<$BlogRSDURL$>
Friday, August 08, 2008
Three stock sites I am unsure about
These are a few sites I recently joined up with (within the last month) so I don't know much about them or how well we will work together.
The first site is SnapVillage which was recently re-designed and now out of beta. It's run by Corbis which is owned by Bill Gates. They have a reasonable upload interface which allows you to upload up to 5 images at a time as well as create "sets" for series of images. They accept most of my images and you can set your own price for each from $1 to $50 for per image sales. They have an opt in/opt out subscription offering which gives contributors $.30 per image on downloads. The review time is very good, within 24 hours. They have forums which seem friendly and helpful, if not a bit sparse. I'm not sure anyone has made a sale there yet but the site does have Corbis backing it up, so maybe as it becomes better known.
This is a fairly young site and I think as they grow and get more popular they will become more stringent with their acceptance. It's nice to be able to set your own price for images but pretty much useless if they don't sell. We shall see how it all works out.
The next site I've recently joined is 123rf. Like SnapVillage they accept nearly everything I have submitted. They have many upload interface options and there is no limit on how many images you can upload at a time. That is a very nice feature. Review is lightening fast, with hours. The forums are pretty active and but not much interaction between contributors yet. Judging from some of the posts some people have made sales and there are some good images on this site.
Again it's young and no sales for me so far, but we shall see how it goes.
The last site in today's review is one that I am probably going to pull my images from, it's called UnlistedImages. There are no forums, there is no way to see where or if your images have been used. There is no interface between your upload account and the site(s) that are selling them. They are allegedly connected to several sites which provide CDs of image collections. It's damn near impossible to navigate those sites in hopes of seeing if your images are on them. Review time is good and I don't think they've rejected anything that was within their image size requirements. I did email to ask how to tell where my images might be used and got a quick but unsatisfactory response of "we're working on it".
I might leave one or two images up there to test and see if they ever finish "working on it" but as of right now, I'm not impressed.
dolly's world: the fine art of bitchcraft
The first site is SnapVillage which was recently re-designed and now out of beta. It's run by Corbis which is owned by Bill Gates. They have a reasonable upload interface which allows you to upload up to 5 images at a time as well as create "sets" for series of images. They accept most of my images and you can set your own price for each from $1 to $50 for per image sales. They have an opt in/opt out subscription offering which gives contributors $.30 per image on downloads. The review time is very good, within 24 hours. They have forums which seem friendly and helpful, if not a bit sparse. I'm not sure anyone has made a sale there yet but the site does have Corbis backing it up, so maybe as it becomes better known.
This is a fairly young site and I think as they grow and get more popular they will become more stringent with their acceptance. It's nice to be able to set your own price for images but pretty much useless if they don't sell. We shall see how it all works out.
The next site I've recently joined is 123rf. Like SnapVillage they accept nearly everything I have submitted. They have many upload interface options and there is no limit on how many images you can upload at a time. That is a very nice feature. Review is lightening fast, with hours. The forums are pretty active and but not much interaction between contributors yet. Judging from some of the posts some people have made sales and there are some good images on this site.
Again it's young and no sales for me so far, but we shall see how it goes.
The last site in today's review is one that I am probably going to pull my images from, it's called UnlistedImages. There are no forums, there is no way to see where or if your images have been used. There is no interface between your upload account and the site(s) that are selling them. They are allegedly connected to several sites which provide CDs of image collections. It's damn near impossible to navigate those sites in hopes of seeing if your images are on them. Review time is good and I don't think they've rejected anything that was within their image size requirements. I did email to ask how to tell where my images might be used and got a quick but unsatisfactory response of "we're working on it".
I might leave one or two images up there to test and see if they ever finish "working on it" but as of right now, I'm not impressed.
Labels: Microstock image site review, the upstarts
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
I started to contribute to istock back in July '05 so this is likely the first microstock site I signed up with and was accepted. I was thrilled, and my first sale happened in October of '06, it was exciting. My sales were sporadic after that but the per sale amount was good. IStock was a top site then, their prices were reasonable and their collection was pretty extensive. We used them somewhat in the first Worth1000 book (which I was main administrator/editor for) and damn near exclusively (the exception being if we found a worth1000 photographer) for the second worth1000 book, for which I was an assistant editor. Oh how we loved our istock.
So wtf happened?
Review times have slowed to a crawl. Don't even consider complaining about that in the forums, I saw someone banned for that. They reject for some pretty shady reasons too. Which isn't to say all their rejections aren't justified but many are just pure crap, they reject over lighting when all other sites accept the same image and those images sell on those sites. Not to mention their favorite players whose images get accepted with some gawd-awful lighting, this isn't sour grapes, how do you have a half orange/half white isolation (not going to link here out of respect to the artist but search on strawberry there if you want to see what I mean)?
While the per image subscription payout is better than shutterstock and not as good as stockxpert, I don't get any warm fuzzies from istock anymore. They come off as elitist without the clout to back it up. Sure they have long standing and exclusive contributors who make them some money, but for the average photographer giving them the icing on the cake they do not treat us as equals or even as humans. They even have some sort of weird algorithm for uploads/acceptance rating vs searchability or prominence. I have yet to see one of my images on the "newest uploads" area and believe me, I've looked.
Now I'm being somewhat harsh but that's because I've looked at what they let through and what they reject on istock and it seems to be a popularity/personality thing there. I haven't participated in the forums, it really seems cliquish there and after I saw the guy banned for voicing an opinion about review times (which really are abysmal) I don't think I want to join in the revere of them.
I wish that were the most negative but they lack in upload interface too. They have no interface for multiple uploads for PC users (there's a third party one for MAC users, can't comment on it since I don't have a MAC and haven't tried it, but it's third party, they didn't even bother making it easier for their own contributors). Their upload process is arduous at best. You have to click through multiple screens and checkboxes and their disambiguation (interpretation of keywords to over-simplify) is seriously lacking. They have 2 definitions of layers and peel, neither of which could fit my description of an onion recently submitted, yet both are pertinent to the image. In fact my most recent rejection was for keywording which was inappropriate. Mind you I'm probably the most careful keyworder in microstock, and I also have an extensive vocabulary. I put an old jalopy on the site, it was an old Fleetline truck with a "for sale" sign on it. I did take out the phone number and the copyrighted truck name but they were completely pertinent to the image in keywords, if only the reviewer had looked at full view and/or had a clue.
To summarize I think the reviewers are burned out or disinterested, for the most part, on istock and the whole site needs an overhaul. Shutterstock and stockxpert have moved along with the times, gotten fresh people in (or multiple opinions) on images before a rejection, neither takes anywhere near the time to review an image and they don't have the punishment/reward thing for searching on images that istock has (how archaic and just stupid that system is).
I hope that if Avi and Worth1000 ever do another book that they will consider a different site to negotiate a deal with too. Just getting them to agree on a contract for book 2 image use was agonizing and damn near stopped us from meeting a deadline.
All in all they have a professional facade and not much backing it up. Have I made sales there, yes (not enough for a payout though), but I almost wish I hadn't (then I could walk away, because really I like them less with each passing day). They should take this as advice and do something to improve the site, grow with the times and not rely on their "once was" status. Instead I suspect they will do their usual and punish the observer.
istock rating: B
dolly's world: the fine art of bitchcraft
So wtf happened?
Review times have slowed to a crawl. Don't even consider complaining about that in the forums, I saw someone banned for that. They reject for some pretty shady reasons too. Which isn't to say all their rejections aren't justified but many are just pure crap, they reject over lighting when all other sites accept the same image and those images sell on those sites. Not to mention their favorite players whose images get accepted with some gawd-awful lighting, this isn't sour grapes, how do you have a half orange/half white isolation (not going to link here out of respect to the artist but search on strawberry there if you want to see what I mean)?
While the per image subscription payout is better than shutterstock and not as good as stockxpert, I don't get any warm fuzzies from istock anymore. They come off as elitist without the clout to back it up. Sure they have long standing and exclusive contributors who make them some money, but for the average photographer giving them the icing on the cake they do not treat us as equals or even as humans. They even have some sort of weird algorithm for uploads/acceptance rating vs searchability or prominence. I have yet to see one of my images on the "newest uploads" area and believe me, I've looked.
Now I'm being somewhat harsh but that's because I've looked at what they let through and what they reject on istock and it seems to be a popularity/personality thing there. I haven't participated in the forums, it really seems cliquish there and after I saw the guy banned for voicing an opinion about review times (which really are abysmal) I don't think I want to join in the revere of them.
I wish that were the most negative but they lack in upload interface too. They have no interface for multiple uploads for PC users (there's a third party one for MAC users, can't comment on it since I don't have a MAC and haven't tried it, but it's third party, they didn't even bother making it easier for their own contributors). Their upload process is arduous at best. You have to click through multiple screens and checkboxes and their disambiguation (interpretation of keywords to over-simplify) is seriously lacking. They have 2 definitions of layers and peel, neither of which could fit my description of an onion recently submitted, yet both are pertinent to the image. In fact my most recent rejection was for keywording which was inappropriate. Mind you I'm probably the most careful keyworder in microstock, and I also have an extensive vocabulary. I put an old jalopy on the site, it was an old Fleetline truck with a "for sale" sign on it. I did take out the phone number and the copyrighted truck name but they were completely pertinent to the image in keywords, if only the reviewer had looked at full view and/or had a clue.
To summarize I think the reviewers are burned out or disinterested, for the most part, on istock and the whole site needs an overhaul. Shutterstock and stockxpert have moved along with the times, gotten fresh people in (or multiple opinions) on images before a rejection, neither takes anywhere near the time to review an image and they don't have the punishment/reward thing for searching on images that istock has (how archaic and just stupid that system is).
I hope that if Avi and Worth1000 ever do another book that they will consider a different site to negotiate a deal with too. Just getting them to agree on a contract for book 2 image use was agonizing and damn near stopped us from meeting a deadline.
All in all they have a professional facade and not much backing it up. Have I made sales there, yes (not enough for a payout though), but I almost wish I hadn't (then I could walk away, because really I like them less with each passing day). They should take this as advice and do something to improve the site, grow with the times and not rely on their "once was" status. Instead I suspect they will do their usual and punish the observer.
istock rating: B
Labels: Microstock image site review: istock
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Shutterstock
I don't recall exactly when I joined Shutterstock, it was around 2 years ago. I submitted my 10 images for review and they accepted all of them, in spite of those same images being rejected by other microstock sites. In the years I've been with Shutterstock all but three of those images have sold at least once, so kudos to them for some vision.
Shutterstock is the largest (in number of images online) of the microstock agencies. I hear they are more stringent with their acceptance policy for newcomers now. There are far better photographers on there than I am who have had their initial submissions rejected so perhaps it's true.
Nevertheless, I have sold more with them than with any other microstock site. Though I'm still not raking in huge money and in 2 years have yet to have a payout (minimum payout through paypal is $75, accumulative). But I've only gotten serious about it in the last few months and in those months my earnings have jumped, so I'm hoping it won't be long.
Shutterstock probably pays the least of the agencies I've signed up with in so far as subscriptions rates go. At $.25 a download it'll take awhile to accumulate $75.00. I have not had anyone purchase an extended license of my images so far, I understand that pays better but still less than many other microstock sites. Still if you're looking to cut your teeth in the microstock world, this is the place to do it. That's not to say you can and should submit crap, they're still looking for good stock images, but they do seem to have a more open mind when it comes to what will sell and at the price they're selling images, you can do pretty well with a healthy portfolio.
For a fumbling hobbiest I don't get rejected nearly as much as I probably should but more than any other site I take the rejections personally (I don't know why, maybe because I like this site so much). I don't participate in the forums there they seem a bit too competitive but not in an unfriendly way. I do read the forums to glean any tips I can, sadly there's not much in the tips arena there. I don't believe they offer an exclusive artist or exclusive image option but this site is still growing (massive as it is) and improving, it seems a bit impersonal at times but I'm not sure Walmart greeters would make me like the site more, I already like it a lot.
Nonetheless, Shutterstock still often accepts images rejected by istock and they sell. I don't care if they sell for $.25 or $25, I'm earning money I didn't have 5 minutes ago.
Technically Shutterstock is easy. They offer multiple upload interface options, read IPTC data and review time is exceptional. I try not to resubmit too much that's rejected and if rejected 2x I don't resubmit any more. I've never interacted with staff there but the forums are hopping and people do post helpful suggestions in between comparing their earnings.
If you accumulate $500/mo in sales you get a raise, don't know what the raise is since I haven't hit it but I know others have (from reading the forums) and with over 4 million images online they must be doing something right
In the last months, since I've gotten more serious about photograhy and microstock I have had record (for me) sales on this site. Today they accepted all of my latest submissions and I have more waiting in the queue.
Shutterstock rating: A+
dolly's world: the fine art of bitchcraft
Shutterstock is the largest (in number of images online) of the microstock agencies. I hear they are more stringent with their acceptance policy for newcomers now. There are far better photographers on there than I am who have had their initial submissions rejected so perhaps it's true.
Nevertheless, I have sold more with them than with any other microstock site. Though I'm still not raking in huge money and in 2 years have yet to have a payout (minimum payout through paypal is $75, accumulative). But I've only gotten serious about it in the last few months and in those months my earnings have jumped, so I'm hoping it won't be long.
Shutterstock probably pays the least of the agencies I've signed up with in so far as subscriptions rates go. At $.25 a download it'll take awhile to accumulate $75.00. I have not had anyone purchase an extended license of my images so far, I understand that pays better but still less than many other microstock sites. Still if you're looking to cut your teeth in the microstock world, this is the place to do it. That's not to say you can and should submit crap, they're still looking for good stock images, but they do seem to have a more open mind when it comes to what will sell and at the price they're selling images, you can do pretty well with a healthy portfolio.
For a fumbling hobbiest I don't get rejected nearly as much as I probably should but more than any other site I take the rejections personally (I don't know why, maybe because I like this site so much). I don't participate in the forums there they seem a bit too competitive but not in an unfriendly way. I do read the forums to glean any tips I can, sadly there's not much in the tips arena there. I don't believe they offer an exclusive artist or exclusive image option but this site is still growing (massive as it is) and improving, it seems a bit impersonal at times but I'm not sure Walmart greeters would make me like the site more, I already like it a lot.
Nonetheless, Shutterstock still often accepts images rejected by istock and they sell. I don't care if they sell for $.25 or $25, I'm earning money I didn't have 5 minutes ago.
Technically Shutterstock is easy. They offer multiple upload interface options, read IPTC data and review time is exceptional. I try not to resubmit too much that's rejected and if rejected 2x I don't resubmit any more. I've never interacted with staff there but the forums are hopping and people do post helpful suggestions in between comparing their earnings.
If you accumulate $500/mo in sales you get a raise, don't know what the raise is since I haven't hit it but I know others have (from reading the forums) and with over 4 million images online they must be doing something right
In the last months, since I've gotten more serious about photograhy and microstock I have had record (for me) sales on this site. Today they accepted all of my latest submissions and I have more waiting in the queue.
Shutterstock rating: A+
Labels: Microstock image site review
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Microstock and the extra money
I am a hobbiest photographer. I've had a camera in my hand for years and got pretty good at shooting film. Then digital came about, I bought a cheap camera and took crappy images (mostly) but I tried. When I upgraded I decided to go dslr for more creative control. I'm still learning how to work it well, 2 years after purchase but I am getting better at it. Obviously the hugest advantage is no film developing and the larger flash card capacities mean shooting multiple images without fear of running out of storage. The ease of uploading to the computer immediately, getting rid of bad shots and printing your good stuff (or sharing it electronically) is a huge advantage. The downside is if you shoot raw you will have adjusting to do (even if I shoot jpg I often make at least a levels adjustment). That part is time consuming but can be done whenever you want and once you get pretty good at a) taking the pic right (exposure, focus, etc.) the post-processing is minimal and b) as you get more experience post-processing it gets to be quicker too. My post processing will mostly consist of white balance, levels, evening of horizon, noise reduction and cropping (not necessarily in that order). I use sharpening and bumping the saturation sparingly.
There are quite a few sites/blogs explaining how to do these techniques so I won't detail them here, I use PS for this and sometimes Neat Image for the noise reduction. I hear Adobe Light Room is good but I don't much care for it myself so I don't use it.
What I like though is that I can offer these images for sale on various sites. There are dozens of microstock sites out there, some good, some less so. Some are well known and some are damn near unheard of (from what I can tell). I am going to briefly review my experiences with them. I might do a post on each of the three I've been with the longest and then another post for those I just joined.
Stockxpert.com run by Jupiter Images, over a million images for sale.
Stockxpert was the first site I joined up with, I don't remember the requirements then but my first image went online in March of '06. I've been on that site for two years and didn't realize you need to self-promote to sell your work. I only found out this summer so I tried it (I hate writing about myself, if I liked it this blog would be updated more). Well it worked and I made my first sale (and 2 more since). Still not taking off very well but I don't shoot for stock so my images are eclectic and not your average stock. I may work my way to a niche but I'm not sure it won't stunt my creative juices.
Images on stockxpert are high quality and reasonably priced for the buyer. They offer pay as you go pricing and subscription-type credits (there is an opt-out). Extended licensing is available on an opt in basis. Images range in size from xs to xxl (depending on the size uploaded). Uploading in .jpg format only and rgb color. The upload interface is easy and quick (by comparison to some others) and you can upload 3 images at a time and a series (of up to 3 at a time). Their interface with read IPTC data embedded in the image so you don't have to retype keywords, titles and descriptions over and over. It will automatically number series images and there's no issue about submitting the same subject from different angles or lighting situations.
Image approval process is very quick compared to some other sites. I don't get notified by email if my image is approved or rejected though because I never ticked the box to do so. They have a newsletter which provides tips and site information.
Stockxpert accepts a lot of my images with fewer rejections than the other site, their per image payout is best of the three main ones also. They have forums that you can participate in gaining tips from other members.
What I like about stockxpert is their acceptance rate and speed, their upload interface and their pay rate. What I dislike is self-promotion, seems that's what they get part of my sales revenue to do.
I rate this site an A.
dolly's world: the fine art of bitchcraft
There are quite a few sites/blogs explaining how to do these techniques so I won't detail them here, I use PS for this and sometimes Neat Image for the noise reduction. I hear Adobe Light Room is good but I don't much care for it myself so I don't use it.
What I like though is that I can offer these images for sale on various sites. There are dozens of microstock sites out there, some good, some less so. Some are well known and some are damn near unheard of (from what I can tell). I am going to briefly review my experiences with them. I might do a post on each of the three I've been with the longest and then another post for those I just joined.
Stockxpert.com run by Jupiter Images, over a million images for sale.
Stockxpert was the first site I joined up with, I don't remember the requirements then but my first image went online in March of '06. I've been on that site for two years and didn't realize you need to self-promote to sell your work. I only found out this summer so I tried it (I hate writing about myself, if I liked it this blog would be updated more). Well it worked and I made my first sale (and 2 more since). Still not taking off very well but I don't shoot for stock so my images are eclectic and not your average stock. I may work my way to a niche but I'm not sure it won't stunt my creative juices.
Images on stockxpert are high quality and reasonably priced for the buyer. They offer pay as you go pricing and subscription-type credits (there is an opt-out). Extended licensing is available on an opt in basis. Images range in size from xs to xxl (depending on the size uploaded). Uploading in .jpg format only and rgb color. The upload interface is easy and quick (by comparison to some others) and you can upload 3 images at a time and a series (of up to 3 at a time). Their interface with read IPTC data embedded in the image so you don't have to retype keywords, titles and descriptions over and over. It will automatically number series images and there's no issue about submitting the same subject from different angles or lighting situations.
Image approval process is very quick compared to some other sites. I don't get notified by email if my image is approved or rejected though because I never ticked the box to do so. They have a newsletter which provides tips and site information.
Stockxpert accepts a lot of my images with fewer rejections than the other site, their per image payout is best of the three main ones also. They have forums that you can participate in gaining tips from other members.
What I like about stockxpert is their acceptance rate and speed, their upload interface and their pay rate. What I dislike is self-promotion, seems that's what they get part of my sales revenue to do.
I rate this site an A.
Labels: Stockxpert review
.
.
