|
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 - Mantis
5001
« on: November 27, 2011, 19:17 »
@Mantis : if your photos are so good why don't you join Getty and make some fat sales there ?
SS sucks and bla bla bla ? excuse me but what else do you expect from a company selling products for as low as 0.5$ ??
actually considering their tight costs you're even lucky they're writing you back saying your pics are of LCV.
SS doesn't suck. I never said that. I said they are a good company with room to improve the way they review and determine salable images. I shoot my images base on the reason I buy (or don't buy) images. When I am creating a safety video, for example, I need choice. Placing text in the right place is important and when I can't find the right image or composition of an image that creates more time for me to produce my videos. I NEVER SAID MY WORK WAS SO MAGNIFICENT that it should be accepted everywhere, but I do shoot based on the frustrations I have as a buyer from not finding what I want. So please read my posts more carefully before responding. And I am speaking for not just me in particular but the bulk of image suppliers that were/are automatically deemed LCV buy Shutterstock's unrealistic assessment and lack of defined acceptance standards. Funny, speaking for me, whatever I shot and submitted before 4-6 months ago sold on SS and made us both money. Now they just sell every else. By the way, PLEASE show me where I said SS sucks bla bla....please. Just curious where you made that up.
5002
« on: November 27, 2011, 19:00 »
By the way, for everyone here, I am trying to be objective and offer up a different opinion on acceptance criteria. What Steve is saying, in my opinion, is as long as his are accepted then there isn't a problem. That, in and of itself, is the problem with this debate. I would honestly love to hear his opinion on acceptance criteria but I get the impression that his swollen head wont allow that to happen.
5003
« on: November 27, 2011, 18:59 »
I hate to rejoice in anyone's demise. But they deserve it.  On the other hand, if they fess up for being tyrannical, then they deserve a second chance.
After they disappear, let's hope their reviewers don't get jobs at SS, 123RF, etc. Maybe we can be the reviewers and reject all their work as "not suitable for stock."
Site analytic's most recent update - apologies if this is shown somewhere else...
IS in trouble.
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com/
I would take Istock's inspectors any day over Shutterstock's, or at least the Istock rules for image acceptance. If you were able to purge from Shutterstock what Istock would normally reject they could clean up their collection, have more salable product, and actually have a system where photographers are encouraged to upload.
LOL, another post from a brilliant Anonymous poster, with all signs showing ShutterStock eating IStock for lunch, Mantis steps forward and posts this masterpiece...LOL.. saleable product...LOL
Well folks, I am going to defend my position once again against the chest thumpers in here who seem to not embrace common business principles in the field of design and demand, microstock being one of those fields. I am a MS buyer, a MS contributor and a business design executive. I do not do MS full time, but I do design business processes full time and, as a result, understand customer needs. Although I am anonymous on this forum Nubrocs BRILLIANT comment only shows his own incompetence and breadth to hear and understand others opinions on a topic for which he disagrees. To be fair, he may be a good photographer, but going against the grain via others opinions seems hard for him to accept. Same with LagergreekI think he calls himself Christian. Hes a good photographer, too, but in my opinion failed to understand my point.
Now, back to defending my comments about SS inspection policy being sub-par to Istocks.
I make these comments for very good reason and based not on just my experiences. Shutterstock turns a blind eye to experienced photographers who know what they're doing. When I shoot I conduct research then set up the shoot around that research. I am not just snapshooting away and hoping what I shoot will sell. Then there is the work that goes into prep and submissions. So LCV rejections begin. The photographer (including me, among other very active contributors) try to share with SS WHY these images are salable and not LCV. Here are ways I personally have used to try to educate the ding dong inspectors at SS.
Stats of the same Images from other sites...as Joanne stated earlier. I have shared data with them from IS, Alamy and DT showing that the very images they claiming to be LCV are in fact researched and selling elsewhere. The response is all rejected for LCV.
Sometimes I am extending a successful series, explain to them what that series is, reference image numbers to show actual salability on their own site and they get rejected for LCV.
Other times I point out how my submissions are adding to gaps within their own collection and that they are fresh, new content, not versions of a bazillion other "apple" shots. Rejected for LCV.
Now you (Nubroc and Lagergeek) are probably in the minority of contributors who may not experience a lot of LCV but the bulk of contributors I speak with who are perhaps in the top 25 percent of all contributors in terms of quality content and volume are getting slammed with LCV rejections.
So I make my statement based on that very anorexic ear the SS peeps have in terms of listening and hearing what their experienced contributors have to say about their revenue killing inspection standards. Yes, they ARE leaving money on the table, both for SS and the contributor.
I am personally okay with rejections but when I can quantify or strongly qualify the value of an image set and it goes in one ear and out the other, that tells me a lot about a huge gap in their system and that they could care less about what constructive feedback contributors offer.
I have a higher than 90 percent acceptance on IS so I know it's not quality or composition. Funny that the last batch they rejected (90% rejection) had sales within days at DT, IS and Alamy. So that in and of itself proves them wrong.
So in a nutshell, that is why I say what I say and I stand by my comments. Don't get me wrong, though. I am speaking specifically about their inspection standards as an opportunity for serious, fair improvement. The rest of the company seems pretty solid short of seeing their financials.
So, my original comment: This is completely accurate. They are leaving money on the table and have inspectors that make unfounded judgement calls on saleability. This is the one are where SS sucks. They also do not listen to contributors, rather ignoring them is something they perceive as value added. Just because they are currently at the top, or close to it, doesn't mean they don't have significant room to become the king of micro. Their whole inspection process is so poor that uploading there is an honest crap shoot, a gamble that is a result of their unwillingness to bring fairness and commercial realism to their inspection process. They are by far the most shameful agency in this regard. ACCURATE, Nubroc. Tic, tic, tic , tic, tic. as long as they accept yours then its okay, right?
Awaiting you and Lager to reciprocate. You know what that means, right?
A Bitter anonymous poster who's been rejected at ShutterStock no doubt....LOL
It figures that this would be your response. No substance, no reasonable response. Really shows you lack of objectivity.
5004
« on: November 26, 2011, 19:52 »
I hate to rejoice in anyone's demise. But they deserve it. On the other hand, if they fess up for being tyrannical, then they deserve a second chance.
After they disappear, let's hope their reviewers don't get jobs at SS, 123RF, etc. Maybe we can be the reviewers and reject all their work as "not suitable for stock."
Site analytic's most recent update - apologies if this is shown somewhere else...
IS in trouble.
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com/
I would take Istock's inspectors any day over Shutterstock's, or at least the Istock rules for image acceptance. If you were able to purge from Shutterstock what Istock would normally reject they could clean up their collection, have more salable product, and actually have a system where photographers are encouraged to upload.
LOL, another post from a brilliant Anonymous poster, with all signs showing ShutterStock eating IStock for lunch, Mantis steps forward and posts this masterpiece...LOL.. saleable product...LOL
Well folks, I am going to defend my position once again against the chest thumpers in here who seem to not embrace common business principles in the field of design and demand, microstock being one of those fields. I am a MS buyer, a MS contributor and a business design executive. I do not do MS full time, but I do design business processes full time and, as a result, understand customer needs. Although I am anonymous on this forum Nubrocs BRILLIANT comment only shows his own incompetence and breadth to hear and understand others opinions on a topic for which he disagrees. To be fair, he may be a good photographer, but going against the grain via others opinions seems hard for him to accept. Same with LagergreekI think he calls himself Christian. Hes a good photographer, too, but in my opinion failed to understand my point.
Now, back to defending my comments about SS inspection policy being sub-par to Istocks.
I make these comments for very good reason and based not on just my experiences. Shutterstock turns a blind eye to experienced photographers who know what they're doing. When I shoot I conduct research then set up the shoot around that research. I am not just snapshooting away and hoping what I shoot will sell. Then there is the work that goes into prep and submissions. So LCV rejections begin. The photographer (including me, among other very active contributors) try to share with SS WHY these images are salable and not LCV. Here are ways I personally have used to try to educate the ding dong inspectors at SS.
Stats of the same Images from other sites...as Joanne stated earlier. I have shared data with them from IS, Alamy and DT showing that the very images they claiming to be LCV are in fact researched and selling elsewhere. The response is all rejected for LCV.
Sometimes I am extending a successful series, explain to them what that series is, reference image numbers to show actual salability on their own site and they get rejected for LCV.
Other times I point out how my submissions are adding to gaps within their own collection and that they are fresh, new content, not versions of a bazillion other "apple" shots. Rejected for LCV.
Now you (Nubroc and Lagergeek) are probably in the minority of contributors who may not experience a lot of LCV but the bulk of contributors I speak with who are perhaps in the top 25 percent of all contributors in terms of quality content and volume are getting slammed with LCV rejections.
So I make my statement based on that very anorexic ear the SS peeps have in terms of listening and hearing what their experienced contributors have to say about their revenue killing inspection standards. Yes, they ARE leaving money on the table, both for SS and the contributor.
I am personally okay with rejections but when I can quantify or strongly qualify the value of an image set and it goes in one ear and out the other, that tells me a lot about a huge gap in their system and that they could care less about what constructive feedback contributors offer.
I have a higher than 90 percent acceptance on IS so I know it's not quality or composition. Funny that the last batch they rejected (90% rejection) had sales within days at DT, IS and Alamy. So that in and of itself proves them wrong.
So in a nutshell, that is why I say what I say and I stand by my comments. Don't get me wrong, though. I am speaking specifically about their inspection standards as an opportunity for serious, fair improvement. The rest of the company seems pretty solid short of seeing their financials.
So, my original comment: This is completely accurate. They are leaving money on the table and have inspectors that make unfounded judgement calls on saleability. This is the one are where SS sucks. They also do not listen to contributors, rather ignoring them is something they perceive as value added. Just because they are currently at the top, or close to it, doesn't mean they don't have significant room to become the king of micro. Their whole inspection process is so poor that uploading there is an honest crap shoot, a gamble that is a result of their unwillingness to bring fairness and commercial realism to their inspection process. They are by far the most shameful agency in this regard. ACCURATE, Nubroc. Tic, tic, tic , tic, tic. as long as they accept yours then its okay, right?
Awaiting you and Lager to reciprocate. You know what that means, right?
5005
« on: November 26, 2011, 17:54 »
I hate to rejoice in anyone's demise. But they deserve it. On the other hand, if they fess up for being tyrannical, then they deserve a second chance.
After they disappear, let's hope their reviewers don't get jobs at SS, 123RF, etc. Maybe we can be the reviewers and reject all their work as "not suitable for stock."
Site analytic's most recent update - apologies if this is shown somewhere else...
IS in trouble.
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com/
I would take Istock's inspectors any day over Shutterstock's, or at least the Istock rules for image acceptance. If you were able to purge from Shutterstock what Istock would normally reject they could clean up their collection, have more salable product, and actually have a system where photographers are encouraged to upload.
LOL, another post from a brilliant Anonymous poster, with all signs showing ShutterStock eating IStock for lunch, Mantis steps forward and posts this masterpiece...LOL.. saleable product...LOL
Well folks, I am going to defend my position once again against the chest thumpers in here who seem to not embrace common business principles in the field of design and demand, microstock being one of those fields. I am a MS buyer, a MS contributor and a business design executive. I do not do MS full time, but I do design business processes full time and, as a result, understand customer needs. Although I am anonymous on this forum Nubrocs BRILLIANT comment only shows his own incompetence and breadth to hear and understand others opinions on a topic for which he disagrees. To be fair, he may be a good photographer, but going against the grain via others opinions seems hard for him to accept. Same with LagergreekI think he calls himself Christian. Hes a good photographer, too, but in my opinion failed to understand my point. Now, back to defending my comments about SS inspection policy being sub-par to Istocks. I make these comments for very good reason and based not on just my experiences. Shutterstock turns a blind eye to experienced photographers who know what they're doing. When I shoot I conduct research then set up the shoot around that research. I am not just snapshooting away and hoping what I shoot will sell. Then there is the work that goes into prep and submissions. So LCV rejections begin. The photographer (including me, among other very active contributors) try to share with SS WHY these images are salable and not LCV. Here are ways I personally have used to try to educate the ding dong inspectors at SS. Stats of the same Images from other sites...as Joanne stated earlier. I have shared data with them from IS, Alamy and DT showing that the very images they claiming to be LCV are in fact researched and selling elsewhere. The response is all rejected for LCV. Sometimes I am extending a successful series, explain to them what that series is, reference image numbers to show actual salability on their own site and they get rejected for LCV. Other times I point out how my submissions are adding to gaps within their own collection and that they are fresh, new content, not versions of a bazillion other "apple" shots. Rejected for LCV. Now you (Nubroc and Lagergeek) are probably in the minority of contributors who may not experience a lot of LCV but the bulk of contributors I speak with who are perhaps in the top 25 percent of all contributors in terms of quality content and volume are getting slammed with LCV rejections. So I make my statement based on that very anorexic ear the SS peeps have in terms of listening and hearing what their experienced contributors have to say about their revenue killing inspection standards. Yes, they ARE leaving money on the table, both for SS and the contributor. I am personally okay with rejections but when I can quantify or strongly qualify the value of an image set and it goes in one ear and out the other, that tells me a lot about a huge gap in their system and that they could care less about what constructive feedback contributors offer. I have a higher than 90 percent acceptance on IS so I know it's not quality or composition. Funny that the last batch they rejected (90% rejection) had sales within days at DT, IS and Alamy. So that in and of itself proves them wrong. So in a nutshell, that is why I say what I say and I stand by my comments. Don't get me wrong, though. I am speaking specifically about their inspection standards as an opportunity for serious, fair improvement. The rest of the company seems pretty solid short of seeing their financials. So, my original comment: This is completely accurate. They are leaving money on the table and have inspectors that make unfounded judgement calls on saleability. This is the one are where SS sucks. They also do not listen to contributors, rather ignoring them is something they perceive as value added. Just because they are currently at the top, or close to it, doesn't mean they don't have significant room to become the king of micro. Their whole inspection process is so poor that uploading there is an honest crap shoot, a gamble that is a result of their unwillingness to bring fairness and commercial realism to their inspection process. They are by far the most shameful agency in this regard. ACCURATE, Nubroc. Tic, tic, tic , tic, tic. as long as they accept yours then its okay, right?
5006
« on: November 26, 2011, 17:07 »
Call them and explain! resubmitting to SS, is not a good idea. Their editors are by far the best within Micro-stock and there is almost always a reason for rejections.
This is the biggest, most inaccurate comment in MS history. And coming from someone as good as you....unbelievable.
5007
« on: November 21, 2011, 18:28 »
I don't have anything on pd yet but I wonder if this could be the beginning of a cycle in the micro business. There certainly could be some opportunities to attract contributors this way. Low price kings could eventually under price themselves out of the business.
5008
« on: November 21, 2011, 18:11 »
I hate to rejoice in anyone's demise. But they deserve it. On the other hand, if they fess up for being tyrannical, then they deserve a second chance.
After they disappear, let's hope their reviewers don't get jobs at SS, 123RF, etc. Maybe we can be the reviewers and reject all their work as "not suitable for stock."
Site analytic's most recent update - apologies if this is shown somewhere else...
IS in trouble.
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com/
I would take Istock's inspectors any day over Shutterstock's, or at least the Istock rules for image acceptance. If you were able to purge from Shutterstock what Istock would normally reject they could clean up their collection, have more salable product, and actually have a system where photographers are encouraged to upload.
5009
« on: November 20, 2011, 12:39 »
gostwyk,
I make these comments for very good reason and based not on just my experiences. Shutterstock turns a blind eye to experienced photographers who know what they're doing. When I shoot I conduct research then set up the shoot around that research. I am not just snapshooting away and hoping what I shoot will sell. Then there is the work that goes into prep and submissions. So LCV rejections begin. The photographer (including me, among other very active contributors) try to share with SS WHY these images are salable and not LCV. Here are ways I personally have used to try to educate the ding dong inspectors at SS.
Stats of the same Images from other sites...as Joanne stated earlier. I have shared data with them from IS, Alamy and DT showing that the very images they claiming to be LCV are in fact researched and selling elsewhere. The response is all rejected for LCV.
Sometimes I am extending a successful series, explain to them what that series is, reference image numbers to show actual salability on their own site and they get rejected for LCV.
Other times I point out how my submissions are adding to gaps within their own collection and that they are fresh, new content, not versions of a bazillion other "apple" shots. Rejected for LCV.
Now you are probably in the minority of contributors who may not experience a lot of LCV but the bulk of contributors I speak with who are perhaps in the top 25 percent of all contributors in terms of quality content and volume are getting slammed with LCV rejections.
So I make my statement based on that very anorexic ear the SS peeps have in terms of listening and hearing what their experienced contributors have to say about their revenue killing inspection standards. Yes, they ARE leaving money on the table, both for SS and the contributor.
I am personally okay with rejections but when I can quantify or strongly qualify the value of an image set and it goes in one ear and out the other, that tells me a lot about a huge gap in their system and that they could care less about what constructive feedback contributors offer.
I have a higher than 90 percent acceptance on IS so I know it's not quality or composition. Funny that the last batch they rejected (90% rejection) had sales within days at DT, IS and Alamy. So that in and of itself proves them wrong.
So in a nutshell, that is why I say what I say and I stand by my comments. Don't get me wrong, though. I am speaking specifically about their inspection standards as an opportunity for serious, fair improvement. The rest of the company seems pretty solid short of seeing their financials.
5010
« on: November 20, 2011, 10:29 »
5011
« on: November 20, 2011, 09:47 »
[/quote]
To me, SS is leaving good money on the table by trying to guess what designers want and don't want. But as you say, each agency has its hot buttons and they are all trying to keep their swelling databases under control, so in most cases, I'll just move on.
[/quote]
This is completely accurate. They are leaving money on the table and have inspectors that make unfounded judgement calls one salability. This is the one are where SS sucks. They also do not listen to contributors, rather ignoring them is something they perceive as value added.m just because they are currently at the top, or close to it, doesn't mean they don't have significant room to become the king of micro. Their whole inspection process is so poor that uploading there is an honest crap shoot, a gamble that is a result of their unwillingness to bring fairness and commercial realism to their inspection process. They are by far the most shameful agency in this regard.
5012
« on: November 19, 2011, 08:21 »
Right. Remember the Bruce from IS? Times were right and ripe to sell. Oringer is a businessman, too.
Wrong. Livingstone bottled it and sold out way, way too early. Oringer is 10x the businessman that Livingstone was (and is quite possibly 100x wealthier too). Brucie-babe sold out for just $50M. I reckon you'd need to pony-up close to $1B before you could even begin discussions to buy SS/BigStock.
My point is still valid regardless. You may be right in your thoughts tho.
5013
« on: November 18, 2011, 20:16 »
Don't believe the hype! Every business has a botton line and that is to keep themselves sustainable once they are established. They will do what it takes to keep themselves sustainable. That's just business!
Right. Remember the Bruce from IS? Times were right and ripe to sell. Oringer is a businessman, too.
5014
« on: November 16, 2011, 19:17 »
+1
I log into FT only once month to record my monthly sales in a spreadsheet. Other than that I use the emails from sales to gauge where I am. Same with DP.
5015
« on: November 16, 2011, 18:09 »
thats a new one on IS 
I had like 30 files approved already with those releases and they do have description, why is this week different?
I really dont understand, reviewers dont look into our portfolio?
need to have a lot of paTience :/
This has happened to me a few times. I just contact support and they always fix it and accept the images.
5016
« on: November 16, 2011, 17:27 »
Has anyone submitted images with titles that are not caps for the first letter of each word? I would also wonder what happens if I have more than 30 keywords. Does it kick the image back to me or truncate the first 30? I can tell you, if the title thing is a stickler, I am not going back to change 3,000 image titles. My titles are like: Cup of hot chocolate, not Cup Of Hot Chocolate. I don't actually have any shots of hot chocolate but just sayin.
My titles are like yours (First letter capitalised only), and were accepted. The same for keywords: I had pictures accepted with up to at least 40 keywords, they don't even truncate the first 30. They don't accept numbers in keywords though.
Looks more like a guideline than a rule.
Thank you. Appreciate the feedback.
5017
« on: November 15, 2011, 17:14 »
Has anyone submitted images with titles that are not caps for the first letter of each word? I would also wonder what happens if I have more than 30 keywords. Does it kick the image back to me or truncate the first 30? I can tell you, if the title thing is a stickler, I am not going back to change 3,000 image titles. My titles are like: Cup of hot chocolate, not Cup Of Hot Chocolate. I don't actually have any shots of hot chocolate but just sayin.
5018
« on: November 14, 2011, 16:50 »
I don 't shoot video, but I am very happy for those who do. And of course increased royalties are a welcome sign for the industry as a whole. It's good to see SS taking such a different approach to some of their competitors.
Next up? Photogs & Illustrators perhaps? What a perfect storm that would create.
5019
« on: November 13, 2011, 19:23 »
LOL... hardly. But that gives me an idea for Halloween. 
LOL that is funny.
5020
« on: November 13, 2011, 17:36 »
The new 70-300 L ( white one), is brillant. with closest focals at 1.2, meters. I find myself using this one more then the 70-200L.IS.2.8.
comparatively speaking, I prefer the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D series, it shoots beautifully and it's more substantial than the new fx lenses. clean, nice bokeh, and less expensive since it's older
This is a good point. The bokeh on some lenses just sucks. Opt for quality, not price.
5021
« on: November 13, 2011, 17:33 »
Part Two Votes Cast November 2011
300 votes DT
294 votes SS
294 votes FT
275 votes IS
275 votes 123RF
260 votes BigStock
250 votes CS
177 votes DP
58 votes PD
49 votes P5
49 votes Veer
26 votes COf
Says something about how popular some sites are? Not much about sales or profits. 
This is true. My metrics don't necessarily line up with what MSG shows, so there are inherent differences probably based on portfolio type, quantity, quality, and N where N=data points being measured.
5022
« on: November 13, 2011, 17:27 »
We used to use Istock a lot, especially for their interior home shots. But now we use SS as primary and DT secondarily.
5023
« on: November 13, 2011, 17:21 »
I may have taken a wrong turn. Modeling seems to be my niche. Just submitted 5 pictures of myself and 4 were accepted. Didn't even have to convince myself to sign a release. 
Time to join the "People Picture" crowd. 
Bikini?
5024
« on: November 13, 2011, 11:11 »
This may have been discussed earlier but I could not find an answer (on MSG) with search.
Am I supposed to attach a picture of the model to the release before scanning to a JPG file?
Best to do it that way.
5025
« on: November 13, 2011, 09:51 »
What do we think of this womans work. she sells out and also sells out her books.
http://www.susanmikula.com/
They look like frames from surveillance video.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
