| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/30/2007 06:42:47 PM · #76 |
also there are LOTS of small stock agencies that are 'local' to where ever you live that will pay good images, often want the images from your local area and pay fair prices.
the sad thing is the cat is out of the bag and SS and other sites already have millions of images.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2007 06:49:53 PM · #77 |
|
|
|
11/30/2007 07:00:34 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by ahaze:
For those of us who aren't good enough to be accepted at the Corbises of the world, online stock agencies are an excellent way for us to practice and develop the necessary chops. I have photographs taken for photo class assignments last year that are making me money at the aforementioned sites. Otherwise they would have been sitting on a CD on my shelf, ignored.
My shutterstock portfolio. If you think any of these would be worthy of Corbis, holler.
//www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=934 |
Some nice photos in there!
:) |
|
|
|
11/30/2007 07:32:05 PM · #79 |
Geez, what a pointless thread to bump - it's so old that it's out of date!
Situations change... my posts above are no longer relevant. Other posts may also not be accurate in terms of what the posters think/ are doing now.
I'm posting only because I wouldn't want someone to read my posts above now and assume they are current.
Since this thread back in 2004 I've had images on sale via microstock and at Alamy for quite some time and had success with both.
Any images that I feel are good enough are reserved for Alamy. I have some shots which are not high enough resolution/ technically suitable and I have put these onto microstock sites. Shots from same shoots or with recognisably similar content as those on Alamy are never loaded for sale on the microstocks.
Husband has done same. We've made a few hundred dollars from the microstocks - pocketmoney but pocketmoney enough to buy ourselves a wii and some games. And the shots loaded to these sites are shots that could not be sold via traditional stock agencies so we've not lost out on potentially higher earnings.
We've probably made about £1500 between us on Alamy. Again, we're not giving up the day jobs but that's a tasty bit of kit our hobby is paying for!
Message edited by author 2007-11-30 19:33:02.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2007 07:39:03 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Geez, what a pointless thread to bump - it's so old that it's out of date!
Situations change... my posts above are no longer relevant. Other posts may also not be accurate in terms of what the posters think/ are doing now. |
but isn't it fun to revisit your old opinions, just to see how you've changed ;-) |
|
|
|
12/01/2007 05:53:57 AM · #81 |
Perhaps if on a more interesting topic but... this one? Not particularly. I'd have thought there would be more use in starting a new thread...
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 02:43:11 PM · #82 |
I was having an internal debate about iStockPhoto vs Alamy this morning and saw this thread at the top of the Stock forum. I was happily reading along until I came across one of my own posts... maybe it is time for a new thread because, as Kavey said, much has changed since this thread was started.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2008 10:33:48 AM · #83 |
| I have been rejected by istock three times now, their reasons are that my quality and composition are not good enough, however, I shoot on a dslr and studied photography and have worked in the industry profesionally, so as far as I am concerned my images meet a hi-res standard and I have a good idea of compositon from my studies and work in the feild. I just don't get their reasons for rejection, begining to think they are a cartel or something and you have to know someone that knows someone and so forth, in order to be accepted. Replies along these same lines very welcome. |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 10:38:39 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by charrie:
I have been rejected by istock three times now, their reasons are that my quality and composition are not good enough, however, I shoot on a dslr and studied photography and have worked in the industry profesionally, so as far as I am concerned my images meet a hi-res standard and I have a good idea of compositon from my studies and work in the feild. I just don't get their reasons for rejection, begining to think they are a cartel or something and you have to know someone that knows someone and so forth, in order to be accepted. Replies along these same lines very welcome. |
OK, so share some of your images and maybe we can help you figure out if the problem really is with the sites or there might be something else you're missing. |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 10:54:20 AM · #85 |
Microstock seem to demand images which are (a) perfectly sharp across the entire image (regardless of complex ideas like DOF) and (b) completely devoid of any noise whatsoever.
They've been getting worse and now seem to have such unrealistically high standards I've stopped bothering with them. I suspect that's the entire point, because they're otherwise overwhelmed with submissions. |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:42:49 PM · #86 |
| Thanks for the quick reply, unfortunately I can't figure out how to put thumbnails of my pics in a post. Any advice? |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:48:07 PM · #87 |
| In reply to ganders, I totally agree, a few of the pics I've had rejected showed various depth of field (deliberately. Don't think they want anything with a sense of artistic techniques. |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 02:25:43 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by charrie:
Thanks for the quick reply, unfortunately I can't figure out how to put thumbnails of my pics in a post. Any advice? |
You can link to a gallery on another site if you don't want to get a DPC membership. |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 03:00:07 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by charrie:
In reply to ganders, I totally agree, a few of the pics I've had rejected showed various depth of field (deliberately. Don't think they want anything with a sense of artistic techniques. |
That is a reaction that is so typical to refused photographers. :P
As to the topic title: yes they are. And this thread won't stop them. If you can't beat them....
|
|
|
|
10/23/2008 03:28:26 PM · #90 |
There's no favoritism, i got into Istock 1st try same for shutterstock about a year and half ago. But I have to agree that rejections have become ridiculous IMHO, and Istock is the main offender in that area for me. I dont upload much to Istock anymore, try shutterstock. But for me personally, i can think of a lot better ways to make money.
I also think they were a bunch of greedy morons for not taking on the task of keywording themselves. Now we're all paying for it with all the keyword spamming that goes on.
The only reason i'm still there is because i'm there. But right now microstock is only for fun and challenging myself to meet ridiculous standards :)
|
|
|
|
10/23/2008 04:56:58 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Camabs:
Originally posted by charrie:
In reply to ganders, I totally agree, a few of the pics I've had rejected showed various depth of field (deliberately. Don't think they want anything with a sense of artistic techniques. |
That is a reaction that is so typical to refused photographers. :P
As to the topic title: yes they are. And this thread won't stop them. If you can't beat them.... |
Ganders and myself used to have quite a few images with the microstocks. We now find that their requirements are actually tougher than those we regularly meet/ pass at Alamy so we don't bother.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2008 05:16:37 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
I wished I had a dSLR . |
A Canon Powershot A700, a p&s, got my pics into fotolia. If you go to my profile here you'll see that my two highest-scoring pix were taken with it. |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 05:18:21 PM · #93 |
| What's your fotolia link? |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 08:58:04 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
Originally posted by faidoi:
I wished I had a dSLR . |
A Canon Powershot A700, a p&s, got my pics into fotolia. If you go to my profile here you'll see that my two highest-scoring pix were taken with it. |
Most of the money that I make for all my Pentax gear is through microstock now. 99% of the pictures were from my 3 megapixel Sony. In fact with my newest Shutterstock, Fotolia payment I just ordered the Tamron 70-200mm .
Message edited by author 2008-10-23 20:59:11. |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 08:59:47 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
What's your fotolia link? |
Fotolia link? |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 09:34:47 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
What's your fotolia link? |
Fotolia link? |
I'm already a photog there :) I was looking for a link to  snaffles portfolio because I thought we could fave photogs there but it does not look like there is that feature? (i'm hoping i missed it)
 faidoi, what is the link to your portfolio then? |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 10:43:05 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
Originally posted by faidoi:
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
What's your fotolia link? |
Fotolia link? |
I'm already a photog there :) I was looking for a link to snaffles portfolio because I thought we could fave photogs there but it does not look like there is that feature? (i'm hoping i missed it)
faidoi, what is the link to your portfolio then? |
//us.fotolia.com/p/21178 |
|
|
|
10/25/2008 12:25:28 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Originally posted by snaffles:
Originally posted by faidoi:
I wished I had a dSLR . |
A Canon Powershot A700, a p&s, got my pics into fotolia. If you go to my profile here you'll see that my two highest-scoring pix were taken with it. |
Most of the money that I make for all my Pentax gear is through microstock now. 99% of the pictures were from my 3 megapixel Sony. In fact with my newest Shutterstock, Fotolia payment I just ordered the Tamron 70-200mm . |
I bought lens and other stuff through microstock. I only have about 350 images at Shutterstock. But so far i've made about $1200. This from basically a year and 6 months of uploading and only uploading 1,2,3,4 or 5 here & 10 there. I'm not consistent and it shows in my returns. But I must admit that shutterstock is
(1) the easiest, EASIEST to upload
(2) image reviews for me average 2-3 days
(3) have the most consistent sales.
And I'm with four sites, earnings in this order Shutterstock, IStock, Dreamstime and Fotolia. So no matter how much i complain, I'll always have a soft spot for Shutterstock.
Shutterstock RULES! and if they offer exclusivity tomorrow with rewards, I'll dump everybody else immediately. It takes time to upload and keyword and the rest of the sites are a big waste of time.
Message edited by author 2008-10-25 00:30:44.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2008 05:30:10 AM · #99 |
I think it can be true to say microstock is ruining the industry -... the industry that WAS... but this is not the same world we lived in 10 - 20 years ago. Of COURSE things are going to change and there is a new market (microstock photography) that is very profitable and serves a very large need for cheap imagery.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2008 06:32:30 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by dmadden:
And I'm with four sites, earnings in this order Shutterstock, IStock, Dreamstime and Fotolia. So no matter how much i complain, I'll always have a soft spot for Shutterstock.
Shutterstock RULES! and if they offer exclusivity tomorrow with rewards, I'll dump everybody else immediately. It takes time to upload and keyword and the rest of the sites are a big waste of time. |
I'm with 5 sites - add BigStock to your list. My order used to be the same as yours with BigStock coming in last. However lately Dreamstime is doing fairly well for me and I definitely do NOT think it is a waste of time. I would never go for exclusivity anywhere as I find that when one site goes up, another goes down. However IStock has become a real problem as I have been finding it increasingly difficult to get anything accepted there.
|
|
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: 08/03/2025 07:29:09 PM EDT.
