MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: More evidence that IS favors Exclusives  (Read 15911 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 07, 2008, 21:00 »
0
OK, I don't mean to pick on anyone in particular (sorry adamdodd you have some great images, but really...), but I just saw this image come across the latest approved images and I couldn't believe it. Take a look: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=5307738

If I ever tried to take a picture of dirt, and not even an interesting one it would be rejected so fast...

Do you guys see this as evidence of exclusives having a lower bar for approvals? I think I could give a hundred examples of such images...


« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2008, 21:22 »
0
I agree 100% but it's their business and they can do what ever they like, when ever they like, how ever they like.
... and there is NOTHING you or I can do about it, or even complain to someone who will change it!

The bottom line is at least now we realize this, and we know what to expect, and we won't be disappointed in the future.
Right now I need to go out to my living room and take a picture of my carpet. I think it would be the perfect compliment to the image of dirt you so kindly linked us to.

Best regards,
The MIZ


« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2008, 21:29 »
0
...
Right now I need to go out to my living room and take a picture of my carpet. I think it would be the perfect compliment to the image of dirt you so kindly linked us to.

Best regards,
The MIZ
Taking a picture of dirt? Sure, they'll take it, but it's not going to sell.

I'll keep my eyes open for your upcoming tutorial showing how to morph carpet into dirt, rjmiz!
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 21:31 by sharply_done »

« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2008, 22:04 »
0
Actually with global warming and drought around the world, shots of dried up mud and cracks in the ground do suprisingly well to illustrate  (I've got one, marginally more interesting) that is one of my better, if not stellar sellers!

« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2008, 22:24 »
0
I had a wonderful idea....
.... I thought IS might like an image taken from the little town in which I live called Kerhonkson.

It's located 100 mile North West of NYC as the crow flies. Let me see them reject this!

1. It's got no noise at all.
2. It's in super sharp focus.
3. There are no release forms to deal with.
4. I am the copyright holder.
5. Perfect depth of field.

It was an relatively difficult shot however. I had to wait for the light to be just right.
It's a sunset picture of the clouds 4 hours after the sun set this evening.

Have a look. I could not post it at 100% but I would appreciate any comments on my composition and framing of this shot.



Thanks to all in advance,
The MIZ





« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2008, 22:25 »
0
Tomorrow I am going to walk all around my neighborhood with my camera and lens pointed downwards and keep the shutter release button depressed, changing batteries as necessary, then submit the best (?) of those shots and see what happens. :D

« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2008, 22:29 »
0
I hope you have a "Image Stabilized" lens.
Other wise you apt to be rejected for motion blur.

The MIZ

« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2008, 00:08 »
0
That is a terrible photo of dirt...i think i can take a better pic  ???

« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2008, 00:52 »
0
I still don't see where the evidence is. Did you have a image of dirt rejected? Take a photo of dirt and submit it. As long as it is technically sound, I bet it will get accepted.

DanP68

« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2008, 02:56 »
0
I cannot tell you how many times I have submitted NCAA football photos to iStock, with the players face hidden from camera and the logos removed, and gotten the "sorry, player identifiable" rejection.

But they accepted this one from an exclusive photographer:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4260212_running_back.php?id=4260212

You cannot tell me that player is not identifiable.  For goodness sake, his face is in the picture!  This is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and with 700 DL's already, it is just a matter of time.  Great picture, awesome shot.  Crisp, clean, great story.  But it is editorial only until that face is removed.

I am in the process of writing a PC based football game and was considering purchasing this picture for a game screen.  But I knew I was asking for a lawsuit if I did.  If I do end up making a EL purchase this year, it will probably be one of Rinder's excellent photos.

Seriously, the reviewer who let this one by should have to explain himself/herself. 
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 02:59 by DanP68 »

« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2008, 03:02 »
0
Hey Dan,

Anyone ever tell you that you (your avatar photo)  looks like Bruce Willis.

« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2008, 03:03 »
0
Have a look at the recent non-exclusive accepted images and there are usually a few that I would expect to get rejected.  This proves nothing.  Some reviewers have lower standards than others.  It is very subjective and sometimes what we consider to be good images get rejected while what we consider to be poor gets accepted.

DanP68

« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2008, 03:15 »
0
Hey Dan,

Anyone ever tell you that you (your avatar photo)  looks like Bruce Willis.


Not anymore. 

« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2008, 04:43 »
0
I dunno.. i didn't think it was THAT bad of a picture of dirt.

I have done allright selling solid background pictures of things like snow, old walls, and different types of textures.

« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2008, 06:58 »
0
I cannot tell you how many times I have submitted NCAA football photos to iStock, with the players face hidden from camera and the logos removed, and gotten the "sorry, player identifiable" rejection.

But they accepted this one from an exclusive photographer:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4260212_running_back.php?id=4260212 [nofollow]

You cannot tell me that player is not identifiable.  For goodness sake, his face is in the picture!  This is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and with 700 DL's already, it is just a matter of time.  Great picture, awesome shot.  Crisp, clean, great story.  But it is editorial only until that face is removed.

I am in the process of writing a PC based football game and was considering purchasing this picture for a game screen.  But I knew I was asking for a lawsuit if I did.  If I do end up making a EL purchase this year, it will probably be one of Rinder's excellent photos.

Seriously, the reviewer who let this one by should have to explain himself/herself. 


Perhaps they have a model release for that shot? I'm not sure but it looks like a high school or college player so it's very possible that a release was signed.

I do know from personal experience that ANYTHING NFL related is summarily rejected on iStock, whether their faces are showing or not. I had an image of an NFL official taken from the back rejected because of the type of shoes he was wearing...evidently only pro officials wear them.

« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2008, 07:00 »
0
You cannot tell me that player is not identifiable.  For goodness sake, his face is in the picture!  This is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and with 700 DL's already, it is just a matter of time.  Great picture, awesome shot.  Crisp, clean, great story.  But it is editorial only until that face is removed.


Um... did you consider the possibility that the photog has a model release for that image? Maybe it was his/her child...

Darn Diane beat me to it LOL!

DanP68

« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2008, 07:29 »
0
I sincerely doubt it.  Check his series.  There is another photo which is obviously from the same run, and the head is cropped off.  They wouldn't crop off the head if they had a model release.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4267252_running_back.php?id=4267252

Heck I've even cropped off the head/helmet entirely and submitted it to iStock, and was still told I needed a model release.  Many times.  They just don't accept this type of stuff.  I was lucky in that I had 3 sports images accepted when I first joined, and all became best sellers.  Since then they've probably turned down 20 or 30 more claiming property/model releases were needed.  I'm amazed they let an exclusive submit an image with the face clearly visible.

I guarantee you, even if I had a model release for a player photo iStock would claim I needed a property release from the school too.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 07:36 by DanP68 »

DanP68

« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2008, 07:38 »
0
Miz, your picture sucks.   :-*

« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2008, 07:44 »
0
I sincerely doubt it.  Check his series.  There is another photo which is obviously from the same run, and the head is cropped off.  They wouldn't crop off the head if they had a model release.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4267252_running_back.php?id=4267252 [nofollow]

Heck I've even cropped off the head/helmet entirely and submitted it to iStock, and was still told I needed a model release.  Many times.  They just don't accept this type of stuff.  I was lucky in that I had 3 sports images accepted when I first joined, and all became best sellers.  Since then they've probably turned down 20 or 30 more claiming property/model releases were needed.  I'm amazed they let an exclusive submit an image with the face clearly visible.

I guarantee you, even if I had a model release for a player photo iStock would claim I needed a property release from the school too.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You say that IStock rejected your shots, even with cropped heads, for no model release...yet you are assuming that these are live on the site without one? I seriously doubt that these shots have no release...you DO NOT get a break in this area if you are exclusive.

« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2008, 07:48 »
0
Miz, your picture sucks.   :-*

I don't know, Dan, I kinda like Miz's shot. It reminds me of that "I am not quite asleep enough to dream, my acid reflux is kicking in, and what . is that cat up to now?"  feeling I get every night about 10PM.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2008, 07:51 »
0
Miz, that picture has banding. But I like it. Maybe you should submit it.

DanP68

« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2008, 07:52 »
0
It isn't enough to have a player model release Diane.  Even with the logos removed, that player is identified with the school he is playing for.  Once you have the model release, you have the player's name.  Once you have the player's name, it is pretty obvious which school he is representing, even if the logo was Photoshopped out.  

If that image runs in a commercial campaign and the school sees it, there is no way they will not put up a fight.   The school itself is being used in any commercial campaign this image is used in.  And I seriously doubt ANYONE would have a release from a university to sell its imagery in RF.  I can just imagine Notre Dame smiling at one of its football players being used in a commercial campaign just because a model release was used.

I don't have to say anything Diane.  There is very little in the way of true sports imagery on iStock, but almost all of it comes from Exclusive members.  Maybe you would prefer to explain why that is?  And then explain why you would crop off someone's head if you had a model release?
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 07:56 by DanP68 »

« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2008, 08:11 »
0
it's  so obvious that IS treats exclusive members differently,and I agree with Miz's comment.it's their business and I don't see anything wrong with  encouraging people to go exclusive with them. I am not exclusive with them but sometime  I must admit I do envy of the benefits they get.but those benefits to my point of view isn't good enough yet,for me to go exclusive.
I too got some of my files rejected for not being stock worthy and later I discovered very similar but exclusive files were up there selling well  anyway I got them online elsewhere  and they are doing well, at the end of the day  it's not a great deal I think.
 
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 08:13 by stokfoto »

« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2008, 08:29 »
0

I too got some of my files rejected for not being stock worthy and later I discovered very similar but exclusive files were up there selling well  anyway I got them online elsewhere  and they are doing well, at the end of the day  it's not a great deal I think.
 

Funnily enough as an exclusive I've had  'not stock' and 'over filtered' rejections and then have seen similar files from non exclusives selling well... but I've not been able to sell them elsewhere.

Pah  istock  is obviously so biased against me 

« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2008, 08:40 »
0
It isn't enough to have a player model release Diane.  Even with the logos removed, that player is identified with the school he is playing for.  Once you have the model release, you have the player's name.  Once you have the player's name, it is pretty obvious which school he is representing, even if the logo was Photoshopped out.  

If that image runs in a commercial campaign and the school sees it, there is no way they will not put up a fight.   The school itself is being used in any commercial campaign this image is used in.  And I seriously doubt ANYONE would have a release from a university to sell its imagery in RF.  I can just imagine Notre Dame smiling at one of its football players being used in a commercial campaign just because a model release was used.

I don't have to say anything Diane.  There is very little in the way of true sports imagery on iStock, but almost all of it comes from Exclusive members.  Maybe you would prefer to explain why that is?  And then explain why you would crop off someone's head if you had a model release?

   First of all, I do not speak for IStock, and I do not work for them (other than being an exclusive contributor) so I can't "explain" anything. I'm an observer just as you are.

  I did a quick search of "football player" . MOST of the shots of players are unidentifiable, and some were non-exclusives.

My point here is that I don't see a conspiracy by iStock to dismiss the model release requirement for exclusive members. I know this by personal experience, not just from the perfunctory search I just did.

I am not saying that iStock doesn't have some problems implementing their policies (especially the copyright and "not suitable as stock" rejections) evenly across the board...they do. They are bound to with the inspection system that is in place. I do think it's wrong-headed to assume it's an exclusive/non-exclusive issue.

« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2008, 09:19 »
0

I too got some of my files rejected for not being stock worthy and later I discovered very similar but exclusive files were up there selling well  anyway I got them online elsewhere  and they are doing well, at the end of the day  it's not a great deal I think.
 

Funnily enough as an exclusive I've had  'not stock' and 'over filtered' rejections and then have seen similar files from non exclusives selling well... but I've not been able to sell them elsewhere.

Pah  istock  is obviously so biased against me 
Lol,I see your point.and thanks for bringing point of view of an exclusive member. You might be right  I don't know ,such rejections might be just inconsistency of reviews in general (having said that among all I think IS has the most consistent reviews despite some exceptions) other than that there is no doubt IS favors exclusives and it's part of the policy. they are paid more,their portfolio favored  by the search engine they are featured on the front page,they have more upload limits but as I indicated in my first post I have nothing against that.

DanP68

« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2008, 09:36 »
0

I am not saying that iStock doesn't have some problems implementing their policies (especially the copyright and "not suitable as stock" rejections) evenly across the board...they do. They are bound to with the inspection system that is in place. I do think it's wrong-headed to assume it's an exclusive/non-exclusive issue.


I didn't used to think it was logical either.  However my own research makes me wonder. 

You see, I'm not particularly good at microstock photography yet.  My only "edge" is sports photography.  It has its own skill set, and requires a lot of practice.  It also requires jumping through hoops for field passes and the like.  I've gotten a lot better at sports photography after doing it for about 5 years.  Some of it has been suitable for stock, and you can bet it has been my best selling material no matter where I have uploaded it to.

As a general practice, I want to know what else is available in my category.  So I have seen all of the great american football imagery in microstock.  I know what pictures are similar to mine, and where I can and cannot compete.  I see the same group of photos everywhere - Dreamstime, BigStockPhoto, Shutterstock, Fotolia, etc. 

Everywhere that is, except iStock.  Very few of my images, nor any of the images I tend to "compete against" are available in the iStock catalog.  Yet many of the authors have accounts with iStock.  This tells me iStock refused them all, or at least the vast majority.  Too bad, because I have seen some great material on Shutterstock and Dreamstime.  But just when I think iStock doesn't accept these types of photos, I start running across a bunch of similar material from Exclusives.  So is it my paranoia, or is there something else going on?

And as Miz said - It's their business.  They can conduct it anyway they want to.  But I'd like people to be upfront with me.  I've wasted a lot of alloted uploads on sports for iStock.


« Reply #27 on: February 08, 2008, 15:49 »
0
It's logical that iStock will apply some favoritism to exclusives, and rightly so.  However I don't think there is any 'conspiracy' against non-exclusives.

Exclusive contributors do appear to get a more lenient approach to image inspection, and in particular they get to submit multiple 'similars' which would be a no-no for non-exclusives.

Istock's view is clearly that an exclusive catalog has greater value than a non-exclusive one; the value of a picture agency is quite low when their entire catalog is available at ten other agencies, but high if its exclusive.

Exclusive contributors get a much higher upload allowance, higher commission, favorable best match placement and unique special offers including the microsoft connection (the microsoft office link is only for exclusive images).


« Reply #28 on: February 08, 2008, 16:08 »
0
Back to the dirt image, although I don't think it really conveys the drought due to global warming or such current issues (those with cracked mud do, I must upload one I have), it may still be usable.  Zoom it in an it looks ok.  Sure, were it mine, they would complain about grain.  ;)

I sold this and another of this series: veins on foot. It was uploaded for a request, but I sold it long after.  Now, if I had very serious veins, like this, I would have sold more.  Incidently, it's from an exclusive, who also uploaded this  for the request.  Dare I say this should have a clearer background? And what about the flash shadows on this one, also from an exclusive?  However, I can't say either were exclusives at the time these images were approved.

I have said before that I agree IS has the right to spoil their exclusives, although not in all ways we believe they do.  What I don't agree is that they deny this happens.  One case I don't agree to see exclusives getting advantage - if this happens - is in the search, because it's bad for the buyers and therefore for the business.  So, if they want to approve all images from exclusives, that's fine for me, as long this doesn't mean theirs will be placed before mine in the searches because some complex algorithm considers this aspect.  If buyers want exclusive images, they can use that filter.  Let keywords and descriptions do their job.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2008, 07:56 »
0
It was an relatively difficult shot however. I had to wait for the light to be just right.
My bet is that it would be rejected for tight crop and sloppy isolation.

« Reply #30 on: February 09, 2008, 08:08 »
0
I must admit I do envy of the benefits they get.but those benefits to my point of view isn't good enough yet,for me to go exclusive.
The bottom line about the exclusivity issue is whether the extra sales, perks and pushing the exclusives get outweigh the massive sales they would get at ShutterStock etc... being non-exclusive. Can exclusives at iStock comment? I mean the ones that were non-exclusive before and went exclusive afterwards.

« Reply #31 on: February 09, 2008, 14:22 »
0
Dirt photo...very useable as stock. Great background, great texture, could be used in many different ways. As far as exclusive/non-exclusive...I have seen bad photos accepted at istock from both kinds of contributors. I don't see any bias there.

DanP68

« Reply #32 on: February 10, 2008, 18:27 »
0
Shutterstock would reject it for grain and dust.

« Reply #33 on: February 10, 2008, 21:02 »
0
I propose the following challenge. Let's all go out and take a similar crummy picture of dirt and see how many make it past the IS inspectors!

« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2008, 12:09 »
0
I can see a lot of applications for a dirt shot like that, especially since spring is around the corner and that looks like a well prepared planting bed for a garden.

« Reply #35 on: February 11, 2008, 12:20 »
0
So make some dirt shots and upload 'em ... good luck!

« Reply #36 on: February 11, 2008, 12:30 »
0
This is just too comical.  If it wasn't February in Manitoba (when "dirt" doesn't actually exist) I would say let's start a members challenge.  It would be even crazier if one of us wound up with a runaway best-seller from it!

This exclusive guy is likely wondering why he has so many views (and surprize, no sales!)  When it's not covered with snow, from what I remember, the dirt around here is black.  Where is his red dirt from?  Tara?

« Reply #37 on: February 11, 2008, 13:43 »
0
This is crazy... I did a search on "dirt" and found quite a few, so of them quite nice. It's true that 1/2 of North America and Europe is under snow and ice right now but I plan on taking a really nice picture of "dirt" in a month or two in my garden and see how it goes. BTW, this guy has about 240 views on that image and no downloads and he's from Loftus, NSW (Australia).

Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #38 on: February 11, 2008, 16:42 »
0
Last week i did a search for business seminar and the results out of the first 100 images where like this:

Yuri Arcurs: 7 images.
Lise Gagne: 38 Images.

Make your own conclusion on this. Just facts.

« Reply #39 on: February 11, 2008, 17:24 »
0
Just did that Business Seminar search, Yuri 8 Lise 4. ???

« Reply #40 on: February 11, 2008, 17:36 »
0
That's what I see too.  An you've got four in the first row!  Where's the conspiracy?

« Reply #41 on: February 11, 2008, 17:41 »
0
Last week i did a search for business seminar and the results out of the first 100 images where like this:

Yuri Arcurs: 7 images.
Lise Gagne: 38 Images.

Make your own conclusion on this. Just facts.

Wow, you not only made up your own conclusion, you made up the facts to go along with that conclusion.
Yuri =8
Lise = 4

Not to mention you own the top row. Lets keep the fairy tales to Bill Clinton speeches.

« Reply #42 on: February 11, 2008, 17:53 »
0
You probably done your search  based on downloads number not best match.

 

« Reply #43 on: February 11, 2008, 18:25 »
0
Sorry, Yuri, but your complaint about poor exposure is completely unwarranted. As the 'top gun' in this industry you come off looking quite unprofessional by making such statements.

« Reply #44 on: February 11, 2008, 19:53 »
0
Best match may have been tweaked sometime in the last two days for what it's worth.  For some reason my portfolio (probably still too small and aging) seems to be dramatically affected by Best Match changes and I think it happens more often than people may realize. 

I am exclusive but I still feel jilted by best match occasionally.  I really don't think that exclusives get much of a hike if any n the search results, at least not me personally.

I had canceled my contract for a few months and didn't see a drop in number of downloads, just the normal fluctuations.

« Reply #45 on: February 11, 2008, 23:12 »
0
Quote
I had a wonderful idea....
.... I thought IS might like an image taken from the little town in which I live called Kerhonkson.

It's located 100 mile North West of NYC as the crow flies. Let me see them reject this!

1. It's got no noise at all.
2. It's in super sharp focus.
3. There are no release forms to deal with.
4. I am the copyright holder.
5. Perfect depth of field.

It was an relatively difficult shot however. I had to wait for the light to be just right.
I don't know if IStock will take it, but I am sure some art museums will. It represents the darkness and utter blackness of pure form, a stunning visual depiction of the nothingness of mind, or something like that...

nruboc

« Reply #46 on: February 12, 2008, 01:13 »
0
Last week i did a search for business seminar and the results out of the first 100 images where like this:

Yuri Arcurs: 7 images.
Lise Gagne: 38 Images.

Make your own conclusion on this. Just facts.


Yeah, she's exclusive what's your point? Go exclusive if you want equal placement in IStock's search.

It's funny you complain about subscription payouts but your willing to accept IStock's 20% with no complaints. If you're going to submit to IStock, then please accept their exclusive bias, don't bitch and moan about it.





« Reply #47 on: February 12, 2008, 01:45 »
0
Yuri is presumably doing a search by 'most downloaded' instead of 'best match'.

« Reply #48 on: February 12, 2008, 02:39 »
0
It's funny you complain about subscription payouts but your willing to accept IStock's 20% with no complaints.

Actually, that movement seems to have gone all quiet.  Too bad.  I was hoping it would have some effect.

« Reply #49 on: February 12, 2008, 04:29 »
0
Just did that Business Seminar search, Yuri 8 Lise 4. ???

I get Yuri 6 and lise 2.
I buy photos at istock and I normally see more of Yuri's pics better placed in searches compared to lise's. If you think about it, exclusives are good for the agency in general but if istock were to promote one non exclusive member it would be Yuri, as they get 20% more money from his sales and he sells a few thousand more photos than Lise every month.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2008, 04:43 by andresr »

Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #50 on: February 12, 2008, 04:33 »
0

Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #51 on: February 12, 2008, 04:42 »
0
Just did that Business Seminar search, Yuri 8 Lise 4. ???

That's what I get too.
I buy photos at istock and I normally see more of Yuri's pics better placed in searches compared to lise's. If you think about it, exclusives are good for the agency in general but if istock were to promote one non exclusive member it would be Yuri, as they get 20% more money from his sales and he sells a few thousand more photos than Lise every month.

I can assure you that I do NOT get any special treatment or any of the sort from the IS management. Absolutely none. I am bound by the same principles that favour exclusives and not non-exclusives.
I have two freelancers working part-time whos only job is to optimise keywording for IS, this helps a bit but costs a bit too.

Showing off cases where I have better search placement then Lise only makes me happy, and de-confirms my concerns about bad placement.

« Reply #52 on: February 12, 2008, 04:54 »
0
As has been pointed out that is a search by DOWNLOADS not BEST MATCH, claiming that is some sort of bias in favour of exclusives is incomprehensible, especially when it has been shown that you do better in the best match search than the person you imply is being favoured.

« Last Edit: February 12, 2008, 04:58 by thesentinel »


Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #54 on: February 12, 2008, 05:19 »
0

« Reply #55 on: February 13, 2008, 04:17 »
0
I wont comment on the best match / downloads but I think you win the who can post the longest url competition. Its huge :):)

« Reply #56 on: February 15, 2008, 08:33 »
0
What I've learnt from this post is that I need to take some photos of cheasy looking business people if I ever want to make any money from microstock.

« Reply #57 on: February 15, 2008, 09:10 »
0
Rule #7 in succeeding at Microstock photography:

"In order to truly succeed, one must take pictures of cheesy looking, business people shaking hands with a laptop" or something like that... I guess I'll never be successful!

« Reply #58 on: February 15, 2008, 15:47 »
0
I have the impression that people images in general, not just business ones, sell A LOT.  They have to look good and smile.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #59 on: February 15, 2008, 15:52 »
0
Rule #7 in succeeding at Microstock photography:

"In order to truly succeed, one must take pictures of cheesy looking, business people shaking hands with a laptop" or something like that... I guess I'll never be successful!

depends on what you consider successful. 

plenty of travel / wildlife / etc photogs happily earning $1-$10 per image / per year, people that talk about 10000 images not being a big portfolio. :)


DanP68

« Reply #60 on: February 16, 2008, 07:01 »
0
I seriously doubt that these shots have no release...you DO NOT get a break in this area if you are exclusive.


Diane/Mitch -

Exactly as I had assumed, these images do NOT have model releases.  I confirmed this through Support.  Like I said, the reviewer has some explaining to do.

Dan

« Reply #61 on: February 16, 2008, 15:34 »
0
I dunno.. i didn't think it was THAT bad of a picture of dirt.

I have done allright selling solid background pictures of things like snow, old walls, and different types of textures.

Likewise....  Not on IS so much, but elsewhere, background shots like  "dirt"  sell for me.  I do a lot of wood, planking and such.  I took one shot of  wood siding, tinted it green and billed it as  "pressure treated wood" .. it sells. LOL  I upload them in categories such as texture, background, abstract...  they seem to sell.  In fact,  my second highest selling picture is a close-up shot of a red brick sidewalk.  It's been selling by the dozen(s)  every week now for a year and a half.  Close up of bricks. .. go figure.

MIZ pic....  the best!!!   However, dude, I know you're a top notch photog, light years ahead of me... but, I have to tell you, the shot could be confusing!!   I first  thought it  was a black bear eating licorice in a closet...   .. make sure your keywords are specific, bro!!

Likewise on the comment of shooting people at laptops, holding pencils to their mouth and sticking phones in their ears.  If that's what it takes, I'll never get rich in this business. I don't do that.
   On the other hand, I'm not in it as my prime source of income.... so I'll continue to shoot the stuff I like to shoot, landscape and  nature.  And contrary to what many profess,   landscape does sell, .........just ask my accountant.   8)=tom
« Last Edit: February 16, 2008, 15:35 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #62 on: February 17, 2008, 04:55 »
0
There are only 2 rules in life we have to obey.

#1. LIFE IS NOT FAIR

#2. YOU CAN"T CHANGE RULE #1


Other than that, anything goes!

The MIZ


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
5215 Views
Last post November 25, 2006, 10:26
by kosmikkreeper
31 Replies
10096 Views
Last post January 01, 2009, 11:02
by Perrush
0 Replies
2703 Views
Last post September 16, 2009, 07:07
by NancyCWalker
21 Replies
8257 Views
Last post September 10, 2010, 21:20
by FD
8 Replies
2465 Views
Last post January 25, 2014, 13:38
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle