MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: losing the will to continue  (Read 7044 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 19, 2009, 20:00 »
0
I've gotten a couple dozen images in IS and made some sales.  I'd like to continue but I find I'm losing interest and it's getting harder and harder to make myself grind through their keywording and categorization, especially knowing they'll only end up accepting half the images for whatever reason, and that if I guess wrong on the keywords they'll reject it for that reason alone. 

I do mostly objects, I look for unusual ones and the IS "controlled vocabularly" is just too limiting. Under their new rules I can only describe the object itself, not the activities or people that would use it,. If the object itself isn't in theire vocabulary there's nothing left.










« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2009, 20:21 »
0
It's not likely "unusual objects" would end up paying for the time spent anyways.

« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2009, 20:31 »
0
I've found their Controlled Vocabulary quite limiting at times as well.

I don't think we should give up on shooting unusual objects or topics in general just because we suppose it doesn't fit into run-of-the-mill microstock production or IS Controlled Vocabulary. If it was interesting for one to shoot an object, it might be interesting for someone else to have the picture of that same object, too. Anyway, I think we should support creativity, not diminish it.

« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2009, 20:37 »
0
Some of these images - that I can't get into IStock due to keywording - are doing pretty well at other sites.  I understand that IS is trying to bring order to the chaos of keywording. But a "vocabulary" has to be expandable, as needed, or it's a dead language.   

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too.  They want to pre-define all the keywords and exercise strict control over how they're applied; but they want the submitters to keep doing the actual work of keywording. If they really want to manage keywording this tightly they should do it themselves. 



« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2009, 20:43 »
0
There should be a well defined system of adding new keywords with IS approval, with a quick turnaround. a contributor could propose a new keyword with an explanation, and this would go to IS for consideration.

« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2009, 20:51 »
0
Yes exactly.

I guess my point is that for me, anyway, it's just too much work, for just one site, and I'm burned out on it.  If the whole microstock industry could get behind one "controlled vocabulary", then it would make sense. That will never happen of course.

 

« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2009, 21:51 »
0
The idea behind CV seemed good for me, especially when a site is dealing with many languages - translations can be very odd if you don't know which of the various meanings of a word fits an image.

But when it is not complete and starts to restrict you, there is something wrong.  I have sent several emails to the keyword person, all with dictionary definitions, and none of my suggestions were accepted.

One example is my Brazilian money.  Brazilians will first look for "real" - the name of our currency - not "Brazilian currency".  But then there is not this meaning for "real" in CV.  You can look for dollars, pounds, euros, yens - even the now gone liras and marks - but not reals. 

« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2009, 21:57 »
0

« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2009, 22:00 »
0
Sean,

As I said, one has to look for"Brazilian currency", not "real" as it would be more natural (like dollars, pounds, etc). Brazilians will first look for "real" - the name of our currency - not "Brazilian currency".  At least at first search.

Back to your example, in fact, have you noticed this question?
Quote
Brazilian Currency do you mean?
Brazilian Currency (Currency)
Brazilian Coin (Brazilian Currency)
Why not "Brazilian banknotes" too?  Someone may be looking for coins, banknotes or any of them.  However, one looking for banknotes will have to pick the first choice, which will include all the coins too.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2009, 22:02 by madelaide »

« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2009, 22:04 »
0
Makes sense Adelaide. Very few buyers would look for "US Currency" instead of "Dollar". This says how much they care about the whole Brazilian market share. I'm sure we can find many examples like this. They should be grateful that you have tried to make a suggestion at improving the CV.

« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2009, 22:24 »
0
I have a photo of an old electric hair clipper once once used by a barber.  Together with a comb and scissors it made a nice shot.  But there's no "hair clipper" or "hair trimmer" in the CV - the closest was "electric razor".  And I can't use "barber" or "barbershop" because they're not actually in the picture.   



« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2009, 08:41 »
0
IS vocabulary is very limited. Many times I wanted to add very logical keywords, and I got stuck. I remember when I tried to add keyword "surface" to my image, but IS suggested only few keywords (water surface, low level point) and I had to delete the keyword.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2009, 08:50 by Whitechild »

« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2009, 09:33 »
0
I guess what it comes down to is if we want to use IS we have to put it in a different category.  We routinely upload everything we do to FT, DT, SS.  But not IS.  Then we choose a few that we think might work at IS, keyword them and submit. 

Apparently IS only wants the subjects that are already in their vocabulary.  How boring is that? 


lisafx

« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2009, 10:36 »
0
I have noticed a lot of threads recently about people getting discouraged and giving up submitting to one site or another.

Can't help wondering if this is the intended effect of the tighter standards and increased rejections across the board. 

Maybe the sites are deliberately making it more difficult in order to stem the massive growth of the contributor base?  Sort of thinning the herd?

« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2009, 10:51 »
0
I have noticed a lot of threads recently about people getting discouraged and giving up submitting to one site or another.

Can't help wondering if this is the intended effect of the tighter standards and increased rejections across the board. 

Maybe the sites are deliberately making it more difficult in order to stem the massive growth of the contributor base?  Sort of thinning the herd?

I think Its the same as a year ago.  But with more contributors comes more talk about how hard it is.   :o

About keywords:
I have read somewhere at Istock that to increase sales its a good thing to improve your keywords and titels. So that means that Its ok to add keywords afterwards?

« Reply #15 on: May 20, 2009, 11:07 »
0
Keywords shouldn't be that hard. You should have some sort of keywording program like Expression Media or there must be lots others. imbed them in the master image and then use, again Expression Media works fine or Bridge or whatever to output files to the spec required, usually just at native resolution or lowered for some sites. Once you have a master file it can be easily changed or keywords added or deleted as needs dictate. If you have too many keywords or the wrong ones for iS just delete them during upload. The idea is the process is good for all sites and the amount of fiddling is reduced.

« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2009, 11:30 »
0
lisafx, I believe that's what's happening. 

Microstocks want to cut reviewing costs.  They know what buyers search for vs. what they actually buy, and think they already have 95% coverage in their archives.  So they'll focus on improving the search results for existing images and on new marketing schemes.  Continuing to take in redundant and 'niche' images may not be worth what it costs to review and store them.

Your new rose shot may be better than any of the 100 they already have. But if the numbers show that all the buyers who search for "rose" end up happily buying an existing image, why does the microstock need a new one? 

There will always be some buyers who like new images just because they're new, and a market for creative shots that are borderline as stock.  But the existing microstocks will become ever more focused on just selling what they already have. 




« Last Edit: May 20, 2009, 11:35 by stockastic »

RT


« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2009, 13:27 »
0
Every microstock site will continue to take quality both in terms of technical excellence and image subject because they have no reason not too, to think otherwise is just completely daft. Quality has, does & always will be accepted and sell.

A lot of microstock sites have stopped accepting the crap they used to, that's all that has changed.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2009, 13:49 »
0
About keywords:
I have read somewhere at Istock that to increase sales its a good thing to improve your keywords and titels. So that means that Its ok to add keywords afterwards?
Oh yes, provided they're good keywords for the image.  :D

« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2009, 14:12 »
0
I am having problems with DT lately but FT are accepting more.  The sites seem to take it in turns.  They do sometimes reject photos that sell well on other sites and acccept those that never sell.  It is just something we have to put up with. 

Using mostphotos helps, as they have the best reviewer in the business :)

lisafx

« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2009, 14:23 »
0
Every microstock site will continue to take quality both in terms of technical excellence and image subject because they have no reason not too, to think otherwise is just completely daft. Quality has, does & always will be accepted and sell.

A lot of microstock sites have stopped accepting the crap they used to, that's all that has changed.

I think those of us who got in early were quite fortunate.  The barriers to entry are so much higher now.   

It's probably like that in most new industries.  The early adopters reap the largest rewards.   

« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2009, 14:47 »
0
Every microstock site will continue to take quality both in terms of technical excellence and image subject because they have no reason not to

Sure they do - it costs money to review new images, and their numbers might show that "better" images won't necessarily generate significantly more sales.  If they can reduce the number of reviewers they're paying without significantly impacting sales, they make more money right away. 

These aren't art galleries.   Their sales are probably limited by their crappy search capabilities, more than the quality of their images.  They already have a few roses that are good enough. They'd probably be better off spending time and money weeding out the junk from what they already have, and improving their search algorithms, than reviewing and adding new images.

They won't shut the door completely, though, because if they simply announced they weren't accepting new images, it would be a turnoff for buyers.  What they will do instead is streamline their review process so more stuff gets rejected right off the bat without a close inspection ("welll covered") and increase other barriers to submission.   But they aren't going to keep paying reviewers to do detailed 100% inspections of 50,000 new submissions in a week.




« Last Edit: May 20, 2009, 14:56 by stockastic »

bittersweet

« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2009, 15:02 »
0
I think those of us who got in early were quite fortunate.  The barriers to entry are so much higher now.   

I definitely count myself in this group. No way would I get in today with the images I submitted for my application back then. I could draw, but I was very new to vectors. When they brought some of my earliest files back to life in the recent dollar bin reanimator event, I couldn't find that deactivate button fast enough!  It was downright scary! :D

« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2009, 15:22 »
0
I think if we spoke off the record with some people in the microstocks, many would agree with RT and say "of course we always want new images of better quality than what we have."  But those would be the creative types, and their bean counters would be playing a different tune.

RT


« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2009, 15:43 »
0
I think if we spoke off the record with some people in the microstocks, many would agree with RT and say "of course we always want new images of better quality than what we have."  But those would be the creative types, and their bean counters would be playing a different tune.

Actually I think it would be the other way round, you see the 'creative types' are only interested in the aesthetic quality of the image, whereas the 'bean counters' are the one's that realise as great as the image is it was taken four years ago on a 4mp camera and can only be sold at a small size, so somebody submitting an equally good image today which was taken on a 20mp+ camera gives the bean counters the opportunity to sell it at S-XXL and thus create more revenue for them, and this will continue because the camera manufacturers will keep making them bigger and bigger.

So you see no matter how you view it the microstock sites will always have to accept new images, because if they don't they lose their appeal to the competition, they just don't have to accept the rubbish they used to.

« Reply #25 on: May 20, 2009, 15:51 »
0
Fashions change too. Even in conservative business environments accessories change (eyeglasses for example), and what designer would use an image of an attractive businesswoman wearing last years frames?

« Reply #26 on: May 20, 2009, 16:09 »
0
Yes eventually styles change and stock photos taken 10 years ago no longer cut it. 

With regard to image quality the situation is less clear.  Magazine pages aren't getting any bigger, offset printing resolution isn't increasing (correct me if I'm wrong) and as content migrates to the web, resolution is even less important than it was on paper.

CD audio quality (12 bits at 50 kHz I think) turned out to be more than good enough for most people - higher definition audio formats never sold, and todays downloaded MP3s aren't particularly high quality.  So while a 4 MP image is definitely out of date, it's not clear that 12MP won't be enough, anytime soon.

helix7

« Reply #27 on: May 20, 2009, 23:41 »
0
Every microstock site will continue to take quality both in terms of technical excellence and image subject because they have no reason not too, to think otherwise is just completely daft. Quality has, does & always will be accepted and sell.

A lot of microstock sites have stopped accepting the crap they used to, that's all that has changed.

100% agreed, and phrased better than I could have put it. :)

I'm fine with the increased quality standards, and as someone who also buys microstock images, I'm glad some effort is being put into raising the bar on quality. A lot of crap (especially in the vector categories) has gotten into the collections, and it's a real effort to dig through some of the garbage to find usable images. If it's harder to get images accepted at istock now, I say good, and it should always get harder. If your work is worth buying, it will continue to get accepted. I think microstock agencies are just cutting back on the mediocre junk that floods the searches, and buyers will be thankful for it. I know that I'm happy to see this shift in the business.




 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Losing Patience Fast

Started by DanP68 « 1 2  All » LuckyOliver.com

40 Replies
13064 Views
Last post March 08, 2008, 14:55
by Tim Markley
Losing my enthusiasm for Veer

Started by lisafx « 1 2 3 4  All » Veer

77 Replies
16327 Views
Last post November 05, 2009, 01:02
by FD
17 Replies
4657 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 07:54
by PowerDroid
58 Replies
10097 Views
Last post June 15, 2014, 04:48
by gillian vann
17 Replies
2773 Views
Last post July 08, 2017, 02:56
by Pauws99

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle