MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 111,655 new photos added in the past week  (Read 21779 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RacePhoto

« Reply #50 on: January 27, 2010, 21:21 »
0
I think we're gonna see a new marketing strategy from them touting the "freshness" of their images and video given the huge delay in review times at iStock, particularly for non-exclusives.
"If you want fresh images today, you're only going to get them here" kind of deal...  I've talked to some marketing people at a couple of footage agencies that are planning to attack iStock with the same type of strategy.

Yeah, because 2 days for exclusives, 3-5 for independents really makes images less "fresh" at iStock.

Sorry to be disagreeable but mine run seven days like clockwork on IS. About the time something gets reviewed, I can upload something new and wait a week. I don't mind, but it's positively not 2-3 days. Could be my acceptance ratio or something, I don't know. It's been that way since Nov.

StockXpert has wild variations from overnight to some right now waiting since Jan. 18th. BigStock about 5 days. SS lately has been running 2-3 days.

I don't know about the freshness theory, all the sites have review time variations.


RacePhoto

« Reply #51 on: January 28, 2010, 01:33 »
0
I didn't mean to say this was an issue limited to SS...

I didn't think you did.  ???

Here's what BigStock said to my Pepperoni Pizza. (Nov-Dec)      
Low interest subject: Probably little demand/selling potential for this image. Try for more marketable shots. thanks.

IS We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved. Technical aspects that can affect the overall quality of lighting are: flat/dull colors, blown-out highlights, harsh reflection, shadows or lens flares. It does have a flash reflection on one of the green peppers, no argument.

StockXpert took it and the shot sold twice.

SS accepted the shot, no sales.
 
I'd say this fits the overshot category, yet someone wanted it? Maybe people do want fresh images and newer material from better cameras? As usual, it was a throw-away shot that I did, because it was there. ;) What I'm getting at is two sites refused, two accepted, two sales. I'd say that's a fairly mixed response. I'm more surprised that it sold twice in the first month it was for sale on StockXpert?

9,761,351 royalty-free stock photos
106,724 new stock photos added this week
212,414 photographers

10 Million by Valentine's Day?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 17:57 by RacePhoto »

RacePhoto

« Reply #52 on: February 11, 2010, 18:07 »
0
My prediction last month (see above) Was Valentine's day.

Count Down: (or up?) to 10 Million

Thursday PM
9,974,012 royalty-free stock photos

Friday PM
9,984,939 royalty-free stock photos

Saturday?
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 16:57 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #53 on: February 11, 2010, 18:11 »
0
Tommorow!

Prediction!

11th February 2011. will start new topic, "300.000 images approved last week!"  :o :o :o :o

« Reply #54 on: February 12, 2010, 16:22 »
0
I'd hate to be a buyer, SS just accepted an image of mine with keyword "brainstorm" - so I searched newest first and page after page is filled with models gathered around laptops or standing in random groups doing nothing but flashing too white teeth - also loads drawing meaningless flow charts on transparency boards.

Having worked in the corporate arena for 20+ years I know we don't work in offices cleaner and brighter than operating theatres and everyone walks around with faces like smacked arses (apart from Friday afternoons).

I keep hearing that buyers want realistic images of serious people doing serious work in non-studio locations, but don't see much of that being uploaded.....is this a gap to be exploited or not?

« Reply #55 on: February 12, 2010, 16:35 »
0
Keyword spamming at SS is just off the chart.  I've ranted about the frustrations and limitations of the IS 'controlled vocabulary' but really, something like that has to be the future I think.  You supply a few keywords stating basically what is in the picture, in physical terms, and the microstock can build its own catolog of concept-to-object mappings.  You could also suggest a concept line for the image, but they'd have to approve it.  What's the alternative? SS is becoming a cloud of white noise as big as the Milky Way.

« Reply #56 on: February 12, 2010, 16:41 »
0
I keep hearing that buyers want realistic images of serious people doing serious work in non-studio locations, but don't see much of that being uploaded.....is this a gap to be exploited or not?

I think they're lying. I don't do people shots, so I don't know what would actually be approved. But I never see stock images in use, anywhere, that don't contain model-ish looking people with perfect hair and teeth and radiant smiles. 


« Reply #57 on: February 13, 2010, 03:04 »
0
I'd hate to be a buyer, SS just accepted an image of mine with keyword "brainstorm" - so I searched newest first and page after page is filled with models gathered around laptops or standing in random groups doing nothing but flashing too white teeth - also loads drawing meaningless flow charts on transparency boards.

Having worked in the corporate arena for 20+ years I know we don't work in offices cleaner and brighter than operating theatres and everyone walks around with faces like smacked arses (apart from Friday afternoons).

I keep hearing that buyers want realistic images of serious people doing serious work in non-studio locations, but don't see much of that being uploaded.....is this a gap to be exploited or not?
Hahaha, good stereotyping. But when it comes to buying, those designers always choose the Colgate perfect girl on her PC that looks like it just came out of the box. Maybe because advertising shows the world bigger than life?

« Reply #58 on: February 13, 2010, 05:29 »
0
All flashy smiling, very unnatural looking, plastic people. If designers really want those, why not using 3d-renders in the first place?

« Reply #59 on: February 13, 2010, 07:25 »
0
All flashy smiling, very unnatural looking, plastic people. If designers really want those, why not using 3d-renders in the first place?

Production cost, I'd say. It still costs too much to produce realistic renders with people. But it's seriously getting there: wait few more years (5 or 10).

