|
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 - MichaelJay
126
« on: May 11, 2009, 07:57 »
I'm simply looking for feedback and ideas on what I could possibly do to appeal the decisions made?
Okay... here's an idea... now you have some time to re-consider your approach to Microstock. How about this: Next week you will walk around and look at all the posters and billboards you see. And you will occasionally scroll through some magazines... no need to read articles, just look at the images. How about spending a few hours surfing the net, looking at "How to" articles and blogs mainly. News aren't interesting as they usually use real images... Concepts and Illustrations of topics. Then you take a week and put down ideas on images you could shoot that could replace those images you have seen. Make them interesting for a potential reader - they should be eye-catching but not distract from the actual content of the ad or article. If you come up with five ideas, try to set up the light to make it work. Move the light around the objects, look at the results on the screen and decide which ones look best. Make sure they are technically perfect, focus at the right spot, histogram looking alright, colors and contrasts as you think they should be. Write a headline for each of those images and ask yourself how many readers would be interested in reading that article/ad after seeing your image and the headline. Then you come back here and post your new sample images. I am already sure the next three would be much, much closer to what commercial stock is about. Once you got accepted with those "boring commercial stuff" you can still try to upload dragonflies and see if they sell... (edit: I have started with a quote how you want to appeal the decision... but what I actually wanted to mention is that while those images might be nice I don't think based on those images you appeal looks too promising as it doesn't seem your imagery is a "must have" for commercial stock)
127
« on: May 11, 2009, 07:24 »
I had an image of an Asian man rejected just yesterday for the keyword "Asian". 
I'd wonder if you had this disambiguated correctly? An Asian person should be DA'd as "Asian Ethnicity" not "Asia". Then I'd be surprised to get a rejection, too - but honestly, mistakes happen to all of us at times as well, right?
128
« on: May 11, 2009, 03:37 »
Truth is sales are down for almost everyone. Just check out that German chart which is now a sea of red. I can't see any pattern there with exclusives down and independents up. Yeah, I certainly don't see any big swing toward independents reflected in my sales. And just checking that chart I see I am in good company there in the red, irrespective of crowns or not.
Last 30 days includes Easter weekend and May1/May4, so two long weekends lower the averages for everyone. All red is pretty normal and doesn't mean any "trend".
129
« on: May 06, 2009, 10:36 »
Being as you're on the staff of IS I'm not sure how much trust to put into your reply either Just to correct that: I am not on the staff. I am not hired by iStock, I am not sitting in an iStock office and I neither get involved nor informed in decisions like this. I am just helping to moderate the German-speaking forum to show people around who don't understand English. And yes, still, I am biased in almost each and every of my opinions. Not only if they are around iStock.
130
« on: May 06, 2009, 10:08 »
You've hit the nail on the head. Why would a buyer pay $200-$400 for "exclusive" images at istock when they can get those not so exclusive after all files for $100-$200? Just to make things worse, the up to 40% commission on the $200-$400 is being replaced by 22.5% on the $100-$200. Good for buyers, good for the "Getty Family" but terrible for istock and its contributors, especially the exclusives. Both are valid questions and should and can be asked. My personal assumption to question 1 would be: 1) Most customers will need much less than 50 images a month, they will need 1, 2 or 5. For them paying $100 a month is not an option. 2) Many customers don't care if one image costs $1, $5 or $20. It's still much less than they had to pay in the past. But they want access to the best library for their projects. 3) Quite a few customers think like the one above. They don't buy at iStock nowadays. So currently your share of that market is $0.00 Yes, it might be possible that some customers will switch from model A to model B. But did it ever occur to you it also might happen that some customers will switch from model B to model A once they find "hey, that's great content but I want to have access to it all"? It could be working in both ways. I don't say it will but it could. Don't assume that ALL customers will buy an ANNUAL subscription and download ALL images they are allowed to. Because that's not business sense. And what I also would consider a bit more respect is if people don't always state that Getty makes all the calls. I don't know if this is the case or not but neither do you. Maybe you could consider that each time you are stating "this must be an order of Getty" you are at the same time saying "I don't trust the people having led iStock to where it is now to have a opinion, standing or strength at all." I'd expect everybody to have a bit more respect for those people and at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they actually believe this is a right step for all of us. At the end, they are humans even if that gets lost sometimes in our virtual environments. This is something that somehow got a bit lost these days and makes me more than just a bit sad. Sorry to share that if you don't care.
131
« on: May 06, 2009, 09:33 »
Now: many people assumed, that the reality will be closer to the 3 cents than to the "expected average". That puts one question to my mind. StockXpert currently pays a fixed 30 cents per download - out of the same subscription prices.
If the assumption were correct, that 20% (or 22,5%) of the real revenue of photos.com were at or near 3 cents, StockXpert would currently loose a gib amount of money. I can't believe that. So assuming that they take a similar 70% from total revenues for subscriptions as they do for PPD, the gross revenue per download would be at 1$ - leading to 20 - 22.5 cents per download for the proposed IS plan on average.
Still not a good deal (and still not one I support), but very different indeed.
Any mistakes in my thinking?
Seems like you are a bit smarter in coming up with assumptions based on facts rather than the people stating that customers not using the 750 downloads are plain dumb. From a customer perspective it's simple: I may need 50 images per month, medium quality, medium size. I have option A) to buy those at a PPD site for maybe $200-$400 a month and I have option B) to buy those at a subscription site for $100-$200 a month. If the quality on the subs site meets my purposes, I will buy the subscription. I don't care if I waste 700 potential downloads because the decision already makes sense for me. Now here's customer B: He says, well beyond those 50 I need I will download quite some more to keep as a reserve for future use or for personal benefit (let's make it my wallpaper). Still just because he needs to invest some time to pick & download, he won't sit in front of a computer for hours to download 700 images that he most likely will never use. Maybe he will download 100, maybe 150. So he stores those images on his hard disk, now what... he won't be able to use all or many of them in future projects because he can't his customers/projects based on the image he already has. Yes, he will use some of them. But in most cases the contributor is getting paid for a "license" that never will get used. Obviously I am not informed in detail how those sites have worked in the past. So my theories are speculation as well but do they sound unreasonable? Really? I certainly don't trust anyone blindly that all his decisions are right. But I also put some trust in not everything is wrong that is being said by a group of people with an excellent track record of taking care of my images. And finally, it's still an optional thing, nobody is forcing anyone. As an everday consumer I am used to get treated much worse by big companies...
132
« on: May 02, 2009, 08:31 »
I am not sure if re-downloads show up in the download list but it's possible.
And yes, there is a special "only for use in Steel Cage" license that allows us freaks to play around and show off by making good use of your images... we are only allowed small sizes and no use outside of the steel cage, so don't worry about and have a look if your image gets used in there. It's fun. ;-)
133
« on: May 02, 2009, 07:36 »
this feels like a very big fish decision. from the top. I think the sale to Getty was the beginning of a prolonged end to iStock. it will eventually be absorbed IMHO. whether or not to be on the inside or the outside when/if that happens, that is the question.
I don't know but I don't believe so. iStock and it's business model has proven very successful in the past and I truly believe Getty is respecting this. Obviously they always tried and will keep trying to create synergies between companies and collections. Maybe not all of them are in the best interest of all artists represented. And this move is the only recent announcement that makes me really think if it's a good move for me or not. But at least it's my personal choice. Wherever I look around in the world, huge companies tend to tell me "take it or leave it" when it comes to changes. With this announcement they leave it up to me how I want to deal with it. And no, I don't believe it will be a big mass of contributors making their whole portfolio available through those subscription sales at once. So I don't believe I will be forced by the market to make the same move.
134
« on: May 02, 2009, 07:31 »
One thing that hasn't been pointed out is that often the non-selling images are similars from a series. Under Plan B, if those were to be available on Photos.com wouldn't it possibly undercut the better selling exclusive images here?
You still have the option to remove those images from iStock if you feel you don't want them to be offered at the lowest price. Given that those images didn't sell well for two years, you probably won't lose much be removing them, right? Some people have done so in the past when they were about to be moved to the Dollar Bin. It's a decision you can make.
135
« on: May 01, 2009, 05:12 »
There is no agency that will give you as much as 10-15 agencies together.
If it comes down to total earnings, it sounds you are perfectly right. Though, I think the question is if people prefer to focus on one agency to save time on uploading, keywording, analyzing etc. and spend more time on taking images. That's a personal decision, of course. But you might end up with more money as you might have more time for shooting. But I wouldn't really recommend a starter to focus on one agency. Experiences are too different for everybody, so some will find an agency is selling better for them than for other photographers. Just be aware what kind of contracts you are agreeing to. There are sites who ask you for more than you might want to give and some people only find out when they want to get out later.
136
« on: April 30, 2009, 09:27 »
Have one account in your name and another in your spouses name. No one will know who actually took the photos. So with each upload when you confirm that you are the sole copyright holder, you would be lying/cheating. I don't think that's good advice in any business relationship.
137
« on: April 30, 2009, 06:45 »
Yeah i know it is only for exclusives but I still thought the announcement might be viewable for all... I suppose that would just make things confusing for those who couldn't participate.
I think it is a bad decision publishing a story here that was addressed to exclusives only... obviously the link will not work for non-exclusives. As mentioned in the original announcement ( http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=80935&page=1), the Premiere Collection will be open to exclusive members only. And the announcement made today was directed to those members as well. Customers and non-exclusives will have to wait for the official announcement that will be made in due time when the Premiere Collection is ready. Stay tuned, it will be great.
138
« on: April 20, 2009, 07:51 »
Istock allows exclusivity for types of files? I thought the exclusivity agreement covered everything.
One exclusivity for all types of images (photos, renders, illustrations) but separate exclusivity for Video and Audio.
139
« on: April 20, 2009, 06:13 »
I've had as low as .10 and yes I think I read they were old credits. Yes, a few years ago credit price was at $0.50 and those credits were sold without termination date. That's why there are still some of them sitting in accounts that still can be used today.
140
« on: April 20, 2009, 06:12 »
i don't think it's unreasonable to get 30 cents for XS, even 10 cents. i only think it's a bit much to allow anyone to get L and up for 30 cents . ie. subs. I think you are not talking about IS in this case.
141
« on: April 20, 2009, 06:05 »
I think when we talk abut colors there is no need for full size images (heavily purple sea and sky, light blue sea against yellow and green sky, and dark orange and pinkish sky and sea) You posted while I was typing, so just another response to clarify my first post: To judge if your way of post processing degraded the image too far for large-size print, yes a full size image is needed to be looked at.
142
« on: April 20, 2009, 06:03 »
I just wanna ask why IS doesn't accept images like these any more...at least doesn't accept my images that are even slightly more saturated. There is no general "iStock never accepts..." with regards to technical issues. There are some pretty strictly enforced rules regarding trademarks and copyright protection but if it comes to technical evaluation of a work, we will always have to deal with gray areas, no black and whites. I would say a general rule always is if the inspector comes to the conclusion that A) the processing degraded the image quality for a full-size print and/or B) the effect was not done in a proper way so that a designer could do it himself within reasonable time and potentially better effect from the original unaltered image. So you have two choices: If you want to keep rejections and effort low, your way of keeping the post processing low is a good choice. Or you could start discussing with experienced iStockers (I don't say better photographers as what you will need to learn is just the very IS specific way of looking at pictures), best by posting one of your rejected images in full size (watermarked) in IS Critique Request forum. Starting from that you could even contact one or few of the other photographers by sitemail and ask for advice. Best regards, Michael
143
« on: April 16, 2009, 01:55 »
Okay, I went through my portfolio, and found the the occasional ones that weren't checked for subscription. Weird. I never unchecked them in the first place. Anyway, thanks to all, for the explanation.
That's the point... Subscription was introduced last year and iStock didn't want to force any contributors to become part of the program. I think by default all images were not part of the subscription program unless explicitly opted in.
144
« on: April 14, 2009, 09:24 »
Sample: from $230 on my debit card i get only about $160. 
I don't know how you calculated that. I tried the Payoneer card with both, paying online services and withdrawing money at the ATM. In the first case, I didn't note any fees beyond the $2/$1 per month. And in the second case I paid a transaction/foreign exchange fee of about 2.5%, so from $300 more than $290 arrived in my hand.
145
« on: April 01, 2009, 01:56 »
And, I really have thorough picks for stock photos. Well, really, I don't try to be mean - but with the exception of one image at Fotolia I didn't see anything that I would qualify as a decent selling image. Maybe this is a question of perception but 10 sales are actually saying that not too many customers share this opinion. As said, this is not meant to be mean. If you are happy with your sales, go on. But if are trying to make more money, I would recommend stepping back a bit and trying to figure out how to become better.
146
« on: March 30, 2009, 03:33 »
As people say that the age of an image affects its positioning in a search result, it's been said here that is better to resubmit and hope for another inspector to pick it.
Well, I wouldn't strongly recommend that. Resubmitting an image once rejected by an inspector... well, you might get lucky once or twice but you can be certain that this circumvention of the official rules won't be tolerated if someone finds out. Sending your image to Scout is the only choice if you want to have the inspection decision reviewed.
147
« on: March 26, 2009, 17:42 »
Guilty as charged.
Though there are times when I write but couldn't take pictures (like in my 5-minutes-mental-breaks in the office...). I still spend way too much times in forums and stuff anyway. :-)
148
« on: March 24, 2009, 04:43 »
I still don't get what you are implying...
Somebody must have made those moderators moderators, right? And somebody must have given that somebody power to make others moderators. And so on. Follow up as much as you want but you will always end at the shareholders and management of a company to make the decisions and give out guidelines.
So what was the point again?
Just to add: I think the sparkling silver M badge is the most beautiful of all of them. And they didn't make me pay for it. Why didn't they? I thought iStock was a commercial enterprise.
149
« on: March 18, 2009, 03:27 »
Either way, I never downsize my images for sale.
So what if someone tells you: "Downsize it to 6 MP and we will sell it for you, leave it at 12 MP and we don't accept it at all?"... Things are rarely black and white. I have downsized quite a few images from XXL to L to get them up - obviously that was because the base image wasn't the best to start with but still I made some money from them that I wouldn't have otherwise. And yes, for initial application something in the range of 6MP is sufficient and can hide some minor focus, noise or artifacting issues. My proposal to people for the initial application always is to upload three completely different topics to show how broad your capabilities are. Animal, People, Still life, Isolated, whatever, just show different things. You should choose images that you didn't post process much because they were already good coming directly out of the camera. And as suggested before, upload your images fullsize (watermarked) somewhere like vox.com and put up links in this thread to have people tell you what they think about them.
150
« on: March 17, 2009, 06:46 »
Yeah I don't know why I fell compelled to post all these crazy opinions. Maybe it has something to do with the word "forum" being defined as "a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of idea." Just me I guess.
Feel free to post your opinion. But I think it's only fair to also let your readers know how much they can trust your opinion. With 5 images and less than one month and none sold... yeah, well... readers might tend to believe people with a bit more long-term experiences. Obviously the 4 sales on 44 uploads on Dreamstime prove that you actually know what you are talking about. As I said, yeah, feel free to post your opinion and share your personal experience. Just keep it in perspective.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
