|
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 - ShadySue
15151
« on: May 02, 2010, 03:06 »
I keep seeing more and more signs and especially within the Micro, that the small guys are getting looked after more and far better then the minority of people depending on it and ofcourse! there in the tens of thousands and tomorrows artists.
Hmm, I'm only in iStock, but I'm interested in why you think the small guys are getting looked after "more and far better". I can't see but that everyone is treated the same, and with the same chance. Sure on iStock, exclusives have a few more opportunities, like best match in some iterations, Vetta, Exc+, but that option is open to almost everyone from the newest Bronze who took seven years to get there to the fastest-reaching full-time Black Diamond. I'm interested to hear your perspective on this.
15152
« on: May 01, 2010, 18:10 »
This "motivation" and "goals" thing makes me think people see this as a big friendly game, instead of a worldwide competition.
I think people who don't really depend on money from microstock mostly see it as a big friendly game, and those who depend on it mostly see it as a worldwide competition.
Yup, I'm sure that's the bottom line.
15153
« on: April 30, 2010, 11:27 »
Is anyone uploading to thinkstock directly or is everyone going through istock or are there other sites to submit from? Are you submitting all your new images too and have you seen a substantial sales growth the last 3 months?
There is no upload to Thinkstock. Selected images from IS or StockXpert, depending, might be migrated.
People on IS who are opted in for Partner Programs may have images added, not all are added. I haven't found any explanation of what is selected or how.
People choose which, if any, images they want to add to the PP. (IIRC there's an 'all in' option, which adds in all your eligible files, which is everything if you're independent, but [also IIRC] that's not the default.)
15154
« on: April 30, 2010, 02:03 »
For exclusives, the irrelevant keywords are removed upon inspection. For non-exclusives, there is supposed to be a rejection for poor keywords. If there's nothing else wrong with the image, it can be resubmitted. There have been reported cases where a kind inspector has removed the poor keywords and accepted the file. If you had ever tried to demonstrate iStock to a potential buyer, and the search results were so bad (because of poor keywording) that not only did he burst out laughing, but also called his colleagues over for a laugh, you'd think bad keywording was a serious issue too. Even now, I see badly keyworded files being accepted day and daily.  My wiki finger is worn to the bone, and that's only within a very narrow field of interest.
15155
« on: April 28, 2010, 15:52 »
The person I'm considering is family related so there is a level of trust there.
"Family...trust" isn't necessarily a sequitur. Lawyers make their money out of family trust being broken. Or as my late mother-in-law's lawyer said, "... family's all well and good until the bawbees hit the bucket".
15156
« on: April 28, 2010, 11:01 »
Exactly. Vacation snaps. Just because they are photos taken in a vacation trip, do they deserve the "snap" classification?
Unless he went there to shoot specific things for the commercial marketplace, yes, they're just vacation shots, and income expectations should be adjusted accordingly.
Well, my "vacation snaps", as you and Sean would call them, from Canada have paid for the trip, including airfares from Scotland, so don't knock it. Pity the market isn't so interested in Uganda and Botswana , but there you have it. @Sean: while I respect your knowledge and experience (in your own highly successful genre) and your willingness to share readily though testily, I really have to wonder about your attitude towards genres other than your own. What in the OP's port at iStock, for example, would lead you to think he'd be submitting 'snapshots'? Many people travel specifically with the intention of shooting many images, not to 'vacation'. Long before I submitted for stock, I always considered my trips as 'working at a different job'. Also, people who have full-time jobs and photograph on trips probably don't need to earn as much as those who are full time stock photographers, therefore can 'afford' to photograph the more interesting and enjoyable stuff, even though the other stuff often sells much better, especially on the micros.
15157
« on: April 27, 2010, 15:51 »
The person I'm considering has a full time job, so this would be something to hone his Photoshop skills and make extra cash.
Unless you have kept your slides in a hermetically sealed environment, the amount of work taken to clone out dust spots etc is absolutely soul destroying. It's really not a matter of honing Photoshop skills, it's just meticulous tedium. I guess it depends how much he needs the money.
15158
« on: April 26, 2010, 17:11 »
Any exclusives out there who can report the effects of the raised prices on exlusive files? Do you sell as much as you did before the raise or has the number of sales gone down?
Remember the decreasing sales can just be a result of the ever-increasing number of files in the collection, so most of us get a smaller slice of the pie. It's just about impossible to attribute reasons to falling downfalls. My downfalls were in freefall before the price increases. In fact, my Vetta files sell above my expectations, even with non-Vetta similars, and I've had 3 Exc+ sales with only about 1/4 of my allocation used, and among very few sales since Exc+ was rolled out.
15159
« on: April 25, 2010, 14:31 »
Hello and Greetings.
I would like to know what is the best size and resolution for submitting stock image's? I have been setting my image's at 2400x3000 @ 300 DPI for selling on Red Bubble and Fine Art America. Is this a good size and what else is should I look for when submitting images to stock company's?
Best to sell at your camera's native resolution, or crop in (for composition), downsize (for quality) if necessary. You're generally not allowed to upsize in Micros, and you often get paid according to the size which is bought. You may find that the inspections are shockingly strict, but you get used to that fairly quickly. A lot depends on which agencies you're intending to submit to. Usually no people/parts without model releases, no logos, no contentious objects (where the manufacturer/artist might sue) etc.
15160
« on: April 25, 2010, 14:27 »
My take on it is that the majority of purchases are not for high level ads, books and product campaigns, but for scrapbookers, grade school teachers, IT websites and people writing blogs about food.
Where do these grade school teachers work that they can afford to buy stock images?
teachers have ALWAYS spent money from their own pockets to buy materials for their classes - some may even have enlightened school districts that support them.
steve
I buy things for school (high school) all the time, but say 10-15 photos per lesson, five lessons per day, it soon wouldn't be worth working. My pupils have to satisfice with Microsoft clip art, Flickr creative commons (which is often more suitable, i.e. 'real', than anything I could buy on micros) etc.
15161
« on: April 25, 2010, 04:12 »
My take on it is that the majority of purchases are not for high level ads, books and product campaigns, but for scrapbookers, grade school teachers, IT websites and people writing blogs about food.
Where do these grade school teachers work that they can afford to buy stock images?
15162
« on: April 24, 2010, 18:29 »
and a verrry bad month on istock in general...(which truly sucks since roughly 70% of my stock income comes from there).
Was there Best Match change again? In April IS went from #2 (and far above lower ones) to #4 for me
There seem to have been big changes in the past couple of weeks, though it has been yoyoing for months.
15163
« on: April 24, 2010, 13:15 »
Nope, typically 0 -2 on Saturdays, 2-3 on Sundays. Last week I had 0 on Sat, 5 on Sun  and a really poor week since.
15164
« on: April 24, 2010, 11:09 »
Why not put them on a traditional stock agency like Alamy; even if you get just one sale an year, you'll make more than the pennies you get here.
That information is not always true. Of course, some photos, not necessarily the most outstanding, might be sold with extensive exclusive rights and you'll make your fortune. However, many of the editorial photos are sold to educational publishers and newspapers for surprisingly low prices. Your brain seems to be filtering out what I wrote above. In a full year I've sold only four photos on Alamy, and the total $$ is less than I made on iStock every week this year other than this week, which has been slow.
15165
« on: April 24, 2010, 10:20 »
I thought I'd already pointed out that I make more in a week at iStock than I have in a year on Alamy.
And for wildlife, just check out everyone else's port on any of the macro sites and realise that's what you're competing against. It's a vastly oversubscribed subject area. (I'm really only interested in wildlife, I just shoot other things to push me to try different things and to see what sells. Besides, I can't be out in the field all the time. And even if I could, the weather and light here usually aren't up to much. )
Honestly, whatever wildlife pics you've got, do searches for similars in all the macros and micros and see what you're up against. Some of the macros, are only interested in 'coffee table book'-style photos. You might get lucky with rarer species doing unusual things, but they still have to be in at least 'good' light, unobscured composition and technical excellence - buyers aren't interested in your story of how you had to crawl for five hours through an alligator infested swamp through the night to glimpse your subject through a bush at dawn. Of course, if you find the Loch Ness Monster, it won't matter if you photograph it with a Box Brownie.
You'll also find that most photos which are published of 'less usual animals doing less usual/interesting things are taken by the authors of the article they accompany. (That could be a niche worth exploring).
I went through your profile on iStock.
First, let me congratulate you on your fantastic pictures. There were a real pleasure to look at. I noticed that most of your wildlife shots weren't really being downloaded. Why not put them on a traditional stock agency, instead of making pennies here?
As I stay in India, I guess I'll have to settle for finding the yeti. 
You'll need to read what I wrote above. I have wildlife photos also on Alamy. The four pics I've sold there have not been wildlife. It's almost impossible to get into the big agencies: most of them need a huge initial upload, and a commitment to upload a fairly high number of other images monthly or quarterly. And, as I said, just look at the existing opposition at any of the other sites. I've posted my story here before, so to avoid repetition, I'll SM you. Honestly, 20% of $1000 is better than 100% of 0.
15166
« on: April 24, 2010, 10:05 »
THAT's exactly the very bug limit of RF and microstock actually.
numerically, advertising/commercial is probably 5% of the whole stock industry cake, despite being the highest paying slice.
Dinosaurs tend to make up %84 of statistics they use.
LOL!
15167
« on: April 24, 2010, 09:44 »
Just had a look at 2 video clips from the launch of the new look alamy site. Didn't know they put 89% of their operating profit in to medical research in their own lab. They also claim to have a faster site than Getty and istock.
http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2010/04/23/4813.aspx
Didn't know about the medical research either. It hardly matters that the search is faster, when it usually returns such a poor match because of not having a CV, 'stealing' words from the contributer's name (if you were called Tray London, all your photos are going to appear in every search for London or Trays (well, not literally trays, as Alamy counts tray and trays as separate words) etc.
15168
« on: April 24, 2010, 09:32 »
isn't it ironic that the cowboy photo above wasn't taken from microstocks ?
No, why would that be ironic?
but check on Alamy how many pics they have searching for "cowboy skiing" :
They are clearly marked as no MR, no PR and RM, not RF. The Alamy terms then put the onus on the buyer to know how they may use the image, though that's something support can help with.
15169
« on: April 24, 2010, 09:03 »
Maybe I should have clarified a bit more on "didn't want to contribute to them anyway." Being new to stock photography, I didn't know much about it when I applied for an account. After some research, I found out what my work -mainly interested in wildlife- was better off with RM in a traditional stock agency like Alamy.
And for those of who contribute quality work to microstock, I have a question- why do it? You get an unfair payment for the time you spent in getting the shot. Those of you who say you do it for fun, not money- why not contribute your good works to macrostock, and not so good to micro?
I thought I'd already pointed out that I make more in a week at iStock than I have in a year on Alamy. And for wildlife, just check out everyone else's port on any of the macro sites and realise that's what you're competing against. It's a vastly oversubscribed subject area. (I'm really only interested in wildlife, I just shoot other things to push me to try different things and to see what sells. Besides, I can't be out in the field all the time. And even if I could, the weather and light here usually aren't up to much. ) Honestly, whatever wildlife pics you've got, do searches for similars in all the macros and micros and see what you're up against. Some of the macros, are only interested in 'coffee table book'-style photos. You might get lucky with rarer species doing unusual things, but they still have to be in at least 'good' light, unobscured composition and technical excellence - buyers aren't interested in your story of how you had to crawl for five hours through an alligator infested swamp through the night to glimpse your subject through a bush at dawn. Of course, if you find the Loch Ness Monster, it won't matter if you photograph it with a Box Brownie. You'll also find that most photos which are published of 'less usual animals doing less usual/interesting things are taken by the authors of the article they accompany. (That could be a niche worth exploring).
15170
« on: April 24, 2010, 04:56 »
Thank you, everyone.
Did you get accepted yet there?
If you want to do microstock seriously, you should. You can't say you've driven a car until you drove a BMW.
Well, I sent my three photos for review about a week ago. Since I did not hear from them yet, and I didn't want to contribute to them anyway; I've written to them to terminate my account. I currently am going to upload only on 123RF for a while.
From what I've heard, it's taking two week or so for new reviews to be made, maybe longer right now because of some site problems and several of the inspectors being at a junket in Cannes. You certainly need more patience in the microstock game. I'd be really interested in why you applied there when you "didn't want to contribute to them anyway". As for the percentage business, when I started off, I submitted RF to iStock (20% non-exclusive) and a small UK specialist agency (RM; 40% to photog.) With the RM agency in over 3 years I've had one sale, netting me less than I currently get in iStock in each week of this year except this week. I've got about 600 pics in Alamy (60% to photog) and in a year I've made 4 sales, the total of which is less than I've earned on iStock every week this year except this week. (To be fair, I've got less than 200 files in the UK agency, and haven't uploaded anything for about 2 1/2 years, since they were moving their main focus from 'UK' to specifically Welsh. And I've just gone over the 2000 files on iStock, so it's slightly apples and oranges). However, as Sean would say, if you don't contribute to iStock, that's less opposition for the rest of us. 
15171
« on: April 23, 2010, 10:57 »
I know what you are saying. The only thing you can do is to go to the different stock image sites and search for exclusive images or exclusive photographers. Too many sites have too many of the same images and after 5 or 6 pages I know what I'm going to see - same old, same old. I feel like I know some of those models by name. I'm not searching for the cheapest image, but the most unique and those are getting harder and harder to find.
On istock, you can go into advanced search and tick to search on exclusive only, then at least you won't see the same images elsewhere. For example, there are 196767 with the keyword 'business'.
Yeah! trouble is, theyre no better then the others, just exclusivity isnt enough Im afraid. Trouble is in todays stock-files, it doesnt matter the slightest if its exclusive, RM,RF, Micro or whatever, the overwhelming majority of files are no better or worse, unless its specialized categories.
best.
The OP mentioned that 'too many of the sites have too many of the same images", and that was the issue I was addressing.
15172
« on: April 23, 2010, 02:06 »
Keep sorting your search results by age. You might find newbies trying different things until they see it doesn't pay.
15173
« on: April 22, 2010, 18:12 »
Yeah, it's definitely a numbers game. Contributors sell more shiny happy people, so they make more images. It's harder to carve out an individual niche, so people gear their portfolios for what the majority want.
I wonder though do the majority still want shiny/happy in a recession? Are there more buyers like me that need to veer away from that!? Pity more don't post but..
People do post sometimes in the request new content forum on iStock. However, download figures suggest that happy/shiny is still by far preferred, at least in the Main Market.
15174
« on: April 22, 2010, 18:10 »
What this site offers might be just a bit too diffrent from what you need, dont know, but take a look.
http://www.photocase.com/en/
Oooooooo.... interesting, thanks zenpix.. taking a look around but yes, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about!
Be careful: I just saw - in the very first search I made - a silhouette of a sculpture that I recognise. It's modern, and I'd be astonished if there were a property release attached to it (of course, there could just be) . Suggests they might not be as careful as some other sites about releases.
15175
« on: April 22, 2010, 18:03 »
What this site offers might be just a bit too diffrent from what you need, dont know, but take a look.
http://www.photocase.com/en/
Oooooooo.... interesting, thanks zenpix.. taking a look around but yes, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about!
The comments on their blog are valid: at micro prices, images (of the sort that need models paid/props bought etc) have to sell in bulk to make it worthwhile.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
