Quote from: goldenangel on January 22, 2009, 16:03
I agree with you. The more data, the more accurate statistics. Then the question comes up, what is enough data? If there are pre-established criteria, perhaps by the rules of this forum, or industry, I wold follow those and refrain from posting about my sales. Until then, I feel free to do so. In my case, I only join IS in November last year, and my sales there are going much faster (in relative terms) to these others sites, StockXpert and FT included. I have posted my dat in relative terms, as everybody else is doing. I invite the moderators of this forum to predefine when the contributors are considered worthy enough to post their data. Thanks.

It was not a remark against you specifically: many contributors do the same. And you are indeed free to publish whatever you want. It is also not a matter of being a worthy contributor, but a matter of the significance of the statistics. This is not a personal judgment, but a mathematical one: with such small data set, you ranking may be completely different in two days.

There are indeed pre-established criteria: they are defined by the statistical laws. There is a link between the size of the data set and the accuracy of the statistic... but I don't remember this law. But I would say that 1000 downloads seems a minimum to me.

Quote from: goldenangel on January 22, 2009, 06:51
I think it would be hard to agree on the big 4 For me it is SS,  FT, IS, and StockXpert. DT and 123rf, and BigStock are about the same for me, far behind.

I'm often quite surprised to see such ranking based on a so tiny data set: statistics are significant and become useful only when enough data are taken into account.

In your case, you say that DT is "far behind " IS. You have only 9 downloads at IS and 6 at DT and you are correct: you have 50% more downloads at IS compared to DT... but it corresponds to only 3 downloads!

Anybody is obviously free to give such statistics... I have no problem with that, but all those ranking posts become quite useless unless they are based on a bigger data set.

Just my 2c  

I'm in with my snail 

Quote from: nexusseven on January 16, 2009, 18:45
About my portfolio (I wouldn't like to discuss it in an open forum but anyway!) I think I have a very mediocre portfolio BUT then again it sells well (from my point of view for sure).

Now I agree with you almost totally  

I also have a quite mediodre portfolio from an artistic point of view, but it sells well too. My two best sellers are a photoshopped gift bow on a white background and a blank chalkboard texture: I'm quite ashamed that such simple images do sell so well while my best macro do not sell at all. But this is microstock and this is the reason why I think it is important not to judge microstocker portfolio from a "classical photography" point of view but from a pure business point of view.

Concerning Yuri portfolio, I must admit that this is not the kind of picture I would like to do myself: they are almost as boring as my isolated objects

Quote from: nexusseven on January 16, 2009, 16:43
I didn't like the tone of your comment. I did not say "my" lighting is better than anyone (includes Yuri). Your remark is hostile and counter productive but then again I will try to explain my argument.

You said lighting is mediocre: this is an hostile and counter productive judgement because you don't give any argument.

You tell .shock not to achieve this effect... why?

When someone give such a definitive judgement on other's work, I consider it is acceptable if and only if his own work is of higher quality: so I had a look at your portfolio to see what is a good lighting for you. I was expecting a very artistic portfolio with wonderdul lighting: it is not what I saw.

I don't think Yuri will answer to this post because I think he is beyond such comments on this work: he is in the microstock business and his success is sufficient to me to consider that is technique and lighting is what buyers are looking for.

Quote from: nexusseven on January 16, 2009, 16:43
This is called "flat lighting" in many books and the lack of shadows (or say the total elimination of shadows) is generally considered responsible for the lack of depth, texture and form in an image. Even first grade Film Tv or Photography students know this.

And the lack of these elements generally creates an ineffective image (I say "generally")

Your are right and I know what is a flat lighting and what is a good lighting I think: but we are talking about microstock, not art or wedding photography or whatever.

You are correct to say "generally", but as you are also a microstocker with many isolations in your portfolio I guess you know that microstock buyers do not look for the same kind of photo as art galleries.

I like myself macro a lot and I've done some nice macro shots I think, but my milk box on white which is just a mediocre piece of art do sell 100x more than my nice macro. Would you tell me to stop shooting milk boxes and go with macro instead?

Quote from: FandreFotos on January 16, 2009, 13:25
Another question, can the kind of photos I am taking have shadows in them? Will Microstock sites accept these, or will I have to white out everything except for the product?

Yes they will accept them.

Whether you submit "true isolations" (no shadow) or not is a matter of taste and business strategy: some think that true isolations do sell better (I don't think so) and other (like me) think that keeping the shadow looks better and may even be useful for the designer.

So it's up to you: it's your business strategy 

You're ready to submit 

Quote from: nexusseven on January 16, 2009, 00:23
These are very mediocre lighting examples. Are you sure you want to achieve this effect?

Huh...

We are in the microstock business and this is the kind of lighting buyers want.

But I'm interested in knowing the difference you see between Yuri's "mediocre" lighting and your supposedly a lot better lighting you use for your isolations.

Quote from: Pixart on January 15, 2009, 18:41
Might be Yuri's model, but is it his photo? 

It is 
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/people/1594813-young-male-underwear-model.php?id=1594813

Correct: you can use umbrellas / softboxes with speedlite, no problem, except probably for biggest softboxes.

You have here an example of a group shot (11 people) done with two speedlite/43" umbrellas: http://strobist.blogspot.com/2009/01/back-to-basics-how-to-choose-umbrella.html.

For those interested in using speedlite based studio lighting, search "strobist" on Google or go to http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/.

I would not try to shoot a car or a house with speedlite flashes, but small/medium sized objects or portrait/single people full shots are absolutely possible.

I would not argue that studio strobes are better, but speedlites are so portable! And as you anyway probably need a flash for your camera, purchasing a second unit and 2 white umbrellas give you already an interesting lighting setup.

From http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/ex_speedlites.html

The 430EX II features the same basic appearance and layout as the 430EX, but adds a metal shoe with the same locking mechanism as the Speedlite 580EX II and 1/3 EV step output control in manual mode. The 430EX II can also be fully configured via the rear LCD menus of recent Canon digital SLRs as well as from it's own LCD control panel. The recycling time of the 430EX II is 20% faster than the 430EX and recycling is much quieter. Like the 430EX, the 403EX II can act as a wireless slave, but not as a wireless controller.

Quote from: FandreFotos on January 15, 2009, 02:46
sjlocke: Do you really think my other artwork is good enough for people to want to buy it?

I told you so and I agree: you should forget about isolated apples and concentrate on your skills: some of the top earners have a very specialized portfolio. You have the skill to have more sophisticated images in your portfolio: instead of competing with thousands of contributors (myself included  ), you should find your own niche.

But make sure you only use your own photo as sources or at least some free pictures (e.g. NASA).

Quote from: goldenangel on January 14, 2009, 23:55
This way, the photographers with smaller portfolios, and those who participate in sites where sales are seldom, could get paid more often.

Another option is to grow your portfolio in order to get multiple payouts per month and remove your portfolio from low seller sites 

At least, YOU can do something here: it's not just wishful thinking.

Nooooo comment 

DT is almost DEAD for me this month... but IS is again and by far my top earner: this is the only agency I'm (very) happy with this month so far. If this is the result of their new "best of the world" best match algorithm... I'm happy with that 

How strange and unpredictable things are sometimes.

Concerning DOF, search "DOF calculator" on Google and play with it just to have an idea of how much DOF you have for typical set-up.

Concerning your photography skills, it's also quite obvious to me that you should feel comfortable with your camera before trying to submit.

And your gallery on devian art is quite amazing: I was not expecting this level of quality based on your apples on white 

I like a lot space art, and some of your work is really beautiful: too bad you don't use your own photos as a source because some of your art would sell quite well I think.

Quote from: holgs on January 13, 2009, 23:17
... Lightroom...

Not free either... if you are ready to purchase a software (and you should), you may indeed consider Microsoft iView/Expression Media, Adobe Lightroom, Apple Aperture and Adobe Bridge... and I miss probably a few. Bridge comes bundled with Photoshop: I don't know if you can purchase it alone.

Quote from: avava on January 13, 2009, 23:47
I have to say we have definitely steered away fro RPI and really are tracking per shoot now for quite some time.

It makes total sense for photographers with a "shooting based" workflow: you spend $x on a shoot and you need to evaluate how much you earn for this shoot. It would be quite useless to track earnings for individual images.

Quote from: Rahul Pathak on January 14, 2009, 01:11
One big issue with RPI is that it is often calculated as an average (Total Earnings for the Month / Total Images) which obscures a lot of detail. If you could look at the individual sales curve for an image or a collection of images (a shoot), it might tell you a lot more.

The more detailed information you want, the more detailed statistics you need.

For me, a global average RPI or a magic number is a useful piece of information to know whether you are globally successfull, but it is a useless information to know which type of photo do sell and which don't.

Depending on the information you need, you have to choose the right statistic, but I agree that an extremely important information every contributor needs to know is what kind of photo is the most profitable: tracking per shooting/collection earnings and knowing how much a shooting costs are the keys to improve your magic number 

Quote from: Rahul Pathak on January 13, 2009, 19:37
Also, I'm a big fan of the microstock bestsellers site that you had put together.

I was not expecting that it would interest anybody... I don't have much time to imrpove it or even keep it up to date 

I'm sure you will perform a lot better with your own site 

Quote from: Rahul Pathak on January 13, 2009, 16:42
Do you think about your portfolio in this way? Or do you focus on the per image earnings?

Yes, I also think this way sometimes: it's a good method to know whether a given subject is a good seller.

Average "lifetime earnings", as you call it, is for me more a way to know how my portfolio perform as a whole: I do not bother too much for each and every image earnings, but the average value for my whole portfolio is a quick way to set your own goal.

I've also seen somewhere another metric for a portfolio as a whole: it was called the "Magic Number". Your magic number is N if N images in your portfolio have earned at least $N.

Magic = 10 --> 10 images with $10+ earnings
Magic = 100 --> 100 images with $100+ earnings

I think it is an interesting metric indeed as the higher your magic number is, the more difficult it is to progress: it is thus a challenge to increase your magic number whether you are a beginner or... Yuri Arcurs 

I compute myself my magic number for each agency: this is also a quick way to compare them.

Quote from: Suljo on January 13, 2009, 18:34
iView media or in iView media PRO too.

I used iView Media Pro before, not now it has been aquired by Microsoft and renamed to Expression Media 

iView was indeed a good choice, but it's not free.

I have quite often thought about a simple criteria to know whether a given picture is successful or not, taking into account its whole life span.

I consider now that $100 is the average RPI I would like to achieve which corresponds more or less to a $2+ monthly revenue during 2 years and then a decreasing revenue during 3-4 more years. This is an average value.

A 1000 images portfolio should thus generate a $100'000 revenue spread over let's say 5-6 years... around $1500 per month.

I've now just read a comment on Lee Torrens blog from a traditional stock photgrapher:

" in the strong years 2003 – 2006 lifestyle RPI was generally considered to be around $250, with a good steady three years and then some fall off for the next several"

I'm just curious: what earnings do you expect on average from a single image during its life span? And what earnings do you expect from an image to be considered as a "top seller"? Do you already have at least one top seller in your portfolio?

For me : $100 / $1000 / Yes.

Quote from: hali on January 12, 2009, 16:16
It seems a bit extreme to HAVE TO delete everything past.
After all, you become exclusive effective today, so I would think anything FROM TODAY  becomes exclusively Istock, not retroactively.

I'm afraid IS admin do not share your opinion 

Quote from: averil on January 11, 2009, 22:05
On a slightly different note, what's to stop me using a purchased image to texture a plane, render it orthogonally in flat lighting, and sell the render, indistinguishable from the original image used for the texture?

I think it is commonly agreed on 3D resources sites license terms that such usage is forbidden: you should not be able to "extract" the source image from the 3D render.

Correct.

It is not allowed to resell the texture, but a 3D render which use this texture can be resold on microstock sites.