|
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 - raclro
26
« on: January 20, 2013, 20:30 »
Today is the first I have heard of this, I'm not in any of the forums much. It would seem to be a way of sending a message that perhaps won't be commented on much, but will alert them to the level of discontent (surely they already know, but this is a bold statement).
I do have to ask a sincere question, especially of those who are exclusive with very large portfolios. Since you are exclusive, all your eggs are in one basket at this time. Is it really worth dumping all the thousands of hours spent building your portfolio, not to mention the significant monthly income to make such a point? Not arguing, but I have no time or energy to reload my 7000 photos anywhere else (especially when I would be worried that most companies will have similar issues in the future it they don't yet). I read a great deal of dissatisfaction in other microstock company forums. The grass is perhaps greener, but will it remain? I think not. I fear microstock has irreversibly entered the world of big business, maximum profits with minimal cost to suppliers (us). I am sure many of you will follow through and deactivate real sellers, not just 2005 images that clearly do not reflect your current standard of excellence, but don't sell anyway. But the thought runs through my head that I could jump in and deactivate a few hundred that have never sold, make myself feel better, but iStock will recognize exactly what I am doing and not feel at all bad about it. I respect your decision, but it seems a little like shooting yourself in the foot unless you have little or nothing to lose. Multiply your anticipated total de-activations by 5 and iStock will fill those slots in very short order with new uploads, ti won't even be a blip on their graph. Not defending iStock/Getty or disagreeing with your cause and passion. Just asking if you really think it will change the way things work there, and is it worth it to you personally?
It must be very anguishing, being an exclusive right now - I feel for you. I just have a couple comments. If you are curious about your options, contact the other agencies and from what I understand, the most important ones will accept a drive and help you with getting your photos online.
On another note, if you have people photos in these programs now or in the future, how will you feel if a photo of your child has been downloaded by a pedophile or a dating site and they claim "it's public domain - I can do what I want" because that is what your exif will say. Also, you may be subject to lawsuits by your models - you may feel you are not in the wrong - but they will sue you and Getty and Google and you will still have to lawyer up.
Thanks for the information about contacting other agencies, perhaps it will come to that in the future. Actually I have no anguish since unlike many people that depend on it, it is simply a well paying hobby for me.
27
« on: January 20, 2013, 19:50 »
Today is the first I have heard of this, I'm not in any of the forums much. It would seem to be a way of sending a message that perhaps won't be commented on much, but will alert them to the level of discontent (surely they already know, but this is a bold statement).
I do have to ask a sincere question, especially of those who are exclusive with very large portfolios. Since you are exclusive, all your eggs are in one basket at this time. Is it really worth dumping all the thousands of hours spent building your portfolio, not to mention the significant monthly income to make such a point? Not arguing, but I have no time or energy to reload my 7000 photos anywhere else (especially when I would be worried that most companies will have similar issues in the future it they don't yet). I read a great deal of dissatisfaction in other microstock company forums. The grass is perhaps greener, but will it remain? I think not. I fear microstock has irreversibly entered the world of big business, maximum profits with minimal cost to suppliers (us). I am sure many of you will follow through and deactivate real sellers, not just 2005 images that clearly do not reflect your current standard of excellence, but don't sell anyway. But the thought runs through my head that I could jump in and deactivate a few hundred that have never sold, make myself feel better, but iStock will recognize exactly what I am doing and not feel at all bad about it. I respect your decision, but it seems a little like shooting yourself in the foot unless you have little or nothing to lose. Multiply your anticipated total de-activations by 5 and iStock will fill those slots in very short order with new uploads, ti won't even be a blip on their graph. Not defending iStock/Getty or disagreeing with your cause and passion. Just asking if you really think it will change the way things work there, and is it worth it to you personally?
