I opted out of streaming.  Will stay with Yaymicro for now but this is a real problem for me.  I don't think I'm going to want to support a site that is offering this.  Hopefully it will be a failure, as I think it's more likely to attract current buyers than people that have never paid for images before.

Some sites can sell my microstock images for hundreds of dollars, I'm really not interested in nanostock.  If it was only for images that don't sell elsewhere, I might of given it a try.

Quote from: Sedge on September 21, 2013, 22:51

I thought it might be productive to think about what you don't see on Stocksy:

1) Over-saturation of colors:  Actually, quite the opposite.  A lot of the imagery has a somewhat subdued color palette, very subtle in nature; the color doesn't shout at you.  Color is bright and vivid only where appropriate, such as party balloons, vividly painted objects, etc.

2) Very little post-processing:  I'd be willing to bet that most of Stocksy's images have been finished in Lightroom without the need for further editing in Photoshop.

3) Very little (if any) composite work or special effects:  For example, there are some nice star-trail images, but seemingly all done in-camera.  No fake water (Flood Filter) or related CG imagery.

4) Not a lot of conceptual work:  A keyword search for "conceptual" yields 21 results, although perhaps that's being too vague.  Here are some other related searches: "fantasy" 130 results, "surreal" 100 results (a lot of which the keyword doesn't even apply), "magical" 142, "mystery" 227 results, "strength" 233 results, "power" 308 results.  I have no doubt this category will grow as the collection matures.

5) Backgrounds are mostly object oriented and created in-camera:  No scans of old paper, or scans of paper made to look like old paper, no added grain, noise and/or textures, etc.  There's some really nice and cleverly produced images in this collection.

6) There's very little HDR imagery.

7) No illustrations (yet).

I'm sure others will add their opinions regarding the validity of this list.  What I do see on Stocksy, is primarily three styles: 

1) Classically straight photography, aimed at producing a more natural and elegant look by avoiding heavy post-processing and filtration.  Lighting is often soft and subtle.

2) Although the MSG folks on Stocksy may protest, there is a significant proportion of images that have, for lack of a better term, an "Instagram look."  There are a lot of images that exhibit faded colors, split-toning, and/or subtle cross-processing.  This isn't a criticism.  This look is very hot at the moment; there are numerous TV programs here in the US that employ this technique, not to mention countless ads in both print and television.  The best-selling photographers at Etsy use variations of this aesthetic to some degree (http://www.craftcount.com/category.php?cat=3&subcat=29).

3) There are many images, especially a significant portion of the landscapes, that have what I would call a "snapshot" quality.  It'll be interesting to see how this approach sells.  Personally, I feel this is the one weakness of the collection (just my opinion and probably worthless, so don't confuse this criticism with hate, please).

I'm really rooting for Stocksy.  Any agency that can offer an alternative to Getty and the Micros while also offering fair-trade business practices, deserves all the support it can get.

Nah. It's too far up it's own arse for my liking. Sorry but stock ... is stock ... is stock ... and good-old-fashioned basic 'stock' will always win out.

Personally I believe that almost any image good enough to be accepted on Stocksy, on an exclusive basis, would almost certainly earn far more as a non-exclusive image on multiple microstock sites. That's why I am not persuaded to join.

I like the general concept but I don't think it is strong enough to work commercially in the photographers' interests. Sorry but 50% of X is still a lot less than say 30% of 10X.

That's fine if you're happy being so reliant on SS.  I'm not so confident, having seen how my earnings can crash on other sites and having seen that it has already happened to some on SS.  Stocksy could be one way to diversify.  I liked it when my earnings were spread over many sites, as a non-exclusive that's hard to achieve now.

I don't know but for some reason I'm going to leave this link here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware

Quote from: Pauws99 on September 20, 2013, 16:16

I don't think its one thing eg price changes that signifies panic its the sheer number of half arsed changes that don't seem to have a coherent pattern - e.g now accepting almost anything. Yes the "relaunch" needs some significant change at the same time and some kind of strategy framework where the changes fit in

It seems coherent to me, changes to compete better with Shutterstock.  Shutterstock has many millions more files than Thinkstock and they want to close that gap.  Exclusives could already upload as many as they liked (pretty much, I'm sure there was an exception or two but over a year probably not many) so the change really only allowed nonexclusives to upload more.  Those images go straight to the Partner Program (at least they are supposed to), upload limits had limited how fast Thinkstock could grow and with the subscription model you need a large volume of new files.

The problem is that Shutterstock have standards, by accepting virtually every upload, Thinkstock is going to get filled with low commercial value junk.  I think that's more likely to send buyers to Shutterstock.  When you also take in to account the fact that a lot of the best independents aren't uploading to istock anymore but will carry on supplying Shutterstock, the difference in the quality of the collections is just going to increase.

So Thinkstock will end up like alamy, a massive collection of mostly low commercial value images.  Earnings are likely to get severely diluted, as that has happened with all the other sites that have had a huge increase in the collection size.  At least with alamy, the occasional sale makes them just about worth using.  I don't think the tedious isock upload is going to be worth it for a decreasing amount of Thinkstock subs commissions.

...We've gotten more positive than negative feedback from photographers on this...

I find that hard to believe.  It might be because the majority don't use your site?  The obvious problem is that other sites have tried to convert people that don't pay for their images without much success.  Whenever a site offers subscriptions we usually see some buyers switch and we always seem to earn less.

I'm sure the streaming service is going to attract some current buyers, the question is, how much will we lose out on that?  The comparison with Spotify is so alarming.  Haven't you seen all the complaints from musicians about the tiny amounts of money they make from that?

I might be interested in opting in images that don't make me much money.  The thought of all my best images being available for a tiny fee that is highly unlikely to make me much is almost certainly going to make me opt out and I'm sure the vast majority of people with a portfolio that makes a reasonable amount will do the same.

The question is, should I bother with a site at all that wants to do something like this?

Not sure if I will opt out.  Don't almost all the artists using Spotify make very little?  Wont having all my portfolio available at 600 pixels on the long side mean people can get quite large images of my entire portfolio for very little?  I don't see why people would pay $2 or more on some sites for blog sized images when they could do this deal and get them much cheaper?

I might be interested in this if it does get only people that don't buy images now paying us something but I don't see that happening.  What I think will happen is that people will switch from pay per download and we will make less money.  I might give it a month, to see how it works but opting out looks like the only sensible option.

Anyone that doesn't like this should look at how istock have a similar option but don't have an opt out for non-exclusives.  That was one of many reasons why they no longer have my best selling images and I no longer upload new images.

Quote from: heywoody on September 18, 2013, 16:57

Overall I don't believe there is any difference between exclusive content over non-exclusive except one has a price tag 10 times greater than the other - it doesn't sound like a long term sustainable model but I've been wrong from time to time   

One difference is you can't find my images on Shutterstock, Dreamstime, 123rf, Fotolia, Depositphotos, etc. etc...  To me it sounds like the only sustainable model, if all the sites have the same images they will just compete on price.  Do you like how that's going?

Doesn't seem to work like that or all the buyers would of moved to the lower priced sites.  I think buyers are prepared to pay a reasonable amount for a site that makes it easy for them to find what they want quickly.  That doesn't seem to be working with istock.  It always seems like the slowest site I use and a lot of my photos get lost in the search because the keywords aren't in their vocabulary.  So I can understand why they appear to be losing buyers to SS.

I don't think alamy will cut commissions percentages any time soon.  They wouldn't be worth using for any less than they pay now.  Only the sites that sell a lot can get away with it.  It would kill alamy, as the decent commission is the only thing that makes a lot of us bother with them.  Now prices are being cut, there's no way they would be able to justify another commission cut.

If they could increase sales volume and contributors earnings a lot, they could get away with cutting commissions again but that looks a long way off.  I'm not sure they will ever want to pay less commission percentages than they do now, as it would make them even more like Getty and then what would be the point of alamy?

Thanks Lisa and Anita.  Got off to a slow start yesterday when I went out with the camera but forgot to put the battery in.  There can't be a worse feeling than getting the camera out of the bag only to find it's as useful as a brick   I've done that twice in my life now and don't intend to do it a third time.

I upload a few images once or twice a year.  They usually sell something each month and I get the occasional payout.  Still worth it for me.

I don't wanna take up the cudgels for Yuri. But I think it's strange how each of his steps is tracked and discussed in detail.

It really shouldn't surprise you.  I'm sure there would be the same interest if any of the other top non-exclusives went exclusive with istock but kept their portfolio on other sites.  It doesn't help that Yuri came here and made a remark that appears to be quite insulting to non-exclusives.  That was always going to stoke the fire.  There's no shortage of discussions about Yuri here, many of them started by him.  Istock must be the most discussed site.  The combination of the two is going to get discussed a lot.

I don't see why he should be allowed to soften the blow of turning exclusive at IS with keeping his portfolio up where is should not be. Live and let live, by I do find it very irritating....

It can't do his reputation with buyers any good when they pay a lot for an exclusive istock photo only to find it selling cheaper on other sites.  I don't really understand why Yuri thinks it's a good idea or why Getty have let him do this for so long?  I could understand if this went on for a few weeks but it's months now.  Wont they get complaints from buyers or are they so used to ignoring them that they don't care anymore?

Pond5 is by far my best selling video site.  SS has some good months but still lags behind SS.  I get an occasional sale with Revostock but my portfolio isn't very commercial.  Had a few sales with Clipcanvas and Canstockphoto.