|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - NitorPhoto
151
« on: February 02, 2010, 06:40 »
First of all. Elephants, goldfish or even London is close to niche. These are not the images you make big money from in micro business or anywhere. This is why the uploaded macro collections do not have thousands them. Make a search for 'business', 'people', 'family'! Some istock images can find their way to the top of the searches but they are the minority. Just look at the pictures you see on the first 5 pages and ask yourself are my similar images better then these? Yes, these are not the bests of Getty but very decent images. They are still much better than 99% of micro images. Only a very few of microstock contributors can compete with them. If you feel you are one of them then ok, you are lucky.
Oh, and one more thing. Yes, these macro images look a bit microstockish... because these are the images the micro shooters are trying to copy.
152
« on: February 01, 2010, 19:11 »
There are two fact no one seems to realize:
1. Most of this collection - at least the top of the searches - are build from former macro images.
2. Images form microstock sources are far behind them in the search results.
Conclusion:
a) this site is very dangerous to SS because they sell 'high quality macro images' for the same low prize.
b) microstock images are there to make a quantity but they will not be sold as many times as you may think.
Final conclusion: Regardless of you are singing in or out this site is a VERY BAD NEWS for the majority of the microstock photographers.... and for SS.
153
« on: January 25, 2010, 03:52 »
I have one uploaded on 03/12/2009 and still pending. It's funny, I am sure it is a glitch.
154
« on: January 18, 2010, 18:05 »
I already have near 7000 images uploaded to SS with a virtually 100% acceptance rate so I do not think some rejections will hurt my account there  These strange rejections are a very new phenomenon, and it is annoying, but they still accept most of my submissions. I started reuploading the rejected images to get a second opinion from a hopefully different reviewer. Let's see what happens. If they will be rejected again I'll know enough to complain by email.
155
« on: January 18, 2010, 10:33 »
Rather than just complain here and turn this into a pimping thread, just contact support.
One batch of 6 or 7 I submitted a month or so ago all got rejected for the focus thing. I went back and reviewed them all. Focus was exactly where I intended and I wrote support. They wrote back and apologized and said that even reviewers are human. They sent them back to the reviewer and approved them all.
Limited commercial value...it could just be the same problem. New reviewer. Contact support and explain why you think they should be approved.
Another option is to just stop uploading for a while until the dust settles. Basic Microstock Strategies 101.
It is not really clear why and how could I get any extra profit from pimping and having my portfolio found and viewed by other photographers. Do you really think I fall back on technics like that? The reason why I posted more images is simple. Everyone can have a bad day, even the reviewers, but some time has passed and the reviewer is still rejecting images he shouldn't. These are completely different kind of images and it tells the story I think. I don't contact support yet, I don't want to make a case or hurt anyone, before I can know it for sure it is not my fault. But first I try to reupload them all. If he/she rejects them again I'll contact support. By the way, I reuploaded one of the original 4 and he rejected it again.
156
« on: January 18, 2010, 05:56 »
What is strange because I never complained there or posted anything on their forum. But very soon I will.
157
« on: January 18, 2010, 05:05 »
The story continues. All of the images below have been rejected with the same reason. Composition--Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition.
... and more but I can't attach more. I am thinking on to contact SS support.
158
« on: January 11, 2010, 05:16 »
I don't think he did. While my rejection at SS is about 0% he rejected a lot of other images by artifacts (1dsmk3) poor ligting, purple fingering... etc. This is very subjective so I am not showing that images here, but of course I checked all the rejected images again. No artifacts, no purple fingering. He seems to be a moron or maybe just drunk?
159
« on: January 11, 2010, 04:56 »
I am shocked. I got these images rejected at SS by Limited Commercial Value. What?  !!!
160
« on: January 06, 2010, 10:39 »
After thinking a lot, reading other posts and trying to be as open to the opposite opinion as possible I am going to think the problem is not on the conceptional level but in the practice how DT is implementing it in a day-to-day practice.
I can accept that identical images are being rejected. I also had some and I can accept it.
But I can not agree in the definition of identity. DT's current definition is something like this: if it is the same model and outfit and the image is communicating the same conceptual message in a similar composition then the image is too much similar. It still could work in theory but in practice - how the reviewers are trying to use it during that very short time they have for judging one image - it leads to unwanted rejections. This is why I think the definition is not good. Even if the conceptual message and the composition are the same the images can be very different in important details and in interpretation of the same concept. For example a model can role play a situation/concept on many different ways/facial-expressions. Some are authentic for one customer while the others seem perfect for another. While a cut/framing is suitable for one it might be useless for others. I base my opinon on rejections happened to me.
161
« on: January 06, 2010, 08:50 »
to Achilles: I see your point about the RPD and it is great that you bring it to our attention. But why don't you allow us to decide what is good for our income and what is not? In my case: I do not care RPD nor the RPI - the only measure what counts for me is the Return per Portfolio (RPP?). I am not sure you saw my early post in this topic so I repeat it. Woman is sitting at the office working on laptop (what a great unique idea ). She looks at the laptop, looking away and thinking, looks at the camera, she looks troubled, she looks happy, she looks busy. These are variations. Because of the different customer needs you may want all of these in horizontal and in vertical format as well. If I upload these I'll get more than of them rejected. Customer wants the horizontal one where the woman is looking away - but it got rejected because it was too similar to another one what the customer doesn't need. No problem he/she will find one from another contributor... but why is this good for my income? My second thought... Every single image costs money: model, editing, keywording, uploading. Other agencies accept the whole series so I will not decrease the number of selects from a shooting session. After spending a lot of money on a session I want to see all the best images online. Maybe they are similar but they are not identical - the only identity is the fact they all cost money. So every image you reject is a significant loss. Additionally... I do not want to spend even more time/money for another extra super-selection process in my workflow just for DT. If I can not upload the whole series I'll upload a random selection and not the bests, and I'll still get similarity rejections because of that randomness. This leads to frustration and the failed upload is a loss of time/money again. What I am affraid of: if DT keeps this policy some contributors may stop uploading. Please keep in mind that even if I love DT for a lot of reasons it makes less then 10% of my income. FTL, SS or IS is making 3-4 times more so the annoyance factor (and extra expense) they can reach is higher. They can have more annoying upload process or a more nitpicking reviewing - IS is a perfect example My next point is the size/exclusivity of your collection. It is clear that many agencies are trying to build an exclusive collection of images to differentiate themself from the competition. DT's new rejection policy leads to the opposite direction: you are on the way to build a 'black out' collection: collection of high quality good stock images can be find anywhere EXCEPT Dreamstime. Are you sure this is the best way to differ from others? I see how your strategy may work in theory because the collection is more tight so it is easier to browse. It is true. But, if I translate it to a simple message it sounds like that: 'DT is great and better than others because they have less images to choose from'. Hmmm... And you are not tightening the collection by quality (this is what IS is trying to do) but by similarity. If this is the case you shouldn't accept any more 'woman with laptop' or happy business people isolated on white' kind of images. I am absolutely on your side if you want to raise the level of quality. I agree if you reject images because of bad lighting... etc. But I can not agree this 'too similar' policy at all.
162
« on: December 23, 2009, 16:52 »
Yes, I HAD sales there. I sent them 2000 images for testing the waters. They accepted like 1000. My acceptance ratio is over 95% on the other sites and 85% on IS - where I get rejections because of small USB or Firewire logos on the side of laptops... and stuff like that. Back to VivoZoom... 50% !!! Grrrr. So I have 1000 images online since April this year. And I HAD sales. Income total is 12$. Do I need to say more?
163
« on: December 23, 2009, 07:19 »
I have 6-9k images uploaded to different sites. Only 2.5k on IS because of the upload limitation.
Average income %...
IS 2,6K images - income: 27%
SS 6,5K images - income: 25%
FTL 9K images - income: 23%
StockXpert 6,5K images - income: 12%
DT 8,3K images - income: 8 %
All the rest 5%
My favourite is IS. They give the highest RPI, they respect contributors the most and I love the contolled voculabry thing.
DT is the easiest to upload to but their recent too many similar rejections are bothering me a lot. And income is not too much.
SS is great in many factors but I dislike their batch based reviewing system and the fact that mostly new images are selling.
FTL is a great site but they are changing conditions too frequently and usually not for the favour of contributors. Actually their support is non-existing.
If you are looking for an answer about IS exclusivity my answer is definitely YES - go for exclusivity if you are allowed to.
164
« on: December 19, 2009, 19:14 »
Their new 'too many similar' policy is stupid. What they reject are images with similar message but different usage. Model looks at camera, smiling, looking away, laughing, close-up, vertical format, horizontal format... and just imagine the combinations of these. They are rejecting a lot from these combinations and later I am getting the emails from buyers like 'don't you have this or that image in a more wide angle and in horizontal format?'. Why don't they allow the buyer to select?!
As a protest I suspend uploading. They already have 8k+ of my images. All new images will go to other sites... ONLY. I know they don't mind... nor will I.
165
« on: December 19, 2009, 18:17 »
My source is a hungarian news portal (ORIGO.HU). They made a public interview with the former owners of StockXpert. Here are some lines from the article - you may find it interesting:
SXC (a popular free stockimage library) was started in 2001 by two hungarian guys.
In 2005 they also started StockXpert - the site we all know. This new site became poppular because of the high commision they paid and because of their advertismement strategy: they shuffled the paid images into the free ones on the extremly popular sister site (SXC).
Back to 2006 Jupiter bought 49,7% and one year later they bought 90% share of both products.
In 2008 Getty took this 90% as part of the acquisition of Jupiter
This december (2009) Getty bought the remaining 10% from the hungarian co-owners. So SXC and StockXpert are now wholy owned by Getty.
Other infos:
Since this summer Getty is advertising its own iStock collection on SXC instead of the former StockXpert collecion.
Since this summer the operation of SXC and the servers were moved from Hungary to Calgary, Canada.
The founders who were responsible for development and community management in the last 9 years told they are not responsible for anything anymore regarding SXC and StockXpert. They do not think Getty will choke SXC because it has a great advertising value for them, on SXC Getty can redirect a lot of potential image buyers to the paid (iStock) collections.
On the other hand they (the founders) are uncertain about the future of StockXpert.
Ok, this is what I read on a public site, I do not want to comment it or make any speculation.
166
« on: December 17, 2009, 11:29 »
I still have doubts that they are really serious about microstock.
As do I.
167
« on: December 17, 2009, 09:46 »
They need to offer what others are offering. I mean the same amount (or at least a comparable number) of images in order to catch the attention of buyers. There is no way I'll upload 10k images without having a proof they will sell. And I am sure I am not alone. And because photographers do not upload they do not have customers and they can't prove decent sales.
In my opinion they should motivate photographers to give them more images and give it now. This should be the first logical step. If they are a strong player with a giant behind them they should have to spend a lot of money to build up their collection first. They should pay upload fee to photographers or at least offer them in-house upload from DVDs. Well, I asked them about this second option... no answer.
168
« on: December 09, 2009, 19:20 »
Like them or hate them you have to admit that iStock are constantly trying to raise the bar, time will tell what effect this has on non-exclusives but one part of the statement I did find interesting was this:
"We're also hoping to encourage the strongest talents in stock today to consider bringing their best work to iStock exclusively."
You can read that two ways but I'm hoping they are going to (at long last and not before time) allow us independents to submit a selection of exclusive images (with perks) as appose to total exclusivity, if that were the case I would seriously consider making them the only 'microstock' agency I submit to.
If they would allow image exclusivity I would probably stop uploading to other micro agencies and send all my future images to iStock ONLY. This is what I can not do now because photographer exclusivity is not a real option. We will see. It would be a VERY logical move for them.
169
« on: November 24, 2009, 07:19 »
This is a great feature. Thanks!
My position looks pretty good on both sites. I am surprised.
170
« on: November 19, 2009, 18:09 »
FD-Amateur,
thanks for the info you shared. You did a great job tracking down this questionable linkage. I heard enough to wait long before I upload anything there.
On the other hand. Regardless of who these DepositAnything guys are this is rude how you talk about the "Ruskies". Not that I am one of them it just shocks my ear.
171
« on: October 27, 2009, 19:20 »
I can live with the new requirements. It's ok and I follow the new rules since september 1st. But it is annoying that they DO reject old (include images back from 2008) images because of the old general releases (what they accepted many times before). They promised they will not but they do. And I can't go back in time to rewrite and resign the old releases. 
172
« on: October 23, 2009, 04:46 »
I applied. Let's see what they say. With the number of downloads they require I should be Sapphire or more while I am 'only' emerald now. With 8k images online and with years of work behind me I'll be very angry if they place newcomers above me. Especially if I could have the same level according to the same standards.
Well, I do not have a problem with the new method how they try to attract new volume contributors. But they should place the limits much higher if the option is closed for existing contributors. Earning 65k overall USDs is far far far FAR more easy then reaching emerald level on FTL. Just an example: to reach the next level (sapphire) it would take 4 years!!! for me. So anyone who is on my level would get sapphire instantly why I should have to wait 4 more years for it. Just because I am already a FTL contributor. This is VERY UNFAIR!
If this is the case, I'll remove my portfolio, apply and reupload it. Reuploadning would need about one or two months... not four years!
173
« on: October 05, 2009, 17:34 »
This happens every second day. Welcome in the club. There is nothing you can do in my opinion.
174
« on: September 25, 2009, 04:16 »
You are right, I forgot StockXpert. They are still there. So for me it is BIG3+2. I am going to edit my post above.
175
« on: September 25, 2009, 03:31 »
According to my last year of earings there are no BIG6 anymore. What I see it a BIG3+2.
IS, SS, FTL are the real BIG ones while DT and StockXpert are the +2. The 3 are close to each other in monthly earnings, DT and StockXpert are 1/3 of any of them. All the others are out of the map. Do you see the same picture?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