28
« on: November 10, 2012, 09:50 »
Great information gathering and compilation. It is interesting to see your continued growth, congratulations. I do not have the graphs like you do, but my iStock file numbers, sales, and dollars slopes were similar to yours. In other words, keep adding photos, both income and sales increased. This trend revered itself for me when I hit 3500 images a couple of years ago. As I projected it into the future I figured all I had to do was keep uploading. Over the past couple of years I have doubled my portfolio only to see sales drop by over 60%. Many factors undoubtedly come into play (exclusive to iStock, strong competition in my major photo genre, and failure see trends and adjust). Hopefully for you this collection and analysis of your data will help guide you to better business success than I am currently having. I will look in on your blog now and then.
29
« on: November 05, 2012, 11:20 »
It will always be worth it for me since I am a hobbyist photographer that manages to make decent money at iStock. I have significant money tied up in gear but it is because I like photography. I do not purchase anything for stock shooting with "return on investment" in mind. I have however lost some momentum. I have doubled my portfolio to over 7000 in the past couple of years. During that same time frame, my income from sales has lost nearly 60% (still about what a monthly car payment is however). I will still be an active contributor but not in the same way I was before. Less time spent, less anticipation of a big long term payout that looked so promising in 2007.
30
« on: October 04, 2012, 22:14 »
The forums while interesting and informative are by no means statistically significant when it comes to iStock's business. Yes many if not most of the contributors, myself included) are hurting compared to the past. It is a good place to vent for many.
iStock has however made some business blunders in my opinion which has exacerbated the problem for both us and them. All business have some problems from time to time. ( how many times has the richest company in the world been declared near death ---Apple.) Hopefully iStock will steady the ship. I still see the real problem for us contributors is as someone else mentioned, simply "supply and demand". There are tens of thousands times more files for sale on-line now than even back when I started in 2006. Not to mention many millions of free photos available now. I mean who would not complain if they could send in a decent photo of a pumpkin or oil filter taken with a point and shoot in 2002 and make thousands of dollars. I caught the tail end of that bandwagon and thought it would never end. There are several reasonably well run competitors with similar or much greater growth. Competition both in numbers and between sites is the real answer in my view. The wealth that trickles down to most contributors is being severely diluted because there are so many of us now and so many files for sale.
31
« on: October 01, 2012, 17:35 »
April 2010 iStock was my BME in dollars.
since then I have added a couple thousand more photos there but am down 73% in dollars. To give some perspective, I averaged over $1100 per month in 2010. Competition has increased many times over both on iStock and other sites since then. There are simply way more choices out there for buyers than there used to be.
32
« on: September 02, 2012, 22:46 »
I think it a great initiative. Would I use my phone to do food photography. Hell no, unless I would be in an exotic restaurant and had a tarantula served on my plate and I had no other camera with me....
But I fully agree with those that think that a great image is a great image independently of whatever tool was used. You can take the most boring image with a PHASE ONE and the most spectacular one with a mobile phone even if it's full of noise,artifacts,unsharp,....
Don't believe me. Just look at the next photo essay and tell me if this is not the case:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/25/the_war_in_hipstamatic#1
I am seeing this trend nearly every day. They are using many "quaility" photos and adding noise, artifacting, vingetting, etc. I think iStock is learning that there is a significant market for photos like these.
33
« on: September 02, 2012, 22:39 »
Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.
Exactly.
34
« on: August 30, 2012, 22:10 »
I like it, I really do. iStock is realizing that many or perhaps most of it's buyers are looking for a specific subject or concept for use on the web with little concern about the "quality" issues we strive so hard to produce. I have publicly joked that if I submitted a photo of Bigfoot, it would be rejected because of "use of on-camera flash". Sure there will always be a nice market for excellent studio/model shots, as well as other true quality photography,but-----take a look at the photos used on websites. Randomly brouse a wide variety of sites and it is clear that the vast majority of photos do not meet the historical iStock quality demands. I think this is a wise move, except for the fact it further dilutes my portfolio vs the collection.
The camera in my phone is better than the one I used early on to take photos that have earned me many thousands of iStock dollars ( some of them still sell very well)
Slightly off subject here, but I use my Canon S100 for lots of iStock work now, nearly as small as a cell phone and way easier to carry around than my 5D and my stable of L lenses. The real "for me" photography I love all my gear, but for stock I am going smaller, especially editorial.
35
« on: August 02, 2012, 22:41 »
Down in $$ about 40% compared to 2011. Better than June however.
36
« on: July 25, 2012, 20:54 »
My 2 cents;
I only put a few dozen into E+ way back when it started, I continue to let it roll. I selected a fairly wide variety and also a few "similars", putting one in, leaving one out. Sale numbers dropped dramtically, income stayed about the same. I really like it whenever an E+ sale occurs like today. Small file $8.20. Looks better than the many other pre E+ sales of less than $1.00.
37
« on: July 22, 2012, 17:19 »
I upload into Lightroom with a simple date and subject name. Select and edit photos in Lightroom (sometimes there is an intermediate stop in PS Elements for addtional editing) , and delete all questionable shots from both Lightroom and the hard drive. I then export edited photos to a "Photos Ready" folder on my desktop from which I upload to iStock. After uploading, the file is then dragged into a subfolder-- "Uploaded", this folder then has subfolders-- "Accepted", "Resubmit edit" into which I drag the file after inspection. I delete rejected edited photos from my desktop subfolder since I still have the original in Lightroom should I ever want to go back to them. I star the ones I use in Lightroom to tell me they have been sent. The accepted folder is occasionally saved on an external hard drive. This workflow works well for me and for the years I did it without Lightroom, just a Windows based folder system using PS elements to edit.
38
« on: June 30, 2012, 17:10 »
I am just off a break of about 3 weeks. Very nice, but feels good to be uploading again. I try to ignore the fact that I am adding more than 1000 photos per year, and barely holding even on sales. Every few weeks I take a bunch of photos (landscape, 4X macro insect stuff) just for fun with no intention of submitting. I overuse noise filters, add too much contrast, over sharpen, and bump up the saturation. I love it, just for me. Full speed ahead on iStock shooting and uploading can be very boring indeed.
39
« on: May 27, 2012, 16:35 »
OK, the mark has been set at 13 minutes. It sounds like a nice you to try for. I have been surprised lately to get them in a few hours. Editorial excepted. They seem to take 6-7 days, then a group of 20 come through all at once. Same scenario three times now.
I have recently noticed another pleasant change. Acceptance rate has been essentially 100% the past month or two (and I sent in a couple hundred, not bragging or complaining, but whats up with that? Not to say I have sent in junk, but recently they have taken things that were a 50/50 type previously.
40
« on: April 03, 2012, 17:27 »
best month this year and more ELs than ever.
41
« on: March 28, 2012, 10:40 »
What luck, I just sold an extended license for a Lausanne photo this morning for $42. Rooftops, church spire,lake and French mountains beyond. It's like I always say, I can never predict what will sell, and no longer try. Lets keep talking, I'm not superstitious, but this was a nice coincidence.
42
« on: March 25, 2012, 10:38 »
Not sure if it makes sense for many types, but certainly for some. Buyers often don't know what they want until they see it and the subtle differences between a series of shots lets one grab them. It makes sense to do a vertical and a horizontal. I dont do many myself but cannot see that it helps or hurts with one exception, and this is a slight off- topic veer to this thread. Sorry.
I frequently upload a shot along with one or two cropped versions of the same photo. Of course I lose size potential, but the cropped photos usually outsell the original by a large margin. So much for the copy space idea, I think it is often a matter of simple eye appeal.
43
« on: March 24, 2012, 23:22 »
We spent 3 days in Lausanne. I took lots of travel shots and sent a dozen or so to iStock, one of which has sold a few times.
I was not shooting editorial at the time, but that would be my suggestion.
Check out the attachment, this is in a church in Lausanne. It seems the woman is unhappy with about what she is looking at.
44
« on: February 02, 2012, 23:55 »
IS, nice and stable, right on last years average even with no ELs. I will take stable for as long as it comes.
45
« on: January 20, 2012, 09:22 »
Thanks for the update. I found the article you linked to about one hour after my post. So much for my half thought out reply with far less than half the available information.
Now to the subject at hand. I will be interested to follow the progress of this recent development. I am still uploading but not with as much enthusiasm as before.
I have my own small business that is suffering as of late and have some serious and difficult changes to make that will upset some staff. I am on both sides of this issue right now. I hope I can learn about communication from iStocks negative example and do better in the coming weeks with my other problem.
46
« on: January 20, 2012, 00:01 »
I have searched in vain to find more than rumors about rumors about rumors. The analysis of some seems rather far reaching. I see JJ is leaving, but his statement does not seem to be cause for alarm, in fact quite the contrary. I am not saying there is no problem, but must the sky always be falling each time something changes? Along with all of you, it has always seemed like poor policy on the part of iStock to remain quiet so long during times of change, they have to see how the rumors explode and unsettle those trying to pay attention. Sorry for my outburst, I need to take another monthly sabbatical from the forums.
47
« on: January 17, 2012, 22:09 »
I have lots of travel photos in my portfolio, but they are not big money makers. Very satisfying to sell however and I always have my camera with me when I travel. We travel fairly often around the world and enjoy taking photos for fun, not always for stock. Quite honestly, a photo of a pine cone sells nearly as much as my "best" travel shots. I do it for fun, send some of them in and am happy when they sell. It would be very hard to make significant dollars the way I do it, but shooting editorial opens more possibilities. I have enough iStock income that my accountant says I am able to expense out significant travel costs for days when I spend at least half of the time shooting or scouting shots. That is pretty nice come tax time.
48
« on: January 17, 2012, 21:45 »
I sell quite a few photos of stamps on-line, but had to get lots of them in my portfolio to make it pay. Until I had about 1000, it was not dependable income. None of them sell much, but I have a few thousand out there so it brings in some income. I know ----get a life. I edit and upload pretty much only while watching television (double waste of time???), I can almost do it in my sleep. Absolutely no rhyme or reason as to what might sell, I don't have a guess on what will sell, even after selling plenty. All have to be visibly cancelled, and yes most are public domain with a few noteable exceptions that get deactivated later. Would not be much of a money maker if you only had a few hundred for sale. At least 6 or 7 other iStockers upload stamps regularly, but no big time sales.
49
« on: October 22, 2011, 23:42 »
For me it has been a trend that has been evident for about 12 months. Both IS and FT appear to be losing ground whilst SS continues to grow. I think DT have a fairly loyal customer base so they are just about holding on to their share of the market.
I'd suggest that microstock's explosive growth over the last few years has probably peaked (it had to eventually). In the early days any agency that had enough marketing $'s to make it's presence felt was bound to find new customers and grow sales. Now it's not so easy.
We're probably just witnessing a more mature market in which the existing customer base is making informed choices on where to do their shopping.
Istock have been pushing up prices for years (to our benefit as well as theirs) and maybe they have pushed them a bit too far recently and are starting to pay the price? FT have acknowledged customer resistance to higher priced images by limiting or reducing them on several occasions. In contrast SS has always been acutely sensitive and careful with price increases. SS has a fairly basic but easy to navigate site which always works well and all images are priced the same. It might be as simple as that.
This is exactly my diagnosis as well. I don't claim to know actual numbers but I suspect available photos for sale internet wide have increased by more than 1000 fold since 2005, and buyers have not kept pace. I certainly don't think the market is saturated, but very diluted for any individual (even big number guys with great porfolios)
50
« on: September 01, 2011, 23:48 »
I have only sold 51 ELs, but I see no correlation with previous sales numbers (of lack thereof), subject, available file size, or quality. For me, it is random.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
