Quote from: zorki on October 09, 2007, 02:21
Well... they favor exclusives several ways. More uploads, more money per download and faster approval times. A couple of intangible ways are that the bar for approving an image is lower for exclusives and they show higher in "best match". Sean L. may tell you otherwise, but a bunch of us on the Micropayment list proved it about a year ago...

There was something else recently.  I remember reading in the forums on istock that some people were angry because they had a special day where the exclusives got to keep 100% of sales commissions of their images for that one day.  The nonexclusives were left out of it.  Now, I can understand allowing people who are exclusive members upload more pics than nons, and I can also understand the faster approval time and overall higher commissions, too.  But I would have to agree with the angry villagers on that one - that special day thing was just tacky.  All contributors should have been allowed to keep the commissions that day, as they all contribute to istock's success. 

I've never heard of snappertown.  Did a search but couldn't find any info on them. (?)

Figured out how to do the stats page.  Elements just won't do a copy/paste of it, but I did it with another program.   This includes my adding to my portfolio as well, which didn't seem to do much good.

OMG!
Ok, so I'm trying to copy/paste the image from the stats page so I can load it into Elements 4.0 and save it up to my pbase account to show it here, and it won't copy??  What's up with that?

I usually just hit the "PrtScn" button and it copies the browser page, but Elements doesn't recognize that there's anything in the clipboard.  Tried Control/C as well... nothing.  Right-clicking won't copy it either.  Does istock do something so you can't copy these things?  How can I copy/paste this simply into Elements so I can save/host it to show?  This is weird.

Quote from: cameraB on October 08, 2007, 03:08
On the other hand, there's a value for the agency to offer all image sizes a person *might* want, once they've found the perfect image in the search engine. Offering low-res-only for some images would mean disappointment for some customers.

I've had an idea in my head for a long time and I just know someone will steal it and go with it if I post it, but what .. I'll never have the know-how or funds to do it myself, dammit...

Someone should come out with a "ministock" site.  A site that allows images from cameras as low as 1.3 megapixels; point-and-shoot - even camera phones.  Images would be inspected and judged for admission mostly based on composition and subject matter, with less emphasis put on pixel peeping for tiny flaws.  Images would focus on stuff just for web use, and again, be in the 1.3-5MP ranges for the most part, although pics from any camera would be accepted.  Prices would be 50-cents for the tiny stuff and up to $2.50 for the 5MP stuff or higher, with photographers getting at least 50% commissions.    No higher cost than $2.50 (excluding special licencing prices) which would actually discourage  "pro" users (real or in their own minds) from saturating the site, as they have all the others to chose from to sell on.  Contributors could request Paypal payments at ANY time with no minimum accumulated commissions.  This would be a site for "everyday" people or more specifically, every camera users, to sell THEIR pics on, without pixel * treating them like digital scum because of their gear.

Sound good?  I think there's room for it.  I think people would actually buy from it for casual photo needs, too.   Ok, so if anyone wants to invest in that kind of thing and do it, go for it.  Just remember where the idea came from and be decent and cut me in on some of the profits so I can pay off my Visa Card, ok?  LOL!

This is a dumb question I know, but how do I go into istock and do a chart like the one above, only I want to print out let's say, the last 12 months, or the last 15 months, etc?

I agree that larger/better/higher MP cameras offer the photographer better choices when they need to crop, etc.  But I still think that there are some incredible images out there from smaller res cameras and I don't see a real reason why the microstock agencies are slowly bumping up the minimum requirements.  Remember, was it a year or two ago, istock upped the size to be able to sell at "large" to 5MP.  I'm going to guess that in less than a year they'll raise that again, to 6MP in order to sell an image at large size, because all beginner's DSLRs now start at the 6MP mark.   The only credit I will give istock in terms of submissions though, is that they still DO accept 1600x1200 sized images.  You won't get more than a medium sale out of it, but that's ok.   I've taken images in the past with an old Olympus 2100uz that to this day sell on istock.  Granted, it was designed and built as a high-end camera during it's day, and not a cheap plastic 2MP point-and-shoot, but still, it goes to show that lower res cameras CAN produce "sellable" photos.

I don't fault the macro stock agencies for having pro standards in images and image size requirements.  I do however, wish that micro stock would loosen up just a bit considering as someone else said, so many of the images bought from these places are used for web or small print use.  I simply do not see a legit reason to have 4MP minimum requirements for microstock as some have... 2MP should be fine for a minimum if the image quality is up to standards.

Quote from: yingyang0 on September 27, 2007, 03:52
I'm not a fan of their forums though. It is amazing that every time they post about there outages and problems people actually congratulate an thank them. Especially the diamond exclusives that depend on iStock for a living.

I know numerous people who sell on istock for a living on some level (meaning at least 50% of their income comes from it).  I have very few images on it and don't participate in their forums because it seems too clickish for me, but everyone I know who's really into it has told me they've had a huge loss of sales in the last year, and it's gotten worse in the last few months.  Two of them were banned from the boards for basically going in and demanding that istock stop screwing around with their system workings and stop being so cool to their nonexclusives.  Seems like there is certainly trouble in paradise over there.  It's just a classic case of a company wanting to grow too fast for their own good - in the real world that's how companies get in trouble and many times, fall.  A slow stready growth is always the best.  Trying for the leaps-and-bounds stuff just leads to troubles.  That's why even in the last 24 hours after weeks of problems, it was still nearly impossible to even log on over there for at least an hour.   I do feel for those who went exclusive with them and who rely heavily on the income, but hey, if you choose to put all your stock in one company, and it tumbles - it was your choice.

You could wait until 1am and take photos of all the then drunk couples who did not come to the wedding together... sneaking off to the bathroom to fool around!  If anything you can make some extra money off of them not wanting the photos printed.  LOL 

Quote from: sharpshot on September 11, 2007, 08:11
Someone claims that there is an intention every now and then and it is always denied.  Why risk losing the number 1 status and radically reducing the amount of images available to downloaders?  They would be crazy to do it as they make 80% on each sale from non-exclusives.  That must be a huge amount of profit for them and it would take a lot to make up that money.

Well, everyone seems to be complaining that really there are too many contributors and photos competing already on istock and some other sites already.  Even if half of the contributors left istock, I still wonder if their thinking would be that those remaining would still be contributing enough "unique exclusive content" to make them stand out from all others and get more business.  I still think this is their ultimate plan, but I agree that it's probably not something they plan on doing tomorrow or next week or month... just down the road.

Gee, isn't it more the norm for a company to send just a representative or two to a conference instead of half the employees?     Not exactly efficient to send half the folks that work for you when you're a very busy company.

Quote from: phildate on September 11, 2007, 04:24

However, with all the site outages recently, it sure makes sense to be non-exclusive and there is some discontent from exclusive members now the forums are up and running again.

Oh I know at least two people who have been outed from the forums there for showing their displeasure with stuff and the exclusive topic.  The forum moderator * there have had a zero tolerance of people voicing opinions that talk people out of going on the exclusive side.  I just never had the urge to do it myself, but the two others I know tried exclusive, and were not impressed with the lack of extra sales commissions from it, so both "unsigned" from it.  When asked they told people why, and I noticed as I read the forums that both were outed out of the forums and aren't allowed to post anymore. 

iStock really does seem to want everyone to go exclusive and lock them in.  It's a big selling point.  I saw a post from a guy in there one day where he theorized that iStock was really planning on becoming an "all exclusive" site, so that they could advertise that all of their contributors sell only through them, and in theory, attract a certain number of buyers who would be attacted to that.  They're just not ready to do that yet, as it would tick off the nonexclusive people who would leave in droves, so if that is their plan, they're probably waiting until their contributor base (exclusives) build up enough that they could handle a large flight of nons out of there.  The guy who posted it stopped posting not long after that and I emailed him, and he said they banned him from the forums for saying it.      So much for that.

The only bad thing about that is if they actually do something like that, probably half of their contributors will leave rather than go exclusive with them.  For them that might be ok, but it will cause a massive flood of newbies into all of the other microstock sites, and potentially bog down everyone else for some time after!

One of my coworkers refuses to use Albumo because on their main page they use "then" rather than "than" in a particular phrase - so, according to them, they're con artists.  LOL! 

Quote from: epixx on September 11, 2007, 02:22
iStock is an increasing headache. All their "enhancements" and changes only seems to make my sales go down. The most interesting part is that new images don't sell at all.

That is odd, isn't it?   I've had some images that sold extremely well almost daily over the years on iStock, and then a few months ago, poof, those images died.  Right at the same time those search changes took place.  Popularity of images change and vary as time goes on and that's just normal, but it's not normal to see a whole slew of images just suddenly die in sales, and yes, that happened to me, too.  Just like you as well, I haven't had a newly accepted iStock image sell in a very long time.  On the flipside, I've had Shutterstock accept images, put them up online and they've sold within hours of being posted.   argh.

Ok then, since this seems to get MORE confusing with every post. LOL...

Just let me ask this... if someone wanted to upload an image to Alamy then via their web site upload feature, and they're using a 10D (6MP) or XT (8MP) camera - what exactly should they do?   Resize the image to 3455 x 5150 (abouts) first, then just save it as best quality as a .JPG, then send it that way?     I use Paint Shop Pro, not Photoshop, but you can of course save it as quality "1" which in Paint Shop is the least compressed save.

Quote from: sharply_done on September 10, 2007, 19:52

Quote from: digitalshooter on September 10, 2007, 19:38
...  Shutterstock has low payouts but I almost immediately started selling shots, and even though my portfolio there is very small (under 100 images) I've already had a couple of enhanced license sales at $20 each!  So I think my focus will now be there, ...

Just be aware that you'll have to constantly upload to SS in order to keep your portfolio "alive" - sales will dramatically decline if you don't upload on at least a semi-regular basis.

Thanks for the tip.   I would always be uploading something there.  I mean heck, how could it be worse than what's happened at iStock??   I increased my portfolio there by 200% in the last few months and still sell less than I did before they changed.  I know another person who has over 900 images there, added 250 more, and still makes 50% less than they did a year ago.   Shutterstock surely can't be worse than that, even if you let uploads lax for a couple of weeks. 

Quote from: fintastique on August 17, 2007, 08:52
You need at least a 6mp camera 8 mp would be better and you need to upsize to about 3455 x 5150 which would be a 50.5 meg uncompressed TIFF (mimimum is 48 meg) but we can send JPEGS now  .

That's confusing.  If you save an upsized image at 5150x3455 in TIFF format in order to make it 50megs (which is what I once tried with a Canon 10D image) , how in the world would you meet their 48mg minimum if you saved it in JPG form?   Since JPG is compressed, how would that fly with their minimum file size?

This forum seems just right.  Well, so far.  I guess anyone could explode at any time any where.

Shutterstock forums just have a lack of moderation when it comes to moderators cutting off asses.  On the flipside, istock has some moderators that are as smartassy as the people who should be banned on Shutterstock, but instead they block and ban threads and people on istock for small stuff (it seems, anyway).   When you have a forum you must understand that there will be heated and open debates, and you should allow them to a degree.  But you shouldn't allow one or two people personally insult others work or make personal insults, either - or for that matter have moderators that do the same. 

This is why while I don't post a lot here, I like it here better than Shutterstock OR istock.  One doesn't have enough control, the other has nazi moderators.  This one is just right.

Quote from: ManicBlu on August 24, 2007, 16:22
I don't hate iStock but I do have a bit of resentment, I must admit, due to new users getting preferred treatment over those of us who have been supporting the site for much longer regardless of whether we're exclusive or not. They were once the site I uploaded to first. Now I only upload a few of my images there while concentrating on other sites where my files get the same chance as anyone elses.

That's exactly how I view it.  I've been with iStock for years but with varied system "adjustments" my income dropped by 80% in the last few months - and this with their commissions increase as well as adding to my portfolio.  A good number of others have also voiced the same results, some of which have massive portfolios (compared with the average contributor).  When you're used to making an average of $15.00 a day which I was, it doesn't sound like a lot, but that's almost $5,500.00 a year!  Then they make a series of "enhancements" to the site, give an increase in commissions, and here I am a few months later and a $4.00 day is now considered good.   My boyfriend also belongs to iStock and while he makes less due to a smaller portfolio (he averaged around $5.00 a day before the drop), he now rarely even makes $1.00 a day.   I don't really participate in their forums directly but read them daily, and it seems whenever people voice their concerns about it they either lock the thread or lock the person out who brings it up.  Very scary.

I've recently joined stockxpert but so far haven't been impressed with the sales there.  They seem quite picky with inspections as well.  Rejections are part of the business, but it's odd how iStock and Shutterstock (which I also joined not long ago) will accept images but stockxpert will say they're not good enough?  Sigh.  Shutterstock has low payouts but I almost immediately started selling shots, and even though my portfolio there is very small (under 100 images) I've already had a couple of enhanced license sales at $20 each!  So I think my focus will now be there, as opposed to iStock, until iStock comes to terms that all of those enhancements may not have been so hot after all, and take things back to the way they were long ago.

Quote from: KiwiRob on September 10, 2007, 12:02
I wonder if she would make more buy spreading her work around to other sites as well; I think she would, what do others think?

I think she probably would too, but the amount of work needed to duplicate her portfolio elsewhere would be enormous.  But putting all of your stuff on one site has its risks.  Look at the recent outages on iStock - today alone they've been completely down for hours and hours.  For most of us it's not the end of all, but just imagine how much Lise is losing because of these outages today.  If she had work on varied sites, those sales would chug along like normal while iStock's servers choke and clog.

I have no doubt that tweaks are in place that give her preferred search treatment.  She's the demi-goddess of istock and has brought them tons of business via sales as well as having been interviewed by numerous publications.  It would stand to reason that while they'd never admit it openly, she probably gets "search perks".   Sales at iStock have declined in the last few months due to various system adjustments, and I'd even be willing to bet that Lise has seen a drop as well - though at her level it probably doesn't make a huge impact on her overall income.