MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - cybernesco

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21
426
iStockPhoto.com / Re: a rant
« on: February 26, 2009, 18:20 »
No it isn't.  Otherwise you wouldn't have been accepted at all.  Would you like that better?

Yes. That is my point.  When I got accepted based on what I thought were 3 good photos, I assumed quality was not an issue. I then spent quite a bit of time carefully chosing my initial salvo of 15 photos,  installing and learning to use DeepMeta, and painstakingly keywording and categorizing according to IStock's unique scheme.  All but 4 were rejected, many for reasons that I think made no sense.    So the result was just a big waste of my time, based on an "approval" that apparently meant nothing - plus my acceptance rate was immediately dismally low.

I can't think of a logical reason why the 3 photos submitted for initial approval should not be passed through the normal review process.  The fact that IStockphoto documents this weirdness  means their butts are covered if you fail to notice it. I feel so much better knowing that.

"Scout" - yes. Very polite too, not expecting the photos to be accepted, just asking for some specifics on why they were rejected. No reply in over 2 weeks. 

I think the technical term for all of this is "jerking people around". 

I'm just a beginner with a very small number of photos suitable for stock. I'd really like to make some money at this, but first I need to learn. And I can't learn anything from IStock other than that half my photos apparently have "artifacts" which no one else sees.


You just said it...."I'm just a beginner with a very small number of photos".... therefore why not take the advise of the succesfull ones?

Denis

427
iStockPhoto.com / Re: a rant
« on: February 26, 2009, 15:45 »
I guess you don't mean that it is virtually impossible for everybody?

There are few things which might be considered:
1. I am not professional
2. I do not have very "stockish" photographs, I do mostly landscapes and occasionally I take pictures of my family. I guess it's easier for commercial photographers to get in especially when they got access to studio equipment. Still I sold couple thousand photographs on other sites. If IS does not want to sell them they got right to do that.
3. I almost do not perform any post processing. Try to shoot at ISO 100 and maybe sometimes do some corrections of exposure. I only use Lightroom  for editing so there is no way to make isolations and any more complicated image manipulations.


Thank you for sharing this, I like to hear other perpective beside the "stockish" photographs. Now I do understand your side.  I hope you continue to do well with the other sites. Denis

428
iStockPhoto.com / Re: a rant
« on: February 26, 2009, 15:12 »
I started uploading last year so establishing any portfolio on IS is virtually impossible. After half a year of trying I gave up and focused on other sites.


I guess you don't mean that it is virtually impossible for everybody?

Denis

429
iStockPhoto.com / Re: a rant
« on: February 26, 2009, 14:36 »

typical snotty exclusive remark.  exclusives get preferential treatment and EVERYONE here knows it.  Artifacts are a way for the reviewers to control content by non-exclusives, even though I've never heard of an exclusive have that problem with reviews.  On the other hand, non-exclusives get the shaft and I've seen very poor exclusive shots accepted and very good, stock-worthy shots of my own rejected because they were in an arena and taken at ISO 800 (hard to take action shots with a slow shutter speed).  Yet the ones that have been accepted sell really well. 

If you aren't exclusive, you have to deal with it and keep uploading.  If you are, well, you don't see any of that bull.  Its most likely not the photographer, but the way the system is designed in this case

I am a non-exclusive and in the last few months I have been getting over 80% approval. I get 100% in all the others (except Crestock), however I don't mind about Istock rejection rate as it is the only micro-agency left where I can still be allowed to learn something. It just push me harder to do better and I see nothing wrong with that.  On the other side of the spectrum, Crestock will refuse 90-100% of your images but I don't thing anyone will learn anything with their type of rejections.

In addition Istock is my number 1 earner at the moment. I don't buy this exclusive preferential treatment as many exclusive earnings have been dropping in the last few months while mine has been increasing.

Denis

430
Lighting / Re: Profotos vs AlienBees?
« on: February 13, 2009, 09:18 »
I have the "Busy Bee" kit which are 4 B800 with the 60" giant soft box, 48-inch Translucent White Shoot-Thru Umbrella and the 32-inch Silver/White Reversible Bounce Umbrella. As well several other accesories. I had this kit for over 15 months now. I  have been doing photography for three years and those are my first lights so I cannot compare, however with the small studio I have this is working great for me and haven't felt the need to go to another brand yet. I will probably get more stuff from them inventually. Denis

431

TIME made a mistake and only credited the photographer who took the body shot. So this isn't a very valid example.



True but a couple days after TIME corrected the web cover page....see the following.  A pop-up from the mouse cursor on the page will show Sergei Chumakov and Istock being credited.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080602,00.html

He was and still able to tell the entire world that he made it to the front page of TIME magazine but did he get more downloads because of that?

Denis


Having it on the printed piece is what would have mattered to me. Everything else is just an afterthought. Although I can't say for sure if it would of made a difference to his sales anyways. I really have no clue to be honest.  ???  I just didn't think you could compare his situation to yours.

I am glad you came here cybernesco and shared your experience with all of us. Please let us know how it all turns out.




Thanks for your comments.  With all the ELs I had in the past which in theory should translate into millions of copies of my images being published and being seen by millions of people, I think this is still only one  aspect to get your sales promoted. For instance, the Istock best match change lately have far more repercussions towards my sales then any of my image massively published. My sales at Istock in January are three times what they were in December and I am still probably will get a BME in February.  Quite simply, basically people that read magazines  don't look for images to download,  however people at Istock and other stock agencies do. Denis


432
I though about a private deal but never done it yet and because of time constraint and the fact that this would have been a drop in the bucket anyway, ...

A drop in the bucket? They're going to pay $100+ at IS for an EL, which could have been yours. As far as generating a contract goes, all you need to do is go to any agency and copy/paste their licensing agreement into MS Word, then edit out stuff that specifically refers to them. It'll take you five minutes at most. Maybe you should do it now so that the next time a buyer contacts you, you'll have everything ready.

FWIW, I've found most buyers to be happy that I would, at no extra charge, cutomize an image for them. By 'customize' I mean, make brighter/darker, larger/smaller, add vignetting/copy space, send it directly to their printer/designer, etc. Maybe another five minutes work.


Thanks for the info....this is great!!!!  Denis

433

TIME made a mistake and only credited the photographer who took the body shot. So this isn't a very valid example.



True but a couple days after TIME corrected the web cover page....see the following.  A pop-up from the mouse cursor on the page will show Sergei Chumakov and Istock being credited.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080602,00.html

He was and still able to tell the entire world that he made it to the front page of TIME magazine but did he get more downloads because of that?

Denis

434
Do I need to say more....

Yes. Did TIME pay for an extended license, or they got it for free? That's the issue.

I was responding to Magnum regarding the publicity that he thinks he could get from a magazine, but yes he did get an EL. Denis

435

Going one step further, I have been approached like the OP has, and I've sometimes been able to negotiate a private RF license of a customized image. Instead of giving them his blessings to license the image from IS as an EL, I think the OP should have offered a private deal at the same price the buyer would have paid IS.


I though about a private deal but never done it yet and because of time constraint and the fact that this would have been a drop in the bucket anyway, I though that making them pay was more important to me regardless if I have to share it with Istock or not. Istock have all licenses in print for them to see before buying which is a plus for me. My website at the moment is mainly to show prospective models what I can do and to provide them with links to their own private galleries and not so much for selling images.  After this first experience, I will be looking at upgrading my website so that when a situation like this occur I will be able to direct the client to the proper page to download the photo they want. Denis

436
The amount of cash were talking here is so ridiculously low, so why dont take a chance and see if the publicity will generate anything...


