HeyHeyDecay.net. I think it's sort of lame now, but as I deal generally in grungy and decayed textures, I wanted the domain name to reflect that.

The Q is for Quevaal. A nick I started using after a teacher I had in England ten years ago was not able to pronounce my real surname properly.

I made the avatar myself (from a font, though).

The site did not give me the best of impressions, but if it does my keywording, then that will save me time.

Shutterstock has always been the nicest to me.

Quote from: yingyang0 on June 27, 2007, 02:27
There are two "camps", those that worship Rider99 and those that despise him. Personally I think he's an incredible photographer that is incredibly abrasive. Basically what happens every time is that Rider will berate someone and the "hate Rider" camp will attack Rider.

Been there, done that. I'm not part of some camp, but I did get carried away once Rinder had ravaged some poor guy's photos, and the Rinder fans defended every word.

But generally, I'm not too active in any photo forums, because the things that truly are interesting to discuss can be bad for business and are better done other places.

It's not ebb and flow now, the results changed dramatically for phrases.

The first 12 days searching for a phrase would only return the images with that exact phrase. Today, they return all pics with the actual keywords, no matter if they're phrases or not. So happy days are over.

Hell, I had the best month ever at IS, but things are back to normal at iStock now. I made more money the first 12 days of October than I did in July, and July was my best month until now. Every time people searched for "metal texture" they'd only get 200 hits, and half of them were mine! 
But now, they get 4000 hits 

I haven't noticed any difference on the other sites though.

I have several sites. One microstock, one illustration and one site for photos/artwork that I've done for Metal bands. I don't mix them.

I did a full backup the other day. It was getting really nerve wrecking without.

You can always try to fill in your numbers at the SS impactometer:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt13217.html
But afetrwards read the thread to understand how things work.
Here's my two cents.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=146487#146487

I rename files by adding ss, is and so on. I also sometimes add nois etc. if it's rejected, but I'm not consequent.

Quote from: yingyang0 on October 07, 2006, 01:45
3. You have to check every single checkbox for each picture.

No, that's not the case. You can check of some place for making prints of your whole portfolio.

Take a look at this. You won't regret! 
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

Haha, that would do it!

It's a very stupid thing at least, although I think the Shutterstock approach is not much better. Just let people describe their own images. Sometimes you want to describe it good, because there's an interesting story to tell. Other times it's just a WYSIWYG photo.

I've had a smashing week! Take a lok at the stats after 6 days(1st october to 6th october):

Didn't know they had iStock in the seventies too! 

This is cut out / isolated:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/who/emotions/happiness/2187571_snowman.php?id=2187571
(With or without clipping path - that doesn't matter)

This only have white background
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/accessories/jewelry/necklaces/858260_cross_necklace.php?id=858260

Got 2/3 but I couldn't be bothered to register.

Quote from: leaf on October 02, 2006, 20:08
well not that you're interested but i think / hope that an average image should last between 5-10 years.  A picture of a hammer will be a hammer still in 10 years.  Quality standards may change by then, but perhaps not tons.  Pictures of people will start to look outdated in 5 years easy... but they also earn more on average.

I have a guesstimat that each image will earn $50.00 in it's lifetime (on average).  But since you don't like guessing, perhaps i should have kept that to myself

Wouldn't you just love to have 2000 photos from the 60s? When you retire, you can re-upload today's images and sell them as retro pics!

Quote from: phildate on October 03, 2006, 04:33
I have started using ImageManager to organise my portfolio, to categorise images before uploading. Once I got the hang of it, it has made life somewhat more bearable. Tags still have to be checked but I am employing a student now to go through my entire portfolio and organise tags for me. Categories seem like a waste of time now but it's easier with IM than doing it on IS.

Guess I'll try the ImageManager again. I did so earlier and found it pretty awful.
I don't have the luxury of employing students I'm afraid.
Should perhaps get myself a wife.

I've noticed that it's become a LOT more of a bothersome thing to upload pics now than it used to be.
So, just to see some stats here, let's have a poll.

Ethically, there's no problem at all. You have the same photos at StockXpert, iStock etc. etc. so you're not married to any site. And even exclusives at iStock have the right to sell their photos privately.

As for the sample itself, just place a fat watermark on it. If he's interested you can send the image after he's paid.

Meanwhile, you can also upload the pic at StockXpert. If they accept it, then he can download it. If they don't, then what's it to them if you sell it privately by mail?

Hehe, congrats!
I also had the same view about my own flame. I mean, I have a lot of more itneresting pics, but boring = good apparently!

Quote from: Enjoylife on September 21, 2006, 19:29
My sales went down from the moment the keyword issue started.
And stockexpert nearly doubled
has anyone experienced the same thing?

Sales went down at Istock yes, and I saw a rise at Shutterstock. No change at StockXpert.