I resisted adding anything to TS on principle (along the lines of Joanne's thinking) But, I recently came to the realisation that I'm p*ssing in the wind, not having my images on there penalises no one except myself.  Not participating in TS wasn't sending a message to anyone - the genie is well and truely out of the bottle. So I added everything up to 18 months old with the exception of some sensitive content and my 5 best sellers (I might re-think that strategy as TS doesn't appear to have affected IS sales, although it's impossible to be 100% sure).

SNAP

What I'm reading here is that I should add all my images into the partner program. (do files have to be over 18 months old)?

Hello.

This is a similar thread to the E+ one. but relating to Thinkstock and the Partner programe

I had decided to keep all of my images off thinkstock and partner programs a while back because I thought my Istock sales would deminish if they were for sale elsewhere cheaper, and offering a lower royalty.  Much time has passed since then and I would be gratefull of your opinions/results in adding images to the partner program.

Should it only be for images that do not sell at IS?
Has anybody had positive results from making all their files available on thinkstock?

Hopefully this will guide me in maximising my profitability at IS and give me some clues about opting files in to thinkstock

Thank you

Quote from: malamus on July 16, 2012, 03:21

Crap doesn't sell at IS�
IMO Crap doesn't sell at any micro stock site, as that is the definition of crap.

So the title of this pretty pointless thread should be "stuff that doesn't sell, doesn't sell".

No, Shady, just trying to explain my idea of crap in micro stock is not anothers idea of crap. Wut, I believe was using crap as a term for low quality images, and I wanted to share my view that if a "low quality image made a lot of money, that made it successful, and not "crap". A usefull point for any new comers trying to make money and not exceptional Art.

Id like to add to this point that may be of interest to some, my best seller (easily found) was an early shot taken on cardboard, with my first DSLR using the ceiling striplight in my spare room that wasn't big enough to swing a cat. I have recently reshot this with my new camera, new software, new mac and new lights and new photography table, and if this retake is half as successful as its predecessor it will be my second best seller.

No, I would keep all images with IS, I wouldn't think there 's any benifit to drop IS. I was simply trying to assertain any implications that may be imposed for leaving and returning, Surely it can't be as simple as checking a tick box to become exclusive again, can it?

Well, thank you all for your comments. There is much I could comment on (old images not cutting the mustard, how embarrassing are they! but a good point).

I was contributing to the big 4 before going exclusive and at that time, like now, I asked lots of advice. Those who said you will never know until you try, of course, were right, just as that is true now. but a percentage was also mentioned quite a lot (I forget what that was now) and although I had a fair success on SS, FT was dire, the move to Istock, I believe, increased income slightly but saved a lot of time (and not forgetting, taught me a lot)

I'm looking to get info about going non exclusive as, since last year, my earnings have more than halved from $1000+ p/m to $100 p/w (I did also stop uploading). Now I have time to spend again, I am trying to work out how best to spend that time, shooting for istock to try and hold on to and increase income, (which is looking promising as new images are being purchased quickly) or keyword all images (that I feel are of quality) and upload them to the big 4 again.

Maybe it is to early to tell and I do wish all people ditching the crown in the pursuit of a more profitable portfolio the best of luck.

My conclusion. I get the impression people who have dropped the crown ARE clawing their earnings back, but due to a lot of hard work. As I still see this income as an enjoyable hobby with a �bonus rather than a choire, I will set myself a target to reach the income I once had, then review the situation again

Thank you for all your help

One question I would like to ask� If I did dropped the crown, and after 6 months returned to IS, is it simply a case of reactivating all images and more importantly could my portfolio become damaged, i.e. much less profitable due to any reasons that elude me.

I would have to recomend you display similar images (dont over kill tho!) so on closer inspection by the potential buyer they can see other images by YOU if the one they are viewing is not going to work for them.  Also link to lightboxes if you have many on the same subject. The amount of time that this takes compaired to adding just one image is insignificant (using DM (there may be some issues with illustrations)).

I answer this, not as a contributor who tries to do this, but as an EX buyer. If I liked the artists work, I found it useful to browse their work for similar files etc, and I would even change my needs to use a piece by a particular artist (that's what design is all about, changing everything and anything for the best end result)

I once designed a reciepe book (on the cheap) and once I had found a good photographer we would actually change the reciepe slightly in order to keep using their work, and it looked the better for it as you could tell all the images had a similar feel and could have been shot for the book.

Edited to say� keep up the good work with the keywording.

One final thought, Have you thought about designing illustrations for current affairs/topics like green energy, banking crisis, consumerism? etc.

on istock, haven't looked for it in ages and now have no idea where it's hidden

thanks

99% AF, altho not totally accurate, it eliminates all of my out of focus manual shots

God no, 14-24  would be far to wide for me I'd never buy that lens, 24-70 maybe. I do question the difference between some lenses  especially Nikon 16-35mm f/4 and the 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S NIKKOR

Hi again. I'm posting in the IS part as the images will be submitted to IS so its their standards that will be the target.

On a DX I have a 50mm and 105mm leaving me short in the wider angle area. I also own a 18-55vr and I am wondering what  the pitfalls of this lens for stock are and if there is any tips/situations to avoid for using it (I used to own the 12-24 which was great , but sold it to prepare for going FF)

Thanks

Hi jsnover, it's good to hear from you again. Nice to hear you think not much has changed,but your standards are high anyway!  the poster above has it right, submit and see how it goes

Yes, editorial looks like a nice trick to get in to, seems to be a little slow with the buyers tho.

Try persuading your employers to close their account and open one at Shutterstock or Dreamstime. That should keep Lobo/iStock happy

If I could guarantee the loss of earnings to istock were going to come straight out of lobos pocket, well I think that would be very tempting, but I don't have that power. I just use the account when its my shift on the magazine.