Author Topic: ex-Istock Exclusive discovering freedom (and the pain that goes with it) (Read 5773 times)

Jogga0 · « **Reply #25 on:** February 21, 2013, 14:29 »

I knew it would be bad, wasn't sure how bad! Anyway no going back now.

tickstock · « **Reply #26 on:** February 21, 2013, 14:32 »

Jogga0 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 21, 2013, 14:37 »

thanks, IS is not a happy place to be anyway, so think I made the right decision

ivanbastien · « **Reply #28 on:** February 21, 2013, 15:41 »

Just a little message to thank you all for taking the time to answer to me. I didn't expect to get so much help, I didn't even have time to read it all yet ! But i'm sure i'm gonna get a lot of good advice from you. So thank you very much, really.
The first thing i have to write in my "Becoming Indy" journal is : i don't understand Fotolia standards yet, but i've discovered a great place called Microstock Group. I love it there !

This "crown dropping" adventure is definitely going to be full of surprises. For example, i had my first answers from Shutterstock today. Out of 35 images... 35 were accepted (including all those rejected by Fotolia).
I still don't understand the logic in it, but well, it's a nice encouragement. And i already love Shutterstock !
To be continued.

Just a few words about the question of overfiltering/processing. I think it's hard to come to a clear point of view about it. When i started at istock, i got many rejections for that, and i read everywhere that i should do as little processing as possible. And then i saw all these beautiful images on the site that sold very well and that were definitely filtered (sometimes even heavily). So i thought "Why are they allowed to filter, and i'm not ?" So i came to the conclusion it is more a matter of how good you filter, not how much (i don't think it's proper english, i hope you see what i mean). I stopped getting rejections for over-filtering, althought i didn't stop filter. And all my Vetta selected images and my best sellers were processed and filtered images. All of them...

All the best to you all.

Ivan.

gdvcom · « **Reply #29 on:** February 27, 2013, 08:36 »

Salut Ivan,

I'm an independent contributor, i travel a lot and when i'm not i do objects macro and different crazy things in my little studio.

I also buy stock sometimes for my company and when i do so i want to be able to do my own filters on the pics i buy.

I think your example pics are awesome but they would sell more and get more accepted if there were almost no photoshop on it.

The thing is that in our times a lot of buyers want to do the photoshopping themselves and the more you put photoshop filters the less someone

else could do so on your pics.

If your white balance is perfect and the focus as well, just leave it like that and you will see the difference in your result even on istock.

good luck!

ivanbastien · « **Reply #30 on:** March 06, 2013, 06:50 »

Hello gdvcom,
I understand your point. That is the kind of advice i read a lot when i started contributing to istock.
And of course, you're right, by filtering an image, i lose the buyers who want to do it themselves.
But i wonder : how many buyers don't have the time (or the skill) to do the processing themselves ? What is the proportion ?
I've spent a lot of time trying to improve my filtering skills, and i don't regret it. As i became better at it, i resubmited images that were already accepted in their unfiltered appearance on istock. And they immediately sold better. I often feel that an good filtering can give life to an image that you wouldn't necessarily notice if it wasn't.
Anyway, there must be some truth in both ways.
all the best,

ShadySue · « **Reply #31 on:** March 06, 2013, 06:58 »

Apparently one of the most common customer queries they get on iStock is when photos aren't set at the dpi they expected and they don't know how to change the dpi. So I'm sure a certain proportion of customers do actually want a 'finished' product.

Most of my own 'found in-uses' are just slapped onto web pages as they were, so e.g. if I'd left copy space, but they weren't using it, they don't crop out the copy space. Look at how many don't downsize for web, but rely on the browser to do it, orphaning the large image on the web. Some have no idea of the very basics, so for example they have something facing left at the left hand side of their page, looking out ... so they don't know design principles 101 or they don't know how to horizontal flip. Etc

At one time you could do two or three versions of an image on iS - specifically colour and mono, then they said they wanted only one version, and it should usually be colour. So perhaps they regard the number of customers who can't do it (and bother to request it) to be negligable. From what I read, at least some of the other agencies are even more picky about even dubious 'similars'.

JPSDK · « **Reply #32 on:** March 06, 2013, 09:25 »

The market places are different.
Itsock is the nusery home and Shutter is the wild west.

I have been a contributor to both for 5 years, a small fish though.
I have seen many well earning ports on Istock, that would not have stood a chance on the free market. The pictures were too crude, not well lit not precise on topic and to a side photograhically.
But thats the kind of imagery istock promoted and sold for a high price. Keeping the dependants happy, as long as it worked.
it worked for a period of time, people got rich out of dumping their memory cards with a polaroid twist.

In the free world, the competition is much higher, you have to really nail the topic, the background and the light and produce an icon, you are not nutured in a glasshouse and you simply have to work smarter..

When you now bring your glass house port from istock out on the free market you will experience 2 things.
The value of the pictures are to be earned by keywords and downloads
Twists dont hold water.