MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Most photos - new "midstock" site!  (Read 56955 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 31, 2007, 07:54 »
well i applaud the referall program.  Well done  :)  Right up there with shutterstock on that one.

« Reply #26 on: September 05, 2007, 05:58 »
Nice to see that many of your nicknames are registred on Mostphotos now.  :)
The "community structure" of the site is really addictive. You will soon be as hooked as I am  ::)
I recommend you to try out the new FTP-upload.
Upload and tagging is really easy and fast!

--> www.mostphotos.com

« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2007, 06:47 »
yeah, things are looking nice over there - i just can't get over the ad's on the side though.  It ends up looking more like a portfolio / photo sharing site (like deviantart) than it does a site that is serious about selling my images.

That is fine if it is supposed to be a portfolio / photo sharing site, but then I would put it in a different catagory than a stock site.

ok sorry I am done now.  I won't harp on that again.

« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2007, 07:03 »
I just came back from looking over the site. It loaded very fast for me (DSL connection in the USA) and I saw no ads.  I thought it was nicely done but found the search engine gave me too many hits that were not what I had been looking for.  By example, I typed in "poison ivy" and saw all the pictures where poison was listed such as snakes, then all the pictures where ivy was listed. 
But, my biggest complaint is that the seller's terms of service are not yet in English.  Sorry, but I think I'll hold off signing up until I can read the TOS myself..

« Reply #29 on: September 05, 2007, 07:05 »
do you have an add blocker?

The ads come when I do a picture search.  The fill the right hand of the screen.

« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2007, 07:17 »
I don't have any specfic adblocker, but my firewall has a popup blocker, perhaps that is doing it for me.  I don't mind the "image sharing" format as long as my images are watermarked and right hand clicking is disabled.  Right now my website is linked only to FP and I'd be happy to consider adding this site but, I do want to be able to read the TOS for myself first.

« Reply #31 on: September 05, 2007, 09:48 »
I can't see how not having a review or quality control will work.  A photo might look great to those rating it but have noise or artifacts or chromatic aberration when viewed at full size.  That will annoy the buyers and they will be better off using the cheaper microstock sites that do have good quality control.

« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2007, 11:51 »
The issue of the non translated texts is handled as we speak. This is cut from Mp's forum:

"The legal advisors (swed and US) are doing the last touch ups on the USER and LICENSE AGREEMENTS as we speak. I think the translated versions togheter with some updates to protect the photographers will be uploaded tomorrow or Friday at the latest. A summary of all updates and changes to the AGREEMENTS will also be mailed to every single member thru MP mail."

In was very sceptical to this approach too at first and I went on and on trying to convince the owners that it wouldn't work.
Now, however ...I have started to change my mind. I think of it as an interesting experiment.
Even though reviewers on other sites usually are correct in most of their decisions, it happens once in a while that you get rejected for reasons that you cannot understand.
One bestselling picture on one site can get a "we don't consider this stock quality" on another.

If we forget about the technical quality of the picture for a second, this system with user reviewed pictures could in theory be much more fair. You get your picture reviewed based upon what a large number of people think, not just one person. The site owners recommend and urge you, to  review your pictures yourself on a regularey basis and remove all pictures that has grades 3,5 or below when they have recieved sufficient amount of reviews. This way the database will be cleaned out of pictures considered bad. I think they will even release an easy function for you to sort out these pictures soon too.

About technical quality you make a validd point.
The pictures will not get a equal good review in that area as in the big 5.
You can, however when you rate someone elses picture, zoom in and get a fairly good look at noise levels and so on and rate based upon that too.

Then again, I personally feel that the zero noise tolerance that for instance SS has is way over the top. face it, most people don't look at pictures at 200% crop.
A picture with a lot of noice is not good and Most photos trust the users to have the sense to upload good quality images.

Will it work?
I don't know.
But I'm intrested to see how things will play out. :)

« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2007, 11:54 »
I just came back from looking over the site. It loaded very fast for me (DSL connection in the USA) and I saw no ads.  I thought it was nicely done but found the search engine gave me too many hits that were not what I had been looking for.  By example, I typed in "poison ivy" and saw all the pictures where poison was listed such as snakes, then all the pictures where ivy was listed. 

I think that the search engine is something the tech guys over there are working on right now as well.

« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2007, 14:12 »
Hello again every one.
I'm sorry that i haven't visited you guys for some days but i am preoccupied with sales calls to publishers, and ad agency's making advertise direct to the image buyers. Because we are fairly (no, very=) unknown yet we give sales visits first priority. I  must admit that i was a little rusty, but my presentation skills improve by the day and the customers are interested, and its not so much the prices but the fact that it is a democratic site that gets them interested. And the fact that i have 17 years of experience from desktop publishing seems to give me a edge compared with fresh out of school salesman. A few of the customers are obsessed by high def no noise images but the wast majority have no interest in using the stock images for big campaigns and posters - most of them are interested in the images as extra illustrations and webbdesigns. They are not interested in the "perfect image" - they are just want the right enough image. It is rarely that the customer use the image without any adjustments to a stock image. If i speak for myself i don't think i ever have used a stock image without "fixing it up" a little.
Enough about me.
Moori: You are very well informed, i have read your comments and you are spot on correct - i couldn't have answered it better myself.
Rosta: I have full respect that you want to read the agreement in English - there is really no need to rush into a agreement that you don't understand, we will be here tomorrow too, you can sign up whenever you feel ready. The fact that many nationalities already signed up without understanding the agreement makes me feel humble, thanks for your trust in us.  I remember discussing with moori who was sceptical at least, that we did not have watermark in the beginning. Eventually moori started to upload without the watermark function, that if anything is a sign of trust. Thanks again moori, for your trust in us.
Sharpshot: Don't automatically assume that your fellow photographer member will get you slack on bad quality. Remember that many of the customers are also creative and good photographers and may very well end up as members on Mostphotos. And they have a very good perseption on what images are commercial or artistic enough to suite their intended purposes. Sometimes they may very well be a harder critique's than the other stock sites.
Leaf: I think that you agree that if we builded "just another standard stock site" we would have less chance than a snowball in h#ll to succeed in this business. More important, having a site with welldesigned functions that makes meeting, learning and sharing experiences easy, just cant be bad. Who knows, you might end up on the Mostphotos Awards, reciving the Best Stock Image Award in the future? Enjoying the hospitality of the Swedish people and the Scandinavian summer!! Because thats what can happend when you encourage the meetings between people from all over the world!


« Reply #35 on: September 06, 2007, 07:23 »
Suvakov: Nice to hear that you guys started to market the site now.
Are you offering anything special to the clients in terms of promotions/special offers at the moment or is it mainly letting people know you exsist?

« Reply #36 on: September 06, 2007, 08:51 »
Both, some clients want to make direct contact with photographers around the world, for example publishing houses that offers royalty on published images. Thats generally how publishing houses work. I'm offering the "request -image-function" to contract customers, meaning they can get in contact with suitable photographers for exclusive work depending on for ex geographical location. When the customer wants to buy the agreed images they pay on line and the photographer gets payed in instantly without having to send invoices across the Atlantic (or across the rest of the world). And the smart photographer (as you all guys are) collects the rejected images and upload them on Mostphotos. In that way the photographer gets payed twice for the same job! That is smart thinking, is it not??? But as you said: A significant part of the sales visits is to make professional buyers aware of that we exist!


« Reply #37 on: September 06, 2007, 08:53 »
... and a buy 2 for 1 offer to all visited customers naturally.....


« Reply #38 on: September 06, 2007, 11:28 »
looks like the terms of seller are translated now....

« Reply #39 on: September 06, 2007, 11:38 »
Rosta: Welcome to review the  English licence and user agreements :-) www.mostphotos.com

« Reply #40 on: September 06, 2007, 14:15 »
I found it, thank you

« Reply #41 on: September 06, 2007, 15:55 »
Not really. They are doing it the same way Alamy and many other macros are doing it. They inform the photographers clearly in the terms that model release has to exist for recognizable people and that copyright/logos are not allowed. Then it is up to the photographer to follow these rules. They don't babysit us. After all it is the photographer that has to face the legal concequences.
I have a few problems with the site. First is the rating system model. That system doesn't work in practice (just look at the ratings on IS).
1) "Ratings Groups" tend to form and game the system.
2) People will also game the system by down rating other people's photos that come up better in the search results.

The second problem is the ad revenue model. I know that getting venture capital these days requires some sort of ad driven model, but it is off putting to photo buyers. You don't see any of the other big agencies doing it, and it is for a reason.

The final and most important problem is that the site will likely be sued in the US for either copyright or some form of invasion of privacy because of their no review policy. Since the photographer's terms don't contain an indemnity clause the site would be liable for any judgment . The terms only say the following, "4.5. By entering into this agreement MEMBER accepts that it may not hold MOSTPHOTOS responsible for any damages, losses, costs, infringements of intellectual property or any other occurrence or on any other ground." That only limits the photographer from suing the site, it doesn't make the photographer liable for the judgment or legal costs from a 3rd party suing the site. Why would someone want to upload their portfolio to a site, when at anytime the site could be shut down because of a lawsuit in the US (look at what happened to bodog.com).

« Reply #42 on: September 07, 2007, 02:37 »
Thank you for your comments yingyangO.

Regarding the rating system: Surprisingly (or not) I do not agree that it do not work:-) The rating of the image is based on many variables and not entiarly on what rating the image get from single members. That would be naive at least. We monitor the site and the rating system for any deviations out of the normal. We also keep track on who rated what and every member can also see how a this critique have been rating from 1-10. Excessive down rating or up rating will show directly in his or hers rating information. When the site keep growing even small "rating groups" will be marginalized, and the manipulators will face the fact that the time they are spending on trying to game the system would have been better used, if they actually went out and took better images.

Regarding the ads: I'm a image buyer since 7 years back. i don't mind ads, they don't put me of? No one of the customers i have visited have commented on the ads? They have commented other things but not the ads. I would like to have some time to look into this further, because when ad sales pick up we will have  muscle enough to do some further changes for the benefit of our members. Why the other big ones don't do it i don't know. Maybe the are following the same reason as you? I am not satisfied with that - i want to know for a fact, and until i have a good answer the ads stays.

Since i am a citizen of northern Europe i am not entiarly familiar with the bodog.com issue if you are referring to the gaming site? But wasn't Bodogs problems a result of the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act? The lawsuits from the entertainment industry was also dropped. I think that we have leagal protection alltough the agreements are under constant change. I also believe that a lawsuit against mostphotos.com is a little far-fetched, but if that would be the case i can only congratulate all photographers on the site. The media attention that would focus on the site and the images would be enormous. There is no way we would ever afford to pay for a worldwide ad to potencial buyer all over the world. The members would cash in huge if this would be reality.

Regarding the indemnity clause that will be fixed by Monday at latest.

New comming feature:
Drag-and-drop your low earning, low scoring images directly to the trash can so that your portfolio look as sharp it can be. Customers review your entire portfolio and may request exclusive images based on your skills and earlier work.

Must rush now - have to make the last business calls for today.


« Reply #43 on: September 07, 2007, 02:57 »
Even if the ratings system works, I don't like seeing so many poor quality photos on a site that sells for more than the micros.

A search for "london" brings up this page.  If I was a buyer, I would be put off by the poor quality.


Perhaps if the lower rated photos were instantly deleted when enough people gave them a low sore it would help.

« Reply #44 on: September 07, 2007, 05:44 »
Must rush now - have to make the last business calls for today.

I agree with yy about the rating clubs, as to bias. I was on a site like that long ago and several factions had formed that downrated and flagged each others photos all the time. A naughty remark in the forums was enough.

Second, the raters cannot really judge, since they see the photo only in reduced size. How can they judge artifacts, fringe, noise?

Third, most raters are not advanced amateurs or (semi-)pro like people that are used to work for microstock. I want to be judged at least by peers, sorry.

Fourth, this site is a high-maintenance site, since you are expected to rate and comment a lot to get Karma. I'd rather take pictures or postproduce photos. If I want hugs and aahs and wows, I go relax on my pro-Flickr account. Yes, I like an upload-forget-payout site.

As being spotted by publishing houses, well... Flickr has many millions of photos, some of great artists, and I guess potential customers will scout there.

The sites looks great now, it's stable and very well programmed. But I doubt this can be called mircro/midstock. It's rather a Flickr with possible payout. I will give it a try anyway, for B-shots that I never postprocessed or done with my old 2MP cam.

The ads don't bother me at all, since I simply don't see them. Firefox AdBlock rules ;-)

Finally, I was a little bit annoyed that Moori was pushing the site here all the time with an apparently "clean" link, but it was a referral link for him. Normally, when people put referral links online, they mention that. I had to clear all my cookies before I could do a clean register. I don't mind using somebody's referal link if I like or admire the person, but when it's done in a semi-sneaky way, I just get stubborn ;-)
« Last Edit: September 07, 2007, 05:51 by FlemishDreams »

« Reply #45 on: September 07, 2007, 07:42 »
FD, i agree with all of your points except the last one.  Moori had this very clear in the first post of this topic.  Granted it was in the last paragraph, not the beginning where he first put the link but it was there.

"Feel free to use my referral link  ;-)

--> www.mostphotos.com   
Last Edit: August 30, 2007, 06:14:02 AM by moori "

« Reply #46 on: September 07, 2007, 09:02 »
As mentioned in the previous post I made it pretty clear in my first post that the link was my referral link. (at least I thought so)
One of the reasons I push for the site is of course that if people register with my ref.link, i would get a percentage of their sales also. Nothing fishy about that.  Standard form A.

The main reason I push for the site, however is not that. I have come to really like the community we photographers have developed over there. It is a free and open enviroment where I can can express my opinion freely about the site or anything else in photography without beeing censored in any way, and the developers make the site for the most part according to our suggestions and critisism. The way the community rate and comment each others pictures is also something I have learnt to really like. It's kinda addictive even. It is a great way to get tips on improvements and learn more about photography.

Here is a 100% clean link without any referrals for you who don't want to thank me for tipping you about the site. ;-) http://www.mostphotos.com

« Last Edit: September 07, 2007, 09:27 by moori »

« Reply #47 on: September 07, 2007, 10:45 »
PD: Why upload B-shots when you can upload your best shots with the same effort? It dont make sense to me?

« Reply #48 on: September 07, 2007, 16:01 »
I agree with Flemish, the whole rating thing is completely lame. I've uploaded a couple of images and the little "power raters" are firing out the crap numbers...I'll upload my portfolio when / if they do away with the feature. It smacks of Shutterpoint...

« Reply #49 on: September 10, 2007, 13:28 »
I agree with Flemish, the whole rating thing is completely lame. I've uploaded a couple of images and the little "power raters" are firing out the crap numbers...I'll upload my portfolio when / if they do away with the feature. It smacks of Shutterpoint...

One "crap vote" from a non-serious user is said to have little or no impact on how the picture show up in searches. The system is smarter than that. :)
When the picture has been up for a while and recieved more votes, it will not matter at all.

I have some high rated pictures that has recieved one or two low votes and it havn't affected them.
It is also important to know that the rating system is only one variable in the photos "most photo index number". Other things such as number of searches, relevant keywords, number of views and above all number of times the image is sold ,will have much greater impact on the index.

--> www.mostphotos.com
(my referral link)
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 13:37 by moori »


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
Last post April 16, 2008, 14:30
by sharply_done
1 Replies
Last post June 07, 2008, 18:16
by madelaide
9 Replies
Last post May 05, 2021, 08:21
by Uncle Pete
16 Replies
Last post May 05, 2010, 04:59
by leaf
5 Replies
Last post March 14, 2015, 18:15
by Niakris


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle