MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Reduced upload limits...  (Read 11942 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 26, 2007, 17:31 »
0
Uploads are suspended at the moment, as most people know.

However I notice that the upload limit has been reduced: my limit as a bronze now shows 15/168.  This is the lowest upload limit since I joined iStock, and presumably has something to do with trying to reduce activity on the site while they sort out the technical stuff.

Presumably there will be an announcement about reduced upload limits in due course.


« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2007, 19:45 »
0
Uploading is back on at IS, though at reduced levels: 20 per week for me (at silver level).

« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2007, 21:17 »
0
Sigh......

(Trying hard, very very hard, not to make any comments whatsoever about how on earth the supposedly most resourceful, profitable and oldest microstock agency around, has gotten themselves into this technical jumble, so no comments from me  ;D  )

« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2007, 01:55 »
0
Besides the current technical problems - the upload limit as Istock has always bothered me. I do upload the same images on 3 sites and my folder "images waiting to upload for Istock" grows bigger and bigger while the one for SS is almost empty now. How come that SS is able to review whatever you send them in less than 24 hours  and Istock even before all those problems needed almost a week?

And you can't say that they are more picky, for me the acceptance rate (and the rejections...) are pretty much the same on both sides. Just hope that they fix all their problems soon because I still  kind of like Istock even if I make more money with SS

« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2007, 02:13 »
0
Something about 'putting eggs in baskets' comes to mind here    :)

Hey! Now that's a great idea for the September Lightbox Challenge   ;D

Oh boy! I wonder if iStock will let me upload it before the end of the month   :'(


« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2007, 04:21 »
0
the upload limit as Istock has always bothered me.

simple, there are just harassing you :o)   Exclusives have a much larger upload limit, so they just want you to become exclusive.  If not ... you'll have such a 'waiting list'

« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2007, 06:32 »
0
How come that SS is able to review whatever you send them in less than 24 hours  and Istock even before all those problems needed almost a week?

And you can't say that they are more picky, for me the acceptance rate (and the rejections...) are pretty much the same on both sides. Just hope that they fix all their problems soon because I still  kind of like Istock even if I make more money with SS

To the credit of iStock, I think despite a similar rejection rate at IS and SS, IS seems to check uploaded images much more carefully than SS (that might take more time). They spot pretty small mistakes, on the other hand an image is not as fast out of focus at IS than it is out of focus at SS.

« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2007, 07:45 »
0
OK Folks, You all got me curious about microstock. I've not been the easiest person to convince nor am I convinced but I'm going to give it a try. I'm reading in this post that there are limits to the number of images one can upload at any given time. I just had a staff member pull about 10000 images from my files that are older but not dated. These are images that have been collecting dust, in other words I haven't been submitting them to anyone. I want to put these onto a microstock site(s) to see what happens. I can probably come up with another 5000 or so but I want to test the waters first. How on earth am I going to get these on if the sites only allow a handfull of uploads at any given time? Another question, these images are made up of mostly travel from around the world and some nature and outdoor, do these topics sell on microstock sites? After looking at all the sites it seems to me that travel doesn't really sell very well, it looks as if lifestyle and people related images sell while all the others are a tiny percentage of sales. Is this the case? Any advice or recommendations would be welcomed.

Thanks

Traveler

« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2007, 08:03 »
0
hey there.. and welcome to microstock :)

Travel images definatly don't sell as well as people shots but the DO sell.  I have a number of travel and nature shots in my top selling images so they have potential.

Certain sites like istock have stiff upload limits - you can forget about getting your 10,000 images on there any time soon.

What you are looking for are sites with an EASY upload system and generous (or no) limits.

Shutterstock would be the place to start.  Easy to upload to, good downloads, and no upload limits
Fotolia has a bit more of a complicated upload system but no upload limits and decent downloads
Dreamstime has an upload limit of 200 a day and a little easier upload system than fotolia.

Stockxpert is easy to upload to with a limit of 50 per day - so not TOO bad, but it will take a while.
Bigstock - few downloads but no upload limit - upload system similar to dreamstime
Istock - good downloads but VERY time consuming upload system

If you want to support microstock group, you can use the referral links to the right there :)

« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2007, 08:13 »
0
Another question, these images are made up of mostly travel from around the world and some nature and outdoor, do these topics sell on microstock sites? After looking at all the sites it seems to me that travel doesn't really sell very well, it looks as if lifestyle and people related images sell while all the others are a tiny percentage of sales. Is this the case?
Indeed, they don't sell so well.  One of my best-selling images in IS however is one of the Sugar Loaf Mountain, here in Rio.  I believe that such landmarks of big cities like London, Paris and New York have more potential than images of exotic places such as Mali or Tibet.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2007, 10:38 »
0
Traveler,

It might be worth asking Ron Chapple for advice, as he has uploaded a big portfolio to some of the micros..  He does post here as iofoto and has a website here http://www.iofoto.com/

dbvirago

« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2007, 11:39 »
0
Yes, my 'to be uploaded at Istock' folder has grown to the point it will never be caught up.

But remember, this is only a temporary limit at 15 for bronze. Like the temporary limit when it went from 25 to 20. And the temporary limit when it went from 30 to 25.

Like when the U.S. gov. temporarily started taxing income in 1917 - you know - temporary.

« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2007, 12:19 »
0
It might be worth asking Ron Chapple for advice, as he has uploaded a big portfolio to some of the micros..
I agree - you should definitely make contact with Ron.

You may want to reconsider uploading a large quantity of images in a short period of time, as you may get more exposure by taking a more measured approach. I uploaded 1000+ images at Stockxpert (StockXpert) in one month and cannot help but feel that I'd have sold more if I'd uploaded slower.

Going by the size of your portfolio, you may want to forget about Shutterstock (SS) as a revenue source. SS is the only site to exclusively use a subscription model, and you will only experience high sales if you upload small batches on a regular basis. My experience is that uploading even 10 images per day, every day, is too much.  I'm still optimizing things, but it just might be that 10 images every other day works best. SS is the only site that is this high maintenace, and you may not find it worth your time. Ron originally uploaded 5000+ images there, only to later abandon the site.

The strongest thing you have going for you is specialization. The microstock marketplace is still very young, populated by amateurs/hobbyists who are reluctant to accept that specialization is necessary in order to succeed. Despite the fact that most who have succeeded here are strongly specialized, 'microstockers' prefer to shoot in pell mell fashion, clicking away at seemingly whatever pleases them. The prevailing attitude is that it is better to have a 'wide and shallow' portfolio rather than a 'narrow and deep' one. By uploading a quantity of singularly-focused imagery you stand an excellent chance of dominating a market segment. Then again, you already know this.

... good luck!
« Last Edit: September 27, 2007, 12:22 by sharply_done »

« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2007, 22:51 »
0

Going by the size of your portfolio, you may want to forget about Shutterstock (SS) as a revenue source. SS is the only site to exclusively use a subscription model, and you will only experience high sales if you upload small batches on a regular basis. My experience is that uploading even 10 images per day, every day, is too much.  I'm still optimizing things, but it just might be that 10 images every other day works best. SS is the only site that is this high maintenace, and you may not find it worth your time. Ron originally uploaded 5000+ images there, only to later abandon the site.

The strongest thing you have going for you is specialization. The microstock marketplace is still very young, populated by amateurs/hobbyists who are reluctant to accept that specialization is necessary in order to succeed. Despite the fact that most who have succeeded here are strongly specialized, 'microstockers' prefer to shoot in pell mell fashion, clicking away at seemingly whatever pleases them. The prevailing attitude is that it is better to have a 'wide and shallow' portfolio rather than a 'narrow and deep' one. By uploading a quantity of singularly-focused imagery you stand an excellent chance of dominating a market segment. Then again, you already know this.
... good luck!
[/quote]

Thank You for the insight.
Would you consider many images of one area of a particular country or place
specializing or still shallow? Example I have been going to a remote area of
Mexico and have tried to capture as much of the culture as possible yet not all images are the same.
Jorge
« Last Edit: September 27, 2007, 22:54 by jorgeinthewater »

« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2007, 23:24 »
0
OK Folks, You all got me curious about microstock. I've not been the easiest person to convince nor am I convinced but I'm going to give it a try. I'm reading in this post that there are limits to the number of images one can upload at any given time. I just had a staff member pull about 10000 images from my files that are older but not dated.

Congratulations to all here who have convinced a competitor to upload 10,000 images to compete with theirs.

« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2007, 23:43 »
0
Congratulations to all here who have convinced a competitor to upload 10,000 images to compete with theirs.

LOL, that's the sjlocke I know. I hope you got my sitemail about the idea.

« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2007, 02:43 »
0
I can't say I agree with you sharply done.

I think upload freequency has more to do with how many other people upload.  If you upload 10 shots with the main keyword as pancake and those same 10 shots are the 'newest uploads' after 2 weeks, you would still be pushing your images off the first page if you uploaded 50 more - even after waiting 2 weeks.  If after 2 hours though another person uploaded 100 pancake shots then you would see basically no initial download surge becuase they would be burried right away.  In this case it would be good to upload another 10 pancake shots 12 hours after the first bath.

With IOfoto, if he uploaded all his shots in one slump, he would have been burrying his own pictures 100's of pictures deep with newer pics.  He would have lost lots of the initial sales, but even after those die of I don't think shutterstock has a bad sales potential.  I have had 2000 images on shutterstock for almost 1.5 years now and didn't upload for 12 months of that time.  Shutterstock was still my #1 money maker after not uploading for so long.  This month I have been uploading lots again, so they are very high, which is nice, but when the average goes down again, I know they will still be better than the others.

« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2007, 07:19 »
0
I can't say I agree with you sharply done.

I think upload freequency has more to do with how many other people upload.  If you upload 10 shots with the main keyword as pancake and those same 10 shots are the 'newest uploads' after 2 weeks, you would still be pushing your images off the first page if you uploaded 50 more - even after waiting 2 weeks.  If after 2 hours though another person uploaded 100 pancake shots then you would see basically no initial download surge becuase they would be burried right away.  In this case it would be good to upload another 10 pancake shots 12 hours after the first bath.

With IOfoto, if he uploaded all his shots in one slump, he would have been burrying his own pictures 100's of pictures deep with newer pics.  He would have lost lots of the initial sales, but even after those die of I don't think shutterstock has a bad sales potential.  I have had 2000 images on shutterstock for almost 1.5 years now and didn't upload for 12 months of that time.  Shutterstock was still my #1 money maker after not uploading for so long.  This month I have been uploading lots again, so they are very high, which is nice, but when the average goes down again, I know they will still be better than the others.

From what you are writing then subject matter is more important than time interval between uploads. The more exclusive the subject the more it stays as newer. But then again the more exclusive the less customers might seek it out? Also isn't the default search results on SS by most popular?
Any further comments?
Jorgeinthewater

« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2007, 15:11 »
0
...Would you consider many images of one area of a particular country or place
specializing or still shallow? Example I have been going to a remote area of
Mexico and have tried to capture as much of the culture as possible yet not all images are the same.
Jorge
Offhand I'd say that your images might be too specialized. I haven't investigated it, but it's entirely possible that the market for stock images that document the culture of remote Mexican areas is nonexistant. You should look at marketing them in a more commercially viable way.

« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2007, 21:57 »
0
Would you consider many images of one area of a particular country or place
specializing or still shallow? Example I have been going to a remote area of
Mexico and have tried to capture as much of the culture as possible yet not all images are the same.
Jorge

That sounds like images for Alamy. The market for those images is very limited, but if you find the customer, he's more than willing to pay $200 for it.

« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2007, 22:12 »
0
Would you consider many images of one area of a particular country or place
specializing or still shallow? Example I have been going to a remote area of
Mexico and have tried to capture as much of the culture as possible yet not all images are the same.
Jorge

That sounds like images for Alamy. The market for those images is very limited, but if you find the customer, he's more than willing to pay $200 for it.

How hard is it to get them into Alamy?
By the way I went to Alamy and ran a search of the area I have being working in
and they have over 2500 images!
« Last Edit: September 28, 2007, 22:29 by jorgeinthewater »

« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2007, 22:48 »
0
Back to upload limits: yesteday I exhausted my limit for the week so I had those freshly uploaded and older ones from 9/19 in the queue. An hour ago e-mail arrives: files ID from this to that  "could not be properly processed. We ask you to please re-upload the files for reprocessing". Ummm... OK, fine, thinking for myself, considering such a hiccup probably my upload limit is back for the according number of files? Yeah right. Zero. ::)

« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2007, 23:20 »
0
How hard is it to get them into Alamy?
By the way I went to Alamy and ran a search of the area I have being working in
and they have over 2500 images!

Not hard to get in. It's a question of megapixels and technical quality mostly.

Yes, the competition is hard, so your images have to be the best ones and/or be unique in some way or another. Still, I would rather gamble in that lottery than having a good photo selling once or twice as micro. 25c won't buy you much anyway.

« Reply #23 on: September 28, 2007, 23:28 »
0
Thank You
I will look into it more.

« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2007, 01:49 »
0
Still, I would rather gamble in that lottery than having a good photo selling once or twice as micro. 25c won't buy you much anyway.

A GOOD  photo would sell 100's or 1000's of times as micro not once or twice.

« Reply #25 on: September 29, 2007, 02:11 »
0
Still, I would rather gamble in that lottery than having a good photo selling once or twice as micro. 25c won't buy you much anyway.

A GOOD  photo would sell 100's or 1000's of times as micro not once or twice.

Not if the photo is only relevant to a small group of customers. Still, it may be worth a lot to that limited group.

Microstock is very, very mainstream. The only way to get volume, is to sell what many people need.

Two examples: Cute, smiling, caucasian girl with mobile phone sells by the thousands. Child-worker from a 3rd world country will not, regardless of the quality of the photo. But again, if someone really needs that child-worker photo, it doesn't really matter if the price is $1 or $200.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4231 Views
Last post June 15, 2007, 11:23
by ptlee
1 Replies
2458 Views
Last post September 08, 2007, 12:29
by fintastique
6 Replies
3902 Views
Last post June 03, 2008, 10:46
by cshack
2 Replies
3519 Views
Last post June 21, 2008, 10:04
by vphoto
1 Replies
4022 Views
Last post February 07, 2010, 14:21
by UncleGene

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle