surprisingly good for summer, down a bit from last year, but most months are for me in 2011.

Quote from: heywoody on July 29, 2011, 19:38
Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think.  Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised....
[/quote
It works for me, but I am an "institutionalized exclusive".  It is a very nice supplement to my outside income, I have learned a lot about some types of photography, and it makes buying new L lenses much easier to justify to my wife.

I had captioning problems initially and it was frustrating.  It took a while to catch on, but once you do it is really pretty easy.   If you want to submit, don't let this put you off, just follow the instructions to the letter (and comma), it will become automatic after a while. I too wonder why we must enter things 3 times, but copy and past is quick and easy for two of the three.  It is a bit clunky, but some early sales have encouraged me.

Quote from: jsnover on June 11, 2011, 18:03

Quote from: raclro on June 11, 2011, 17:41

Quote from: lisafx on June 11, 2011, 01:08

Quote from: Freedom on June 11, 2011, 01:00

Is it true? I sometimes wonder about it too.

...Are we really such a negative bunch?  A few years ago when most of us were seeing our incomes grow every month, I thought we were a pretty positive group.  I suspect it is recent circumstances that have made us over into a bunch of grouches...

...All them them I know were nearly destroyed by us (microstock).  Some have joined us after years of grousing, but have not put in the effort to make it worthwhile, and the "easy" window of opportunity may have passed.  Every one of them says they were not at all worried about competition from "poor quality" point and shoot stock available from mere amatures online at the beginning. ...Wow were they wrong.
I fear we are doing the same.

I'm not sure which part of "the same" applies to us in our current setting. With the microstock rise "destroying" conventional stock photographers, any of them could have participated in microstock if they'd wanted, with just as much (arguably more) going for them as we had.

In our current mess, where Getty is dumping wholly-owned content onto the site (or other content they have a deal to represent with more favorable-to-them terms that our work) how do we get in on that game, even if we want to?

I get the adapt-or-die mantra, but I'm trying to see how we're failing here. Can you elaborate a bit?

By saying "the same", I mean being slow to recongized what changes mean and adapting appropriatley from a business perspective.   In 3 years, we will all know how we should have handled the current changes. Few of us ,myself included, are wise enough to know what we should be doing right now to maximize our position in the future.

Quote from: lisafx on June 11, 2011, 01:08

Quote from: Freedom on June 11, 2011, 01:00

Is it true? I sometimes wonder about it too.

I don't know any other photographers personally (in the real world).  I'm curious if this is true also.  

Are we really such a negative bunch?  A few years ago when most of us were seeing our incomes grow every month, I thought we were a pretty positive group.  I suspect it is recent circumstances that have made us over into a bunch of grouches...

I know several long time pro photographers, mostly stock and commercial shoots.  They are definitely not a positive bunch.  All them them I know were nearly destroyed by us (microstock).  Some have joined us after years of grousing, but have not put in the effort to make it worthwhile, and the "easy" window of opportunity may have passed.  Every one of them says they were not at all worried about competition from "poor quality" point and shoot stock available from mere amatures online at the beginning.  After all they are pros and customers know it and you get what you pay for.  Wow were they wrong.
I fear we are doing the same.

My eternal optimism is wavering.  As I posted on iStock, does anyone know how the Getty contributors view this change?  An additional opportunity, or a downward kick???   I am a small business owner and don't pretend to understand the iStock/Getty business and management dynamic, but it appears that more and more, iStock is simply being run as a subsidiary of Getty (duh).   I truly doubt that iStock management has any more say in these decisions than we do.  They are in my opinion middle management squeezed from above, and railed at from below.  The driving force behind the company is clearly no longer in Canada.  Hey, maybe it will all be good this time, just kidding.  I have been wanting to do some creative photo projects for myself instead of always looking for stock images, maybe this is the catalyst.

I only know iStock, but an inspector once suggested downsizing certain types of submissions.  That tip has worked well for me, very high acceptance for that type when downsized a bit.   When I crop, I try to at least stay in the large range if possible, 2700 for the larger dimension.  I have relatively few XL sales, even though many are available.  It is a fine line between better acceptance vs potential loss of larger sales.  Somewhere on the iStock forums there is a list of dimensions and sizes.

Do microstock companies want to clean out so called deadwood?  Someone mentioned Dreamstime suggesting something like this, I don't know specifics there.  For other sites, the facts generally state otherwise.  Shutterstock brags that they are adding 60,000 - 80,000 new photos per WEEK.  Dreamstime is adding thousands per week. The other big sites are undoubtedly adding large numbers as well.  New contributors are being added at the rate of many thousands per week among all companies. These sites are adding content at rates much higher than 4 years ago and accelerating.  To compensate, they are constantly tweaking (or making big changes to)  the way searches are done and the way files come up within those searches.  Often to our consternation, but they are searching for a better way to get likely sales in front of buyers eyeballs.  I think they are trying to keep up with each other in total numbers and be searchable at the same time.  As we know, they are not always right when making these changes, especially on a case by case basis.  It hurts all of us when a good seller gets kicked off the front page or two.  Frontloading the search with expensive files is simply bait and switch in my opinion, but that is another topic.  Regular buyers know how to get around these problems as mentioned several times in these forums.  I think microstock companies would like 100s of millions (eventually billions, lets think the future here) of files available, with an intuitive, efficient way for buyers to search through them.  Faceted search as an example of one attempt.  This is where the evidence seems to point if you watch what they are doing.  Afterall, that is what many of the constant changes a iStock have been about.  If someone wants to tidy up their portfolio for whatever reason, that is fine.  Do it for the good of the microstock world in general?  I'll pass, not even a drop in the bucket.  Any effect on their sales will only be negative as a result, once again, you cannot sell what you don't offer.  The sites realize this as well, thus the constant search changes, addition of large numbers of files, and not cleaning house themselves.  Remember, only the judgement of buyers and inspectors matter in this business model.  We are in some phase of a tidal wave surging over the online photo buying world.  Severe dilution and turmoil may seem to prevail on our end of things, but for a buyer that learns to navigate a sites' search engine, it is a wonderfull time.  I think most companies are, like me, happy for the steady income from older poor selling files.  They too have invested time and money, why not leave a potential for a return?  They certainly don't seem to be in a hurry to clean house, or they would just do it themselves by decree (and late Friday notification).  Sorry to be so long winded, my whole point is, if it is worth it to the site to keep "poor"  files available, it is probably worth it to us.  For me it definitely is worth it.  Happy stocking to all.

Interesting idea, and I hope lots of people do it.  I for one don't see any reason to delete a file.  My experience is limited to iStock, perhaps it is different elsewhere.  Nearly every day I have 2 or 3 (often several) old forgotten files sell for the first or second time.  Those sales add up to significant earnings year in and year out. Just this week I had a fairly large extended license sale (the second one for this photo) for a rather poor shot of an obscure subject (only two sales in 4 years, both ELs).  When I uploaded it, I considered it a probable waste of time.  This has happened literally hundreds of times to me. I long ago gave up trying to guess what buyers want.  One thing is sure, they cannot buy it, if it is not available. Selling photos is the only reason I am here.  It takes absolutely no effort on my part to keep those "poor" files in my portfolio, and costs nothing.  In fact it would take time I don't want to spend to clean things out.  After going to the effort of photographing, editing, uploading, and keywording, I want that file to be available for sale forever.  I have actually grown to like the several hundred dollars the sales of "deadwood files" brings me each year (Its another nice L lens every year).  Perhaps I don't understand the reasoning behind cleaning your portfolio out.  I cannot imagine that buyers care about the overall look of your entire offering.  They are simply buying what they need.  As someone else mentioned, future changes in best match will undoubtedly help some of these languishing files.

Quote from: helix7 on May 25, 2011, 03:40

Quote from: lagereek on May 24, 2011, 21:44
Who the , needs a sale in this Micro-scopic business, where prices are already smashed into smitherines. They need money, thats whats it all about, all the shambles and screw-ups have resulted in big-time loss of money.

Sale?? in this business,  never heard of anything so absurd.

It's not so absurd at the most expensive microstock agency in the business. And maybe that's the whole idea. istock might have finally hit the ceiling, and if so, now they're testing a price reduction.

I agree, and like the idea of a sale.  So far a small but noticable increase in XL sales for me.  I have only been here 4 1/2 years  so far, but is certainly seems sales numbers have decreased as price went up.  The amount I earned went up significantly as well so it was all good, until this year.  I too think iStock has reached a price ceiling and recognizes  it.  They need to get back to their $1 photo roots.  Not so good for us, but may be necessary.

Quote from: lisafx on May 26, 2011, 21:25
Honestly Webbing, if you have a full time job and it supports you, this is not something you should be looking at to replace it.  The people who are making a living in microstock all either got in early and grew with the industry like Lise, Sean, Yuri, and some of us lesser named folks, or else were full-time photography pros and transitioned some of their work into micro, such as Jonathan Ross, Lagereek, Daniel LaFlor, etc.  

Even with constant work it will take several years to get your skills and your equipment up to where the current pros are.   The bubble is already bursting, due to fierce competition and some agency incompetence/greed.  By the time you are able to compete at today's quality level, it will have gotten that much harder, and the pie will be sliced that much thinner.  

Sorry to sound discouraging, but since you said yourself that the things that you didn't know were what hurt you, these are some things about the microstock industry that you should know:  The days of inexperienced people jumping in to learn on the job, and making it to living wage as a microstock pro are over.  Even some people who bought the hype and "quit their day job" a couple of years are now having to go out and find real jobs.

As I said in my last post, if you are looking at this as a hobby, it's a great way to learn photography and maybe pay for some of your gear in the process, but it isn't a gravy train.

On your gear question - you don't need a monopod.  For studio lighting, you can get a couple of clip-on 1000 watt halogen shop lights at Home Depot for very cheap.  White sheet is a perfectly acceptable backdrop.  For outdoors, a 5-in-1 reflector is great, both for adding reflected sunlight where you want it, and/or for blocking sunlight where you don't want it.    Of if you don't want to spring the $60 or so for the reflector, you can use white foam core from Michael's for a couple of bucks.

Hope that helps.  

Edited because the darned auto-fill changed all my F T's (meaning full-time) to Fotolia
Anyway to turn this feature off?  It annoys the daylights out of me!

Well said, this is the way I see it too.

yet one more way to find it.  Click on "my uploads" ( the briefcase looking icon at the bottom).  Your my uploads page, click on any blue file numer on the left, upload appears in the usual place on the next  (edit) page.

I imagine the reuse of photos is a factor in decreasing sales, but a relatively small one.  I feel "gostwyk" has it exactly right in his post.  The large and growing disparity between sales numbers and available photos is the issue.  I don't think microstock is a 10 year bubble however.  Demand will likely continue to increase, we simply each get a smaller piece of the pie than we are used to.  I cannot help but wonder if the day will come when nearly every public photo that does not violate copyright or privacy issues on Flickr, Google, and similar sites will become available for sale at a very low price (sound familiar?).  We are talking multiple billions of additional images.  I have posted elsewhere, that, sorry, but I feel many buyers buy for the subjects only, not quality.  They don't care or know about artifacting, noise,purple fringing, etc.  They simply want a small image for a website.  My sales bear this hypothesis out.  There is obviously a good market for high quality, high end work, but I think the average buyer is not needing that type of work.

I get it, however many of those older files with blue flames have been that way since prior to 2005.  They rocketed up in sales rather quickly back then. They continue to sell very well in most cases, but the big initial sales early on keep them near the top of best match.  Once again look through a big sellers portfolio.  Go back a year and find some excellent photos that are everybit the equal of his/her highest sellers overall.  Relatively few with big sales, and many great shots with 0 sales.  If those same photos were available in 2003, they would likely be blue flames long ago.  Of course there is still plenty of opportunity for a file to garner very significant sales quickly, but because of greatly increased competiton, it is simply harder to buyers to find it among the may thousands now available.  The days of a photo of dice showing double sixes, selling 6000 times, are probably gone, except for those that sold it big to begn with.

Quote from: fotografer on May 12, 2011, 08:51

Quote from: raclro on May 12, 2011, 04:43
I think the following are helpful, ranked in order. Quantity,unique subject, good but not spamy keywording, lightboxes.  I personally see no link between quality and sales in most cases (within reason).  

I couldn't disagree more.  A portfolio of a couple of hundred great images will sell a lot more than a portfolio of 1000s of crap images.

I understand your point, but for the most part, that approach worked well years ago when there were only tens of thousands of contributors, but is much harder now with millions of contributors on the Internet.  Of course, some newer contributors have very high success rates with a couple hundred quality images, but most I find are lucky to make lunch money if they are new and only have 200 files available regardless of quality.  When I study the contributor charts, I find the high selling/small portfolio contributors have been around from the start or close to it.  Pick a very high seller with lots of quality photos (pro model shots etc), look back a year in file age, and see the sales numbers for a sequence of 200, let alone 3 months back.  Then compare sales to 2004 uploads, often lower quality than their newer ones, but the old ones are big sellers.

I think the following are helpful, ranked in order. Quantity,unique subject, good but not spamy keywording, lightboxes.  I personally see no link between quality and sales in most cases (within reason).  I have similar images I have experimented with keywording.  One I nearly filled the whole quota, the other only 5-8 good keywords. -- Sales essentially equal, makes me think buyers do not look beyond the obvious 5 or so keywords in a search. Admittedly, I have only tried this with a handfull of images, so it may not be statistically significant.  Buyers seem to be looking for specific subjects.   Quality?  Many of my best photos sell very little, or not at all. Unique subjects in run of the mill shots, far outsell my  "quality photos".  I have earned many hundreds of dollars on shots I hesitated to even upload (and honestly was surprised they accepted), while my proudest shots are at 1 or 0 sales for years. Its all subject and getting buyers eyeballs to your photo in my opinion.
A big vote for public lightboxes.  Pretty much every week, I have a string of 5-25 sales of images from a public lightbox.  Maybe they found them in a simple search, but I think a buyer finds one image, looks into the linked lightbox and buys several more.  Happens all the time. Twice in the past week, related subjects in the same lightbox, sequential sales, all the same size.
I can't quote who and when, but on iStock forums, I have read repeatedly that ratings (given or received), forum participation, etc, active uploading are no factor in best match placement. Who knows.

My accountant says it must be reported as income if you are a US taxpayer regardless of the country of origin.  If your income is small enough, it will probably never be noticed if you neglect to report.  If however you earn significant income here, and don't report it, interest and penalties apply if you are caught.  If you have payments directly deposited into your account or cash  a check, it is impossible to hide should an audit take place. 
Now the good part.  Since you are earning income, you are a business and can deduct expenses associated with your photography (your accountant will know how).  For the first three years, I ran my iStock business at a loss, meaning more expenses (camera,lenses, parts of airfare and vacations, and gear) than income.  It helps greatly with taxes.  I don't have personal experience, but my accountant assures me that ignorance of the need to claim this money as income will not change any penalties should you be audited.

All is not well, but it is way better than my wildest dreams a few years ago when starting out.  People actually pay real money for my photos?  You are kidding, right? 
Now back to learning how to use my new tilt/shift lens (courtesy of iStock).  That's positive, (perspective), get it?

Quote from: stockastic on April 16, 2011, 16:27
A noble attempt, and I applaud it, but don't hold your breath waiting for anything but a canned response from someone in their legal department.  You're aiming 2 corporate tiers up from the point where the problem occurred and the decision was made.  These at H&F see IStock itself as the "product" and what goes on inside IS day-to-day is of little interest to them.

My feelings as well.  It is standard business practice to simply discard anonymous letters unless they contain threats.  They are opened, shredded and not even read completely by the mail room clerk.  Perhaps if hundreds came in, some attention would be garnered.  H&F are in my opinion, the ones doing any screw turning, afterall that is their job.  Not only their job, but they have a fiduciary legal responsibility to the company to do so ( yes I know about the shareholder/ stakeholder side of this debate).  Of course we hope they are aware of issues at our level, I suspect they are.
Reasoned positive venting, as in your letter, can be good for us emotionally, but I think the value to issues at hand, is very little.

I like 2,3,6, great photos, 4 also.
I cannot tell for sure from the small sizes, but there seems to be artifacting, noise, and perhaps dust spots in the background areas.  I personally like it, but iStock may well think they are over filtered (too highly saturated), either by your processing or your camera settings. At this point in time, I highly recommend spending lots of time with the iStock tutorials, and especially on their critique forum.  You will learn a lot about what is meant by artifacting,filtering, and noise.  I would not be worried about finding a saleable niche until you figure out iStocks idea of a technically acceptable photo.
For iStock, I recommend you closely check you camera settings and use neutral picture style with everything set to 0 if your camera allows.  ISO 100, and downsize all your initial shots to 1600X1200.  Try to avoid bright skies to begn with.  Your camera will do lots of processing you may not intend (and iStock dislikes) otherwise.  The red Christmas ornaments are an example.  Good luck

I personally like the concept.  Have you searched iStock for similar?  As noted above, playing with different lighting angles and different depths of field, different vertical angle, might make it more interesting (or not).  Take several similar and pick a couple to send in.  I long ago stopped trying to guess what might sell, I just try to get them accepted.
Good luck.