« Reply #60 on: February 13, 2010, 14:07 »
0
To be honest, I'd never do stock 'people' shots because... they gag me.  Especially business shots, and happy seniors wearing bike helmets. No offense to you people who do these things so skillfully and so profitably. 

« Reply #61 on: January 08, 2011, 20:42 »
0
What a difference a year makes. They are now down to 65K new images added in the last week.

When I started with SS they were proud to announce 4K new images added in the last week and that figure rose steadily over the years. All of a sudden it is now going in the other direction __ and even faster.

Thoughts?

vonkara

« Reply #62 on: January 08, 2011, 20:52 »
0
Some photographers stopped shooting everything they see. Others adding thousand and more images a year found out quality and low production cost were more sustainable. Everything is perfect in my opinion

« Reply #63 on: January 08, 2011, 21:19 »
0
It looks like they're tightened their standards quite a bit too (illustrators complaining about many 'too simple' rejections, abstract backgrounds got tougher to get in, they became extremely strict about sharpness etc etc,) .
Maybe they felt they're in a comfortable no1 position concerning database size and decided its time to start lift the quality.

rubyroo

« Reply #64 on: January 08, 2011, 21:27 »
0
My vote would go to the increase in standards too.  They seem to go through phases of ratcheting the standards up, and those who aren't committed simply won't take up the challenge of meeting those new standards.

« Reply #65 on: January 09, 2011, 03:20 »
0
My rejection rate has shot up.  It's a shame because I only want to increase my standards if I am going to earn more money.  Where's my incentive?  If they raised prices and commissions, I would work harder to improve my quality but with my earnings not improving last year, I really can't get enthusiastic about microstock any more.

« Reply #66 on: January 09, 2011, 03:59 »
0
Possibly trying to cope with a flood of images from ex-exclusives at iStock?


molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #67 on: January 09, 2011, 06:28 »
0
They already have more images then buyers need, they need to do something. As for increasing quality in favor of sales that's nonsense. Microstock has bad taste written all over it, at least half of the bestsellers (if not most) are the most distastefull rubbish you would ever see.

rubyroo

« Reply #68 on: January 09, 2011, 07:03 »
0
They already have more images then buyers need, they need to do something. As for increasing quality in favor of sales that's nonsense. Microstock has bad taste written all over it, at least half of the bestsellers (if not most) are the most distastefull rubbish you would ever see.

Not sure if you're referring to me here, but just in case... I was actually referring to technical standards, not aesthetic ones.

« Reply #69 on: January 09, 2011, 07:24 »
0
I hope that this number of new photos is caused by Christmas and new year holidays. I had new images to upload in the end of December but waited with uploading for first week after holidays and I think that many contributors did same.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #70 on: January 09, 2011, 07:25 »
0
They already have more images then buyers need, they need to do something. As for increasing quality in favor of sales that's nonsense. Microstock has bad taste written all over it, at least half of the bestsellers (if not most) are the most distastefull rubbish you would ever see.

Not sure if you're referring to me here, but just in case... I was actually referring to technical standards, not aesthetic ones.

Technical standrads are already unreasonably high, pushing them is useless.

« Reply #71 on: January 09, 2011, 07:31 »
0
I agree they have to do something. But I think instead of just increasing the standards way too much now, they should start in the other end - remove the old stuff that is not selling! If they let the old pictures with lower quality stay on their site, and not take in some of the new pictures with much higher standards -the all around quality on Shutter is not going to increase.

Microbius

« Reply #72 on: January 09, 2011, 07:52 »
0
The reason is that SS buyers are hoarders and the company knows it. They think the only way to keep people paying subscriptions is to fling as much new content at the site as they can. Otherwise people would only stay for a few months and hoard enough to last them the year.
It's not like SS is going to follow up and slap their wrists if they are using stuff 6 months after their sub expires.

« Reply #73 on: January 09, 2011, 08:02 »
0
I agree they have to do something. But I think instead of just increasing the standards way too much now, they should start in the other end - remove the old stuff that is not selling! If they let the old pictures with lower quality stay on their site, and not take in some of the new pictures with much higher standards -the all around quality on Shutter is not going to increase.

totally agree

« Reply #74 on: January 09, 2011, 08:10 »
0
The reason is that SS buyers are hoarders and the company knows it. They think the only way to keep people paying subscriptions is to fling as much new content at the site as they can. Otherwise people would only stay for a few months and hoard enough to last them the year.
It's not like SS is going to follow up and slap their wrists if they are using stuff 6 months after their sub expires.
I doubt that this is true or the business model simply wouldn't work. Someone intent on 'hoarding' would join for the minimum time and then download the maximum of their allowance. SS would lose money on every sub sold in that situation.

For a business that uses a large amount of images (and wants fresh stuff too) an annual sub is a minor cost and fantastic value for the facility. Cuppacoffee gave a great explanation of the business in which she works where they basically use SS "as an external server". When they have a project they just search for images for it and will often download an image that they have downloaded before (and still have) because it's just much quicker to do so. It would be time consuming to hoard and then try & re-find a suitable image without the ability to search via keywords which you wouldn't have on an HD.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
4616 Views
Last post June 04, 2009, 18:27
by luceluceluce
14 Replies
4704 Views
Last post January 31, 2010, 10:19
by yuliang11
4 Replies
3224 Views
Last post March 30, 2015, 05:52
by Shelma1
104 Replies
16181 Views
Last post February 15, 2016, 23:14
by PixelBytes
6 Replies
2253 Views
Last post June 01, 2016, 04:04
by emjaysmith

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results