Author Topic: Stocksy is Alive (Read 102073 times)

flotsom · « **Reply #100 on:** March 26, 2013, 14:13 »

I really like it, nice to see more artsy stuff and less traditional stock.

leaf · « **Reply #101 on:** March 29, 2013, 02:16 »

I removed a few posts talking (negatively) about specific images. This isn't the place to point fingers and laugh.

If you want to talk about specific images or portfolios, please post your own for critique.

Poncke · « **Reply #102 on:** March 29, 2013, 02:25 »

Quote from: leaf on March 29, 2013, 02:16

I removed a few posts talking (negatively) about specific images. This isn't the place to point fingers and laugh.

If you want to talk about specific images or portfolios, please post your own for critique.

No one was pointing fingers and laughing, a genuine question was asked why some image were on stocksy as they didnt seem to be the standard you would expect.

It seems that people accepted to Stocksy are a bit sensitive to critique. Maybe they should take it to heart and use it to their advantage.

leaf · « **Reply #103 on:** March 29, 2013, 02:50 »

Quote from: Poncke on March 29, 2013, 02:25

Quote from: leaf on March 29, 2013, 02:16
I removed a few posts talking (negatively) about specific images. This isn't the place to point fingers and laugh.

If you want to talk about specific images or portfolios, please post your own for critique.
No one was pointing fingers and laughing, a genuine question was asked why some image were on stocksy as they didnt seem to be the standard you would expect.

It seems that people accepted to Stocksy are a bit sensitive to critique. Maybe they should take it to heart and use it to their advantage.

nobody complained about the images that were posted here - there is just a general forum rule that individual images or portfolios shouldn't be posted to be critiqued (unless they are your own)

kobajagrande · « **Reply #104 on:** March 29, 2013, 04:08 »

I am really sorry that my post was interpreted in such a bad way.
My only intention was to show that stocky is moving into the wrong direction if images like those are accepted in the collection.
I was really happy about that site from the first moment. The way they said it is going to be, how is it going to function and what type of images are going to be sold there. The site looks very nice, and there is a great amount of nice artistic images, new style and new type of imagery which were not seen so much on the other sites.
And then those kind of images are like a slap on the face when you see them, I`m sorry, but I really feel like that.

It is pity that when someone browses through that nice gallery with so much beautiful pictures, bumps into something like that. Those images should not be part of stocksy, it is not good advertisement for them, especially not now, when they just started. And believe me, I would really like them to succeed, because they are suppose to be the game changer site, for all of us, the small contributors.

Smithore · « **Reply #105 on:** March 29, 2013, 04:36 »

I don't see any difference at all between stocksy and other microstock agencies, the only one is the very special filtering of members, it's like a private club and it's better if the owner is your friend. Browsing some portfolios, I see many low quality photos with wrong cropping, inexpressive people etc. like always in microstock.
So, where is the real difference??? Maybe Offset will do it and in a more neutral way (no mafia).

Poncke · « **Reply #106 on:** March 29, 2013, 04:59 »

Quote from: leaf on March 29, 2013, 02:50

Quote from: Poncke on March 29, 2013, 02:25
Quote from: leaf on March 29, 2013, 02:16
I removed a few posts talking (negatively) about specific images. This isn't the place to point fingers and laugh.

If you want to talk about specific images or portfolios, please post your own for critique.
No one was pointing fingers and laughing, a genuine question was asked why some image were on stocksy as they didnt seem to be the standard you would expect.

It seems that people accepted to Stocksy are a bit sensitive to critique. Maybe they should take it to heart and use it to their advantage.

nobody complained about the images that were posted here - there is just a general forum rule that individual images or portfolios shouldn't be posted to be critiqued (unless they are your own)

Fair enough, but I think that rule is applied quite selectively then.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #107 on:** March 29, 2013, 05:00 »

Quote from: Smithore on March 29, 2013, 04:36

I don't see any difference at all between stocksy and other microstock agencies,

I guess you're missing the point then.

Smithore · « **Reply #108 on:** March 29, 2013, 05:07 »

Quote

I guess you're missing the point then.

Maybe, It's my point of view from "outside". Anyway your answer is not an explanation.

michealo · « **Reply #109 on:** March 29, 2013, 06:28 »

And your statement wasn't a question :-D

but I'll try and answer

There are two main differences.

Ownership - management and contributors success is aligned

so contributors get 50% regular sales + 100% extended licenses + (90%*their contribution to profits)

Collection / Pricing

The collection is curated more than just inspected and is pricing at a premium

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #110 on:** March 29, 2013, 06:34 »

Quote from: michealo on March 29, 2013, 06:28

And your statement wasn't a question :-D

Ha!

Smithore · « **Reply #111 on:** March 29, 2013, 06:38 »

Quote

The collection is curated more than just inspected and is pricing at a premium

Curated in which way ?? As I've said, I see (and you can see) many classical microstock photos, that's doesn't explain how was done the selection of "members".
I wish a good luck to all "in" members.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #112 on:** March 29, 2013, 06:42 »

Quote from: Smithore on March 29, 2013, 06:38

Quote
The collection is curated more than just inspected and is pricing at a premium
Curated in which way ?? As I've said, I see (and you can see) many classical microstock photos, that's doesn't explain how was done the selection of "members".
I wish a good luck to all "in" members.

"Curated" as in the editors select content they feel should be in the collection, and not just anything in focus.

pro@stockphotos · « **Reply #113 on:** March 29, 2013, 06:44 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 29, 2013, 05:00

Quote from: Smithore on March 29, 2013, 04:36
I don't see any difference at all between stocksy and other microstock agencies,

I guess you're missing the point then.

At least looking at the first data on alexa Stocksy is rocketing up in interest and traffic. Considering the high end market that is being targeted and fair sharing on the commission, No wonder getty was so scared of this ideal.

Poncke · « **Reply #114 on:** March 29, 2013, 07:19 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on March 29, 2013, 06:44

Quote from: sjlocke on March 29, 2013, 05:00
Quote from: Smithore on March 29, 2013, 04:36
I don't see any difference at all between stocksy and other microstock agencies,

I guess you're missing the point then.

At least looking at the first data on alexa Stocksy is rocketing up in interest and traffic. Considering the high end market that is being targeted and fair sharing on the commission, No wonder getty was so scared of this ideal.

That could just be us. MSG has 35000 members. A lot of them are frantically surfing Stocksy, include the interest of a few buyers and the Getty/IS board and yes of course there is heavy traffic. If that traffic is still there in 3 months you know a lot more. Not from the first week.

kobajagrande · « **Reply #115 on:** March 29, 2013, 07:22 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 29, 2013, 06:42

Quote from: Smithore on March 29, 2013, 06:38
Quote
The collection is curated more than just inspected and is pricing at a premium
Curated in which way ?? As I've said, I see (and you can see) many classical microstock photos, that's doesn't explain how was done the selection of "members".
I wish a good luck to all "in" members.

"Curated" as in the editors select content they feel should be in the collection, and not just anything in focus.

Please Sean, tell them to be more careful, it is ruining the whole idea of the site, and this is what you, and all the other photographers there know very well.
Also the contributors should be a bit more objective, and not even send those kind of images, because at the end you know that those kind of pictures are not going to sell anyway.

Smithore · « **Reply #116 on:** March 29, 2013, 07:22 »

Ok, thanks, I will talk more of Stocksy if one day it becomes "alive" among the "mortals", all these "tips" are clear like brackish water.
I 've been really stupid to send 10 photos to an agency who explain absolutely nothing about their expectations and who send back a robot message in return saying nothing, that's just a disappointment for me and I'm just very angry, so I better shut up like the Ex-Istock Guru is doing.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #117 on:** March 29, 2013, 07:31 »

Quote from: kobajagrande on March 29, 2013, 07:22

Please Sean, tell them to be more careful, it is ruining the whole idea of the site, and this is what you, and all the other photographers there know very well.
Also the contributors should be a bit more objective, and not even send those kind of images, because at the end you know that those kind of pictures are not going to sell anyway.

