| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/14/2005 09:41:07 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
There's a biiiiig difference, Kavey!
A book is meant to be mass-produced and sold to many people...Images used in marketing are not. |
Sure they are ... you don't think all those catalogs of CD's full of stock images and clip art are produced as one-off CD-R's ... BUT -- they are meant to be used creatively and by smaller groups. That's one reason Fortune 500 companies are supposed to get their stock photos from a Rights-Managed agency, not micro-stock. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 09:41:55 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
This is still in the FAQ:
Photos must be at least 2.5MP (2.5 Million Pixels). To determine the amount of pixels in a photo, multiply the width by the length. For example: a photo which is 1700x1500 adds up to a total of 2.55 million pixels - a photo of this size is valid - however, a photo which is 1200x1000 adds up to a total of 1.2 million pixels which is smaller than our minimum size requirement.
So what did I miss about 6 MP cams? |
You missed people having photos rejected for quality issues and blaming it on their camera ... |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 09:42:39 AM · #28 |
Ahh! I blame my rejections on crappy submissions. Hm. OOOH that being said, I will never understand "too many on site"
Message edited by author 2005-06-14 09:42:56.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 09:43:40 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I'm pretty sure this won't last forever... |
Not much does and I don't think anyone entering into this model expects it to anyway!
Also, there are some images that can easily be used multiple times - as supporting images in magazines, newspapers and so on or as supporting (rather than key marketing) images on websites for small businesses everywhere.
If I were creating a website for a small business customer I doubt they'd be too worried if the generic picture of office staff used as a background image on one of the pages were also used similarly by other small businesses that they will never come across (or likely share customers with) elsewhere in the world.
I think people are making assumptions on what kind of people are buying these images (in the main) and what kind of uses they are being put to.
Anyone with half a brain who is tasked with finding an image that's part of a big marketing campaign or will be used as a main image in a company's branding should know enough to buy that image from a rights-managed agency who can offer exclusivity of use.
Message edited by author 2005-06-14 09:49:04. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 09:45:53 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Ahh! I blame my rejections on crappy submissions. Hm. OOOH that being said, I will never understand "too many on site" |
If I were a customer looking for images for a website I were developing and I went to one of these sites and entered a keyword to search for suitable images, I'd rather be shown 100 really good images to choose from than have to wade through 1000 images where 8/10 were mediocre.
Message edited by author 2005-06-14 09:49:37. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 09:48:48 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
A book is meant to be mass-produced and sold to many people...Images used in marketing are not. |
Sure they are ... [...]they are meant to be used creatively and by smaller groups. That's one reason Fortune 500 companies are supposed to get their stock photos from a Rights-Managed agency, not micro-stock. |
I missed your response as I was composing my own.
My thoughts exactly - we're talking very different markets here.
Micro-stock is aimed at buyers who need some supporting images for small-scale sites or printed uses and don't require exclusivity of use.
Rights-managed stock and exclusively offered stock are aimed at buyers who do require exclusivity or just a different quality of image and are willing to pay more for that.
Message edited by author 2005-06-14 09:48:56. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 09:59:24 AM · #32 |
So shutterstock did not put a new policy in place? They are just getting a little more picky.
Aren't there enough threads on the anti/pro micro stock argument...
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 10:03:29 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by louddog:
So shutterstock did not put a new policy in place? They are just getting a little more picky.
Aren't there enough threads on the anti/pro micro stock argument... |
True enough...I was just responding to the thoughts already in the thread.
And I agree, GeneralE and Kavey...if used in the right conditions, microstock makes a lot of sense for companies. But definitely a no-no when used as it has been in the examples I gave. That's what I believe will end...
As for the shutterstock discussion, I think they're very unprofessional in the way they conduct business and this latest news is no surprise.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 10:35:35 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
If I were a customer looking for images for a website I were developing and I went to one of these sites and entered a keyword to search for suitable images, I'd rather be shown 100 really good images to choose from than have to wade through 1000 images where 8/10 were mediocre. |
But you're talking about quality. I'm talking about quality is up to par - I don't understand rejecting based on "we already have a mushroom" when I give them 10 DIFFERENT varieties in shots that are all technically near the same quality. Wouldn't you rather have 1000 "really good" vs 100 "really good" though? I'm not making a quality argument - I totally agree with rejecting on quality.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 10:39:51 AM · #35 |
| Their rejection reasons can be a bit flakey. Also, in their cleanup process they have been removing images that they say haven't had enough downloads (but have been downloaded) yet leaving images in the DB that have had no downloads. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 11:55:46 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by Kavey:
If I were a customer looking for images for a website I were developing and I went to one of these sites and entered a keyword to search for suitable images, I'd rather be shown 100 really good images to choose from than have to wade through 1000 images where 8/10 were mediocre. |
But you're talking about quality. I'm talking about quality is up to par - I don't understand rejecting based on "we already have a mushroom" when I give them 10 DIFFERENT varieties in shots that are all technically near the same quality. Wouldn't you rather have 1000 "really good" vs 100 "really good" though? I'm not making a quality argument - I totally agree with rejecting on quality. |
That wasn't clear to me from your post:
Originally posted by mavrik:
I will never understand "too many on site" |
I agree, unless the image submitted really is VERY similar to one they already have (same size, shape, angle, lighting etc) then I don't see why they wouldn't want to provide more choice to the customer.
.
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Their rejection reasons can be a bit flakey. Also, in their cleanup process they have been removing images that they say haven't had enough downloads (but have been downloaded) yet leaving images in the DB that have had no downloads. |
I think the "quality assessment" performance of all the microstock agencies is a little flakey to be honest. Pete submitted three similar images of a croissant taken in the same shoot, same lighting etc. The croissant was moved to show it from a different angle etc. One of the three was rejected (not because it was too similar, which we'd have understood) but because lighting was not good enough. It was the same as the other two! I think the staff they have assessing the images submitted aren't really that knowledgable about either photography or digital image issues. That's a whole new topic of discussion though, eh? :o)
.
Originally posted by louddog:
Aren't there enough threads on the anti/pro micro stock argument... |
Definitely. But everytime ANY topic related to microstock agencies comes up the posts about how pathetic it is to sell one's work for those prices and how people could do better resurface. It seems (to me) only fair to put the other side forward (again). That said, I think I'll just give up.
Personally, all I care about is that it's clearly a valid and potentially lucrative revenue stream (see Melking and JodieCoston earnings). As far as I'm concerned I'm going to try and exploit this stream as much as I'll try and exploit other, more traditional streams too.
Message edited by author 2005-06-14 11:56:11.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:37:38 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
There's a biiiiig difference, Kavey!
A book is meant to be mass-produced and sold to many people...Images used in marketing are not.
There have already been examples of two cell phone companies (I think it was cell phone companies) using the same set of photos with the same female model to advertise competing companies.
Once a few companies get embarassed in that fashion, companies will realize it's not worth it.
Edit: Sorry, it was Gateway and Dell... Link
2nd edit: another example
3rd edit: And again
I'm pretty sure this won't last forever... |
Very poor example. That was Everywhere Girl and as you can see, all those images came from Getty - a "proper" stock site and cost significantly more than $0.20.
Message edited by author 2005-06-14 12:38:20.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:41:32 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by bod:
Very poor example. That was Everywhere Girl and as you can see, all those images came from Getty - a "proper" stock site and cost significantly more than $0.20. |
Makes sense - there are gonna be stock buyers ignorant of the exclusivity issues regardless of whether they are buying from micro or traditional stock agencies.
Well spotted. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 01:11:46 PM · #39 |
You're right, they each would have paid $150 for that one if they bought that individual image.
I knew that they were from Getty, my point was about royalty-free stock and how the value of photos used for marketing purposes get degraded with multiple sales - as opposed to books (which was the comparison that Kavey made).
I think my point stands...perhaps I should have been clear that these images weren't from Shutterstock - although actually clicking on the link would have cleared that up.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 07:53:51 PM EDT.
