MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What percentage of your portfolio sells at SS ?  (Read 4601 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 19, 2008, 05:45 »
0
As above. Say you uploaded 1000 images to SS. What percentage of them has at least one sale ?


« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2008, 06:03 »
0
99.5%

« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2008, 06:06 »
0
seems to be 100% not included yesterday uploaded images

« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2008, 06:19 »
0
Around 97% with 1561 online.

« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2008, 06:35 »
0
Thanks :)

« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2008, 07:14 »
0
Please help me understand, but why this is pertinent?

« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2008, 15:57 »
0
88.4% 8)=tom

« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2008, 22:03 »
0
Just curious - no hidden agenda other than comparison with other sites.

rinderart

« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2008, 23:21 »
0
going down. theres a rogue reviewer there with the No Commercial value thing. Big thread going on now.anything goes

« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2008, 00:51 »
0
That is a strange thread, reviews have been normal at SS for all the high producers I know. 

Even the new submitters I know are not having issues at SS. 

If you ask me SS needs to crack down further.  There are far too many saturated, plastic and unnatural images that are accepted every day. 

It is about time they start looking at commercial value.  As a designer I want images with pixel data intact not images that have been destroyed by the obvious over use of filters.

going down. theres a rogue reviewer there with the No Commercial value thing. Big thread going on now.anything goes

« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2008, 04:19 »
0
It is about time they start looking at commercial value.  As a designer I want images with pixel data intact not images that have been destroyed by the obvious over use of filters.

In that case you should try Istock. They want it straight from the cam, while SS likes the pop-up. I don't know what you mean by filters but technically spoken, noise reduction and sharpening are filters but adding vibrance and contrast are not. They are just linear transformations.

No pixels are changed by soft layers and changing the relative intensity value of pixels. That means it can be undone easily at the buyers side when the photographer knows his tools, that is, never go beyond the clipping level since you can't make eggs again out of an omelet.

I use to have 90% acceptance at SS but my last batch had only 50% with the lame excuse the white balance was off. Those were isolated people shots I know will sell ("commercial") but no pop-up at all since I don't like to deform skin tones. It was an experiment but I'll resubmit them with added vibrance, and that's a shame.

I think what Rinder meant was that the rogue reviewer rejects shots that we know will sell, just based on his own biased taste.

I don't know what you mean by plastic: people in fake poses and with fake emotions or images that overly noise-reduced. I never wanted to play the silly noise game of SS since many people destroy the crispness of their image. I just noise-reduce on the blue sky and some non-essential parts like folds in clothes, and then I reduce from 10 to 6MP. I agree that noise-reduction is very destructive in general.

In general, I think reviewers should not judge commercial value beyond the level of snapshots but just technical aspects. Why? Because reviewers are photographers too and they don't know, just like we, what a customer really wants.

Therefore it would be great to have image buyers on this forum too, not only photographers that are stumbling in the dark. Right now, we work to please the reviewer but we should please the customer. That's a basic weakness of most stock sites.

« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2008, 04:41 »
0
As above. Say you uploaded 1000 images to SS. What percentage of them has at least one sale ?
For me it's around 88% but I'm not doing the sexy business women with laptop and headset. I just do what I like and what's fun and if anybody wants to buy it, that's great.

Another important point is the distribution of those sales. In my case, it's a very skewed one. About 50% of my shots sold 10 times or less, but the top 5% sold immensely well. A real pro stock photographer here (I look in everybody's portfolio) will have a more flattened distribution. Look for instance at the port of Karimala, Leaf and others. They master all possible subjects.

A better question would be, imho, what percentage of your portfolio sells daily. In my case it's around 2-3% with peaks of 4-5% 2-6 days after a new upload.

There has been much talk here about SS upload strategy and I can add one observation. I used to upload batches of 10 and that worked fine. A month ago, I added a batch of 60 and the "new" effect didn't work at all. Sales staid flat. So last week I reverted to the 10 scheme and that did the trick again. There should be a course about ShutterStockology somewhere ;-)

dbvirago

« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2008, 05:19 »
0
Interesting read, FD. For me, 50% of my sales are also from images with 10 sales or less. Thought it was just me LOL. Also agree with the comments on not rejecting for a reviewers perception of what is commercial. Per some sites' requiements, I am qualified to be a reviewer, but based on my perception of what will sell, I sure as hell am not.

I have two almost identical background shots. One is consitently in my top 10 and one sells occasionally. I have a series of houses. Cookie cutter. One outsells the rest put together. Why? No idea. So how can I decided what has commercial value.

Regardless of your opinion of the quality at SS, there is a rogue reviewer there with an agenda that is creating a problem.

« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2008, 05:48 »
0
100% not including the past couple of days uploads.

« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2008, 05:50 »
0
Regardless of your opinion of the quality at SS, there is a rogue reviewer there with an agenda that is creating a problem.

I wrote my previous post before reading the SS thread about this. Yes, there seems to be a problem, but it could be a new site policy and not one single reviewer.
I'm glad you have the same idea about a reviewer's role, that is, do the technical review and sift out apparent uninspired snap shots. The customer should decide what's commercial. A photog can't do that. As you, I have very odd experiences in what sells and what not. You"ll never know, it's a Darwinian thing.

I picked this from the SS thread by a designer-photog and he exactly says the same:

Quote
As a submitter and user, and given Bichon's recent post, if I were looking for the Eiffel Tower, I would want to see all angles, all times of day, isolated or with sky, etc. I have much less tolerance for "Limited Commercial Value" than I do for blown highlights or noise. Those I can live with. It's far easier and faster to blow through 200 shots that DON'T work, to find the TWO you can really use, and the difference is in seconds or short minutes. If you're a designer, you know if it will work or not with a glance. If our SS friends have the TerraBytes, take it all in if the technical quality is there. Leave the art to the shooters.

In my humble opinion, our reviewers should be cranking down on noise, color, white balance, etc. The angles of the crops are, in my opinion, far more subjective than the technical limits of any submission.

DanP68

« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2008, 05:56 »
0
I'll have to check the SS thread.  I was not aware of this.  Yikes, I submitted 6 images today - I hope I don't run into the rogue reviewer.

Regarding noise, I agree with FD.  Personally I do not understand the anti-noise fetish of the microstock agenies.  Take a look at National Geographic, SI, etc.  Plenty of great, sharp images with an appropriate amount of noise.  But we have to play the game, and I use a similar routine to FD's.  Simply attack the problem areas with a little NR, and leave the remainder of the image alone.  Otherwise you end up with a soft piece of plastic.

« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2008, 23:56 »
0
I do not my % but S.S. works well for me, by the way there are well said toughts in this tread.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
34 Replies
9393 Views
Last post March 07, 2007, 03:53
by hatman12
32 Replies
6986 Views
Last post February 25, 2008, 15:51
by vphoto
14 Replies
6260 Views
Last post September 03, 2008, 05:33
by DanP68
11 Replies
3073 Views
Last post December 06, 2008, 10:27
by azurelaroux
32 Replies
5005 Views
Last post April 16, 2014, 08:25
by fotoVoyager

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results