MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Editorial on SS  (Read 20621 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 23, 2010, 16:57 »
+1
Hmm...  My editorial images seem to be selling well on ShutterStock.  That kind of surprises me, I didn't expect such popularity.  Still not selling better than my illustrations, but darned close.  All my editorial stuff is "news" type images (train wreck, police stand-off, troops coming home, etc..).  I see a lot of buildings, general shots with logos, etc.. submitted as editorial but I haven't tried any of that.  Just news type stuff I catch while out and about.

Anyone else doing well with editorial?  I'm going to start submitting some sports stuff (college and pro sports) and see what happens.


WarrenPrice

« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2010, 17:41 »
0
Sports are selling well.  I think all my editorial is sports?

ap

« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2010, 17:42 »
0
i have some celebrity and sailboat racing shots. they do quite well with many od's and one el. however, i'm sure they'd do much better at the macro agencies but they're on a 2 year contract with ss.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2010, 17:50 by ap »

« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2010, 17:51 »
0
i have some celebrity and sailboat racing shots. they do quite well with many od's and one el. however, i'm sure they'd do much better at the macro agencies but they're on a 2 year contract with ss.

Hmm... I didn't think about Macro with editorial...  I need to check that out.  Thanks!

« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2010, 22:23 »
0
Sports are selling well.  I think all my editorial is sports?

Have you try some of editorials (sport) on Alamy?
If yes, how does it compare with SS.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2010, 08:53 »
0
Sports are selling well.  I think all my editorial is sports?

Have you try some of editorials (sport) on Alamy?
If yes, how does it compare with SS.

I have not, Kone.  I was surprised by seeing them sell at SS and just have not taken time to size them for Alamy.  Plus, this is not hard news (current). 

« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2010, 09:18 »
0
How do you send editorial to SS? I haven't seen any option for that. Could you help please??

Thanks

« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2010, 09:34 »
0
Upload the way you always do. Then change the release section in Editorial (at the right) when submitting your images. Also no special editorial categories like BigStock has.
Warning: on the forum you can find the info about how to write the description. This is very important. Your images will be rejected when doing this wrong!
See: http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt40005.html

WarrenPrice

« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2010, 10:23 »
0
Upload the way you always do. Then change the release section in Editorial (at the right) when submitting your images. Also no special editorial categories like BigStock has.
Warning: on the forum you can find the info about how to write the description. This is very important. Your images will be rejected when doing this wrong!
See: http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt40005.html


Absolutely ... I had several rejected because I ended with the location before the date.  The caption has to be EXACTLY right. 

I think there are three choices:  1) No Release Needed; 2)  Attach Release; 3) Editorial Use Only

ap

« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2010, 17:03 »
0

Have you try some of editorials (sport) on Alamy?
If yes, how does it compare with SS.

I have not, Kone.  I was surprised by seeing them sell at SS and just have not taken time to size them for Alamy.  Plus, this is not hard news (current). 

it's a good thing you didn't for editorial (as everything else) sells royalty free on ss, but anything with people are royalty managed on alamy. so, once it's been sold as rf can no longer qualify for rm (except zoonar).

« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2010, 15:19 »
0
I have submitted several pics to SS as editorial(for example minor-league baseball players), and they have gotten rejected for "not newsworthy" or something to that effect. I thought editorial images could be pics of people you didnt have releases for, buildings with logos etc. Do they not accept editorial pics unless  they are "current" news-worthy stuff?

suwanneeredhead

  • O.I.D. Sufferer (Obsessive Illustration Disorder)
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2010, 11:43 »
0
I found this, just looking around as I always do, its Angelina Jolie in Moscow, by a Shutterstock contributor (not me, I wish)!

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/celebrity_photos/celebrity_photos_july_7zeGTc67gKlGdQPxqHUjDP

Great shot, congrats to the photographer!

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2010, 11:56 »
0
Absolutely ... I had several rejected because I ended with the location before the date.  The caption has to be EXACTLY right. 


Here comes my free editorial caption tool....
http://www.microstockphoto.co.uk/editorialcaption.html
sorry for pimping :)

To the original question... I've noticed as well that some editorial pictures sell well on SS; they are probably being so strict in requiring editorial even when it's not necessary*, that some buyers know they can use those pictures in a more liberal way

*such as stamps from many countries, or buildings in Germany which -afaik- can be photographed from a public point of view

WarrenPrice

« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2010, 12:16 »
0
Absolutely ... I had several rejected because I ended with the location before the date.  The caption has to be EXACTLY right. 


Here comes my free editorial caption tool....
http://www.microstockphoto.co.uk/editorialcaption.html
sorry for pimping :)




Aren't we all, just by the nature of the business, Pimping?  I don't understand some of our attitudes.  We sell/Pimp pictures. Does it really matter that we do it here?
By the way, thanks for taking the time to develop the captioning tool.  It should be very useful.

« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2010, 12:45 »
0
I have submitted several pics to SS as editorial(for example minor-league baseball players), and they have gotten rejected for "not newsworthy" or something to that effect. I thought editorial images could be pics of people you didnt have releases for, buildings with logos etc. Do they not accept editorial pics unless  they are "current" news-worthy stuff?

you're correct - newsworthy is one of a number of possible editorial definitions, not the ONLY one - but some reviewers can't seem to grasp that concept --resubmit them and they may be accepted  by another reviewer

s

« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2010, 14:25 »
0
I'll try resubmitting some, thanks Cascoly!

I have submitted several pics to SS as editorial(for example minor-league baseball players), and they have gotten rejected for "not newsworthy" or something to that effect. I thought editorial images could be pics of people you didnt have releases for, buildings with logos etc. Do they not accept editorial pics unless  they are "current" news-worthy stuff?

you're correct - newsworthy is one of a number of possible editorial definitions, not the ONLY one - but some reviewers can't seem to grasp that concept --resubmit them and they may be accepted  by another reviewer

s

« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2010, 16:31 »
0
Quote
you're correct - newsworthy is one of a number of possible editorial definitions, not the ONLY one - but some reviewers can't seem to grasp that concept --resubmit them and they may be accepted  by another reviewer
I had a series of the same subject split up in two batches. First batch were all accepted, second batch all rejected for "not newsworthy enough".  ???
So perhaps you are right! Seem to me that the second batch had another reviewer!


« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2010, 21:47 »
0
when this first happened, i emailed the manager, and he said to resubmit with attn to contact him; since then i've just re submitted and the good shots usually make it on pass 2

s

« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2010, 02:26 »
0
Quote
I had a series of the same subject split up in two batches. First batch were all accepted, second batch all rejected for "not newsworthy enough".  Huh
So perhaps you are right! Seem to me that the second batch had another reviewer!

Sorry, mistake. To be correct, I should have said too that this was about a submission to another agency, not to SS. (or is it: "should have must said"? owowooww! Bad English!)  ;)

WarrenPrice

« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2010, 09:50 »
0
i have some celebrity and sailboat racing shots. they do quite well with many od's and one el. however, i'm sure they'd do much better at the macro agencies but they're on a 2 year contract with ss.

Were these via the Red Carpet program?

WarrenPrice

« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2010, 19:47 »
0
Motocross images selling well today.  Must have to do with the start of X-Games 16.   ;D

« Reply #21 on: July 30, 2010, 01:02 »
0
My pics of local news events have been selling well, I'm a little surprised.  But most of the shots are somewhat generic (could be anywhere).  I got a shot of a boy hugging his dad (a soldier who just came home from overseas deployment) and it's sold on SS a few dozen times.

I did get a rejection of a coal power plant as "not newsworthy".  I'll resubmit and see what happens.

« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2010, 09:57 »
0
Okay, so it's somewhat of a well known secret that constantly submitting new materials to ShutterStock is what gets you steady sales... Start slacking off on submissions and you'll see your sales drop.

By submitting editorial images that previously I would not have, I have managed to continue submitting weekly images to SS and the result for me has been a DRAMATIC increase in sales on ShutterStock.  Even if some of the editorial images don't ever sell, they still keep my account active and buyers find my other images.

After several months of inactivity on my part (and next to no sales during that time period), I have been submitting new files at least once a week on SS for the past 6 weeks and the result was a new BME for me in July.  I would not have been able to do it if it weren't for editorial shots.

ShadySue

« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2010, 13:33 »
0

I did get a rejection of a coal power plant as "not newsworthy".  I'll resubmit and see what happens.


Shows all they know. I'm running the website for a campaign against a proposed local coal power station and there are many similar campaigns in the UK at present. (http://www.conchcampaign.org/links.html) The iStock images at the time were far too 'pretty' (taken at sunset), but I found a superbly suitable photo on Flickr to use.
I'd have 'no confidence' in anyone that said that one of the biggest current environmental issues 'isn't newsworthy'.

« Reply #24 on: August 23, 2010, 10:05 »
0
Is there any way of limiting a particular image on Shutterstock to Enhanced License?  I have a newsworthy image that might prove to be in demand as the anniversary of the event approaches.  It sort of rankles to see the license royalties at $.25 for this particular image.

RacePhoto

« Reply #25 on: August 31, 2010, 02:38 »
0
Is there any way of limiting a particular image on Shutterstock to Enhanced License?  I have a newsworthy image that might prove to be in demand as the anniversary of the event approaches.  It sort of rankles to see the license royalties at $.25 for this particular image.

If there is, I'm missing the boat. I have thousands (not just tossing out a number, actual thousands!) of images that I will not upload to SS or any other micro that takes editorial, because of the 25c sales or low prices. They do sell for a reasonable price on Alamy.

As far as I've seen, my SS editorial sell for the same prices as the RF and I've never found any way to limit the choice of license available to buyers.

« Reply #26 on: August 31, 2010, 03:52 »
0
Is there any way of limiting a particular image on Shutterstock to Enhanced License?  I have a newsworthy image that might prove to be in demand as the anniversary of the event approaches.  It sort of rankles to see the license royalties at $.25 for this particular image.

If there is, I'm missing the boat. I have thousands (not just tossing out a number, actual thousands!) of images that I will not upload to SS or any other micro that takes editorial, because of the 25c sales or low prices. They do sell for a reasonable price on Alamy.

As far as I've seen, my SS editorial sell for the same prices as the RF and I've never found any way to limit the choice of license available to buyers.

Just out of curiosity: Which type of editorial photos do you have on Alamy? I'm asking because I have a bit more than thousand editorials on SS - all of them sport photos - and they outsell my non-editorials by 3:1...


RacePhoto

« Reply #27 on: August 31, 2010, 18:26 »
0
Is there any way of limiting a particular image on Shutterstock to Enhanced License?  I have a newsworthy image that might prove to be in demand as the anniversary of the event approaches.  It sort of rankles to see the license royalties at $.25 for this particular image.

If there is, I'm missing the boat. I have thousands (not just tossing out a number, actual thousands!) of images that I will not upload to SS or any other micro that takes editorial, because of the 25c sales or low prices. They do sell for a reasonable price on Alamy.

As far as I've seen, my SS editorial sell for the same prices as the RF and I've never found any way to limit the choice of license available to buyers.

Just out of curiosity: Which type of editorial photos do you have on Alamy? I'm asking because I have a bit more than thousand editorials on SS - all of them sport photos - and they outsell my non-editorials by 3:1...

Auto racing, and I don't want to sell them on SS for 25c a download. If IS took editorial I'd jump on that and sell on both SS and IS.

« Reply #28 on: September 02, 2010, 12:37 »
0
Just went thru the QC process on Alamy.  Will be selectively moving things from SS, IS and DT if there is any indication that the type of images I have would do well there.  I will be moving my one big event shot there immediately.  Thanks for the suggestion.

« Reply #29 on: September 02, 2010, 15:53 »
0
Just went thru the QC process on Alamy.  Will be selectively moving things from SS, IS and DT if there is any indication that the type of images I have would do well there.  I will be moving my one big event shot there immediately.  Thanks for the suggestion.
SS doesn't take my Editorial any more since it's not "newsworthy", although my top seller there is an older editorial. In general, editorial doesn't sell too well on micro.
I'm on DT only for now with Editorial since I deleted it from 123RF. I was thinking of putting all my Editorial in the future on Alamy but their on-site blablabla essential, accessory and other check boxes give me a headache.
Racephoto is brooding on something and I hope he replies soon the PM.  ;) - Any new stock site needs a USP or it goes down the drains. A great USP would be an Editorial-only midstock site (around 50$) with exclusive images in a certain niche - let's say motor, transportation, aviation.  ::) :-X

« Reply #30 on: September 04, 2010, 09:05 »
0

Have you try some of editorials (sport) on Alamy?
If yes, how does it compare with SS.

I have not, Kone.  I was surprised by seeing them sell at SS and just have not taken time to size them for Alamy.  Plus, this is not hard news (current). 

it's a good thing you didn't for editorial (as everything else) sells royalty free on ss, but anything with people are royalty managed on alamy. so, once it's been sold as rf can no longer qualify for rm (except zoonar).


Wrong. You can sell them as Traditional License (L) with unreleased people in them, in fact that is what Alamy defaults to. For some reason, they shifted all my RM stuff to TL.

A TL license does not provide any guarantees to the user that the image is not being used elsewhere, so there is no conflict with the RM license at all.

Alamy seems to like to keep the myth going that RF cannot be sold as TL but if you try to get a straight answer from them they avoid the question.

It is true that an image that has been sold RF cannot subsequently be made rights managed (RM), but TL is OK. 

RacePhoto

« Reply #31 on: September 07, 2010, 19:59 »
0

Racephoto is brooding on something and I hope he replies soon the PM.  ;) - Any new stock site needs a USP or it goes down the drains. A great USP would be an Editorial-only midstock site (around 50$) with exclusive images in a certain niche - let's say motor, transportation, aviation.  ::) :-X

And that's keeping it quiet on the forum?  ???  :D

Yes, I'm thinking of a news/editorial, specific market niche, agency that operates flat rate like micro. I'm not sure how the publications would accept a new one or how difficult it would be to market. The up front expense of getting the name out would be large and it could be a couple of years before it would make a profit. As usual, it all looks great in theory but when the details get written down, it's a little more complicated. 50/50 split artist and agency is always something on the bottom line, so it's fair and more appealing than the 20% we see now.

About the below quote:

How do I open myself for this kind of stuff.

TL? Please explain where we have a choice of TL on which agencies? L on Alamy is RM, it's just a different name. (OK shoot me if I'm wrong)  ;D


Have you try some of editorials (sport) on Alamy?
If yes, how does it compare with SS.

I have not, Kone.  I was surprised by seeing them sell at SS and just have not taken time to size them for Alamy.  Plus, this is not hard news (current).  

it's a good thing you didn't for editorial (as everything else) sells royalty free on ss, but anything with people are royalty managed on alamy. so, once it's been sold as rf can no longer qualify for rm (except zoonar).


Wrong. You can sell them as Traditional License (L) with unreleased people in them, in fact that is what Alamy defaults to. For some reason, they shifted all my RM stuff to TL.

A TL license does not provide any guarantees to the user that the image is not being used elsewhere, so there is no conflict with the RM license at all.

Alamy seems to like to keep the myth going that RF cannot be sold as TL but if you try to get a straight answer from them they avoid the question.

It is true that an image that has been sold RF cannot subsequently be made rights managed (RM), but TL is OK.  
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 00:01 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #32 on: September 07, 2010, 23:22 »
0
Is there any way of limiting a particular image on Shutterstock to Enhanced License?  I have a newsworthy image that might prove to be in demand as the anniversary of the event approaches.  It sort of rankles to see the license royalties at $.25 for this particular image.

Nope.  SS is all about subscriptions, so they're not going to do anything to deny their subscribers access to everything.

« Reply #33 on: September 08, 2010, 10:51 »
0
I haven't uploaded much editorial yet... but what i have uploaded, they accepted (except one because of some confusion about exactly which god - out of 2 million - was being celebrated) even though they weren't 'newsworthy' as such, more illustrative...

You just need to stick some info in the caption

for a portrait of a chai seller, for example, the description was 'a chai seller waits for business' and the extra caption (the news) was "The informal economy generates 90.3 per cent of all livelihoods in India."

For a young chap with an elephant, the 'news'  was "Elephants have been domesticated in India for over 3,500 years."

Put an interesting fact in the description and it's newsworthy : )

RacePhoto

« Reply #34 on: September 14, 2010, 14:02 »
0
Attention: BaldricksTrousers can you please explain this to me? TL is RM isn't it and that would mean anything RF can't be sold as RM or TL.

What's the myth? I don't understand.



it's a good thing you didn't for editorial (as everything else) sells royalty free on ss, but anything with people are royalty managed on alamy. so, once it's been sold as rf can no longer qualify for rm (except zoonar).


Wrong. You can sell them as Traditional License (L) with unreleased people in them, in fact that is what Alamy defaults to. For some reason, they shifted all my RM stuff to TL.

A TL license does not provide any guarantees to the user that the image is not being used elsewhere, so there is no conflict with the RM license at all.

Alamy seems to like to keep the myth going that RF cannot be sold as TL but if you try to get a straight answer from them they avoid the question.

It is true that an image that has been sold RF cannot subsequently be made rights managed (RM), but TL is OK. 

« Reply #35 on: September 14, 2010, 14:43 »
0
Put an interesting fact in the description and it's newsworthy : )
I haven't had a single editorial accepted on SS in 2 years. Yap the caption was as complete as you can stick in 200 characters. They said it didn't follow the rules, but it did. Should have sent an email to Anthony C., but what the heck. Uploading and emailing costs too much time on all these sites. I think I have about 100 batches approved on Alamy, but clicking all their boxes and splitting all keywords on site is just too much, especially when you read shots are sold there for 0.25$ as "novel".

RacePhoto

« Reply #36 on: September 14, 2010, 21:29 »
0
Put an interesting fact in the description and it's newsworthy : )
I haven't had a single editorial accepted on SS in 2 years. Yap the caption was as complete as you can stick in 200 characters. They said it didn't follow the rules, but it did. Should have sent an email to Anthony C., but what the heck. Uploading and emailing costs too much time on all these sites. I think I have about 100 batches approved on Alamy, but clicking all their boxes and splitting all keywords on site is just too much, especially when you read shots are sold there for 0.25$ as "novel".

Two issues here. The 25c NU on Alamy was some old credits from an experimental program and hardly anyone had those old delayed payments from last year or maybe longer ago. They squealed and squeaked, but the fact is, very few people had those crummy 25c sales. It's an exception and not common, but reading the forums and Alamy detractors, you would think Alamy went micro for two-bit downloads. Not True!  ;D

I had some problems with the SS editorial format. It's either cast in stone or the reviewers are mindless robots. Maybe both? I had one refused for lower case in the first section. I mean how chicken-crap can they be? If the format isn't exact and identical to the examples, the reviewers seem to just click refused without helpfully explaining the real reason. I sent one in that was from before 1923, therefore out of copyright. Didn't use the exact format. It was refused for not editorial and no model release. Hey wait, it doesn't need a model release and it wasn't submitted at editorial.

I can understand your frustration with the SS editorial guidelines and their system of not clearly explaining rejections. For 25 cents, it's a nice little loophole for getting unrelesaed images into the system. I believe that some "editorial" downloads, OK I know that some of my downloads, are not used for news and the people buying them know it's not editorial, but they also know that they don't need a release for the image. The SS editorial requirements are ridiculous CYA efforts.

With that, I'm happy to play the game, send them shots and get downloads by using the exact format, punctuation and case that they require.

Quote from: SS Help File
For a newsworthy editorial image/footage clip to have any value, long term, the image must have some basic identifiers such as: Who, What, Where & When - as a caption/description. Just explain what is going on in the image. Simply write the facts (accuracy is very important). When writing, be concise. Please keep it under 200 characters (including spaces).

Here is an example of what kind of caption we are looking for:

JACKSON, NJ - JUNE 16: Singer Deborah Harry performs onstage at Six Flags Great Adventure June 16, 2008 in Jackson, NJ.

A 'dateline' style always comes before the caption: 'JACKSON, NJ - JUNE 16:'

For images taken in any 'major' city in the world such as Los Angeles, New York or London, you do not need the state identifier (or country) in the dateline, just in the caption. As examples:

LOS ANGELES - JUNE 16: Singer Deborah Harry performs onstage at Six Flags Great Adventure June 16, 2008 in Los Angeles, California.

LONDON - JUNE 16: Singer Deborah Harry attends a charity benefit June 16, 2008 in London, England.

If you are submitting from an event today in Sydney, Australia, the dateline would be: SYDNEY - JUNE 16:

For a motorcross event in Sydney, your caption may be: John Doe of Australia participates in the Extreme Motorcross Event June 16, 2008 in Sydney, Australia.

Put the dateline and caption together, this is what the complete caption would look like:

SYDNEY - JUNE 16: John Doe of Australia participates in the Extreme Motorcross Event June 16, 2008 in Sydney, Australia.

** Please keep your title (caption) area description to under 200 characters (including spaces), for now.


Here's my guide:

LOCATION - DATE: Description of photo contents and facts, date it again, location again

That's: Where - When: Who, What, Why, Whatever Else, date again, location again.

Good luck if you should choose this mission. This message will self destruct in 15 seconds. ;)


« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2010, 16:49 »
0
i'm starting to think that the strict requirements for SS ed are BECAUSE their reviewers are so varied and inconsistent - if they have a simple item by item checkoff for the caption, they can at least avoid those problems.  meanwhile, they still need to train reviewers to understand the difference between newsworthy and editorial - some reviewers think the 2 are synonymous - most of my images are not newsworthy, but instead are real people doing things in places where a model release just isn't a possibility - eg, groups at ski areas, markets, etc

steve

« Reply #38 on: October 13, 2014, 17:08 »
0
I try to revitalize this topic, because I'm basically a photojournalist, editorial is my bread and meat and cheese and fuel etc...
What I want to say is that is absolutely ridicoulous the price that microstock sells news or editorial pictures.

To produce a news picture is expensive; to produce a news picture you have to be qualified; to produce a news picture you have to work daily on it (I mean that amateur can just have a lucky shot, but cannot schedule events and planning their life on this kind of photography).

Please, don't sell news on microstock agencies, we can't destroy photography and photographers more than this.

« Reply #39 on: October 13, 2014, 18:21 »
+4
I try to revitalize this topic, because I'm basically a photojournalist, editorial is my bread and meat and cheese and fuel etc...
What I want to say is that is absolutely ridicoulous the price that microstock sells news or editorial pictures.

To produce a news picture is expensive; to produce a news picture you have to be qualified; to produce a news picture you have to work daily on it (I mean that amateur can just have a lucky shot, but cannot schedule events and planning their life on this kind of photography).

Please, don't sell news on microstock agencies, we can't destroy photography and photographers more than this.

Oh but it depends. I sell some "news" and editorial on Microstock, especially on Shutterstock, and if the image is something that people come back to or that can be used as a true "stock" image for recurring events and/or as an abstract to describe a place or an institution, then the image makes me several hundred dollars over its lifetime.

Is that worse than what would have happened in traditional stock editorial photography? Tell you what, I don't care. Why don't I care? Because I am an amateur, maybe a semi-pro, and the high and haughty editorial photography world would never let me in. So what choice do I have? My education, my primary profession, my travels and pure dumb luck have given me access to some high value editorial locations, and I am a decent photographer with an eye and a passion for a good editorial image. So I will sell them at the agencies that will have me. It's that easy.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2014, 18:31 by MarcvsTvllivs »

« Reply #40 on: October 13, 2014, 19:05 »
+3
yep, this is the same sort of arrogant  post  that 'pros' used to blast at digital photo CDs (in the early 90s) and then microstock in general  (buggy whip makers probably had similar concerns)

evolution in action

Nic99

« Reply #41 on: October 14, 2014, 02:27 »
0
I try to revitalize this topic, because I'm basically a photojournalist, editorial is my bread and meat and cheese and fuel etc...
What I want to say is that is absolutely ridicoulous the price that microstock sells news or editorial pictures.

To produce a news picture is expensive; to produce a news picture you have to be qualified; to produce a news picture you have to work daily on it (I mean that amateur can just have a lucky shot, but cannot schedule events and planning their life on this kind of photography).

Please, don't sell news on microstock agencies, we can't destroy photography and photographers more than this.

you mean spray and pray and pick the best shot

« Reply #42 on: October 14, 2014, 03:27 »
+2
With my sport editorial I follow this principle :

Right after the even is shot  :
 - put it to local country news agency
 - put it to alamy
 - put it to my own stock database website

 - after some time I put it to SS. Because news after one week is worth only for stock :) noone even rememer it. Maybe I loose some cash here because it is not distributed asap, but what I see, Im selling there images half a year after the event happened.

So this is just my preference, to avoid selling hot pictures for nothing. :)

ShadySue

« Reply #43 on: October 14, 2014, 03:30 »
0
With my sport editorial I follow this principle :

Right after the even is shot  :
 - put it to local country news agency
 - put it to alamy
 - put it to my own stock database website
 - after some time I put it to SS.
Have you found that these pics are unlikely to sell from Alamy after 'some time', so it's better to delete them from Alamy and submit to SS?

« Reply #44 on: October 14, 2014, 03:38 »
0
Well for local events yes. I still keep some international big events only on Alamy and local RM. But Im from Czech Republic, so the need for local sports on Alamy is really low. I try, as they have agreements with other Czech agencies, but after a while, you can remove it, yes.

« Reply #45 on: October 14, 2014, 03:48 »
+5
Please, don't sell news on microstock agencies, we can't destroy photography and photographers more than this.

With respect this is 2014 not 1994


Uncle Pete

« Reply #46 on: October 14, 2014, 11:26 »
+2
Quite true cascoly, and I've even had a change of heart since the 2010 opinions (earlier in this thread) When Alamy was paying me $80 average commission for a DL - Editorial - I was happy to leave things there and not on Micro. (and I don't make 25c anymore on SS either)  :)

That plus the OD and ODD and ELs on SS, the value of return has gone up. At the same time the returns on Alamy, for me, have gone down. Don't take this all negative, I still get over $20 commission on Alamy for a DL. That's a nice number. But I also get less sales than I did in 2010?

Also: IS started accepting my Editorial images that they didn't seem to want before. I suspect that had to do with direct competition with Getty hired guns at the same events that I work for the magazines and websites.

With those factors, I'm now sending new images to SS and IS and I haven't cross posted the older work that's already on Alamy. Not sure if I will continue new images to Alamy, but with the latest size adjustment, down to 6MP and no more up-sizing and all that editing, I might start again.

evolution in action Yes It Is, and the times have changed, even in the small world of Microstock. Editorial is not the biggest part of the market for Micro, but it's growing. Don't expect Editorial on Micro to have the same exposure or potential for sales as the Lifestyle and commercial RF images. The demand and the customers aren't here... yet!

For those who like letters and numbers. RPI SS six months this year Editorial only = .75 and Alamy? RPI entire year 2014 = .025 + Alamy has over 1200 images, SS editorial just over 200. Real numbers, bottom line, SS now earns me six times what Alamy does.

So it wasn't hard for me to see that SS was producing better returns for me personally. In 2010 Alamy earned 4 times what I made on SS for the year.   evolution in action

yep, this is the same sort of arrogant  post  that 'pros' used to blast at digital photo CDs (in the early 90s) and then microstock in general  (buggy whip makers probably had similar concerns)

evolution in action


Uncle Pete

« Reply #47 on: October 14, 2014, 11:28 »
+1
Note after reading the last post. I'm not sure I can actually have the same Editorial images on both. Alamy is RM and Microstock is RF. Kind of solves that question for me, doesn't it?  :)

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #48 on: October 15, 2014, 01:22 »
+1
Please, don't sell news on microstock agencies, we can't destroy photography and photographers more than this.

i don't think there will be ever space for News on micros as the money is just not there.

amateurs will upload the odd iphone shot here and there but will soon realize it's not sustainable moneywise.


« Reply #49 on: October 15, 2014, 03:43 »
0
I try to revitalize this topic, because I'm basically a photojournalist, editorial is my bread and meat and cheese and fuel etc...
What I want to say is that is absolutely ridicoulous the price that microstock sells news or editorial pictures.

To produce a news picture is expensive; to produce a news picture you have to be qualified; to produce a news picture you have to work daily on it (I mean that amateur can just have a lucky shot, but cannot schedule events and planning their life on this kind of photography).

Please, don't sell news on microstock agencies, we can't destroy photography and photographers more than this.

Oh but it depends. I sell some "news" and editorial on Microstock, especially on Shutterstock, and if the image is something that people come back to or that can be used as a true "stock" image for recurring events and/or as an abstract to describe a place or an institution, then the image makes me several hundred dollars over its lifetime.

Is that worse than what would have happened in traditional stock editorial photography? Tell you what, I don't care. Why don't I care? Because I am an amateur, maybe a semi-pro, and the high and haughty editorial photography world would never let me in. So what choice do I have? My education, my primary profession, my travels and pure dumb luck have given me access to some high value editorial locations, and I am a decent photographer with an eye and a passion for a good editorial image. So I will sell them at the agencies that will have me. It's that easy.

That's right: I'm talking about "News" photography, and not generic editorial ph. News are the kind of photography that expire in a week or less their journalistic value.

« Reply #50 on: October 15, 2014, 03:46 »
-1
yep, this is the same sort of arrogant  post  that 'pros' used to blast at digital photo CDs (in the early 90s) and then microstock in general  (buggy whip makers probably had similar concerns)

evolution in action

Probably, and yours is the same sort of arrogant post that some amateurs used to blast at pros.

« Reply #51 on: October 15, 2014, 03:48 »
0
With my sport editorial I follow this principle :

Right after the even is shot  :
 - put it to local country news agency
 - put it to alamy
 - put it to my own stock database website

 - after some time I put it to SS. Because news after one week is worth only for stock :) noone even rememer it. Maybe I loose some cash here because it is not distributed asap, but what I see, Im selling there images half a year after the event happened.

So this is just my preference, to avoid selling hot pictures for nothing. :)

That's the right commercial way to everybody

« Reply #52 on: October 15, 2014, 03:52 »
0
Please, don't sell news on microstock agencies, we can't destroy photography and photographers more than this.

With respect this is 2014 not 1994
Indeed: in 1994 photojournalism was a serious matter

« Reply #53 on: October 15, 2014, 04:03 »
-1
Please, don't sell news on microstock agencies, we can't destroy photography and photographers more than this.

i don't think there will be ever space for News on micros as the money is just not there.

amateurs will upload the odd iphone shot here and there but will soon realize it's not sustainable moneywise.

Well, just to expose the problem: last year for a mistake, some of my pictures of a vernissage in an important museum, were uploaded on DP. They sold immediately three pictures for .60 each, and have seen one of them published in a magazine that spend not less than 130$ (regular base-fare) for a picture. I have informed DP, but they told me that was bought by the magazine under subscription. This is the trend: if magazine and newspaper can buy pictures so cheap from micros, well, the pros will go home.

ShadySue

« Reply #54 on: October 15, 2014, 05:10 »
0
That's right: I'm talking about "News" photography, and not generic editorial ph. News are the kind of photography that expire in a week or less their journalistic value.
That's not really what the micros can deal with. AFAIK, (most of) the micros don't have expedited inspection for news, nor do they push news images 'out there'. I doubt anyone would choose first to send a breaking hot news image to a micro. OTOH, if I ever happened to stumble upon a hot news event, I wouldn't have a clue where to send it, other than Alamy.

The newspapers round here are going down so fast, they're letting photographers go in rapid time and buying in from the main agencies, or if at all possible, using free images sent in from readers' phones. 'Free' trumps quality (obviously some phone pics can be really good, but this isn't always the case.)

Nic99

« Reply #55 on: October 15, 2014, 05:13 »
0
yes, send a hot news topic to IS and wait for a 3 week review. lol

Rinderart

« Reply #56 on: October 15, 2014, 11:26 »
0
Absolutely ... I had several rejected because I ended with the location before the date.  The caption has to be EXACTLY right.


Here comes my free editorial caption tool....
http://www.microstockphoto.co.uk/editorialcaption.html
sorry for pimping :)

To the original question... I've noticed as well that some editorial pictures sell well on SS; they are probably being so strict in requiring editorial even when it's not necessary*, that some buyers know they can use those pictures in a more liberal way

*such as stamps from many countries, or buildings in Germany which -afaik- can be photographed from a public point of view


It says your domain has expired. Looking forward to using the tool. Great help.


« Reply #57 on: October 15, 2014, 12:51 »
0
Absolutely ... I had several rejected because I ended with the location before the date.  The caption has to be EXACTLY right.


Here comes my free editorial caption tool....
http://www.microstockphoto.co.uk/editorialcaption.html
sorry for pimping :)

To the original question... I've noticed as well that some editorial pictures sell well on SS; they are probably being so strict in requiring editorial even when it's not necessary*, that some buyers know they can use those pictures in a more liberal way

*such as stamps from many countries, or buildings in Germany which -afaik- can be photographed from a public point of view


It says your domain has expired. Looking forward to using the tool. Great help.


just fyi - while handy, the editorial caption tool is a bit less important now that SS has eased the requirements for details & punctuation (and now allows 'non-newsworthy' editorials)

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #58 on: October 15, 2014, 23:36 »
+4
Indeed: in 1994 photojournalism was a serious matter

journalism and news photography are not a godgiven right.

they will exist only as long as somebody is willing to pay for it and this happens in every other industry in the world.

there's not one single reason for journalists to think they're a special case deserving any privilege.

there's a supply and there's demand.
if now they're all begging for money it means their product is no more in demand enough, simple as that.





« Reply #59 on: October 17, 2014, 07:47 »
-1
Indeed: in 1994 photojournalism was a serious matter

journalism and news photography are not a godgiven right.

they will exist only as long as somebody is willing to pay for it and this happens in every other industry in the world.

there's not one single reason for journalists to think they're a special case deserving any privilege.

there's a supply and there's demand.
if now they're all begging for money it means their product is no more in demand enough, simple as that.

Information is one of the main actor in democracy. The day when all (again: all) info will be manipulated, distorted  and organised to bring consensus to one part, without exception, we will understand that information isn't an industry or a business like every other. We are not too far from it

« Reply #60 on: October 17, 2014, 08:16 »
+4
Indeed: in 1994 photojournalism was a serious matter

journalism and news photography are not a godgiven right.

they will exist only as long as somebody is willing to pay for it and this happens in every other industry in the world.

there's not one single reason for journalists to think they're a special case deserving any privilege.

there's a supply and there's demand.
if now they're all begging for money it means their product is no more in demand enough, simple as that.

Information is one of the main actor in democracy. The day when all (again: all) info will be manipulated, distorted  and organised to bring consensus to one part, without exception, we will understand that information isn't an industry or a business like every other. We are not too far from it

Surely then it is imperative that everyone must have the freedom to submit their news/editorial/reportage images* wherever they want and in vast quantities to ensure that democratic flow of information remains constant and undiluted.....As opposed to leaving it to a few select and subjective photographers and editors to channel the flow for their profit.

* Some of which is first class by the way

Rinderart

« Reply #61 on: October 19, 2014, 13:09 »
0
"Dear Sirs - If you're going to take 80% I suggest you roll up your sleeves and bloody well earn it!"

Love this!!!

« Reply #62 on: October 19, 2014, 23:38 »
+2
selling editorial photos on micro sites is like shooting yourself in the foot, because you won't get high turnover and the price is so low. Put editorial shots where they belong in macro and place typical micro high turnover subjects in micro. The two are distinctly different although some subjects such as nature/wildlife can sell well in either platform

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #63 on: October 20, 2014, 22:33 »
0
Information is one of the main actor in democracy. The day when all (again: all) info will be manipulated, distorted  and organised to bring consensus to one part, without exception, we will understand that information isn't an industry or a business like every other. We are not too far from it

they don't even need to manipulate or distort anything, all they need is to not publish images that show a different story ...

MOST of the pics coming from war zones are never published and this is all you need to know.


« Reply #64 on: October 21, 2014, 02:19 »
0
Information is one of the main actor in democracy. The day when all (again: all) info will be manipulated, distorted  and organised to bring consensus to one part, without exception, we will understand that information isn't an industry or a business like every other. We are not too far from it

well if you think there has ever been a democracy in this a.C. world you might be right....indeed you're wrong  ;D
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 03:51 by mojaric »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3118 Views
Last post July 08, 2008, 16:05
by oboy
2 Replies
2060 Views
Last post March 07, 2009, 11:54
by vonkara
6 Replies
3022 Views
Last post June 28, 2009, 17:23
by cascoly
1 Replies
1915 Views
Last post July 01, 2009, 09:22
by willie
5 Replies
6850 Views
Last post September 07, 2010, 19:24
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results