Look at this guy on the following link...he made it to the cover page of TIME magazine last May 30th, 2008

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38865&start=0

Now look at his number of downloads at Istock since 2006:

http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1018321

and look at the number of downloads from the same photo that appeared on the front cover of TIME magazine:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/concepts-and-ideas/frustration/5813310-unhappy-infant.php?id=5813310


Do I need to say more....

Denis








437
This is about writing, but it's still basically about the same thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE


Thanks for sharing this video...as well as being right this guy is funny and highly entertaining to watch. My wife and I had a great laugh.  ;D :) Denis

438
Thank you all  for your responses. You are a great group of people!!!! Thank you Leaf for this site. This is amazing the quick and informed replies!!!


I just sent the following reply:

Hello Rosie,
 
Thank you for your consideration. Yes of course you can use the image as mention in your email as long as you download it as an "extended license" from the Istock website and abide by Istock conditions and agreed terms. In addition, I wish to have my image credited and linked to my Istock Portfolio. http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=561817.  As well, I would certainly like to have a copy of the magazine.
 
This is excellent..thank you again
 
Denis Pepin
[email protected]
 



Denis

439
I guys, I recently received the following email and just need your opinion. Should I ask for money? Should they buy it through Istock? Is the publicity generated would be worthwhile not to ask for a fee? Anybody here familiar with Photoshop Creative magazine? Thank you this is really appreciated.


"

Hi Denis,
Hope you are well. Great collection of images by the way, we're particularly interested in one of your blonde models (see attached), which we've seen both on iStock and you
personal website.
I'm the editor of Photoshop Creative magazine, which teaches readers how to use Photoshop with a range of tutorials.
We're planning a tutorial on how to use the background eraser tool in Photoshop - using your photograph as the starting image. Ideally we'd love to put this image on the accompanying disc so that readers can attempt the tutorial for themselves. Would you grant us permission for us to use this image (a small low-res version is fine) in this way in the UK and foreign version of the magazine? We've done this before with other iStock photographers and get permission from Megan at iStock too. Obviously we'll credit you and publish your istock link (or your personal website link - whatever you prefer) and post you a copy of the magazine too.

Let me know if this is okay with you?

Best wishes

Rosie : )

Rosie Tanner
Editor
Photoshop Creative
Imagine Publishing Ltd
Richmond House
33 Richmond Hill
Bournemouth
BH2 6EZ
( (01202) 586275
+ [email protected]


www.photoshopcreative.co.uk
www.imagine-publishing.co.uk
www.imagineshop.co.uk
ImaginePodcasts.com


Imagine Publishing Ltd, Richmond House, 33 Richmond Hill, Bournemouth, Dorset BH2 6EZ
Registered company 5374037 (England): VAT No 864 6042 18
Directors: Damian Butt, Steven Boyd, Mark Kendrick, Harry Dhand, Andrew Hartley, Sam Watkinson


"

The photo in question can be seen through the following link:

http://www.usefulimage.com/gallery/4245759#253688903_ybUkR

Denis



440
Shutterstock.com / Re: Forgiss quits SS?
« on: January 20, 2009, 12:59 »
I'm not questioning Shutterstock's success; they're my top earner as well.  But that doesn't change my feeling that some of their reviewers are unnecessarily restrictive regarding what qualifies as good stock.  You seem to suggest that the reviewers in this case are right because of Shutterstock's success.  I'd say that's something that has to be evaluated over time.  iStockphoto was my biggest earner for almost three years; now it's Shutterstock.  I wouldn't place any bets on who it'll be three years from now.

Reviewers are partly reponsible for my limited success as I new nothing about photography 3 years ago and I think this apply to many of us. Now I rarely get rejections but when I get one I still take it as learning process. Only Crestock that I don't understand their rejections.  Regarding Forgiss thumbnails that I saw I do aggree with the rejections and this has nothing to do with the success of SS or how much he makes or how well he is known.  SS success depends on several components for which "reviewing images" is certainly one of them. Denis

441
Shutterstock.com / Re: Forgiss quits SS?
« on: January 20, 2009, 12:08 »
I don't think reviews should be based on those criteria but the pictures themselves. Denis

I'd agree, but (and you knew there was one coming) a good indication of what will sell is what is already selling.  If Shutterstock accepts only a limited range of lighting styles, then seeing a broader range at another site and seeing that those images sell well would suggest that Shutterstock is losing business because of its restrictive policies.  I looked at Forgiss's pictures and, which I might not have gone quite so dark on a couple of them, think they were good enough to let a customer decide.

SS has 5,600,000 images and DT has 4,700,000.  I have 982 on SS and 902 on DT.  SS is my number two earner after IS. 98% of all my images at SS has sold at least once.  It is selling good mainly because I have a very broad range. Probably that most of the 4,700,000 photos that DT has are probably with SS as well. So as it stands now SS is probably at least as broad as DT or maybe even more. Denis

442
Shutterstock.com / Re: Forgiss quits SS?
« on: January 20, 2009, 11:27 »
Some of the images can be seen on DT where it was accepted. That Forgiss knows what sells can certainly not be disputed, after all he makes a seven figure amount (in US$) from microstock annually.

I don't think reviews should be based on those criteria but the pictures themselves. Denis

443
Shutterstock.com / Re: Forgiss quits SS?
« on: January 20, 2009, 11:03 »
I hate to say this as I like most of forgiss portfolio, but most of the rejections I saw I agree with it. Although what I saw are only thumbnails, issues with poor composition and lightening seem evident to me. Denis

444
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock changes model release policy???
« on: January 08, 2009, 08:27 »
Hi everybody,

The following link is a model release in a pdf file I created based on iStock format which has been working for me for the last year until yesterday for all agencies:

http://ca.geocities.com/[email protected]/model_release.pdf

It is very similar to theirs:

http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/modelrelease.pdf

It should work as it works for me. Denis

445
Crestock.com / Re: Crestock Rejects?
« on: January 02, 2009, 12:32 »


I am the originator of this thread.  Over a couple months ago I was upset at getting rejected by Crestock and therefore vented my discontent throught this thread. Thereafter, after getting advices from Josh I figured that they were a few areas in my photographic and editing skills that needed improvement. I though that this would be beneficial not just for Crestock but for all other agencies and obviously myself. However, after over two months of following Josh's advises I am still getting 100% rejections!!!!!!  Crestock, I have a question for you? As an entity, What is your ambition in life? What are you trying to accomplish? Because i don't think anyone here get it? If you were offering a premium gallery at a premium price then yes. But a premium gallery at $0.25 an image this is absurd. In the last 4 months I uploaded over 100 images and got 100% approval with SS, 100% approval with DT, 99% approval with FT, 100% approval with BS, 90% approval with IS, and 100% approval with 123rf.  My last batch of more then 10 with Crestock was 100% rejected. At this point I am no longer concern about this as I do well enough with the others. However this is a forum about microstock for which Crestock is labelled as such and for which we can discuss about it. For me at this point it is purely out of curiosity. The quality of images that Crestock wants definetely requires many thousands of dollars invested in photographic  equipment for which you will only get a ratio of about $0.02 per image per month. What is Crestock is trying to accomplish by doing this? Because I don't see how they can survive this?  Denis


Happy new year everybody!!!!


446
Shutterstock.com / Re: Another image thief at SS
« on: December 23, 2008, 23:31 »
dgool steals all his photos and brags about best seller and uploads a microsoft windows background as his own lying that he made the picture. This is the low life that inhabits microstock. dgool couldn't shoot his own foot with a shot gun. You take photos have them stolen or have concepts stolen while sites sell them for peanuts. You work to take pictures that are rejected for dumb reasons and complain that reviews take to long. Then we drool on our face being happy that we made a sale for a dollar and complain that it takes two weeks to get paid.

Hello Mr Yadayada...

I make $1.50 per image per month. What is your ratio?

Denis

447
Newbie Discussion / Re: Earnings
« on: December 16, 2008, 00:07 »
I have been at it part-time since Oct 2005.  2006 I made $3,000.00, 2007 $10,000 and 2008 I made $15,000.  $28,000 so far. It paid for some nice equipment, a trip in Europe with a rented high-end BMW ( I am from Ottawa Canada) and  still have some more.

I am a night/day shift security guard supervisor at my full time job...yack!!!  I hope, one day to make enough with the photos to get out of that boring job. Denis

448
iStockPhoto.com / Re: How's Your Month Shaping Up?
« on: November 14, 2008, 11:48 »
For the moment, I do not beleive that an algorithm can be created to figure the quality of a photo. How can an algorithm know about composition, focus where it is best, suitability for stock, overexposure, oversaturated, over-filtered ect..?? Only the human mind can do that for now.  The only criteria that....................................................... Denis
Mostly agree with you but let me offer another idea for the algorithm, that has been mentioned a few times and I think would solve at least two problems at the same time: it (should) return good results and it would help against keyword abuse. Here it goes: sites would have to track the keywords that lead to the download of a particular image. For each keyword you would have a factor of relevance. This way you would get good (because they sold many times) relevant (because their relevance factor is high) images at the front. Ofc you would have to put in other factors like age to give newer images a chance at the start. Also sometimes people go to your portfolio and don't download image on a keyword but just by browsing. You could maybe add a small factor like 0.1 to all keywords if an images get's downloaded like that.

However it looks like this would be too hard to implement (also you would need to track a lot of data, have a seperate field in the database for all keywords on a image). So I don't see it coming anytime soon.

I agree with you about keywords having a factor of relevance when an image is downloaded within such an algorithm. Alamy has something similar, the difference is that they attach the same factor of relevance to keywords when an image is "zoomed in" and downloaded instead of when it is only downloaded. Hence, the logic goes, the more you get zooms, the better is the chance to get downloads. This is good because it forces you to put in better keywords. IStock....Are you listening!!! Denis

449
iStockPhoto.com / Re: How's Your Month Shaping Up?
« on: November 14, 2008, 08:49 »

I get the feeling that standards at istock are really tightening up. From what Rob posted in the istock thread about best match aiming to reward high quality and consistency, cater to the buyers, etc., ......
..... the higher quality images will continue to do well, while the mid-range images that previously did ok will now not see as much action while best match puts more emphasis on quality. 



For the moment, I do not beleive that an algorithm can be created to figure the quality of a photo. How can an algorithm know about composition, focus where it is best, suitability for stock, overexposure, oversaturated, over-filtered ect..?? Only the human mind can do that for now.  The only criteria that a search algorithm can work with are variables such as number of downloads,  number of days that an image has been online,  number of views, ratings given by viewers, contributor status such as exclusive or non-exlusives and the canister level. Now like I mention in another tread, mathematically speaking, the only way that an algorithm will give the best result for the buyers for the best match would be by using a very simple algoritm like at SS which is rated by number of downloads divided by number of days. Any other variables such as contributor status or canister level would absolutly not help in getting the best quality on top. Even views and viewers rating would not help as we all know that a nice picture is not necessarily one that sell. The most important variables are number of downloads versus the time it has been online. Those two variables may not be the best to verify the quality of an image but they are the most probable ones as it is impossible to fully see the quality of the image until downloaded. Denis

450
iStockPhoto.com / Re: How's Your Month Shaping Up?
« on: November 13, 2008, 14:12 »
This graph indicate my trends of SS, IS, DT, SX and FT in the last 39 months. As we can see IS is presently taking a nose dive while others are about to overtake it. For clarity I did not put in Bigstock, 123rf and others, but they are picking up steam as well. Denis


Love your graph no matter what it's showing, it's good looking. What do you use to make it?


Thank you. This is easily done with Excel.  Denis

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors