Hi Keith

I uploaded a batch of a few hundred, and they were all rejected for " The composition and lighting of this image limit its stock value." or similar.
Now, these are not the best of my work (I was planning on uploading chronologically to get my whole port up in an organized manner), however these are photos that have been accepted and are selling moderately well on other stock sites.

This is in no way a rant. You can set any quality standard you wish, and a photo selling on another stock site doesn't mean anything.

I just wanted to check if I just encountered an overenthusiastic reviewer, of if your standards are really that high, in which case there's no need to waste time uploading further.

My account on zymettrical is kgtoh.

Thanks.

Edit: Just read the part about "We sell from $3 - $100, so higher standards". Some of these photos are on the Macros, which sell considerably higher than $3 - $100.

Litifeta,

Sounds interesting. I've signed up under you.
About our previous "intercourse", sorry if i offended you. Just some good natured ribbing, honestly.  I figured if you had no objections to rjmiz calling you a prostitute, you'd be a good sport about me making fun of your math skills.

Peace?

PS. Your math does suck, seriously. If you want, I can PM you a detailed explanation of how your analysis if flawed.

RT,
I'm as suspicious as the next guy (maybe more suspicious), but Chumley has, IMO, provided some really useful insights and advice, and has linked to a small but very professional portfolio
Compare this with some other "super successful pros" who've bragged about their massive success, but never provided anything useful except some rants against microstock companies, and never offered any evidence of their portfolio except some random fanart.

That said, chumley, I would love to see some of your work on the macros.  I think it's every microstocker's dream to someday compete in the "big leagues", and any insight is most welcome.

Thanks, chumley, for sharing.
For someone like me with no proper training or background, this is very insightful.

My opinion of the logo:

"Limited Commercial Value--We do not need this image at this time."

and

"Too Simple--Overly simple vector."

All of us doing stock are artists and creative people (whether their day job is artistic or not).  Recently I was looking at some of my old non-stock art.  This is stuff I did ages ago (OK, mid 90's) when I was still a young man, recently out of college and not sure what to do.  I eventually ended up in a very non-artistic career.  Stock for me is a way of expressing my artistic side.  However,  stock, if you are serious about making money, requires very serious constraints on your artistic vision.  You can't create what you want to draw (in my case super armored beast warriors), but what you think will sell.

Just thought I'd share my very old online portfolio:
http://www.elfwood.com/art/t/o/toh/toh.html

Everything was uploaded sometime in the mid-90's.  For me it's a nostalgic look back. 

I invite everyone else to share their own artistic visions, or have-been artistic visions, outside of stock.

Quote from: ironarrow on August 15, 2008, 15:47

Quote from: kgtoh on August 15, 2008, 15:32
Since we seem to be uploading random artwork with absolutely no relation at all to stock, here's one of mine from years ago 

Having the capacity to produce fanart has no relation to proving the capacity to create a commercial stock portfolio.

kgtoh, seriously.. I am no more, giving you answers.. you edited your post 3 times.. the first one was pathetic enough! 

Sorry, I make a lot of mistakes when I'm laughing uncontrollably

Since we seem to be uploading random artwork with absolutely no relation at all to stock, here's one of mine from years ago 

Having the capacity to produce fanart has no relation to proving the capacity to create a commercial stock portfolio.

Quote from: anonymous on August 15, 2008, 15:18
Holy sh#t, Howard Hughes is still alive!

Howard Huges is still alive and making $3000 a month from microstock.
It's a top-secret portfolio though. shhh. be vewy vewy quiet.

Quote from: ironarrow on August 15, 2008, 15:06
 

I won't say a word to you I will enjoy reading your fantasies though..

Right back atcha. Enjoy your fantasy life. 

Quote from: ironarrow on August 15, 2008, 14:59
You can believe in whatever you can.. Sometimes I mention about my port or work.. It is not because I want to show off, It is because mentioning it, is useful to back some ideas..

How is it impossible to discuss microstock agency policies without bringing up how much you earn per month? Everyone else does it.
It's like being unable to discuss gasoline prices without comparing bank accounts.

edit: genitalia reference removed

I am a crazy old billionaire.

Hidden in my name is a clue to a hidden treasure of gold and diamonds, if you're clever enough to figure it out, you can have it.

- you don't have to take me seriously
- you don't have to believe me
- you don't have to respect me

I accept, it is a hard puzzle, but it does have a clue in it and not hard if you have the knowledge of something that can solve the puzzle..

But you need to know something specific about the location of the fantablulous treasure here.. I gave anyone an honest clue..

YOU CAN DO IT!!!!

Oh, and back to the original topic:

While I find crestock QA quite fussy, there's nothing wrong with that per se, if they were sticking to their original plan of "high quality" stock.

However, I find that most of my sales on Crestock coming from subscriptions.

This indicates to me they are shifting more from individual sales of "high quality" stock to a Shutterstock type buffet.

Shutterstock, while quite strict about certain technical aspects like noise, is very lenient about type and topic of illustrations it accepts. This is because Shutterstock realizes it's a numbers game, and the more images it has the better for its business model.

Crestock on the other hand is very fussy about the images it accepts in terms of theme and topic.  So yes, it's a bit annoying when a buffet site acts like a snobby gourmet critic.

Quote from: ironarrow link=topic=5195.msg59010#msg59010
I really have nothing to prove.. I don't feel the need for putting the links here..

one day, if I feel it would be good for me I will.. Or probably in 2 years time if I work hard enough you will know me anyway.. I will have nowhere to hide.. 

If you really have "nothing to prove" why do you constantly mention how much money you make, how high your sales are, how great your portfolio is, and how well you understand what customers want?

Practically every thread you've been in, you've boasted about your high sales.

We do have several of the "big boys" around here, but they do not constantly toot their own horn.

Until proven otherwise, I will consider you just a complete noob who talks big.

I don't doubt there are people making this level of earnings with small ports. I know some of them. Yes, it's possible.

I just don't believe you are one of them, because there is no evidence at all to support it.

For example, there are many Olympic level athletes who can perform amazing feats.  Applying that same logic, I can say that I can do the same.  By this logic, what I say is believable, because it is possible and some people somewhere are doing it.

There are tons of anonymous people on the internet making all sorts of claims.  Some of them have visited these forums. I don't believe them without any evidence, and I don't believe you.

I am a billionaire.  There are many billionaires, you can check their financial backgrounds if you don't believe me. It is possible to be a billionaire.  Therefore, I am telling the truth.

I am not forcing you to prove yourself to me. Why is it so difficult to understand that I don't believe what you say is the truth, just because it is possible and that you say it's so?  If other people believe you, more power to them. We need a kinder gentler world that I can sell bridges to.

Like I said, Ironarrow is not obligated to show me anything.
I'm not obligated to believe him.
I learned long ago not to believe something because someone says it's possible.
If you want to believe him, go ahead. I'm not obligated to convince you otherwise.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call shenanigans.
You're in no way obligated to respond, but I simply don't believe you.

Quote from: ironarrow on August 08, 2008, 15:12

Quote from: kgtoh on August 08, 2008, 14:54

Quote from: ironarrow on August 08, 2008, 12:17
well, on BigStock I make a payout almost every month with 230 images..

on IS, I have only got 65 images and make about 1000 dollars a month..

Those are very impressive ratios.  Do you do mostly vectors or photos?
Do you mind linking to your port, so I could take a look?  Thanks!

It is all vectors.. I don't like to publish my port..

But I was a professional illustrator before I discovered stock..

I had my comics published, also had done illustrations for few children's books.. Some of the published works were classic style Hand-drawn art..

So I didn't become an illustrator because of Adobe illustrator.. That is the secret if you are wondering..

Thank you for the detailed and interesting analysis.

It's quite interesting to see the very small number of microstock pictures being used by these big magazines.

Quote from: ironarrow on August 08, 2008, 12:17
well, on BigStock I make a payout almost every month with 230 images..

on IS, I have only got 65 images and make about 1000 dollars a month..

Those are very impressive ratios.  Do you do mostly vectors or photos?
Do you mind linking to your port, so I could take a look?  Thanks!

Thanks for correcting my English.

revised version:

Math is not your strongest Suit and that seems to include simple multiplication and division, possibly also addition, subtraction and counting.



Also, FYI, correcting people's spelling mistakes on an informal forum in order to create some sort of comeback is the lowest of the low. Oh, the shame. tsk tsk.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on August 07, 2008, 02:09
True, but what I'm getting at is there is another site with restrictions already in place. And DT isn;t owned by a big company with agressive execs. I'm thinking Jupiter execs are feeling a bit spanked by this whole ordeal and don't want this happening again.

They may not introduce any changes related to removing images but I guarantee they're talking about it.

For me, personally, I'm not worried about DT's 6-month limitation because they've always been fair to me (so far).

The moment StockXpert introduces something similar, I'm pulling my port immediately, because it's a sure sign of worse things to come.

No offence, Litifeta, but as evidenced in your other posts, math is not your strongest suite.

I think what he means is that subs are cheaper than credits and are specifically geared for  the price-conscious customer.  However, don't worry, because overall sales should increase. Dreamstime loves you and will protect you like your own mother.

Quote from: rene on August 05, 2008, 12:17

Quote from: domencolja on August 05, 2008, 11:35
and offering PPD options for EPS format vectors ranging from 50$-250$, I confess I was delighted. PPDs priced as mid-macrostock is good news and on top of that on a site that I would never get anyways.

So you think that 50-250$ sales are posible at Photos.com ?
For me it looks like "everything for 1$" shop with one display with 250$ prices. Not same kind of buyers.

I agree. They are definitely not targeting the $250 an image crowd.  The promise of a $250 is, to me, a magician's distraction while they sell EL's at 30 cents.  It is very obvious to me that StockXpert has moved from a "win-win" relationship with contributors towards one where they are looking at any means possible to exploit contributors. Perhaps it's desperation on JI's part.  This what scares me, that I have to continually look over my shoulder to protect myself.

I think that's what drove previously loyal StockXpert contributors to bail out. It's not only matter of revenue from EL sales (although for larger contributors, EL sales from other sites can easily be more than total sales for StockXpert, so it's worth protecting), StockXpert also broke an unspoken trust that they, in their role of representing contributors, are looking out for their best interests.  It became as much an emotional issue as a logical one.  You will notice that the contributors that deleted their photos (and were the most vocal about it), were the ones who had been with StockXpert the longest and were the most emotionally connected to StockXpert. It's a shame because, from a business standpoint, you should cherish your most loyal stakeholders first.

(copying my post from the StockXpert forum:)
Speaking for myself personally.

I previously had subscriptions opted in. I have nothing against subscriptions per se; I realize it's a valid business model, although perhaps not palatable to everyone.

I have now opted out of subscriptions and opted out of Partner Licensing. I am keeping participation to a minimum because I realize that, no matter how sweetly it's phrased, any new developments and revenue models are to the benefit of StockXpert/JI and not me.

I will still continue selling at StockXpert because business is business. However, the trust is broken, and I will be out of here at the first sign of any hanky-panky.