I'm always surprised at what sells. I just licensed an image from 2005 of a handshake for $50, privately. I keep thinking I'm not going to put my old stuff online, but then someone shows up who still wants it.

heywoody · « **Reply #118 on:** March 29, 2013, 08:17 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 29, 2013, 06:42

Quote from: Smithore on March 29, 2013, 06:38
Quote
The collection is curated more than just inspected and is pricing at a premium
Curated in which way ?? As I've said, I see (and you can see) many classical microstock photos, that's doesn't explain how was done the selection of "members".
I wish a good luck to all "in" members.
"Curated" as in the editors select content they feel should be in the collection, and not just anything in focus.

In other words, the same approach taken by sites other than IS

Poncke · « **Reply #119 on:** March 29, 2013, 08:23 »

Heywoody, you replied within the quote which now looks like Sean said what you said

Petr Toman · « **Reply #120 on:** March 29, 2013, 08:28 »

slightly offtopic, but they caught me, I guess I'm not the first victim : http://www.socksy.com/

I guess their traffic will also grow now. It took me few seconds to realize I'm somewhere else.

heywoody · « **Reply #121 on:** March 29, 2013, 09:03 »

Ron,

Oops - fixed

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #122 on:** March 29, 2013, 09:31 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 29, 2013, 06:42

Quote from: Smithore on March 29, 2013, 06:38
Quote
The collection is curated more than just inspected and is pricing at a premium
Curated in which way ?? As I've said, I see (and you can see) many classical microstock photos, that's doesn't explain how was done the selection of "members".
I wish a good luck to all "in" members.

"Curated" as in the editors select content they feel should be in the collection, and not just anything in focus.

There are several agencies out there that should do the same.

SNP · « **Reply #123 on:** March 29, 2013, 15:08 »

There will always be varying opinions about what constitutes "good". But I'm perplexed how much negativity has been expressed by the usual suspects here, considering Stocksy is precisely, even optimally what many here wanted to see happen. Personally, I couldn't have envisioned a more perfect execution of a co-op agency. I didn't see it coming so quickly and so beautifully. It is here, and it is thrilling to be part of it.

gostwyck · « **Reply #124 on:** March 29, 2013, 16:08 »

Quote from: SNP on March 29, 2013, 15:08

There will always be varying opinions about what constitutes "good". But I'm perplexed how much negativity has been expressed by the usual suspects here, considering Stocksy is precisely, even optimally what many here wanted to see happen. Personally, I couldn't have envisioned a more perfect execution of a co-op agency. I didn't see it coming so quickly and so beautifully. It is here, and it is thrilling to be part of it.

I don't see much in the way of 'negativity' on this topic, almost everybody is wishing the venture well. There's a certain amount of caution and natural scepticism but I'd consider that healthy. The gushing praise and love expressed for Istock didn't help in the long run did it? Bruce still sold it along with the ambitions and the futures of so many.

Where Stocksy is coming up short for me ... is that I can't see it becoming a means of replacing microstock incomes any time soon ... if ever. Therefore Stocksy is certainly not precisely or optimally what most of us would probably like to see. With it's highly 'curated' collection it won't even remotely serve the full stock needs of many buyers and will also leave most of it's contributors looking elsewhere to place the majority of their portfolios and earn most of their money.

I note, for example, that Sean currently only has about 1200 images accepted at Stocksy. Hopefully there's many more to come because any stock agency, selling at those sort of prices, that refuses over 80% of Sean's portfolio would just be throwing money out of the window. I don't really understand yet what Stocksy is trying to be? It is a gallery for 'serious artists' (who don't mind starving) or is it a commercially-oriented stock agency?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Stocksy is Alive (Read 102073 times)

flotsom

leaf

Poncke

leaf

kobajagrande

Smithore

Poncke

Sean Locke Photography

Smithore

michealo

Sean Locke Photography

Smithore

Sean Locke Photography

pro@stockphotos

Poncke

kobajagrande

Smithore

Sean Locke Photography

heywoody

Poncke

Petr Toman

heywoody

mlwinphoto

SNP

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors