have to know that at DT 'all Contributors are required to keep at least seventy (70%) percent of their portfolio online with Dreamstime.com for a period of at least six (6) months.'
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: marcopolo on March 14, 2007, 17:21
I am not sure you should start making serious decisions about this business with only 38 images online at IS. You have a long long way to go...

I have 2800+ images at IS and my sales have been slowly declining now for a few months despite uploading what I can (I hate the upload limits and procedure!). My suspicion ever since the DA'ing fiasco and Best Match algorithm changes is that the search engine is favoring exclusives. I could be wrong but there is still much shuffling to be done in the industry and until things smoothen out, I would just go with the flow.

I suspect that this month IS will come in third overall for me, with the new prices at DT pushing it in to #2 spot, still with FT #1.

ARe you sure? It doesn't really make economic sense for IStock to be too biased against exclusives. You generate twice as much revenue for them then you would if you were exclusive there. I would think that IS would want to promote exclusives just enough to make it enticing for a certain percentage of people to go exclusive, but not be too biased because they actually get more revenue from non-exclusives.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: hatman12 on March 14, 2007, 23:17
Marco I couldn't diagree with your statement more.  Exclusives are THE profit centre for iStock, and for any other agency that chooses to run an exclusive contract.  In any business 80% of the profits are generated by 20% of the customers etc etc.  The exclusives give a constant supply of high quality unique images, highly saleable and commercial.  In stark contrast the non-exclusives are made up of thousands of weekend and holiday snappers many of whom bombard the agency with images that get examined and rejected.  Think of the cost of examining and rejecting all those hundreds of thousands of images.  That's money down the toilet.  That doesn't happen with exclusives.  Many of the exclusives run their stock as a business; they provide the best and only the best, generally speaking.

The thing that sets iStock apart from the rest is its exclusives.  THEY give it unique images to market and sell and do special deals NOT the non exclusives.

And another point: how many high quality exclusive type photographers are there in the world?  Fewer than some people think I reckon.  There will be a battle to get the exclusives and it wouldn't surprise me at all if in a year or two an agency like iStock closes its doors to anyone who is NOT exclusive.

No - its the exclusives (generally speaking) that drive the profits and the marketing.  Its the OTHERS that are not profitable.

Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: marcopolo on March 15, 2007, 00:19
so people like phildate, andresr, lisafx, rinderart, and many more who are not exclusive at iStock are just weekend shooters? ohkkkkay..whatever. I think the opposite is true about the serious business vs hobbyists. For anyone running this as a serious business who wants it to be a significant part of their income, it is not wise to put all your eggs in one basket. Just today iStock changed their search engine again, and my sales were off by 60% there today. Maybe it is a coincidence that my sales are off, maybe not. It sucks but at least I have my stuff at other sites as well.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: Bateleur on March 15, 2007, 01:48

In stark contrast the non-exclusives are made up of thousands of weekend and holiday snappers many of whom bombard the agency with images that get examined and rejected. 


Hey ... hang on a second! I'm a non-exclusive with iStock and I don't consider myself a "weekend and holiday snapper".

Whatever you may think of my portfolio, I do this full time - more than full time actually - have been taking photographs for over 40 years, have won awards for them, and am currently writing a book on photography for a UK publisher.

I don't go exclusive with iStock for two main reasons:

a)  I can (and do) make more money selling through a range of agencies.

b)  I consider iStock's exclusivity conditions unreasonably restrictive. And I believe, in the long run, their conditions are detrimental to the individual photographer - despite the fact that they trumpet them as being the best thing since sliced bread.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: hatman12 on March 15, 2007, 02:45
Hey, calm down everyone.  You know I was talking in a general sense.  Sheesh...

Look at it this way.  iStock has 1.5 mill images accepted out of a total of 3 mill sent in.  Someone has had to pay good money to examine and reject half of 3 mill.

A diamond exclusive is allowed to submit 200 images a week.  Why?  Because they hardly need looking at.

A 30% profit from a diamond exclusive is a more valuable and reliable business asset than a 70% profit from the other 80% of contributors.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: a.k.a.-tom on March 15, 2007, 11:32
I started with SS 02-19-2007 and 15 days after i made $29 with 50 images on line. Plus, on SS almost all my images sell and on IS i have one hit with 85 dls and the others hardly ever sell.
I owe IS the quality of my images, i learned a LOT there and still learning, they are relly helpfull on the forums... but SS wins when it comes to $$$, i get to shot what i want and it sells... so... learning to love SS  ;D

I just applied to IS last weekend... have heard nothing yet and based on what I've read here, I'm not holding out a lot of hope for being let into the club.   
   I can echo latex feelings. I have to say that the bulk (now upwards of 80-some %)  of my portfolio on SS  SELLS. No other site sells even 30% of my 'folio. Why?  No clue, but I'm not complaing about it. 
   As far as the continual upload theory?  Yeah, I think you do have to upload on a regular basis to SS.  So I adopted a strategy some time ago of uploading small and I mean small batches 2 or 3 times a week. I am then getting a regular acceptance and posting of new shots. I have seen the pattern consistently. The day a new batch is posted, not only do I sell them but even shots months old sell too. I guess the buyers take the time to browse my old stuff.  At any rate I see a dramatic increase in sales... then sales decrease over the next couple days until the new batch is posted. I'm not spending any more time in the upload process as I would uploading 50 in one shot, I'm just doing less more often, but it keeps the $$$ coming my way. 
    If I get into IS, who knows how it will go?  Personally, for me now, IS has some big shoes to fill to match my sales at SS. Yeah, it's only 25 cents a pop, but I'm selling a whole boat-load of those 25 centers.  For the last few months SS has accounted for 80+% of my total sales.  8) -tom
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: StockManiac on March 15, 2007, 13:40
A diamond exclusive is allowed to submit 200 images a week.  Why?  Because they hardly need looking at.

In my opinion, that statement is totally off base for a number of reasons:

1. My understanding is that the difference between exclusives and non-exclusives is that exclusives are just non-exclusives that have over 500 sales and have decided to become exclusive.  I have never heard of anyone being turned down for exclusivity.  There is no other test that one needs to take to become exclusive.

To me the biggest difference is the 500 uploads, because this might show that they know what sells.  But even this can be argued, because someone that joined at the beginning would have enjoyed a few years of sales with little or no competition.

So to say that exclusives are better than non-exclusives is a falacy.  They are the same as non-exclusives with only minor differences.

Personally, I am at the silver canister level and have thousands of downloads on iStock, but have decided not to go exclusive because IS only makes up ~ 50% of my microstock income.  There is no way that the exclusivity would be able to provide the other 50%.

2. There are plenty of non-exclusives that are better than many of the exclusives.  A few of them have been mentioned in this thread.

3. There are plenty of exclusives that are not that great.  I won't mention them for obvious reasons.  There have been many posts that show some of the horrible photos from exclusives that get accepted by IS every day.

Finally, the reason that IS throws exclusives a few bonuses (extra uploads, higher royalties, etc) is because they have to give submitters something in order to make up for the loss that they get from going exclusive.  If there were no extras for going exclusive, then why would anyone do it?  ???

The goal of exclusives is to push out non-exclusives.

The goal of non-exclusives is to fight for all of the extra bonuses that exclusives get.

Hence the battle...
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: sim on March 15, 2007, 13:48
I agree with you Stockmania, you raised some interesting points on the exclusive vs non-exclusive debate.

One question about going exclusive that has bothered me, what are you expected to do with your existing portfolios on other sites?

Surely you aren't expected to delete them all?
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: hatman12 on March 15, 2007, 16:10
Interesting comments from everyone.  I've just taken a look through the latest exclusive uploads, and - yes - there are lots of holiday snaps and many images which are borderline quality (IMHO).

It remains the case that iStock appears to have the customers.  Where else can an image get 1,000, 2,000 or even 3,000 downloads in a three month period (looking at the top downloads list).
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: vicu on March 15, 2007, 16:38
One question about going exclusive that has bothered me, what are you expected to do with your existing portfolios on other sites?

Surely you aren't expected to delete them all?

Um, yes, you are. Otherwise you would not be EXCLUSIVE.

I do agree that crap comes through the exclusive queue, just as frequently as it does through the non-exclusive queue.

I do not agree that exclusive=better photographer.

I DEFINITELY do NOT agree that "the goal of exclusives is to push out non-exclusives". I'd love to hear your evidence for making such a ridiculously broad generalization. Is it such a shocking concept that there are photographers in existence with better goals and things to do than worry about what everybody else is doing? Getting ahead by tearing others down will only get you so far. At some point talent and hard work do actually factor into the equation.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: marcopolo on March 15, 2007, 22:17
Quote
It remains the case that iStock appears to have the customers.  Where else can an image get 1,000, 2,000 or even 3,000 downloads in a three month period (looking at the top downloads list).

That depends on how thier best match algorithim decides to treat your images
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: madelaide on March 17, 2007, 12:57
My suspicion ever since the DA'ing fiasco and Best Match algorithm changes is that the search engine is favoring exclusives.
It is favouring me, a non-exclusive, as my sales increased highly since the disambiguation started.  Maybe it's an "advantage" I'll lose along the time, as all new images are being disambiguated, but still, results have been great to me since November.

Nevertheless, I have no intention of becoming exclusive to IS or any other agency.

Regards,
Adelaide
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: a.k.a.-tom on March 18, 2007, 11:46
Nevertheless, I have no intention of becoming exclusive to IS or any other agency.    Regards,   Adelaide

I am not entertaining the idea of becoming exclusive anywhere myself. BUT...  as time goes by, I am seriously considering pulling out of more than three quarters of the sites I'm currently on and  'exclusively'  dealing with just a few that produce reasonable sales.
     I'm not with IS yet.  Still waiting on my app to be reviewed  ( one week today).  However, I won't be going exclusive with them even  IF  they do let me in the gang.  If it is a real pain in the backside to upload and survive as a newbie,  I probably won't stay there either. I'm just testing the waters with them.
    I'm still only doing photography part-time. My 'comfort zone' in life demands that I do not give up my day job.... yet.  Happily, and surprisingly, our little family photography business is picking up much faster than we anticipated. We actually cannot keep up with what is offered to us now. Since they won't be adding any more hours to the day, something has to go and it's going to be those low producing stocks.  I will probably always work the micros... I like it. And while I will never go exclusive with any one,  I am pretty much decided to cut the pack down to 3 or 4 only. 
   
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: hatman12 on March 18, 2007, 13:41
That sounds like the right approach to me Tom.  I am not convinced that uploading to munerous agencies is efficient use of time and energy; oarticularly the small ones who make only occasional sales.  Better to invest that time in creating images.

I have always believed that IS would produce the goods over and above all the others, and my initial experience is that those thoughts were correct.  It is slow and tedious (and frustrating) getting established there, but it is the only agency where I have had designers write to me about my images.  Istock seems to have a massive customer base, and that is what is needed to produce sales.

I started with DT and IS at the same time (first week of February).  Although I have many more images up at DT, IS has produced double the income and is already producing downloads at an average of 2.2 per day (which I am pleased with after only six weeks).

My third agency is SS following your recommendation. 156 downloads in my first eight days.  But I suspect that this will tail off as per everyone else's experience on this board, unless I can upload like a furious maniac (but I do not have the library to be able to do that).
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: a.k.a.-tom on March 19, 2007, 15:33
Well I hope IS is not in too deep of troubled waters...

I just got accepted by them.   8) -tom
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: sharply_done on March 20, 2007, 01:14
My IS portfolio has really taken off this month - to the point where it's beginning to rival SS, which has me tinkering with the notion of going exclusive there when I have enough images there.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: Freezingpictures on March 20, 2007, 04:59
Well sharply, I advice you think a lot about the decision to go Exclusive at IS. You sales are so much affected by BestMatch search. When they first changed it, my sales went up and it was beginning to rival SS, however now they changed it again, and if it were not because of 4 ELs I had there in one day, my earnings this month would have been more than 30% less than last month, just because they changed BestMatch I believe. And even with that 4 ELs it won't be too easy to reach last month earnings.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: hatman12 on March 20, 2007, 06:42
Nice portfolio sharply.  Something makes me think you might live near an airport....
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: MiguelAngelo on March 20, 2007, 19:59
Hi

I'm doing at least 4x more at IS when compared to SS. I've had those thoughts about going exclusive and maybe I should go. But after some thinking I prefer to maybe loose some money but go with the secure way.
I've found to much people complaining about sales decreasing here and there, and if most of them are because of disambiguation some others can be related with search engine behavior.
So I'll wait to have some more experience about download numbers and watch the regularity of sales at IS before trying some commitment.
Hope this helps.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: Karimala on March 21, 2007, 09:47
My sales at IS are twice that of SS, even though my portfolio is half the size.  For whatever reason, the search tweeks haven't affected me a bit since the one tweek that doubled my earnings overnight. 
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: red_moon_rise on March 21, 2007, 10:35
Anybody knows if I could keep my editorial images on SS without interferring with exclusivity on IS?
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: sharply_done on March 21, 2007, 19:24
hatman12: If you look more closely you'll see that my aircraft shots are made from only 10 or so airplanes that I use with different backgrounds and crops; I try to squeeze every last penny out of everything I shoot.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: vicu on March 21, 2007, 22:53
Anybody knows if I could keep my editorial images on SS without interferring with exclusivity on IS?

You cannot have any royalty free images of any kind anywhere. period.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: KiwiRob on March 22, 2007, 09:44
Anybody knows if I could keep my editorial images on SS without interferring with exclusivity on IS?

You cannot have any royalty free images of any kind anywhere. period.

I was pretty sure you could keep editorial images on other sites.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: Greg Boiarsky on March 22, 2007, 10:28
Vicu is correct.  If you go to the Istock exclusive agreement page (http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php), you see this under "Exclusions": 

"(2) Content that is produced for "Editorial" purposes except to the extent the Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement, where "Editorial" means visual reporting to illustrate general interest and specialty stories for information, documentary or photojournalism (but not advertorial) purposes only;"

In other words, as Vicu said earlier, you must be exclusive with Istock for all RF content.  You can offer editorial content RM, but not RF, if you're exclusive.

You cannot have any royalty free images of any kind anywhere. period.


Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: Bateleur on March 22, 2007, 13:25
iStock's exclusivity deal is very restrictive.

That's why I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. I want to retain my freedom to sell my images whatever way I want, when I want.

Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: Greg Boiarsky on March 22, 2007, 15:32
I agree with what you say, which is why I won't go exclusive when the time comes.  However, there are advantages to exclusivity, including greater control over your portfolio, an easier time tracking down usage violations, and increased payouts from Istock.  And, it would be a lot easier to manage one site instead of six or eight or more.

The point is to make an informed choice that fits with your business plan and available time.

iStock's exclusivity deal is very restrictive.

That's why I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. I want to retain my freedom to sell my images whatever way I want, when I want.


Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: roman on March 28, 2007, 19:06
4 downloads today on istock for a grand total of 86 cents!  I ll be laughing all the way to the bank.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: madelaide on March 28, 2007, 19:11
My fives sales today got me US$2.57. My four sales yesterday got me US$2.67.  Some days ago I had four sales that got me US$3.37, what was much better.  :D

Regards,
Adelaide
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: yingyang0 on March 28, 2007, 19:21
4 downloads today on istock for a grand total of 86 cents!  I ll be laughing all the way to the bank.
I had two sales today for a total of $2.52.  For some reason most of my sales on iStock are for Large size (72%) and the rest are evenly split between medium and small.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: Freezingpictures on March 29, 2007, 02:29
A few days ago I had 4 sales on IS with totalling ~ 40,00$ That was nice 4 ELs in one day  ;D
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: sharpshot on March 29, 2007, 05:30
My sales have fallen a lot since they changed the Best Match search.  I wonder if the increase in price might have reduced sales as well?

This is still my best month with istock but the last 10 days have been disappointing.  I am having a best month on other sites, so it isn't a general slow down.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: yingyang0 on March 29, 2007, 09:15
My sales have fallen a lot since they changed the Best Match search...This is still my best month with istock but the last 10 days have been disappointing.
Do you know how crazy this sounds. "Sales have fallen, but this is my best month ever". They changed the Best Match months ago so it seems your statements contradict each other.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: sharpshot on March 29, 2007, 09:47
They changed the best match again this month.  I had lots of sales before the change, so this is my best month so far but sales have fallen off in the last 10 days.

Had an EL today, so this is now by far my best month, even though my sales have fallen ;D
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: CJPhoto on March 29, 2007, 09:59
The best match changed again this month.  it appears that ratings no longer form such an important part, if at all.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: yingyang0 on March 29, 2007, 17:38
The best match changed again this month.  it appears that ratings no longer form such an important part, if at all.
Darn, and after we had all gotten together with the CN thing. I guess people will have to focus on quality over getting other people to rate their images.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: a.k.a.-tom on March 29, 2007, 17:42
I just got accepted at IS.  Just now ready to do my 2nd upload. I'm limited to 15 a week or something like that.
    I have to say.  They impressed the heck out of me!!  I uploaded a pic that I have on 8 other sites, a pic that sells.  Not a million dollar pic, but, it sells on just about all of them. It's an autumn shot of Mount Washington in NH with the cog railway train going up the side belching dark smoke.
      IS rejected it. Reason,  photoshop brush marks in the smoke.
My immediate reaction...  that's baloney, I never worked on the smoke in that shot.  I took out a couple of 55 gallon drums in the foreground, but never touched anything else in the shot. It was a great shot!

      First thing to impress me... they sent a crop of the area in question that had to be blown up to 200% or more...  nobody else does that.
      Second thing to impress me...  sure enough, there was a photoshop brush mark in the smoke!!   Must have done it by accident...
    None the less, I never caught it when I blew up to 100 and none of the other 8 sites caught it either.  That  impressed me. Am I too easily impressed?
    They rejected 3 of my first batch, but the one above and one other, they showed me in their cropped attachments what to fix and then said,   
 resubmit for acceptance.  I am quite pleased with that.  If I can keep up that pace,  1 out of 15,  I'd be a happy guy at IS.
    Of course, that is, if I sell.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: hatman12 on March 30, 2007, 03:17
Yep, they are fussy, perfectionists and efficient Tom; but my God they can sell photos........

The reason why?  The designers trust them......
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: a.k.a.-tom on March 31, 2007, 23:39
Yep, they are fussy, perfectionists and efficient Tom; but my God they can sell photos........

The reason why?  The designers trust them......

I honestly wasn't complaining, I really was impressed!
 
And...  I'm  happy to say that my first batch is selling already.  What's the deal on the 5 camera review thing?  What is it, why is it and who does it? 8)  -tom
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: hatman12 on April 01, 2007, 03:03
The review thing is for others to give a rating on images if they wish to.  Not sure if its important.

Tom, you'll find that the biggest selling images on IS are completely different to SS etc.  Have a look at the top selling list and then browse through the 'designers' section.

IS appears to be the only agency who pay as much attention to designers as they do to photographers.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: a.k.a.-tom on April 01, 2007, 08:43
Tom, you'll find that the biggest selling images on IS are completely different to SS etc.  Have a look at the top selling list and then browse through the 'designers' section.
IS appears to be the only agency who pay as much attention to designers as they do to photographers.

Thanks for the advice and direction!!  very much appreciated!   8) -tom
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: MiguelAngelo on April 01, 2007, 18:23
hi

Just want to add this:

IS is the only micro where I still submit XXL sizes from scanner just because they accept them as all the others should do.
They are picky just where they should do. I don't see this histerical thing about noise or grain so typical in other micros.

I wonder why IS is so "advanced" to be able to recognise that film scans must have grain just because film is about grain. Smaller or bigger the grain must be there.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: yingyang0 on April 01, 2007, 19:38

And...  I'm  happy to say that my first batch is selling already.  What's the deal on the 5 camera review thing?  What is it, why is it and who does it? 8)  -tom
The camera thing is for rating other people's photos. The rating use to be considered as part of the best match algorithm so it was important for other people to rate your photos. Currently the Best Match search doesn't depend on the ratings so it is not important, however who knows if it will tommorow. After all, they seem to make a major change to the algorithm once a month.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: roman on April 02, 2007, 11:16
I looked at Istock today, trying to find a photo that was just accepted.  I typed in @old farmer@ in search engine.  I don't understand the concept of best match.  The relevence is all messed up.  You have photos isolated cowboy shoes, tractors, and pastures before photos of old farmers.  Hmmm.... something strange here.
Title: Re: Istock troubled waters my opinion
Post by: a.k.a.-tom on April 02, 2007, 15:32

The camera thing is for rating other people's photos. The rating use to be considered as part of the best match algorithm so it was important for other people to rate your photos. Currently the Best Match search doesn't depend on the ratings so it is not important, however who knows if it will tommorow. After all, they seem to make a major change to the algorithm once a month.

Thanks, yingyang0!!    8) -tom