Author Topic: Time to cull your portfolio's.. (Read 11973 times)

shank_ali · « **on:** January 04, 2009, 02:43 »

If and when i can post again on the istock forum my first post will to ask the contributors to cull their respective portfolios by at least 1%-5%.
The istock library is growing too fast and we have literally 1000's of images that will never see the light of day or a sale.
It is difficult for a pro who has spent time and money on a model and wants as many photos from the shoot in his/her portfolio but they must realise the actually harm it is having on the library and the search function for the buyers.
eg...more of this model here...20-60 images with "0" sales Cull them please.
Holiday photos with no sales after a year...Cull them.
Food photos Cull the ones that have not sold.
Old photos...You know you can shoot better now.
All contributors to look at the first 5 pages of their portfolios and cringe

then Cull.
If we can cull/remove 100,000 files this year i think the buyers and istockphoto would be happy.

bittersweet · « **Reply #1 on:** January 04, 2009, 03:01 »

Time to cull your apostrophes.

Graffoto · « **Reply #2 on:** January 04, 2009, 03:06 »

I have had several old images sell recently that I would not have had a sale for if I had culled them.

IS does cull old non-selling images; it is called the Dollar Bin.
And now with the new three tier system coming out, I think I will take a wait and see attitude.

Could be the majority of so-so stuff winds up in the bottom rung and will sell for peanuts, but at least they will sell.

I will admit that I have a couple of old stinkers in my port, I have been waiting for them to go to the dollar bin for quite some time now.

sharply_done · « **Reply #3 on:** January 04, 2009, 03:08 »

I think you are failing to realize, shank_ali, that (older) non-sellers show up at the very bottom of search queries, and are thereby automatically culled: taking the time to eliminate them from your portfolio is doing nothing but wasting time.

hoi ha · « **Reply #4 on:** January 04, 2009, 06:36 »

Quote from: shank_ali on January 04, 2009, 02:43

If and when i can post again on the istock forum my first post will to ask the contributors to cull their respective portfolios by at least 1%-5%.

So why did they boot you from the forums anyway Shank? Do they suspend people for a period of time or just boot them altogether?

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #5 on:** January 04, 2009, 08:47 »

IS looks like they'll be starting to cull images with the new tiered pricing model in Q1 2009. And besides, the new best match is getting rolled out so a 0 seller could turn into a good seller overnight.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** January 04, 2009, 09:11 »

Quote from: whatalife on January 04, 2009, 03:01

Time to cull your apostrophes.

Heh-heh.

With the new relevancy factor in the best match sort, it doesn't really matter. Unpurchased files should slide to the back of appropriate keyword searches anyways.

shank_ali · « **Reply #7 on:** January 04, 2009, 09:44 »

Quote from: hoi ha on January 04, 2009, 06:36

Quote from: shank_ali on January 04, 2009, 02:43
If and when i can post again on the istock forum my first post will to ask the contributors to cull their respective portfolios by at least 1%-5%.

So why did they boot you from the forums anyway Shank? Do they suspend people for a period of time or just boot them altogether?

I had a very bad habit of site -mailing all the female contributors on istockphoto enquiring about the color of their knickers!
I have had extensive therapy in the past two months and feel cured and ready to post again.

hoi ha · « **Reply #8 on:** January 04, 2009, 10:25 »

Quote from: shank_ali on January 04, 2009, 09:44

Quote from: hoi ha on January 04, 2009, 06:36
Quote from: shank_ali on January 04, 2009, 02:43
If and when i can post again on the istock forum my first post will to ask the contributors to cull their respective portfolios by at least 1%-5%.

So why did they boot you from the forums anyway Shank? Do they suspend people for a period of time or just boot them altogether?
I had a very bad habit of site -mailing all the female contributors on istockphoto enquiring about the color of their knickers!
I have had extensive therapy in the past two months and feel cured and ready to post again.

Oh I am not sure about that - takes years of therapy to effect the kind of cure i am sure IS would find necessary ...

shank_ali · « **Reply #9 on:** January 04, 2009, 15:30 »

The relevancy factor still depends on the small matter of a file being keyworded correctly.If and when the keywords are sorted then perhaps the best match might work as the new directive intends until that time i remain sceptical.
BTW i keyworded welder and chose best match.It's getting better but still on page one we have a welding screen and welding gauntlets on white background.I wikied the file but it's getting tiresome doing istock's job for them!

Fran · « **Reply #10 on:** January 05, 2009, 08:00 »

Quote from: sharply_done on January 04, 2009, 03:08

I think you are failing to realize, shank_ali, that (older) non-sellers show up at the very bottom of search queries, and are thereby automatically culled: taking the time to eliminate them from your portfolio is doing nothing but wasting time.

I agree. The reason I see to cull my old images is purely personal: since I have improved in a year I want to present a better portfolio.

shank_ali · « **Reply #11 on:** January 19, 2009, 17:21 »

Well i went and de-activated some files this evening and found it quite hard.I found myself remembering where i took the shots.The magic of photography i suppose capturing moments in time....
The reasons i stated on the 8 de-activated files ranged from not suitable as stock,i can shoot better and there are far more better photos of flowers in the collection than mine.
I shall review my portfolio on a regular basis from now on and trim the fat !

photoagogo · « **Reply #12 on:** January 19, 2009, 17:41 »

Quote from: shank_ali on January 19, 2009, 17:21

Well i went and de-activated some files this evening and found it quite hard.I found myself remembering where i took the shots.The magic of photography i suppose capturing moments in time....
The reasons i stated on the 8 de-activated files ranged from not suitable as stock,i can shoot better and there are far more better photos of flowers in the collection than mine.
I shall review my portfolio on a regular basis from now on and trim the fat !

You've only got 522 to go, keep at it...

shank_ali · « **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2009, 02:01 »

Quote from: photoagogo on January 19, 2009, 17:41

Quote from: shank_ali on January 19, 2009, 17:21
Well i went and de-activated some files this evening and found it quite hard.I found myself remembering where i took the shots.The magic of photography i suppose capturing moments in time....
The reasons i stated on the 8 de-activated files ranged from not suitable as stock,i can shoot better and there are far more better photos of flowers in the collection than mine.
I shall review my portfolio on a regular basis from now on and trim the fat !

You've only got 522 to go, keep at it...

Thanks for taking the time to click on the link and looking at my istock portfolio.

jeffclow · « **Reply #14 on:** January 28, 2009, 11:51 »

I could not readily find the answer (I promise - I looked and looked).....but since I've never deactivated a photo on IS, can someone explain how one goes about deactivating a file that isn't selling? Maybe I'm just not going to the correct screen.

I looked for a place to do so at the site, and I can't seem to locate it.

Thanks.

thesentinel · « **Reply #15 on:** January 28, 2009, 11:59 »

Quote from: jeffclow on January 28, 2009, 11:51

I could not readily find the answer (I promise - I looked and looked).....but since I've never deactivated a photo on IS, can someone explain how one goes about deactivating a file that isn't selling? Maybe I'm just not going to the correct screen.

I looked for a place to do so at the site, and I can't seem to locate it.

Thanks.

Click on "Administration" on the file page, then type in your reason into the Change File Status box and click the deactivate file button, et viola!

jeffclow · « **Reply #16 on:** January 28, 2009, 12:01 »

Thanks for the quick response - much appreciated.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #17 on:** February 03, 2009, 17:46 »

I just finished culling close to 400 images. ego is the reason for me too. I want my best work up, and I don't want zero sellers up. I give files a year, then I pull them. a year should be long enough to measure their saleability over a number of best match shifts.

bittersweet · « **Reply #18 on:** February 03, 2009, 18:19 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 03, 2009, 17:46

I just finished culling close to 400 images.

And there can't possibly be any correlation between this and your drastic drop in sales?

cmcderm1 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 03, 2009, 18:39 »

Bad Idea.

Just had a zero seller, oldie garner a $31 Enhanced License. I think I'll keep the oldies around awhile.

Besides, oldies get "pushed to the back" eventually and don't get much attention under the best match at IS.

My two cents, or $31 !!!

m@m · « **Reply #20 on:** February 03, 2009, 19:41 »

I agree with you cmcderm1...anyhow IS (the dollar bin) and other sites sell older pictures for cheapper prices once they stopped selling or have not sold at all after a couple of years, so why would I take my photos out, specially after I went to all the trouble of uploading them in the first place, I think NOT!

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #21 on:** February 03, 2009, 19:53 »

Quote from: whatalife on February 03, 2009, 18:19

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 03, 2009, 17:46
I just finished culling close to 400 images.

And there can't possibly be any correlation between this and your drastic drop in sales?

I only did it yesterday......old files of mine are selling too and I have left those ones...I want my best work in my portfolio, not files that might get one or two more dls, if any at all

helix7 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 03, 2009, 23:02 »

For 20% of each sale, I'm not spending one minute culling my istock portfolio. If they want to, they can to it themselves. And if there was an excess of images that was causing some problems for buyers, you know they would do it too.

shank_ali · « **Reply #23 on:** February 04, 2009, 02:12 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 03, 2009, 17:46

I just finished culling close to 400 images. ego is the reason for me too. I want my best work up, and I don't want zero sellers up. I give files a year, then I pull them. a year should be long enough to measure their saleability over a number of best match shifts.

tut tut you could of uploaded those to shutterstock and see how they panned out......

Graffoto · « **Reply #24 on:** February 20, 2009, 17:33 »

Well, IS 'culled' four of my images yesterday for the new Dollar Bin (or whatever they finally decide to call it).

I knew they would get around to this sooner than later, so I saw no reason to cull this stuff myself. At least know these old stinkers have a second chance to be seen and maybe make a few pennies before there are completely discarded

Any one else have images pulled to the new bin?

vonkara · « **Reply #25 on:** February 20, 2009, 18:45 »

Quote from: nosaya on February 20, 2009, 17:33

Well, IS 'culled' four of my images yesterday for the new Dollar Bin (or whatever they finally decide to call it).

I knew they would get around to this sooner than later, so I saw no reason to cull this stuff myself. At least know these old stinkers have a second chance to be seen and maybe make a few pennies before there are completely discarded

Any one else have images pulled to the new bin?

How did you know? Does they send a sitemail?

Graffoto · « **Reply #26 on:** February 20, 2009, 18:57 »

They sent a message to my email of record. Not a sitemail though.

Adeptris · « **Reply #27 on:** February 21, 2009, 02:12 »

These posts always make me smile, 'cull these old images that do not get seen in the search', if that is true what harm do they do, take up disk space that is about all?

Some will be little nuggets of gold for the stock sites, photographer has moved on stopped contributing, any sales will likely never make payout threshold, if the photographer is no longer active who will cull them?

You might say the sites should cull these images, but never say where the money is coming from to pay the wages to sort through millions of images, cut the contributors percentage to pay for this?

I contribute to Alamy they will hit 15 million images this weekend, I have a couple of hundred image, but they get, views, zooms and sales and come up high in relevent searches, that is because of good tight keywording, buyers often find what they want on the first few pages.

Who decides what is a bad image, I have seen links to some average images that have sold for big bucks, and the reason some are down the pages is not because they are bad but because they are badly keyworded, and good images will end up in the dollar bin and get snapped up, a photographer with bad keywords could cost them lots of money.

Microstock is an infant it timescale, and what is not viewed today could be top of the search tomorrow, at the moment in the UK all things 1980's is getting big, and the fashion of that time is due to make a comeback, where will the old images of that era come from, stock sites that have the scanned image that would likely have not had a view for years, ones that in your opinion should have been culled?

The only thing that should matter is your own images, running your own business and contributing to the sites that have a business model you like.

Most photographers answer to your request for them to cull thier images, may be to request that you look after your own business, the stocksites would have much the same reply.

David

madelaide · « **Reply #28 on:** February 21, 2009, 14:08 »

I have ugly images that sell and nice-looking ones that don't.

I leave them all there. It is not in microstock that I want to show my "talent".

Regards,
Adelaide

m@m · « **Reply #29 on:** February 21, 2009, 14:37 »

Quote from: Adeptris on February 21, 2009, 02:12

These posts always make me smile, 'cull these old images that do not get seen in the search', if that is true what harm do they do, take up disk space that is about all?

Some will be little nuggets of gold for the stock sites, photographer has moved on stopped contributing, any sales will likely never make payout threshold, if the photographer is no longer active who will cull them?

You might say the sites should cull these images, but never say where the money is coming from to pay the wages to sort through millions of images, cut the contributors percentage to pay for this?

I contribute to Alamy they will hit 15 million images this weekend, I have a couple of hundred image, but they get, views, zooms and sales and come up high in relevent searches, that is because of good tight keywording, buyers often find what they want on the first few pages.

Who decides what is a bad image, I have seen links to some average images that have sold for big bucks, and the reason some are down the pages is not because they are bad but because they are badly keyworded, and good images will end up in the dollar bin and get snapped up, a photographer with bad keywords could cost them lots of money.

Microstock is an infant it timescale, and what is not viewed today could be top of the search tomorrow, at the moment in the UK all things 1980's is getting big, and the fashion of that time is due to make a comeback, where will the old images of that era come from, stock sites that have the scanned image that would likely have not had a view for years, ones that in your opinion should have been culled?

The only thing that should matter is your own images, running your own business and contributing to the sites that have a business model you like.

Most photographers answer to your request for them to cull thier images, may be to request that you look after your own business, the stocksites would have much the same reply.

David

Right On!!!

cathyslife · « **Reply #30 on:** February 21, 2009, 15:20 »

I got an email from istock with about 25 of my old images destined for the dollar bin. They were really early stuff, some not necessarily bad, but I chose to deactivate them, as they are sold on other sites.

I went over to the Dollar Bin. I find it really hard to believe that some of those with blue and red flames never got downloaded once or twice from the regular site. Did they ask some people to donate a few good ones in there just to make it attractive? Hmmm....

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #31 on:** February 21, 2009, 15:26 »

not that anyone should listen to me right now considering my dismal sales....but I think keeping your portfolio tight and up to date is really important. I understand the argument that why not leave it there in case of the odd download. but I think what is not being measured is the impression left on a buyer when they click through and check out your stuff and have to wade through every stage of your growth as a stock photographer.

I too keep some never downloaded files in my port that I just REALLY like and am very proud of. but in general, I cull anything that hasn't sold for a year. I keep my port under 2,000 images, and hopefully am putting my best foot forward everytime someone visits my profile.

another point is that keeping your portfolio clean allows you to manage it more easily. especially since updating keywords and titles can help an image to reappear in a best match return. I update my files regularly.

having said that, none of my strategies are helping my sales right now, lol

shank_ali · « **Reply #32 on:** February 21, 2009, 15:38 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 21, 2009, 15:26

not that anyone should listen to me right now considering my dismal sales....but I think keeping your portfolio tight and up to date is really important. I understand the argument that why not leave it there in case of the odd download. but I think what is not being measured is the impression left on a buyer when they click through and check out your stuff and have to wade through every stage of your growth as a stock photographer.

I too keep some never downloaded files in my port that I just REALLY like and am very proud of. but in general, I cull anything that hasn't sold for a year. I keep my port under 2,000 images, and hopefully am putting my best foot forward everytime someone visits my profile.

another point is that keeping your portfolio clean allows you to manage it more easily. especially since updating keywords and titles can help an image to reappear in a best match return. I update my files regularly.

having said that, none of my strategies are helping my sales right now, lol

I always read your posts and as a result i seem to be getting more headaches of late

I do wish more contributors would follow your course of action in trimming their respective portfolio's.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #33 on:** February 21, 2009, 17:43 »

ah shank, don't make me ignore you....take some tylenol.

bittersweet · « **Reply #34 on:** February 21, 2009, 20:42 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 21, 2009, 15:20

I went over to the Dollar Bin. I find it really hard to believe that some of those with blue and red flames never got downloaded once or twice from the regular site. Did they ask some people to donate a few good ones in there just to make it attractive? Hmmm....

Beginning last February, exclusives were, able to submit up to 10 images, but only if they had not been downloaded in at least a year. That closed down in December. I had images that had done well initially but were buried by some best match incarnation and had stopped selling, only to hit flames in the dollar bin. I've had several that sold only a couple of times before going in, that have hit flames. And I've had a handful that have been deactivated for hitting 28 days without a sale. I have not had any that I put in there not sell at all.

Ego aside, I think having files put there is a positive thing IF they are not selling at all otherwise. 30 downloads at a reduced price quickly makes up for 1 or 2 or zero sales at full price, especially if you are working to your next canister goal.

edited for accuracy

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #35 on:** February 22, 2009, 19:23 »

^ do you know if you can still suggest images for the dollar bin somehow? there are some really nice images in there. kind of discouraging to think stuff that good wasn't downloaded, yowser.

Cooper · « **Reply #36 on:** February 22, 2009, 20:11 »

Quote from: madelaide on February 21, 2009, 14:08

I have ugly images that sell and nice-looking ones that don't.

I leave them all there. It is not in microstock that I want to show my "talent".

Regards,
Adelaide

Couldn't agree more. I'm certainly not putting my best photography on sale for 20 cents an image.

As an aside; shank please do tell why you were booted from the istock forums. I gave up reading the forums many moons ago, (I got sick of the usual "whoo hoo, istock rocks" nonsense) but considering some of the posts you used to put up there, whatever got you banned must have been a doozy.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #37 on:** February 22, 2009, 20:27 »

^ I'll take him off ignore to read his reply. but I suggest opening a new thread before another informative thread is hijacked.

bittersweet · « **Reply #38 on:** February 22, 2009, 22:02 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 22, 2009, 19:23

^ do you know if you can still suggest images for the dollar bin somehow? there are some really nice images in there. kind of discouraging to think stuff that good wasn't downloaded, yowser.

Hey Stacey,
As of December they stopped allowing it, but there have been hints from JJRD in the dolla dolla bin y'all thread that it, or something like it, may come back, as well as the possibility that those images that sold during their time in the bin, but expired out (especially common with the seasonal stuff) might actually be resurrected at some point.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #39 on:** February 22, 2009, 22:24 »

hmm, interesting. thanks

null · « **Reply #40 on:** February 23, 2009, 00:21 »

Quote from: Cooper on February 22, 2009, 20:11

Couldn't agree more. I'm certainly not putting my best photography on sale for 20 cents an image.

Just got a mail that 6 should go to the dollar bin. Fine for me but I deactivated them.

Quote from: Cooper on February 22, 2009, 20:11

As an aside; shank please do tell why you were booted from the istock forums.

I checked out of curiosity. It must be years since the istock forums make me yooh! vomit. Shank told a lady in a discussion that the only thing that smelled at his house was the @ss of his dog, and that was his last message.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #41 on:** February 23, 2009, 00:44 »

really? that is kind of anticlimactic. I thought it would be worse than that. lol.

Cooper · « **Reply #42 on:** February 23, 2009, 00:52 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 23, 2009, 00:44

really? that is kind of anticlimactic. I thought it would be worse than that. lol.

Yeh, that is a bit anticlimactic. Still he could have deleted his last post...

But, back on topic.... I recently got an EL on an image that I particularly dislike (cliched, boring, tacky) that I thought no-one had looked at for well over 18 months. So unless I'm forced to, I won't be deleting any images.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #43 on:** February 23, 2009, 01:19 »

even though it is opposite to my usual strategy, I am not culling anything further....since old crappy files are being showcased, I'll take any dls I can get my hands on...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Time to cull your portfolio's.. (Read 11973 times)

shank_ali

bittersweet

shank_ali

shank_ali

shank_ali

shank_ali

yecatsdoherty

bittersweet

m@m

yecatsdoherty

helix7

shank_ali

vonkara

m@m

yecatsdoherty

shank_ali

yecatsdoherty

bittersweet

yecatsdoherty

yecatsdoherty

bittersweet

yecatsdoherty

yecatsdoherty

yecatsdoherty

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors