|
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 - Gannet77
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24
501
« on: August 27, 2009, 03:53 »
Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.
Yea, like those images weren't there before Vetta. Most of the Vetta images were uploaded to istock long before introduction of Vetta. Now they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement.
And you'd prefer your best images to have a lower price tag and poorer search placement?
502
« on: August 26, 2009, 04:29 »
I disagree that the market will eventually see photos of Vetta caliber on other sites. At least not in a way that it would diminish the value of Vetta. I think 95% of microstock photographers won't bother spending the time or money to produce unique photos like the one's found in the Vetta collection. If someone chooses to produce the same quality, I bet they want a bigger share from the cake and join iStock so that they can submit to Vetta. iStock is way ahead of its competition.
Ok I am confused here is a simple question:
Where were these 'iStock exclusive high value images' being sold before Vetta, they were shot for the Istock library and not shot for the Vetta collection, they should not have been on sale as RM on other websites and then added to iStock and Vetta as RF, so they must have already been on Istock as 'exclusive RF' and at microstock prices until they were hand picked and chosen for Vetta, or were they just sitting on hard drives waiting for the birth of Vetta?
David 
Initially, they were indeed on iStock as 'exclusive RF'. iStock picked many for Vetta themselves and allowed exclusives to nominate a limited number from their own portfolio for consideration. I think the rationale is that they were lost in a sea of 5 million other images, and iStock wanted to make them more visible at a higher price point. Seems a good idea to me, though as you say, only time will tell.
503
« on: August 20, 2009, 12:13 »
I think Lisa is right. the thing is, it would be impossible to remove subjectivity from the inspection process. and I'm sure they must have policies that favour exclusives in some regards. but I have seen no evidence of this personally and I was non-exclusive for over one year and now exclusive for two. my acceptance rate has improved gradually as my skills improved, but there was no obvious jump.
I believe it really is the borderline images that MIGHT receive slightly more leniency if submitted by exclusive rather than non-exclusive. then again, knowing that inspectors basically get paid a certain amount per image and review thousands and thousands of images a week, all of this speculation is probably just that.
I'd guess they use an assembly line approach to what they are doing, and to suggest they worry about who the contributor is most of the time seems unlikely as they plod through thousands of images, many of which are probably utterly terrible.
So that makes three posts, from exclusives or ex-exclusives, saying they personally see no evidence of inspectors favouring exclusives - and one who has. Yet still it's stated as a known fact. Maybe we should have a poll!
504
« on: August 20, 2009, 10:47 »
I would not be a bit surprised if istock did favor exclusive contributors a bit on borderline images. That seems fair to me. They have no other outlet for their images.
However I don't think a 3 image sample, or even the 10 image sample given in the OP are anywhere near large enough to prove anything.
Jonathan is right that through trial and error, paying attention to rejection reasons, and a lot of work anyone can improve their acceptance rate at any agency.
And for the most part istock's reviews are still among the most consistent and logical in the business.
Maybe they do - but Hoi Ha is the first posting I've seen to actually state that as personal experience, every other time I've seen it mentioned it appears to be just speculation. Personally I don't think they should, and as I said it isn't my experience that they do, but obviously I'd be arguing against my own best interests there! In fact, ideally I would think the submitter should be anonymous to the reviewer, but I have no idea if that is in fact the case. Otherwise yes, most certainly, paying attention to rejection reasons and learning from them is the way to go.
505
« on: August 20, 2009, 05:41 »
I have no doubt that istock gives some preference in acceptance criteria for exclusives ... but so what?
<snip>
I don't know where you get this opinion; it's already been stated by myself and another exclusive that they don't see any significant preference in their rates of acceptance before and after becoming exclusive, and I've never seen any say otherwise though obviously other peoples experience may be different. [/quote] Because I used to be exclusive then gave it up ... but as mentioned I don't have a problem with that - assuming there are no major technical issues with an image, IS will accept what in their view is saleable ... they are not going to reject an image that could sell just because the person is not exclusive. But where the image might be borderline - say it is yet another image of a flower - I think the exclusive will likely have it accepted and the non-exclusive likely not. Again this is fair in my view as the non-exclusive has other options ... [/quote] Fair enough! Not my experience though.
506
« on: August 20, 2009, 04:25 »
Hi All,
I also agree that I don't think Istock is as tough as people make them out to be between on how they treat their non exclusives vs. their exclusives.
I have no doubt that istock gives some preference in acceptance criteria for exclusives ... but so what?
<snip>
I don't know where you get this opinion; it's already been stated by myself and another exclusive that they don't see any significant preference in their rates of acceptance before and after becoming exclusive, and I've never seen any say otherwise though obviously other peoples experience may be different. Certainly I've had images accepted which, on reflection, I don't think really make the grade - both before and after exclusivity. I've also had rejections on images that I thought were just as good as others that were accepted, again, both before and after. And I've had acceptances on images that were rejected by other agencies, though obviously only before being exclusive. And there's no direct correlation between being exclusive and great images - of course you'll see lots of mediocre images going through the exclusive queue, the exclusive criteria don't require you to produce better images, only to sell a certain amount. If you're anywhere near competent with a camera you will reach that limit sooner or later, maybe in only a couple of months if you're very good, maybe in a year or whatever, but you'll get there.
507
« on: August 19, 2009, 17:04 »
And mine - prior to going exclusive, I had acceptance rates varying between 45% and 89% per month, an average of about 74%.
Since going exclusive, it's varied between 53% and 91% per month, and is currently averaging about - oh wow - 74%.
So not much change there then...
I don't buy all these theories.
508
« on: August 19, 2009, 06:56 »
FileZilla for me too, though like you I haven't really looked at any others for some time.
510
« on: August 10, 2009, 06:27 »
Just upgraded to a new Olympus E-30.
Enjoying it so far...
511
« on: July 31, 2009, 17:58 »
Hey Guys,
I'm looking for some help on preparing files for Alamy Submission. I'm a bit perplexed by the whole thing, especially this whole upsizing fetish RM agencies seem to have with file size. I have quite a few finished JPEGs for this year. How are you supposed to upsize them? I suppose I could double the resolution to increase the file size, but that seems kinda stupid since the image will become softer.
Any help would be appreciated!
Thanks!
If you're using PhotoShop, there's a useful script here http://www.phototechniqueswiki.com/Article.aspx?articleID=35And yes, the image will become softer. They know that and will allow for it, but if excessive it might trigger a rejection. Make sure the images are well focused to begin with (not sharpened, or if so, only with care).
512
« on: July 31, 2009, 05:56 »
they also closing my account (with 400 photos) without warning, just because external link in description and profile, even it's very easy to fix. Now I'm start from zero again 
That's a bit harsh! Though in truth, it does contravene the terms of the contributor agreement as I recall... what were you linking to?
I linking to my portfolio from other microstock agencies...
In contributor agreement we can linking url but not mention about competitor link right? better ask before you put link on your portfolio.
Er... you mean you were linking to other microstock sites from within your iStock profile? Did it not occur to you that this might be something they would frown upon???
513
« on: July 31, 2009, 04:51 »
they also closing my account (with 400 photos) without warning, just because external link in description and profile, even it's very easy to fix. Now I'm start from zero again
That's a bit harsh! Though in truth, it does contravene the terms of the contributor agreement as I recall... what were you linking to?
514
« on: July 29, 2009, 17:12 »
If you are exclusive at istock, you may be tempted to keyword the IPTC of all your files only by Istock's controlled vocabulary. If you ever decided to drop exclusivity you would have to re-keyword all your files to work on the other sites' search engines. Suggestion would be to save a copy of the image keyworded for uploading to all sites, and one saved according to istocks CV.
Better still - use DeepMeta. It will import your IPTC keywords and match them into iStock's CV, then you can add more CV terms without affecting the original IPTC data. And by using DeepMeta, you don't have to mess with iStock's site upload system, which even the most fervent IS supporters find difficult to defend... plus, DeepMeta makes cross-linking related images just so, so easy! Actually though Perseus, you might get more information if you posted your question on the IS forums. They don't bite. Much.
515
« on: July 28, 2009, 09:30 »
From the iStock Exclusivity FAQs:
What does full Exclusivity require?
Full artist Exclusivity means no images, video or audio files may be sold on other royalty-free sites or businesses with the exception of Getty Images.
Does that cover all of my files?
Exclusivity only covers your royalty-free stock files. iStock does not require Exclusivity for:
* Rights-managed files with other organizations
* Personal portfolio sites
* Work for hire/editorial work contracts
* Prints for sale
* Prints, t-shirts and the like produced on art-only sites such as cafepress.com
Are there other restrictions?
* Images, video or audio files may not be sold on the artist's own site (including collections, CD-ROMs, etc).
* Artist may not give away files for free, from their own or any other site.
* Rejected files may not be sold elsewhere
516
« on: July 28, 2009, 09:25 »
One more question, though... and this is for the exclusives to answer.
If you are exclusive to Istock, can you still sell your own prints at the local gallery.
ie. as mentioned in the other thread. Entirely different portfolio that the ones you submit to Istock.
How restricted are you as an Exclusive?
You can always sell prints, either at a gallery or on line. You can also do "Work for Hire", though I'm not quite sure exactly what the definition of that is, and you can sell Rights Managed, though selling your RF images as RM would be questionable so best keep them separate. What you can't do is sell images elsewhere (including your own web site) as Royalty Free, any images, whether submitted to iStock or not, whether rejected or not.
517
« on: July 28, 2009, 04:21 »
Perseus asks "Why is there still some people going exclusive?"
Well, the answer is, they've considered the options and decided it suits them, at least at that time. It's not purely a monetary calculation; from what I've read posted by others, I would think you can normally expect to make more income by staying independent, at the cost of some extra time and effort, but maybe you'd prefer to put that effort into taking more pictures or just other aspects of your life or work. And remember that once you're exclusive, the upload limits are much higher and your iStock portfolio (and hopefully your income) can grow much more rapidly.
Certainly that's why I'm exclusive, and I would assume it's one of the reasons why some 43% of iStock contributors who are eligible have decided to be so as well. It's down to the individual and their circumstances, and each must make their own decision.
It's not final - if you're already an established independent it could be a costly mistake as the time and cost of re-establishing multiple portfolios might be considerable, but if you're still at the early stages you can give it a try and if you find it doesn't suit you can always drop it later.
You need someone who is exclusive to give their side of the story? Well, that's mine, but I'm only one of 4,312 (as of yesterday) and each has their own experience. No one forces them to be exclusive.
518
« on: July 27, 2009, 08:07 »
If the possibility of IS making changes that could affect you is your main concern, you should do a little analysis on your IS portfolio.
I've seen some portfolios where a large proportion of sales seem to be dependent on just a few very popular images - if that's the case for you, be aware that all it takes is a slight change in the best match, or even just somebody else uploading something similar, to cause one or more of them to suddenly die on you.
While specialising does have its advantages, a larger and broader portfolio can often weather the ebbs and flows of iStock changes without the same sudden shocks... just something to bear in mind.
520
« on: July 18, 2009, 04:58 »
It's obviously not really possible to tell how effective they are, but it seems to me that if a buyer has found one of your images to be worth viewing, then it can't hurt to put any similar images or a related lightbox link into the description - if the one they found isn't quite right, they are quite likely to look at the others first before searching elsewhere, and you get the sale.
I've several private lightboxes with links from images, and they get hits, some in the hundreds - so obviously people do look.
UBB links are harder to judge, but as you would probably only put a few similar images in as UBB links they could be even more likely to be of interest and get sales.
Besides, it's not difficult to do, so why not? I always feel it's giving me a little extra influence on the marketing too, something I can do for myself to help my image exposure rather then just relying on the site search and the best match.
521
« on: July 07, 2009, 03:55 »
I don't understand what you're referring to either - could you post a link? I see the iStock model release at http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/modelrelease.pdf and it still says "Optional". Anyway, what's the difference? It says "visual reference" - surely you can just include a photo of your subject? It's not insisting on any additional personal details.
522
« on: July 01, 2009, 14:46 »
If the rejected file were any good and you were exclusive, the likelihood of it getting rejected is a lot less than if you weren't exclusive.
I see nothing from my own experience (pre and post exclusivity) which backs up that assertion.
I agree - my acceptance rate has varied from month to month but I see no significant difference between pre and post exclusivity, nor would I expect there to be any.
523
« on: June 30, 2009, 14:10 »
Other people's experiences can certainly be a guide, but ultimately it's down to individual circumstances and your choice.
Seems to me that if you put the extra effort in, you probably will make more income by being non-exclusive, but maybe you prefer to concentrate on just iStock, as ichiro7 does, and indeed as I do.
The figures though show that some 43% of iStock contributors who are eligible to be exclusive have elected to become so. Presumably it works for them.
524
« on: June 30, 2009, 10:52 »
Mine seem to have been rolling along pretty much as normal.
A little less last week than the weeks before, but not significantly so. All in all June looks a good month for me.
525
« on: June 28, 2009, 15:56 »
As a Diamond contributor, would your earnings at iStock not double?
I thought the payout at Diamond level was 40%...
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
