MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Stocksy => Topic started by: fotorob on June 14, 2015, 05:58
-
Hello,
I just saw that Stocksy offers a bunch of their images (about 77) in a bundle at CreativeMarket for 39$.
https://creativemarket.com/bundle/photography-bundle (https://creativemarket.com/bundle/photography-bundle)
Does anyone know how much royalties goes to each photographer for each sale?
Best regards,
Robert
-
Hello,
I just saw that Stocksy offers a bunch of their images (about 77) in a bundle at CreativeMarket for 39$.
https://creativemarket.com/bundle/photography-bundle (https://creativemarket.com/bundle/photography-bundle)
Does anyone know how much royalties goes to each photographer for each sale?
Best regards,
Robert
I won't comment on questions of payment. But I can assure you, every single photographer who is part of this deal agreed with the way it was structured.
-
I have just bought that bundle. Mostly for the pre-sets and actions for LR and PS. I was also interested in the quality of the Stocksy photos, to get an idea of what my standards would have to be.
The Stocksy floral pack has 21 images. On CM that pack cost $2800 dollar. I just checked the quality and it is appalling. Out of focus, noise, fringing, over saturated, poorly exposed. I have a hard time believing that is the quality offered on Stocksy. This must be rejects or something.
-
Images deleted
-
Just curious... As a buyer, why would you spend $39 on something when you have absolutely no idea what you're getting?
-
Gawd that focus on those images is atrocious!
-
Just curious... As a buyer, why would you spend $39 on something when you have absolutely no idea what you're getting?
Sorry, is that the way Stocksy is thinking as well and sells 21 crap images for $2800 because we have no idea what we are buying anyway?
There is a clear explanation of what is included in the bundle and I can click on every product to see what that product includes. It looked good to me, and some pre-sets will come very useful.
I trusted on the Stocksy reputation regarding the images, when I bought the bundle, silly me.
-
I'm serious. Where is the page that describes it? I can only find the page that says "1500 presets and some stock images" with the buy me button. I couldn't find a detail page anywhere. If there is one, I'd love to see it.
I don't know anything about the 'quality' of he images. I'm not an editor and don't have access to other work. It's known, though, that emotion and feeling can trump perfect focus during acceptance.
-
https://creativemarket.com/bundle/photography-bundle
Just scroll down and you will see all the packages and click on them
-
Lol, guess I never scrolled down far enough. Thanks for the smack.
-
Images deleted
-
Deleted
-
Can you get a refund?
Its not a mistake, this actually for sale on Stocksy
[url]http://www.stocksy.com/281669[/url] ([url]http://www.stocksy.com/281669[/url])
([url]http://cdn2.stocksy.com/a/3HB100/z0/281669.jpg[/url])
-
Its not a mistake, this actually for sale on Stocksy
I take it you are not feeling the emotion.
-
wow
looks like they are accepting iPhone 4 photos.
-
I have emailed CM for a partial refund. Regardless of the discounted bundle, I still believe the quality should be to a certain standard.
As far as emotion trumps focus, I completely understand what is meant by that, and to a point I agree. But those pineapple images have nothing to do with any emotion or story. It evokes nothing, and they are extremely poor quality. Stuff like that wont even get accepted at 123 or CanStockPhoto.
-
I have emailed CM for a partial refund. Regardless of the discounted bundle, I still believe the quality should be to a certain standard.
Stocksy involvement aside, there is no guarantee or assurance of any kind of quality on CM. We all know (I think) that they do no kind of inspections or anything. I think it's buyer beware there.
-
Creative Market does a very poor job of showing you what is in their bundles. I get the marketing, but lose interest because you have to click this and that to see what is there. Deal Jumbo on the other hand really puts a lot of effort into showcasing their bundles.
I said it on another thread - I think CM stuffs bundles to look like a great deal, but I can't believe how bad those photos are and I'm really surprized Stocksy admits to any affiliation with them!
-
I have emailed CM for a partial refund. Regardless of the discounted bundle, I still believe the quality should be to a certain standard.
Stocksy involvement aside, there is no guarantee or assurance of any kind of quality on CM. We all know (I think) that they do no kind of inspections or anything. I think it's buyer beware there.
Indeed, I think they will tell me to take it up with the shop owner. Which I did. I PMed Stocksy on CM.
What I dont get is that the Stocksy packages are for sale for a lot of money. The pineapple pack cost $1300. If were a buyer, and bought that pack for that kind of money, I would be outraged over the poor quality. Stocksy shouldnt want to sell that.
-
...What I dont get is that the Stocksy packages are for sale for a lot of money. The pineapple pack cost $1300. If were a buyer, and bought that pack for that kind of money, I would be outraged over the poor quality. Stocksy shouldnt want to sell that.
I can't imagine anyone on CM paying $1,300 or $2,800 (flower bundle) for anything, so possibly there'd be no outrage in practice?
I did once download a freebie photo pack (several months back) from Creative Market and the quality didn't look great from the thumbnails, but I thought I'd see what the 100% view looked like.
The bundle was uniformly dreadful - but it was free, so no harm done. What surprised me was a pile of comments saying "wow - great pictures" and "how useful" and other compliments. Perhaps people were just being nice? Perhaps the pixel peeping that the micro agencies have trained us to do isn't something buyers care about?
-
...What I dont get is that the Stocksy packages are for sale for a lot of money. The pineapple pack cost $1300. If were a buyer, and bought that pack for that kind of money, I would be outraged over the poor quality. Stocksy shouldnt want to sell that.
I can't imagine anyone on CM paying $1,300 or $2,800 (flower bundle) for anything, so possibly there'd be no outrage in practice?
I did once download a freebie photo pack (several months back) from Creative Market and the quality didn't look great from the thumbnails, but I thought I'd see what the 100% view looked like.
The bundle was uniformly dreadful - but it was free, so no harm done. What surprised me was a pile of comments saying "wow - great pictures" and "how useful" and other compliments. Perhaps people were just being nice? Perhaps the pixel peeping that the micro agencies have trained us to do isn't something buyers care about?
But the basics should be there, right? Some photos are shockingly poor quality.
-
I was also interested in the quality of the Stocksy photos, to get an idea of what my standards would have to be.
Well, obviously you have figured it out by now, have you?
Hint: Technical quality comes secondary to the true value of a photo. You will also note that when you start downloading full-res images from Getty or Corbis.
Not trying to piss you off but it's the truth: Microstock set so high standards because they wanted to prove that you can get really good technical quality despite the low prices. But they lost touch with reality in some aspects. As you can see by those calling out the "irrational" rejections by Shutterstock for lighting or focus - which I am getting as well randomly. Those aspects might be important to cheap buyers but apparently they are by far not as important for buyers with deeper pockets.
-
Are you telling me that the two photos of the pineapple are good? Or that focus is not important?
Anyway considering the poor quality on Istock, Stocksy and Offset you are probably right.
-
I have edited my comments and deleted most photos. Its off topic.
-
...What I dont get is that the Stocksy packages are for sale for a lot of money. The pineapple pack cost $1300. If were a buyer, and bought that pack for that kind of money, I would be outraged over the poor quality. Stocksy shouldnt want to sell that.
I can't imagine anyone on CM paying $1,300 or $2,800 (flower bundle) for anything, so possibly there'd be no outrage in practice?
I did once download a freebie photo pack (several months back) from Creative Market and the quality didn't look great from the thumbnails, but I thought I'd see what the 100% view looked like.
The bundle was uniformly dreadful - but it was free, so no harm done. What surprised me was a pile of comments saying "wow - great pictures" and "how useful" and other compliments. Perhaps people were just being nice? Perhaps the pixel peeping that the micro agencies have trained us to do isn't something buyers care about?
Yeah, I once downloaded a freebie vector just to see, and it was an auto trace of a photo...not acceptable to any of the big stock sites. Useless unless you wanted to just output a small jpg for the web. If you output it any larger you'd see it was just a jumble of blobs of color.
-
Are you telling me that the two photos of the pineapple are good? Or that focus is not important?
I can't and won't comment on specific photos. I am just commenting on what I am seeing in the market.
-
Are you seeing in the market that in focus is irrelevant ?
-
Are you seeing in the market that in focus is irrelevant ?
I think we can't put all in one frame.
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-212884447/stock-photo-child-walking-on-railway-road-with-vintage-siutcase.html?src=isviGMKJJWkmMgm-Taa9HQ-1-8 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-212884447/stock-photo-child-walking-on-railway-road-with-vintage-siutcase.html?src=isviGMKJJWkmMgm-Taa9HQ-1-8)
This image have viewfinder light leaks, but it became best seller of whole my serial from London:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-165597077/stock-photo-big-ben-and-red-phone-cabine-in-london.html?src=Kpu_C-3vKpti7_IyIIX0sA-1-0 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-165597077/stock-photo-big-ben-and-red-phone-cabine-in-london.html?src=Kpu_C-3vKpti7_IyIIX0sA-1-0)
-
That's deliberately out of focus with a purpurpose. That's not what this is about.
-
Tried to download free images from different sites, including 500px to see and in all cases i was disappointed with quality. For usage in any way these images were not worth for further postprocessing. So for what serves this give away? From buyer POV i would be careful to buy something for enough big poster from other artists, because i already saw "the samples" proposed by the agency. Noise will not be visible on web publications, but on full size prints - it can be only as intentional effect, which has nothing to do with bad post processing
...What I dont get is that the Stocksy packages are for sale for a lot of money. The pineapple pack cost $1300. If were a buyer, and bought that pack for that kind of money, I would be outraged over the poor quality. Stocksy shouldnt want to sell that.
I can't imagine anyone on CM paying $1,300 or $2,800 (flower bundle) for anything, so possibly there'd be no outrage in practice?
I did once download a freebie photo pack (several months back) from Creative Market and the quality didn't look great from the thumbnails, but I thought I'd see what the 100% view looked like.
The bundle was uniformly dreadful - but it was free, so no harm done. What surprised me was a pile of comments saying "wow - great pictures" and "how useful" and other compliments. Perhaps people were just being nice? Perhaps the pixel peeping that the micro agencies have trained us to do isn't something buyers care about?
Yeah, I once downloaded a freebie vector just to see, and it was an auto trace of a photo...not acceptable to any of the big stock sites. Useless unless you wanted to just output a small jpg for the web. If you output it any larger you'd see it was just a jumble of blobs of color.
-
Are you seeing in the market that in focus is irrelevant ?
I do know that I shoot images for premium sites I circumstances I wouldn't even have bothered taking for microstock because they are prone to have problems with focus, blur, noise. Then again I still have problems getting large numbers of images up because my mind set is still far too much microstocky. So I can't claim I have figured it all out. But also from seeing other images in more than thumb nail size I can say for sure that no premium size has such a fixation on technical issues than microstock sites do.
As I said I won't comment on single images nor single technical issues. I am sure we can all find terrible images in everyone's portfolios, and sometimes we have to wonder how they ever made it through an inspection.
However, to close this part of the topic (at least for me) back to your original question: If you want to find out about "what your standards would have to be", there is no point in reviewing images in 100%. When you get significant amounts of images online in microstock on a regular basis, you most likely have all the technical skills. It's mostly a question of content.
-
The original question was: Does anyone know how much a photographer of these images gets for each sale?
-
Well there are 77 stocksy images. I don't know how much other images there are. But there are 72 packages in total. Stocksy has 4 packages. So the royalties can only be pennies. If everyone gets a fair share it can't be more than 27 cent per pack. Or 0.0035 cent per stocksy image.
-
If everyone gets a fair share it can't be more than 27 cent per pack. Or 0.0035 cent per stocksy image.
Or perhaps the division is proportional to the original list price of the individual packages. And the Stocksy packages are amusingly priced at $thousands each - for a one-project license, not RF.
I've been spending a lot of time at Creative Market lately - mostly browsing potential app UI elements although the content is also potentially interesting. I haven't bought anything there but I find it interesting in terms of the trends. I like browsing Creative Market in many ways although it seems difficult to decide what might actually be any good. I cannot decide if I am wasting my time looking at it. And it would be a lousy place to search for stock photos I think.
Personally I'm not sure I am ever going to want a random grab-bag of stuff which I would then have to waste time picking through. Same as I mostly hate free stuff.
ETA: On the other hand - quality packs of style or subject themed images might do well at the actual stock sites. Stocksy started out as a great looking collection - but those packs are a poor advert for them IMO.
-
As a general OP answer, there is this thread on creative market: https://creativemarket.com/discussions/3122-How-CreativeMarket-bundles-work-for-authors
-
This is ridiculous. They sell the Stocksy Pineapple photo pack for $1,300 and then unsell it at the top of the page by directing you to the Photography Bundle, where you can get the same pack and other photos for $39. The comments say it all. People see this and think Stocksy prices are laughable.
What a sad way for Stocksy to undercut itself.
https://creativemarket.com/Stocksy/280455-Stocksy-Pineapple-Pack
-
Stocksy is a big failure on many levels, and now it seems they are getting desperate for sales. 90% of the the failure is the curation, it is done by 12 year old hispterfan teengirls recruited from random instagram accounts. They are extremely good at picking out the useless, chaotic stuff - to be "so different"... I guess. Just look at the opening page, it has become an ugly mess.
-
Stocksy is a big failure on many levels, and now it seems they are getting desperate for sales. 90% of the the failure is the curation, it is done by 12 year old hispterfan teengirls recruited from random instagram accounts. They are extremely good at picking out the useless, chaotic stuff - to be "so different"... I guess. Just look at the opening page, it has become an ugly mess.
Huh? From the inside looking out, I can tell you you are dead wrong. Substitute "big success" for "big failure" and you would have it right. Like it or not, Stocksy has been nothing but a success story. You don't have to agree with the editing and content choice, but I can assure you failure is not a word you can associate with this company.
-
It's a shame, really. I had a lot of respect for both Stocksy and Creative Market at the beginning, because I thought curated design and photography could sell for a premium price, and they could break away from the pack. But the bundles are getting crazy. It's worse than DPC.
-
http://www.success.com/blog/no-more-bad-stock-photos-how-a-great-image-helped-inspire-me-to-launch-stocksy (http://www.success.com/blog/no-more-bad-stock-photos-how-a-great-image-helped-inspire-me-to-launch-stocksy)
580% revenue growth is not failure to me
-
[url]http://www.success.com/blog/no-more-bad-stock-photos-how-a-great-image-helped-inspire-me-to-launch-stocksy[/url] ([url]http://www.success.com/blog/no-more-bad-stock-photos-how-a-great-image-helped-inspire-me-to-launch-stocksy[/url])
580% revenue growth is not failure to me
Depends on your cost really.
And also on the actual revenue reported. If your revenue first year is 2000 and second year its 13600, its a 580% growth, but nothing out of the ordinary. Start ups tend to see high revenue growth. You wont see those growth numbers after 10 years of being in business.
-
[url]http://www.success.com/blog/no-more-bad-stock-photos-how-a-great-image-helped-inspire-me-to-launch-stocksy[/url] ([url]http://www.success.com/blog/no-more-bad-stock-photos-how-a-great-image-helped-inspire-me-to-launch-stocksy[/url])
580% revenue growth is not failure to me
Depends on your cost really.
And also on the actual revenue reported. If your revenue first year is 2000 and second year its 13600, its a 580% growth, but nothing out of the ordinary. Start ups tend to see high revenue growth. You wont see those growth numbers after 10 years of being in business.
Lies, damned lies, statistics...
-
Stocksy is a big failure on many levels, and now it seems they are getting desperate for sales. 90% of the the failure is the curation, it is done by 12 year old hispterfan teengirls recruited from random instagram accounts. They are extremely good at picking out the useless, chaotic stuff - to be "so different"... I guess. Just look at the opening page, it has become an ugly mess.
You bash Stocksy every chance you get. Why do you care so much? Why don't you just ignore them?
-
What I don't understand is why RM and Midstock agencies aren't trying to be sure their images are at least technically sound. Cover all the bases. The standards have gotten * high in microstock; so why don't they also increase in the market that charges 10x the price? Pay more and get less? Oh yeah, that can be found in any market. When you pay more for something, you're not necessarily getting more.
Many big RM agency collection images high-res have always looked noisy, OOF, or just outright laughable technically every time I've zoomed in. Maybe it's time the technical bar was raised, across the board. The smartphone and iphoneography stuff is now bringing the technical standards back down, perhaps. A camera that's always in your pocket is better than no camera... but does that make the image worth hundreds of dollars, even if it was captured on a piece of crap? I guess so. Art is always subjective. Feed me 3 bottles of sriracha sauce with a few beers and and bunch of old taco meat and let me vomit it on a canvas, and then I can sell it to the highest bidder as .:abstract art:.
(http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/75e/e67/e57/resized/bill-nye-meme-generator-stand-back-this-might-be-art-4c4044.jpg)
-
I guess it depends where it's being used and who's licensing it. If it will appear in a newspaper or online and tells the right story it doesn't need to be tack sharp, but if you're buying it for advertising it does, because it will be used across different media and would look awful on a billboard, for example, if OOF.
-
Some of the images are taken with an Iphone 4. Some shots are taken in a studio at ISO 1000. Some images taken with an 1Ds III + EF 135mm f/2L USM looking like I took them on my 450D with an 18-55 kit lens. I am still shocked. I had no idea that the micros had such high standards compared to what I am seeing now. I am a lot less worried about my technical skills, thats for sure. All I need to work on is my story telling.
-
Some of the images are taken with an Iphone 4. Some shots are taken in a studio at ISO 1000. Some images taken with an 1Ds III + EF 135mm f/2L USM looking like I took them on my 450D with an 18-55 kit lens. I am still shocked. I had no idea that the micros had such high standards compared to what I am seeing now. I am a lot less worried about my technical skills, thats for sure. All I need to work on is my story telling.
Don't forget the emotion, a pineapple that can make your heart bleed is your minimum requirement. No really, I once went to the Tate and saw what I perceived to be a glass of water, yet it was apparently an oak tree, and the greater the price the older and grander the oak will be. Once you get an handle on these concepts you will be an artist for sure and Stocksy will come knocking on your door.
-
Some of the images are taken with an Iphone 4. Some shots are taken in a studio at ISO 1000. Some images taken with an 1Ds III + EF 135mm f/2L USM looking like I took them on my 450D with an 18-55 kit lens. I am still shocked. I had no idea that the micros had such high standards compared to what I am seeing now. I am a lot less worried about my technical skills, thats for sure. All I need to work on is my story telling.
Don't forget the emotion, a pineapple that can make your heart bleed is your minimum requirement. No really, I once went to the Tate and saw what I perceived to be a glass of water, yet it was apparently an oak tree, and the greater the price the older and grander the oak will be. Once you get an handle on these concepts you will be an artist for sure and Stocksy will come knocking on your door.
After the comments he left on CM I suspect it will be a long, long time before Stocksy come knocking.
-
Hahaha, this thread is gooooold ;D ;D
I mean, given that the guy from iStock is now at Stocksy, I guess they're trying to bring back the "golden days of microstock", when absolutely everything was bought, for their little family of loyal followers. Now that it's much more difficult to sell at microstock and the golden days are over, they'll just ditch the technical requirements, put on some VSCO filters, set prices to 10x of microstock and hope for the best. And it seems to be working, I also didn't think that the technical quality of Stocksy images was this poor. So congrats ;D
-
Some of the images are taken with an Iphone 4. Some shots are taken in a studio at ISO 1000. Some images taken with an 1Ds III + EF 135mm f/2L USM looking like I took them on my 450D with an 18-55 kit lens. I am still shocked. I had no idea that the micros had such high standards compared to what I am seeing now. I am a lot less worried about my technical skills, thats for sure. All I need to work on is my story telling.
Don't forget the emotion, a pineapple that can make your heart bleed is your minimum requirement. No really, I once went to the Tate and saw what I perceived to be a glass of water, yet it was apparently an oak tree, and the greater the price the older and grander the oak will be. Once you get an handle on these concepts you will be an artist for sure and Stocksy will come knocking on your door.
After the comments he left on CM I suspect it will be a long, long time before Stocksy come knocking.
Why? Because I question the quality of their product? Honest buyer feedback? But I guess you are right; agencies have a knack for retaliating against troublemakers. If they cant handle honest critique and reject my application, so be it. What they could do is re-review the images, and take them down.
-
What I don't understand is why RM and Midstock agencies aren't trying to be sure their images are at least technically sound. Cover all the bases. The standards have gotten * high in microstock; so why don't they also increase in the market that charges 10x the price? Pay more and get less? Oh yeah, that can be found in any market. When you pay more for something, you're not necessarily getting more.
Many big RM agency collection images high-res have always looked noisy, OOF, or just outright laughable technically every time I've zoomed in. Maybe it's time the technical bar was raised, across the board. The smartphone and iphoneography stuff is now bringing the technical standards back down, perhaps. A camera that's always in your pocket is better than no camera... but does that make the image worth hundreds of dollars, even if it was captured on a piece of crap? I guess so. Art is always subjective. Feed me 3 bottles of sriracha sauce with a few beers and and bunch of old taco meat and let me vomit it on a canvas, and then I can sell it to the highest bidder as .:abstract art:.
([url]http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/75e/e67/e57/resized/bill-nye-meme-generator-stand-back-this-might-be-art-4c4044.jpg[/url])
I agree with what you said, but I am a little baffled by the illustration. What does alt-text on a snapshot of Bill Nye apparently being hypnotized by electric utility meter have to do with? Just asking.
-
[url]http://www.success.com/blog/no-more-bad-stock-photos-how-a-great-image-helped-inspire-me-to-launch-stocksy[/url] ([url]http://www.success.com/blog/no-more-bad-stock-photos-how-a-great-image-helped-inspire-me-to-launch-stocksy[/url])
580% revenue growth is not failure to me
"580% revenue growth" - meaningless. From what, 2$? You might as well start calculating from 0, becasue if it's a new company, and say 50000000000% * infinte growth. When you see numbers like that in financial issues, you can be pretty sure they are taking you for a enormous fool. :) You ppl fall for anything. I am in stocksy, I see the stats they present with TV shop sentences "awesome, cool, etc...", problem is I'm quite decent with math, and some a back of the envelope calculations will tell you it's anything but spectacular. There are a few ppl who got layaway stuff accepted that almost nobody else got thru -because they were too ordinary stock-like. Those guys have quite large ports, had pretty big ones to start with, it probably works for them but hardly anybody else. Otherwise you have guys spending 2000$ on some fashion shoot to achieve that movie-still-with-stars feeling, only to get 3-4 of the the weirdest most unusable pictures approved from it. Big nah.
-
Stocksy is a big failure on many levels, and now it seems they are getting desperate for sales. 90% of the the failure is the curation, it is done by 12 year old hispterfan teengirls recruited from random instagram accounts. They are extremely good at picking out the useless, chaotic stuff - to be "so different"... I guess. Just look at the opening page, it has become an ugly mess.
You bash Stocksy every chance you get. Why do you care so much? Why don't you just ignore them?
After I'v been on istock for a few months, I bashed Istock too, warning ppl that it's gonna be a trap and huge disappointment, although sales there were ok back than. I saw the clusterf*** coming when I got a dose of their attitude towards contribs from the way they communicated inside (lobo & co) Ppl said similar things like you, that I'm just jealous, and why do I bother, to hell with naysayers they gonna just hoo-ray and upload. Look what's up with that now.
-
What I don't understand is why RM and Midstock agencies aren't trying to be sure their images are at least technically sound. Cover all the bases. The standards have gotten * high in microstock; so why don't they also increase in the market that charges 10x the price? Pay more and get less? Oh yeah, that can be found in any market. When you pay more for something, you're not necessarily getting more.
Many big RM agency collection images high-res have always looked noisy, OOF, or just outright laughable technically every time I've zoomed in. Maybe it's time the technical bar was raised, across the board. The smartphone and iphoneography stuff is now bringing the technical standards back down, perhaps. A camera that's always in your pocket is better than no camera... but does that make the image worth hundreds of dollars, even if it was captured on a piece of crap? I guess so. Art is always subjective. Feed me 3 bottles of sriracha sauce with a few beers and and bunch of old taco meat and let me vomit it on a canvas, and then I can sell it to the highest bidder as .:abstract art:.
([url]http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/75e/e67/e57/resized/bill-nye-meme-generator-stand-back-this-might-be-art-4c4044.jpg[/url])
That might just be the biggest reason they failed. On the other hand, micros should charge more, always should have.
-
Stocksy is a big failure on many levels, and now it seems they are getting desperate for sales. 90% of the the failure is the curation, it is done by 12 year old hispterfan teengirls recruited from random instagram accounts. They are extremely good at picking out the useless, chaotic stuff - to be "so different"... I guess. Just look at the opening page, it has become an ugly mess.
You bash Stocksy every chance you get. Why do you care so much? Why don't you just ignore them?
After I'v been on istock for a few months, I bashed Istock too, warning ppl that it's gonna be a trap and huge disappointment, although sales there were ok back than. I saw the clusterf*** coming when I got a dose of their attitude towards contribs from the way they communicated inside (lobo & co) Ppl said similar things like you, that I'm just jealous, and why do I bother, to hell with naysayers they gonna just hoo-ray and upload. Look what's up with that now.
I didn't say anything about you being jealous. I asked why you care so much about Stocksy. I don't believe you are a Stocksy member. You claim to have inside info but your facts are all wrong. I just don't believe you.
-
Stocksy is a big failure on many levels, and now it seems they are getting desperate for sales. 90% of the the failure is the curation, it is done by 12 year old hispterfan teengirls recruited from random instagram accounts. They are extremely good at picking out the useless, chaotic stuff - to be "so different"... I guess. Just look at the opening page, it has become an ugly mess.
You bash Stocksy every chance you get. Why do you care so much? Why don't you just ignore them?
After I'v been on istock for a few months, I bashed Istock too, warning ppl that it's gonna be a trap and huge disappointment, although sales there were ok back than. I saw the clusterf*** coming when I got a dose of their attitude towards contribs from the way they communicated inside (lobo & co) Ppl said similar things like you, that I'm just jealous, and why do I bother, to hell with naysayers they gonna just hoo-ray and upload. Look what's up with that now.
I didn't say anything about you being jealous. I asked why you care so much about Stocksy. I don't believe you are a Stocksy member. You claim to have inside info but your facts are all wrong. I just don't believe you.
I care exactly because I am a member, and it has been a huge disappointment & getting worse. The biggest waste of time for little return in stock yet. Especially sad, because I still think the co-op model is great. A great business model totally wasted by childish mismanagement of their virtual assets.
-
Stocksy is a big failure on many levels, and now it seems they are getting desperate for sales. 90% of the the failure is the curation, it is done by 12 year old hispterfan teengirls recruited from random instagram accounts. They are extremely good at picking out the useless, chaotic stuff - to be "so different"... I guess. Just look at the opening page, it has become an ugly mess.
You bash Stocksy every chance you get. Why do you care so much? Why don't you just ignore them?
After I'v been on istock for a few months, I bashed Istock too, warning ppl that it's gonna be a trap and huge disappointment, although sales there were ok back than. I saw the clusterf*** coming when I got a dose of their attitude towards contribs from the way they communicated inside (lobo & co) Ppl said similar things like you, that I'm just jealous, and why do I bother, to hell with naysayers they gonna just hoo-ray and upload. Look what's up with that now.
I didn't say anything about you being jealous. I asked why you care so much about Stocksy. I don't believe you are a Stocksy member. You claim to have inside info but your facts are all wrong. I just don't believe you.
I care exactly because I am a member, and it has been a huge disappointment & getting worse. The biggest waste of time for little return in stock yet. Especially sad, because I still think the co-op model is great. A great business model totally wasted by childish mismanagement of their virtual assets.
I'm really puzzled. I'm really new there and with small collection but my returns have been really good. So much better than Getty for me. How big is your portfolio?
-
I care exactly because I am a member
Prove it.
-
this thread says it all why microstock photography is soooo terrible bad, repeating, soulless, indefinitely boring and technically perfect.
-
I care exactly because I am a member
Prove it.
Lol, you are joke. :) What am I supposed to do, copy paste from their forums? I can do that for you, but I just didn't want to intrude on ppls stocky insider stuff.
-
Stocksy is a big failure on many levels, and now it seems they are getting desperate for sales. 90% of the the failure is the curation, it is done by 12 year old hispterfan teengirls recruited from random instagram accounts. They are extremely good at picking out the useless, chaotic stuff - to be "so different"... I guess. Just look at the opening page, it has become an ugly mess.
You bash Stocksy every chance you get. Why do you care so much? Why don't you just ignore them?
After I'v been on istock for a few months, I bashed Istock too, warning ppl that it's gonna be a trap and huge disappointment, although sales there were ok back than. I saw the clusterf*** coming when I got a dose of their attitude towards contribs from the way they communicated inside (lobo & co) Ppl said similar things like you, that I'm just jealous, and why do I bother, to hell with naysayers they gonna just hoo-ray and upload. Look what's up with that now.
I didn't say anything about you being jealous. I asked why you care so much about Stocksy. I don't believe you are a Stocksy member. You claim to have inside info but your facts are all wrong. I just don't believe you.
I care exactly because I am a member, and it has been a huge disappointment & getting worse. The biggest waste of time for little return in stock yet. Especially sad, because I still think the co-op model is great. A great business model totally wasted by childish mismanagement of their virtual assets.
This seems like sour grapes. Stocksy is reporting good earnings. Many Stocksy members seem very content with their earnings. Your particular portfolio isn't doing well there, so you bash the whole place.
-
this thread says it all why microstock photography is soooo terrible bad, repeating, soulless, indefinitely boring and technically perfect.
Stocksy definitely has great work, the majority of it, but many of the images I have in those packs have nothing to do with being great images. I am all for technically inferior images if its a great impacting image, but there is no excuse for messing up a studio shot, or accepting an out of focus poorly lit iphone noisefest.
-
this thread says it all why microstock photography is soooo terrible bad, repeating, soulless, indefinitely boring and technically perfect.
Just look up SS facebook page, they have plenty of special little collections, they probably have a lot more stocksy-esque stuff then stocksy. Many way bette than juts insatfilterstyling. I don't consider that a good thing actually, but it's there. I wouldn't put more creative stuff on micros.
-
I care exactly because I am a member
Prove it.
Lol, you are joke. :) What am I supposed to do, copy paste from their forums? I can do that for you, but I just didn't want to intrude on ppls stocky insider stuff.
Okay, since you're content hiding behind the comfort of anonymity, let's pretend you are a Stocksy member. That would mean you're also a part owner of the company. Since you're such a big fan of the co-op business model, what have you done to contribute? Have you proposed any resolutions? Voted at the meetings? Participated in any forum discussions? Responded to any requests for community input? Contacted HQ with ideas? Have you done anything at all besides bash the company any chance you get?
-
If any one want's to get out of Stocksy I can take his place there 8)
And if they have "bad" photos there, good for me, I have some good ones ;D
-
I care exactly because I am a member
Prove it.
Lol, you are joke. :) What am I supposed to do, copy paste from their forums? I can do that for you, but I just didn't want to intrude on ppls stocky insider stuff.
Okay, since you're content hiding behind the comfort of anonymity, let's pretend you are a Stocksy member. That would mean you're also a part owner of the company. Since you're such a big fan of the co-op business model, what have you done to contribute? Have you proposed any resolutions? Voted at the meetings? Participated in any forum discussions? Responded to any requests for community input? Contacted HQ with ideas? Have you done anything at all besides bash the company any chance you get?
I did vote previously. But when one of their meetings ended, they wrote on the site that they wouldn't post a transcript, like they promised, (because it would be long and boring or some similar excuse), but instead we get a "kick-ass" summary. Woo-hoo. Also a few times I got the rejection for some shots that tehy 'don't want peopole juts posing by themselves without context, because that's contrived and too ordinary-stock-like'. Than I visited stocksy front page and the curated collection there was loaded with shots of peple posing alone, pretty forced (vsisbly amateur models). After reading, seeing all of that I decided to stay away from the whole thing beyond uploading and the most necessary communication with the so called "curators" :)
...and before you start whining again: I have good acceptance % there. I looked around and it was very clear that most ppl get a lot less shots from their series accepted then me - but sorry, other people's gullibility won't change my opinion.
-
If you're a member, and you want to talk about your experiences, feel free to message Rob or myself, here, or there. Anonymously wouldn't be the best, but I wouldn't want anyone to feel threatened from concerns, valid or otherwise.
-
I care exactly because I am a member
Prove it.
Lol, you are joke. :) What am I supposed to do, copy paste from their forums? I can do that for you, but I just didn't want to intrude on ppls stocky insider stuff.
Okay, since you're content hiding behind the comfort of anonymity, let's pretend you are a Stocksy member. That would mean you're also a part owner of the company. Since you're such a big fan of the co-op business model, what have you done to contribute? Have you proposed any resolutions? Voted at the meetings? Participated in any forum discussions? Responded to any requests for community input? Contacted HQ with ideas? Have you done anything at all besides bash the company any chance you get?
I did vote previously. But when one of their meetings ended, they wrote on the site that they wouldn't post a transcript, like they promised, (because it would be long and boring or some similar excuse), but instead we get a "kick-ass" summary. Woo-hoo. Also a few times I got the rejection for some shots that tehy 'don't want peopole juts posing by themselves without context, because that's contrived and too ordinary-stock-like'. Than I visited stocksy front page and the curated collection there was loaded with shots of peple posing alone, pretty forced (vsisbly amateur models). After reading, seeing all of that I decided to stay away from the whole thing beyond uploading and the most necessary communication with the so called "curators" :)
...and before you start whining again: I have good acceptance % there. I looked around and it was very clear that most ppl get a lot less shots from their series accepted then me - but sorry, other people's gullibility won't change my opinion.
Interesting. So, you have never voiced out your dissatisfaction there, never participate in the forum except lurking and come whining here.
-
I care exactly because I am a member
Prove it.
Lol, you are joke. :) What am I supposed to do, copy paste from their forums? I can do that for you, but I just didn't want to intrude on ppls stocky insider stuff.
Okay, since you're content hiding behind the comfort of anonymity, let's pretend you are a Stocksy member. That would mean you're also a part owner of the company. Since you're such a big fan of the co-op business model, what have you done to contribute? Have you proposed any resolutions? Voted at the meetings? Participated in any forum discussions? Responded to any requests for community input? Contacted HQ with ideas? Have you done anything at all besides bash the company any chance you get?
I did vote previously. But when one of their meetings ended, they wrote on the site that they wouldn't post a transcript, like they promised, (because it would be long and boring or some similar excuse), but instead we get a "kick-ass" summary. Woo-hoo. Also a few times I got the rejection for some shots that tehy 'don't want peopole juts posing by themselves without context, because that's contrived and too ordinary-stock-like'. Than I visited stocksy front page and the curated collection there was loaded with shots of peple posing alone, pretty forced (vsisbly amateur models). After reading, seeing all of that I decided to stay away from the whole thing beyond uploading and the most necessary communication with the so called "curators" :)
...and before you start whining again: I have good acceptance % there. I looked around and it was very clear that most ppl get a lot less shots from their series accepted then me - but sorry, other people's gullibility won't change my opinion.
Interesting. So, you have never voiced out your dissatisfaction there, never participate in the forum except lurking and come whining here.
You might want to read my post again (or just read it). I don't start conversing with ppl who talk like that. If I want to hear more "kick ass" deals, I'll watch TV shop or ads for payday lenders.
-
I care exactly because I am a member
Prove it.
Lol, you are joke. :) What am I supposed to do, copy paste from their forums? I can do that for you, but I just didn't want to intrude on ppls stocky insider stuff.
Okay, since you're content hiding behind the comfort of anonymity, let's pretend you are a Stocksy member. That would mean you're also a part owner of the company. Since you're such a big fan of the co-op business model, what have you done to contribute? Have you proposed any resolutions? Voted at the meetings? Participated in any forum discussions? Responded to any requests for community input? Contacted HQ with ideas? Have you done anything at all besides bash the company any chance you get?
I did vote previously. But when one of their meetings ended, they wrote on the site that they wouldn't post a transcript, like they promised, (because it would be long and boring or some similar excuse), but instead we get a "kick-ass" summary. Woo-hoo. Also a few times I got the rejection for some shots that tehy 'don't want peopole juts posing by themselves without context, because that's contrived and too ordinary-stock-like'. Than I visited stocksy front page and the curated collection there was loaded with shots of peple posing alone, pretty forced (vsisbly amateur models). After reading, seeing all of that I decided to stay away from the whole thing beyond uploading and the most necessary communication with the so called "curators" :)
...and before you start whining again: I have good acceptance % there. I looked around and it was very clear that most ppl get a lot less shots from their series accepted then me - but sorry, other people's gullibility won't change my opinion.
Interesting. So, you have never voiced out your dissatisfaction there, never participate in the forum except lurking and come whining here.
You might want to read my post again (or just read it). I don't start conversing with ppl who talk like that. If I want to hear more "kick ass" deals, I'll watch TV shop or ads for payday lenders.
So you have a relatively good acceptance rate (not sure how you can figure that out based on other people's portfolios), but you say you aren't doing well there financially. What keeps you uploading to Stocksy? Why not put them somewhere else where your experience shows they would do better?
-
I just looked at past meeting recaps and the word "kick-ass" doesn't appear anywhere, plus they are available in full for members.
How many images do you have online? Have you ever tried to talk to the editors about your declines? Why do you keep uploading if you say you aren't making any money on Stocksy?
-
I care exactly because I am a member
Prove it.
Lol, you are joke. :) What am I supposed to do, copy paste from their forums? I can do that for you, but I just didn't want to intrude on ppls stocky insider stuff.
Okay, since you're content hiding behind the comfort of anonymity, let's pretend you are a Stocksy member. That would mean you're also a part owner of the company. Since you're such a big fan of the co-op business model, what have you done to contribute? Have you proposed any resolutions? Voted at the meetings? Participated in any forum discussions? Responded to any requests for community input? Contacted HQ with ideas? Have you done anything at all besides bash the company any chance you get?
I did vote previously. But when one of their meetings ended, they wrote on the site that they wouldn't post a transcript, like they promised, (because it would be long and boring or some similar excuse), but instead we get a "kick-ass" summary. Woo-hoo. Also a few times I got the rejection for some shots that tehy 'don't want peopole juts posing by themselves without context, because that's contrived and too ordinary-stock-like'. Than I visited stocksy front page and the curated collection there was loaded with shots of peple posing alone, pretty forced (vsisbly amateur models). After reading, seeing all of that I decided to stay away from the whole thing beyond uploading and the most necessary communication with the so called "curators" :)
...and before you start whining again: I have good acceptance % there. I looked around and it was very clear that most ppl get a lot less shots from their series accepted then me - but sorry, other people's gullibility won't change my opinion.
Interesting. So, you have never voiced out your dissatisfaction there, never participate in the forum except lurking and come whining here.
You might want to read my post again (or just read it). I don't start conversing with ppl who talk like that. If I want to hear more "kick ass" deals, I'll watch TV shop or ads for payday lenders.
Seriously?? You refused to talk to them just because they don't talk the same way as you??? Come on, you should have better reason for avoiding talking to them.
-
I care exactly because I am a member
Prove it.
Lol, you are joke. :) What am I supposed to do, copy paste from their forums? I can do that for you, but I just didn't want to intrude on ppls stocky insider stuff.
Okay, since you're content hiding behind the comfort of anonymity, let's pretend you are a Stocksy member. That would mean you're also a part owner of the company. Since you're such a big fan of the co-op business model, what have you done to contribute? Have you proposed any resolutions? Voted at the meetings? Participated in any forum discussions? Responded to any requests for community input? Contacted HQ with ideas? Have you done anything at all besides bash the company any chance you get?
I did vote previously. But when one of their meetings ended, they wrote on the site that they wouldn't post a transcript, like they promised, (because it would be long and boring or some similar excuse), but instead we get a "kick-ass" summary. Woo-hoo. Also a few times I got the rejection for some shots that tehy 'don't want peopole juts posing by themselves without context, because that's contrived and too ordinary-stock-like'. Than I visited stocksy front page and the curated collection there was loaded with shots of peple posing alone, pretty forced (vsisbly amateur models). After reading, seeing all of that I decided to stay away from the whole thing beyond uploading and the most necessary communication with the so called "curators" :)
...and before you start whining again: I have good acceptance % there. I looked around and it was very clear that most ppl get a lot less shots from their series accepted then me - but sorry, other people's gullibility won't change my opinion.
Interesting. So, you have never voiced out your dissatisfaction there, never participate in the forum except lurking and come whining here.
You might want to read my post again (or just read it). I don't start conversing with ppl who talk like that. If I want to hear more "kick ass" deals, I'll watch TV shop or ads for payday lenders.
Seriously?? You refused to talk to them just because they don't talk the same way as you??? Come on, you should have better reason for avoiding talking to them.
He refuses to talk because he doesn't want to talk. He wants to Troll.
-
Fantastic guys. You dont come across as a cult at all, where the person outing some criticism on the cult is ousted
-
I care exactly because I am a member
Prove it.
Lol, you are joke. :) What am I supposed to do, copy paste from their forums? I can do that for you, but I just didn't want to intrude on ppls stocky insider stuff.
Okay, since you're content hiding behind the comfort of anonymity, let's pretend you are a Stocksy member. That would mean you're also a part owner of the company. Since you're such a big fan of the co-op business model, what have you done to contribute? Have you proposed any resolutions? Voted at the meetings? Participated in any forum discussions? Responded to any requests for community input? Contacted HQ with ideas? Have you done anything at all besides bash the company any chance you get?
I did vote previously. But when one of their meetings ended, they wrote on the site that they wouldn't post a transcript, like they promised, (because it would be long and boring or some similar excuse), but instead we get a "kick-ass" summary. Woo-hoo. Also a few times I got the rejection for some shots that tehy 'don't want peopole juts posing by themselves without context, because that's contrived and too ordinary-stock-like'. Than I visited stocksy front page and the curated collection there was loaded with shots of peple posing alone, pretty forced (vsisbly amateur models). After reading, seeing all of that I decided to stay away from the whole thing beyond uploading and the most necessary communication with the so called "curators" :)
...and before you start whining again: I have good acceptance % there. I looked around and it was very clear that most ppl get a lot less shots from their series accepted then me - but sorry, other people's gullibility won't change my opinion.
Interesting. So, you have never voiced out your dissatisfaction there, never participate in the forum except lurking and come whining here.
You might want to read my post again (or just read it). I don't start conversing with ppl who talk like that. If I want to hear more "kick ass" deals, I'll watch TV shop or ads for payday lenders.
Seriously?? You refused to talk to them just because they don't talk the same way as you??? Come on, you should have better reason for avoiding talking to them.
You are a troll. I clearly said how they talk like we are in kindergarten. I know this style it totally repulses me and all intelligent / pro ppl I've ever known. From more than a decade of workplace experience it always represented ppl who cannot be negotiated with. the "ye, ye whatever, thisiscool coz' wearecool" untill stuff breaks down ppl.
-
Fantastic guys. You dont come across as a cult at all, where the person outing some criticism on the cult is ousted
that's why I don't give ratsass about other people saying they are so happy there. Same thing with Istock, everybody was so happy, ousting those terrible negative folk... and suddenly from xxth monday on, when the last straw broke the camels back, almost everyone was pissed, and apparently pissed since at least several years by then. :)
-
I just looked at past meeting recaps and the word "kick-ass" doesn't appear anywhere, plus they are available in full for members.
How many images do you have online? Have you ever tried to talk to the editors about your declines? Why do you keep uploading if you say you aren't making any money on Stocksy?
Liar, it's there in member news, with the amazing kick-ass, almost exactly as I wrote.
-
I have been with Stocksy since 2013, and I am constantly amazed at their transparency, growth, and commitment to their members. I am making GREAT money with them, more than all of my other micros times 10. I am so happy to be a part of the co-op and I feel very honored that I was lucky enough to get in. I am a working professional photographer and not a teenager with an Instagram account.
Topol, I'm so sorry that you feel like Stocky is a fraud and is giving you smoke and mirrors. All I can say about that is that you should politely excuse yourself and take your work elsewhere. There are many that would jump for joy at the opportunity to be a part of the community.
-
I have been with Stocksy since 2013, and I am constantly amazed at their transparency, growth, and commitment to their members. I am making GREAT money with them, more than all of my other micros times 10. I am so happy to be a part of the co-op and I feel very honored that I was lucky enough to get in. I am a working professional photographer and not a teenager with an Instagram account.
Topol, I'm so sorry that you feel like Stocky is a fraud and is giving you smoke and mirrors. All I can say about that is that you should politely excuse yourself and take your work elsewhere. There are many that would jump for joy at the opportunity to be a part of the community.
I'm not saying it's a fraud just that is acutely mismanaged. I am taking my work elsewhere. Most ppl jump at anything, that's why most of the population just get by, and a small % have good fun lives.
-
I have been with Stocksy since 2013, and I am constantly amazed at their transparency, growth, and commitment to their members. I am making GREAT money with them, more than all of my other micros times 10. I am so happy to be a part of the co-op and I feel very honored that I was lucky enough to get in. I am a working professional photographer and not a teenager with an Instagram account.
Topol, I'm so sorry that you feel like Stocky is a fraud and is giving you smoke and mirrors. All I can say about that is that you should politely excuse yourself and take your work elsewhere. There are many that would jump for joy at the opportunity to be a part of the community.
I'm not saying it's a fraud just that is acutely mismanaged. I am taking my work elsewhere. Most ppl jump at anything, that's why most of the population just get by, and a small % have good fun lives.
As far as I can see, Stocky is a small CO-OP Macro agency with some decent photographers, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to go back to the Golden years of printing money with your camera, it's gone. If you can make more money elsewhere do it. I think it's your expectations that are mismanaged.
-
I have been with Stocksy since 2013, and I am constantly amazed at their transparency, growth, and commitment to their members. I am making GREAT money with them, more than all of my other micros times 10. I am so happy to be a part of the co-op and I feel very honored that I was lucky enough to get in. I am a working professional photographer and not a teenager with an Instagram account.
Topol, I'm so sorry that you feel like Stocky is a fraud and is giving you smoke and mirrors. All I can say about that is that you should politely excuse yourself and take your work elsewhere. There are many that would jump for joy at the opportunity to be a part of the community.
I'm not saying it's a fraud just that is acutely mismanaged. I am taking my work elsewhere. Most ppl jump at anything, that's why most of the population just get by, and a small % have good fun lives.
As far as I can see, Stocky is a small CO-OP Macro agency with some decent photographers, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to go back to the Golden years of printing money with your camera, it's gone. If you can make more money elsewhere do it. I think it's your expectations that are mismanaged.
You misdirected yourself, I do make good money with stock, and I was hoping for stocksy to do even better with more artist freedom, instead it's the worst. Also it's not macro.
-
If any one want's to get out of Stocksy I can take his place there 8)
And if they have "bad" photos there, good for me, I have some good ones ;D
You don't have to take anybody's place, just can get in with your photos. :)
-
You misdirected yourself, I do make good money with stock, and I was hoping for stocksy to do even better with more artist freedom, instead it's the worst. Also it's not macro.
So what you have Stocksy do differently?
-
I have been with Stocksy since 2013, and I am constantly amazed at their transparency, growth, and commitment to their members. I am making GREAT money with them, more than all of my other micros times 10. I am so happy to be a part of the co-op and I feel very honored that I was lucky enough to get in. I am a working professional photographer and not a teenager with an Instagram account.
Topol, I'm so sorry that you feel like Stocky is a fraud and is giving you smoke and mirrors. All I can say about that is that you should politely excuse yourself and take your work elsewhere. There are many that would jump for joy at the opportunity to be a part of the community.
Well, I love Stocksy. I'm not a contributor but would love to be. I recently needed some images for a website and didn't have what I was looking for among my own images. I contemplated converting some of my microstock earnings into cash to buy some images on mainstream micro stock. I hate to say it, but it was just soul-destroying wading through generic, plastic, and way too glossy happy people and office settings. I know there are great images on micro stock, but it was a very interesting exercise stepping into the shoes of a customer and actually trying to find something I wanted to use, before glazing over with the sheer volume. I wandered over to Stocksy and within an hour or two selected a small group of images that hit the sweet spot. Hopefully one or more of them were contributed by people here.
-
Stocksy is very transparent about it's growth and numbers to members and it is doing better and better and some people there do very well. Everyone won't do well or be a good fit.
It sure is nice to have them setting an example making contributors part owners and paying a great percentage. Sure they have a niche and a style. It would be really nice to
see a few more places pop up that share in profits, give you ownership, and turn a profit.
They do pretty decent for me with just a small Portfolio. I actually feel like I should be supporting them more than I do because of what they offer as an alternative to most other agenices. Respect
-
Stocksy is not for everyone. Yes, we have specific preference for aesthetic, and photographers who appreciate this type of aesthetic will enjoy working at this place. I have my own struggles in meeting the aesthetic requirements, but when that happens, I dont go around bashing the agency.
I really hope we open the door more to those who appreciate our style. For those who want to join us, the only tips I can provide is, to submit photos that you think will inspire designers to do things differently, to give them that light bulb, not to fit or follow the trends. If you truly hate the style, please dont force yourself to fit in and make yourself miserable. I cant talk for others, but being a Stocksy member, I dont feel elitish or trying to be different as people tend to think of us. We are to here to provide alternative to designers.
-
I'm not saying it's a fraud just that is acutely mismanaged. I am taking my work elsewhere. Most ppl jump at anything, that's why most of the population just get by, and a small % have good fun lives.
Although I certainly share a few of your complaints, definitely not the "failure" part, from my perspective that must be based on unrealistic expectations. All of the numbers I have seen so far are far beyond what a startup with limited funding and running on a small, cost efficient team in an oversaturated market could have expected.
However, what I am most surprised about reading is that while you claim to have a long going history with iStock and obviously have warned anyone about them in the past, you should have known all the key players in Stocksy from the past. So why did you ever start submitting in that knowledge?
Also from other statements you have made, I can only conclude that you have submitted images that are way different (more artistic? less commercial?) than what you successfully sell everywhere else, and now you are complaining that your personal sales are disappointing. Okay, can happen. You can't make everyone happy.
But at the very least I'd say everyone who puts in an effort to provide better conditions for contributors than the big market places do, should deserve a little more respect. Even if you don't agree with their decisions.
-
You misdirected yourself, I do make good money with stock, and I was hoping for stocksy to do even better with more artist freedom, instead it's the worst. Also it's not macro.
So what you have Stocksy do differently?
Imho, stocksy should sell most of the stuff that other micros do, but only the very-very best, premium versions of it + exclusivity. That would more than justify it being a special agency worth bookmarking, no need to narrow it to this childish instafilter hipster style. They started saying, and even advertised this on their front page, that they 'don't have stuff like people on white, shiny beauty shots, ppl just gesturing'... yeah great idea, lets ditch some of the stuff that outsells almost everything else everywhere. The 'stock that doesn't look like stock' mantra is nonsense, the stuff they accept still instantly looks like stock from a 100 miles away - thank god, or they would sell even less. If dropping pro style was a great idea, why don't companies just go around buying selfies from kiddies on FB? :) Once again, this whole concept is childish and counterproductive. What are they afraid of, that their art course visiting buddy with a handlebar moustache won't talk to them anymore, if he notices they sell beauties on white for example?
To prove my I have stuff up that is a lot more like regular stock, because at the start they were a bit more lax with forcing this BS on ppl., and guess what, the regular stock-like stuff outsells the rest, by far.
Seeing what was posted here they also should pay more attention to technical quality. I never thought about that regarding stocksy, my stuff is generaly very high tech quality, I presumed most others are similar. Micros overdo this horribly, stocksy seems to fail the other way. I'v been a buyer too, for years and years, and I can assure you, both me and clients would have been very pissed at getting files like the ones I saw here. If it happened several times, it would definitely mean going somewhere else for stock.
I also remember the argument for stocksy being what it is, that they will attract some "special bunch of clients", and that those very often would be the type that is big and/or has big budget. I call 200% total BS on that too:
1 - Stocksy is not particularly expensive at all, so why would it be about big budget? somewhat better than average blogger can buy these pics anyday.
2 - That special type of client does not exist, at all. After a few years I'v seen thuosands of usages of my "regular stock", and there is no criteria to sort the customers whatsoever. They are any type you can ever imagine, from little bloggers, small 3rdworld companies to elite financial services "only for sophisticated investors" (aka billionares), luxury real estate projects, giant worid brands, special image companies with niche beauty products... anything.
Also if you have some very-very special shot you might want to reconsider sending it to stocksy, many photographers would still consider it selling out cheapo with those prices, and I would have a hard time arguing with them.
One last thing: no matter how special stocksy tries to be with the style of shots, you can be pretty much sure, that a place like shutter will have almost the same stuff too, likely even more if it than stocksy, among their 40 million stock, so sorry, but it's a wasted effort.
That's pretty much it, I could have summed it up in medium sized post already and be done with it, but fanboys just keep trolling and sadly it's my weakness that I often can't keep myself from retorting to even the most obnoxious trolls. To shut down even more trolling I didn't voice these on stocksy because after a few rounds of communication it was painfully obvious that it would be pointless. It would be judt local fanboys trolling there too, and the management repeating their mantras posing coolio. I'v seen this countless times.
-
I'm not saying it's a fraud just that is acutely mismanaged. I am taking my work elsewhere. Most ppl jump at anything, that's why most of the population just get by, and a small % have good fun lives.
Also from other statements you have made, I can only conclude that you have submitted images that are way different (more artistic? less commercial?) than what you successfully sell everywhere else, and now you are complaining that your personal sales are disappointing. Okay, can happen. You can't make everyone happy.
Thru a few rounds of tries, I conformed to their wishes, they were happy with it, they selected & preferred those, and it led to almost no sales. The stuff they liked the most has the worst sales - so sry, but the ball is not in my court. But I already wrote about this. Why do I have repeat everything a 10 times? Are we adults here? I'm done with this.
-
You misdirected yourself, I do make good money with stock, and I was hoping for stocksy to do even better with more artist freedom, instead it's the worst. Also it's not macro.
So what you have Stocksy do differently?
Imho, stocksy should sell most of the stuff that other micros do, but only the very-very best, premium versions of it + exclusivity. That would more than justify it being a special agency worth bookmarking, no need to narrow it to this childish instafilter hipster style. They started saying, and even advertised this on their front page, that they 'don't have stuff like people on white, shiny beauty shots, ppl just gesturing'... yeah great idea, lets ditch some of the stuff that outsells almost everything else everywhere. The 'stock that doesn't look like stock' mantra is nonsense, the stuff they accept still instantly looks like stock from a 100 miles away - thank god, or they would sell even less. If dropping pro style was a great idea, why don't companies just go around buying selfies from kiddies on FB? :) Once again, this whole concept is childish and counterproductive. What are they afraid of, that their art course visiting buddy with a handlebar moustache won't talk to them anymore, if he notices they sell beauties on white for example?
To prove my I have stuff up that is a lot more like regular stock, because at the start they were a bit more lax with forcing this BS on ppl., and guess what, the regular stock-like stuff outsells the rest, by far.
Seeing what was posted here they also should pay more attention to technical quality. I never thought about that regarding stocksy, my stuff is generaly very high tech quality, I presumed most others are similar. Micros overdo this horribly, stocksy seems to fail the other way. I'v been a buyer too, for years and years, and I can assure you, both me and clients would have been very pissed at getting files like the ones I saw here. If it happened several times, it would definitely mean going somewhere else for stock.
I also remember the argument for stocksy being what it is, that they will attract some "special bunch of clients", and that those very often would be the type that is big and/or has big budget. I call 200% total BS on that too:
1 - Stocksy is not particularly expensive at all, so why would it be about big budget? somewhat better than average blogger can buy these pics anyday.
2 - That special type of client does not exist, at all. After a few years I'v seen thuosands of usages of my "regular stock", and there is no criteria to sort the customers whatsoever. They are any type you can ever imagine, from little bloggers, small 3rdworld companies to elite financial services "only for sophisticated investors" (aka billionares), luxury real estate projects, giant worid brands, special image companies with niche beauty products... anything.
Also if you have some very-very special shot you might want to reconsider sending it to stocksy, many photographers would still consider it selling out cheapo with those prices, and I would have a hard time arguing with them.
One last thing: no matter how special stocksy tries to be with the style of shots, you can be pretty much sure, that a place like shutter will have almost the same stuff too, likely even more if it than stocksy, among their 40 million stock, so sorry, but it's a wasted effort.
That's pretty much it, I could have summed it up in medium sized post already and be done with it, but fanboys just keep trolling and sadly it's my weakness that I often can't keep myself from retorting to even the most obnoxious trolls. To shut down even more trolling I didn't voice these on stocksy because after a few rounds of communication it was painfully obvious that it would be pointless. It would be judt local fanboys trolling there too, and the management repeating their mantras posing coolio. I'v seen this countless times.
Good post, well written.
-
I think a lot of people where expecting stocksy to be an agency that wants to be the "only" solution a customer uses, similar to what getty does. You donīt need 100s of millions of files for that, but you really need diversity, in subject matter and in style.
Being a very niche agency leaves the majority of the money in the stock market elsewhere, you are basically forcing the customer to use stocksy only as an add on agency.
However for branding, it is a lot easier to come in with a niche, just like it is much easier to market an ice cream store that has the best ice cream, instead of a store that has ice cream and dog food and fruits and italian sweets.
I think the growth rate for stocksy is phenomenal, so the niche they chose is a very good one. Whatever I see that they do for marketing, the way the site works, it is just wonderful.
Is the niche big enough to be sustainable in the future? Will being very, very trendy provide enough growth longterm?
Can this niche feed 20 000 artists? Or even just 5000?
I think these are questions many are asking. After the Getty Google deal and with all the drama at other agencies, thousands of artists were ready to throw themselves behind an artist friendly site. stocksy came just at the right time for many of us. That we would be able to tell the agencies: "treat us well or this content will "go stocksy".
Thousands of people applied but couldnīt get in. I feel very lucky I made it, but sometimes I also feel guilty for being so lucky. I didnīt want to just save myself, I wanted to be part of a project that can involve many more people and really have an impact on the industry in the way artists are treated.
But I understand that you need to start somewhere and to me stocksy is an extremely successful endeavour.
So I hope in time it will evolve, reach out and more and more people can join.
In the meantime, the thousands of people out there looking for a reliable partner, have to keep spreading their work to different places and maybe test other niche agencies with exclusive work.
stocksy is a great agency run by very hard working people with experience. But as a new agency and with a very small team, it cannot instantly become a replacement for Gettyimages, or Shutterstock or any of the other large players. This would require stocksy to become an agency with hundreds of employees, does the stocksy community want to work with an agency that becomes a cooperation like the other places?
But 10 years from now? Or even 5 years from now? What will stocksy grow into?
With the success they are showing, give them time, I believe it is the most exciting project out there. I know it is frustrating for those who havenīt been able to join yet, like watching a great party by looking in through the window. But give stocksy time, donīt give up.
But also donīt ignore all the other opportunities to make money with stock. There is a lot happening this year.
-
.....I know it is frustrating for those who havenīt been able to join yet, like watching a great party by looking in through the window. But give stocksy time, donīt give up.
But also donīt ignore all the other opportunities to make money with stock. There is a lot happening this year.
Aaah, the usual elitist, condescending chatter to the proles from Stocksy contributors. It is just this sort of attitude that makes people hostile towards Stocksy. Nothing like making the "little guys" looking in through the windows feel better.
I have no doubt this is not what you intended from your post but that is the way it comes over with the phraseology you have used.
-
It is up to you to take it the way you want. You seem to believe that not being accepted by stocksy is a verdict on the quality of your work.
Stocksy only takes a small number of people because it is a very tiny agency. If they were as big as Shutterstock, they could take many more people...but I guess reading my post is probably too long...
I know many people who have applied to stocksy and were rejected and this is exactly what they told me how they felt.
Obviously, if you havenīt applied, why would you care? But there are loads of people who love stocksy and really want to join.
-
It is up to you to take it the way you want. You seem to believe that not being accepted by stocksy is a verdict on the quality of your work.
Stocksy only takes a small number of people because it is a very tiny agency. If they were as big as Shutterstock, they could take many more people...but I guess reading my post is probably too long...
I know many people who have applied to stocksy and were rejected and this is exactly what they told me how they felt.
Obviously, if you havenīt applied, why would you care? But there are loads of people who love stocksy and really want to join.
I have no issue with how Stocksy select their contributors, or what aesthetic or niche they are going for. My comments were in response to the comments you posted and the words/phrase you chose to use - it was condescending, and that shows through a lot with people who have been accepted into Stocksy. It also comes across from Stocksy contributors that it is they who seem to think that by being accepted it is an indication of the quality of their work, raising them above the people who haven't "got in". The whole phraseology of "being accepted" or "got in" indicates some sort of special club to aspire to joining rather than an indication of the size of the agency.
-
"to get in" is a reality. How else would you like to phrase it that is more politically correct? Any suggestions?
To be accepted at small agencies is first of all a numbers game, i.e. limited by the number of places they have to offer. If 500 places are open and 10 000 apply, your chances are 5%, if everyone has equally suitable content for the given niche.
You also have to "get in" to Shutterstock, but they donīt limit the number of artist, so eventually those that really want to, usually "make it". But with Offset, they have only a small number of artists, so if thousands of people apply, you will only again hear of very few people who...get in, make it,are accepted, can submit??
I didnīt apply to stocksy for a "feel good 1% factor". I didnīt even know it would be such a niche agency when I applied. I applied because I am fed up with agencies taking the artists for a ride and seeing hedge funds etc...making millions from our work. I wanted to be part of an artist driven community where my work is safe.
People also apply and are rejected at Westend61, they have less than 400 artists. And just like them, there are many, many, many niche agencies out there.
just because an agency is not listed on msg, doesnīt mean you canīt make money there.
But the smaller the place is, and the more people apply, the smaller the possibility of getting a place.
It is the same wherever you apply, agency,job, private group etc...stocksy is not different. If the offer is attractive, the number of people wanting to get in is just huge.
-
Why do I have repeat everything a 10 times? Are we adults here? I'm done with this.
Wow, you really are angry. Quite an entertaining tantrum.
-
It is up to you to take it the way you want. You seem to believe that not being accepted by stocksy is a verdict on the quality of your work.
Stocksy only takes a small number of people because it is a very tiny agency. If they were as big as Shutterstock, they could take many more people...but I guess reading my post is probably too long...
I know many people who have applied to stocksy and were rejected and this is exactly what they told me how they felt.
Obviously, if you havenīt applied, why would you care? But there are loads of people who love stocksy and really want to join.
I have no issue with how Stocksy select their contributors, or what aesthetic or niche they are going for. My comments were in response to the comments you posted and the words/phrase you chose to use - it was condescending, and that shows through a lot with people who have been accepted into Stocksy. It also comes across from Stocksy contributors that it is they who seem to think that by being accepted it is an indication of the quality of their work, raising them above the people who haven't "got in". The whole phraseology of "being accepted" or "got in" indicates some sort of special club to aspire to joining rather than an indication of the size of the agency.
I really think you're overreaching here. Cobalt's comments are the least condescending of anything I read here.
-
Why do I have repeat everything a 10 times? Are we adults here? I'm done with this.
Wow, you really are angry. Quite an entertaining tantrum.
nah, far from angry, just irritated by dumbness.
-
nah, far from angry, just irritated by dumbness.
Well, I think the dumbest part I have read in this thread so far was this statement:
so sry, but the ball is not in my court.
Obviously you didn't understand what you were doing when you picked photography as a source of income. You are a self-employed business person who can freely decide whom to make business with. No other entity owes you anything. The ball is always in your court.
-
nah, far from angry, just irritated by dumbness.
Well, I think the dumbest part I have read in this thread so far was this statement:
so sry, but the ball is not in my court.
Obviously you didn't understand what you were doing when you picked photography as a source of income. You are a self-employed business person who can freely decide whom to make business with. No other entity owes you anything. The ball is always in your court.
Trollboy, you need to grasp the incredibly complicated concept that I was talking about the curation.
-
You misdirected yourself, I do make good money with stock, and I was hoping for stocksy to do even better with more artist freedom, instead it's the worst. Also it's not macro.
So what you have Stocksy do differently?
Imho, stocksy should sell most of the stuff that other micros do, but only the very-very best, premium versions of it + exclusivity. That would more than justify it being a special agency worth bookmarking, no need to narrow it to this childish instafilter hipster style. They started saying, and even advertised this on their front page, that they 'don't have stuff like people on white, shiny beauty shots, ppl just gesturing'... yeah great idea, lets ditch some of the stuff that outsells almost everything else everywhere. The 'stock that doesn't look like stock' mantra is nonsense, the stuff they accept still instantly looks like stock from a 100 miles away - thank god, or they would sell even less. If dropping pro style was a great idea, why don't companies just go around buying selfies from kiddies on FB? :) Once again, this whole concept is childish and counterproductive. What are they afraid of, that their art course visiting buddy with a handlebar moustache won't talk to them anymore, if he notices they sell beauties on white for example?
It sounds like Stocksy is not the right place for your work. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's astoundingly arrogant to suggest they change their entire business model to cater to your <300 image portfolio. That business model has been working very well for many of us, whose experiences have been far different from yours.
Stocksy entered an extremely oversaturated market with very little, and in just 2 years has become a legitimate competitor to companies making billions of dollars. How you can spin that into a failure, I don't know.
-
I am appalled by the negativism some people are showing here. Yes, it has its flaws - the curation process and the whole agency has veered towards more bright and stocky images lately and they have relaxed the file acceptance process maybe a bit too much but it's still the best agency to be a contributor of and I am not talking only about the money. It sort of feels like a family. A place where your more artistic images can find their home and actually sell. A place where you do not worry about high ISOs or razor sharp focus. A place where you can experiment and actually focus on photography in its pure form. A VSCO filter will not make a bad image look better. A sharp image of a smiling girl eating a salad will not give that said image a soul. Forget this microstock mentality and just be happy that the industry has acquired places like Stocksy and Offset and that some of your fellow photographers have the opportunity to be part of this change. I believe that more similar agencies will come into existence. Places where the photographer receives a fair share of the pie (in the case of Offset it's not that big a slice but the higher prices are making it sweeter). If this industry continues on the same path we will soon see agencies offering images for free or as part of a freemium model (sort of like Spotify). Stop bashing at Stocksy and start demanding the same attitude it has towards its members from your agencies as well. Or we are all doomed.
-
Your talking from a contributor perspective. You must see it from a buyer perspective. Do you think buyers care about the warm relaxed environment of the agency when they pay 100 dollar for a really really bad iPhone photo?
-
I believe Stocksy's clients are getting what they want - (1) not drowning in a database of millions and millions of similar and plastic images where finding the right one is a very, very time consuming process and (2) images that are beautiful and moving. Enough with this pineapple affair. Stocksy is not an exhibition gallery with 100 select images where each one is a masterpiece. If I were a buyer who wants to illustrate that people are using their smartphones to take photos of pineapples I would buy that image. You should also provide some freedom to your contributors if you want them to develop as photographers and have richer imagination and original ideas in the future.
Did I say warm and relaxed? The competition among members is fierce. We also have the occasional copy cats or not getting your images curated all the time. However, these things are dealt with internally thanks to the good communication between members and the headquarters.
-
I think its bollocks to defend extremely poor quality work and justify it as purposeful work. Stop being a cult and just say that kind of poor quality is below Stocksy standard. I don't see people justifying poor work in microstock.
-
Your talking from a contributor perspective. You must see it from a buyer perspective. Do you think buyers care about the warm relaxed environment of the agency when they pay 100 dollar for a really really bad iPhone photo?
So: How often do you license images for $100?
-
I don't. Does that justify poor images on stocksy as well.
I am baffled that all of a sudden poor images are acceptable.
-
..it's astoundingly arrogant to suggest they change their entire business model to cater to your <300 image portfolio.
Troll. That's a total logical fallacy as the shots are up there, they accepted them. I produced the kinda shots for them they wanted, and they gladly took them.
...but wasn't that obvious from the start, from the fact that I'm in with a port there? Some of you people have some serious comprehension problems. What was your concept, that I was pushing blurfaced people isolated on white to them for a year, and they kept rejecting them, so I came here??? Or what, how... I'm sorry, I can't even guess, this is so naive...
Who is it a legitimate competitor to? Can you show some source / proof of that? A company like Shutter doesn't even have to care about Stocksy exactly because they just see a site that for some mysterious reason collects those mostly LCV pics, that they only keep around to show some variety.
-
You should also provide some freedom to your contributors if you want them to develop as photographers and have richer imagination and original ideas in the future.
Stocksy is way more restrictive than micros. Not caring about noise or super accurate focus doesn't mean much when they want people presented in an extremely narrow style and manner. They also seem to be even more picky about model's prettiness than micros. Most of my models are severely attractive, and for a test out of curiosity I did submit somewhat less good looking ppl's pics - one of the reason was that general claim that they like having more 'authentic' stuff. They were still far better looking then average, but basically the whole series got rejected almost instantly. Just to understand why the reason is pretty clear: I had plenty of shots of accepted from a series on the same location, pretty much same lighting, same theme, but a very very attractive model. I'm not saying that's a problem, sure most ppl want their models as beautiful as possible, and I'm not even complaining about this rejection, I uploaded it to other places... but that's the point, all the others took them, and it's getting a nice amount of downloads. So it's pretty clear that others give you more freedom, and it works too.
-
Please do us and yourself a favor and cancel your membership. You are obviously not satisfied with your sales and the buyers are not satisfied by your images. Otherwise you wouldn't have complained in the first place. There may be a better place for them and they may even bring you more money elsewhere. Let someone who appreciates what Stocksy is take your place. Believe me, there's a long line of people ready to do that.
A true competitor to Stocksy in terms of content and prices are Offset and 500px. Jen wanted to say that for instance Offset has a million dollar company behind its back and we are on our own and still kicking ass.
More restrictive? I've seen all kinds of models on Stocksy. You can't call an agency restrictive just because they have rejected one series.
-
Let someone who appreciates what Stocksy is take your place. Believe me, there's a long line of people ready to do that.
Please do the forum a favor and quit trolling. Your problem is that stocksy isn't a fixed number board where the reason for taking up someone is an emptied seat. I will start removing pics from them by the dozens if things don't change and they can't deliver (I doubt I will be the only one), but that won't help you, because you can get in by being a "good enough photographer". How about that? :)
Btw, stocksy also has millions of dollars to back it, and it shows in some things, the site itself is very well put together f.e.
-
I don't. Does that justify poor images on stocksy as well.
I am baffled that all of a sudden poor images are acceptable.
What you call poor images are being sold for hundreds of dollars on the macros. I have files in smartphone collections that would probably make you cry if you look at them at 100%. But they sell, for prices that are higher than on stocksy.
The micros want technically superperfect images, because many times the files are used as design elements and are mixed together with many other files in photoshop, have lots of filters and layers applied etc...you need techinally very high quality for that. Macro images are more used "as is", with maybe a little text applied, so if you are not going to crop deeply into the image or are unlikely to add massive photoshop manipulation, it doesnīt matter so much if the at 100% it is not fully in focus,has noise etc...
At least that is my explanation of the phenomenen and from seeing my files in use when I find them.
Another point might be the demand for "authentic" images, i.e. images that look like snapshots or what "normal people" would do and post on instagram and facebook.
These images donīt have any kind of useful technical quality, they are all under or over exposed, massive noise, artifacts, out of focus. But it also makes it clear that it is a picture that comes from someone who is not a photographer, a real world look. And there seems to be massive demand for these files, otherwise the agencies wouldnīt all be opening up smartphone/overfiltered instagram collections.
Customers are not stupid, if SS criteria of technical perfection where necessary for macro, then of course their editors would require it from their suppliers.
Just look at the eyeem collection on getty:
http://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?family=creative&license=rf&excludenudity=false&collections=EYM&Language=en-US (http://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?family=creative&license=rf&excludenudity=false&collections=EYM&Language=en-US)
-
I don't think many buyers put micro and macro images into those categories or use them that differently. Different people and organizations have different budgets. Some are willing to pay more because it's the client's money, not theirs, that they're spending. Some are willing to pay more for quality. Some are willing to pay more for cachet. Some are willing to pay more for scarcity.Some are willing to pay more for convenience or time savings.
-
Please do the forum a favor and quit trolling.
With all due respect, at the moment I am not sure who is doing the trolling... . You are perfectly entitled to a critical opinion about Stocksy, the way you express it though is disrespectful, condenscending and drips from arrogance. Sorry to say it this bluntly.
-
+1 to that. everytime someone disagrees you label them a "troll". Are you using this word incorrectly? Your English seems really very good, so I'm afraid you are coming across as somewhat unhinged.
-
I came to stock photography from a traditional graphic design background, having had my own business for nearly 25 years, sold a couple of years ago.
In the last couple of years, i was dealing with the NEW breed of Graphic designer, ones that could not actually draw and knew nothing about design, but could "use" computer programs, so they would look at images on their computers that they had got from somewhere or other and create low res pdf's for proofing. Everything thing looked fantastic on the screen, but when one received the final output file "Ready for Press", they would have rgb colours mixed in with cmyk, just about every image that was supplied was 72dpi and the scale in size changed because you can do that in a computer program, No bleeds, etc, etc.
And we wonder why places like Stockys amd Creative market place exist, it is because they are dealing with people that think what they see on a computer screen is how it will look at output. Both of these site promote themselves as hipsters and trendy but that is just an excuse for bad quality.
And in the end the our industries skills, knowledge and quality go down the drain.
You can't make a silk purse from a sows ear!!!!
-
There are so called hipster agencies, traditional agencies that will simply knock the spots off places like Offset, Stocksy, Getty and so on. These agencies are as closed-doors for the average photographer. These places are used by many of the worlds leading Advertising-agencies and the prices for images normally runs in to a four figure amount.
I would classify places like Offset and Stocksy as shall we say the micro worlds " hipster" agencies, something slightly above all the average material but still way beneath the smaller agencies I am talking about.
Besides, this type of photography certainly isn't anything new, groundbreaking. Many used to achieve these "trendy" looks in the old film days, tweaking trannies, prints in the old dark-rooms. That took some skill actually. :)
-
Just look at the eyeem collection on getty:
[url]http://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?family=creative&license=rf&excludenudity=false&collections=EYM&Language=en-US[/url] ([url]http://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?family=creative&license=rf&excludenudity=false&collections=EYM&Language=en-US[/url])
That's a very nice collection from eyeem. I can see why Getty has pushed that collection to the front of the search results.
-
Just look at the eyeem collection on getty:
[url]http://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?family=creative&license=rf&excludenudity=false&collections=EYM&Language=en-US[/url] ([url]http://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?family=creative&license=rf&excludenudity=false&collections=EYM&Language=en-US[/url])
That's a very nice collection from eyeem. I can see why Getty has pushed that collection to the front of the search results.
Really nice collection, i already got a sale from Getty thru Eyeem.