istockphoto - anyone using?

[Pupp]

Just interested how you're doing with it if so

[sawman]

I used them for a coupe of images last year = all went well

They do however keep sending me mails to encourage meto buy more images

s

[Ed_P]

If you're interested from a contributor point of view, yes I submit to iStockphoto, and others.

With regard to earnings, they accounted for just over 20% over the last year or so for me, second only to Shutterstock at around 35%. Just to make it clear, I'm just a small player in the micro-stock market, with around 200 images on iStockphoto and 300 on the others. iStock have very demanding standards for acceptance, hence the smaller numbers.

Whenever the opportunity arises, I try to take a few additional "stock-worthy" images for micro-stock upload. I get around 5-10 sales a day in total. For those who've experimented with micro-stock, you will realise that average sales are in the "cent" rather than the "dollar" range. I'm averaging around $0.80/download. Not a fortune, but if you do the maths, it's between $2,000 and $3,000 year and it's keeping me in "L" glass!

If you're interested, you can find a link to my iStockphoto portfolio here.

Ed ...

[Pupp]

Ed_P said:

If you're interested from a contributor point of view, yes I submit to iStockphoto, and others.

With regard to earnings, they accounted for just over 20% over the last year or so for me, second only to Shutterstock at around 35%. Just to make it clear, I'm just a small player in the micro-stock market, with around 200 images on iStockphoto and 300 on the others. iStock have very demanding standards for acceptance, hence the smaller numbers.

Whenever the opportunity arises, I try to take a few additional "stock-worthy" images for micro-stock upload. I get around 5-10 sales a day in total. For those who've experimented with micro-stock, you will realise that average sales are in the "cent" rather than the "dollar" range. I'm averaging around $0.80/download. Not a fortune, but if you do the maths, it's between $2,000 and $3,000 year and it's keeping me in "L" glass!

If you're interested, you can find a link to my iStockphoto portfolio here.

Ed ...

Thanks, that's helpful and appreciated

[slartibartfast]

i started with stock photography in january this year, i first tried with shutterstock.com but kept getting rejected with their 7/10 policy and having to wait 30 days to resubmit 10 for the 7/10 acceptance, i then found istock photo and got in almost straight away.
i've uploaded so far about 60 photos and have earn't $21.98 up to now, i've got a 57% acceptance rating although don't upload as much as i should simply because my imagination isn't up to the standards of the pro's.

so to put it in a nutshell, shutterstock is a pain in the ass after being rejected 5months running
istock let me in after being rejected once, and you only have to wait a few days to resubmit.

what bugs me about shutterstock is you can have 3 out of the 10 accepted and then in 30 days time you submit the same 3 that got accepted only to find they have now rejected those same 3.

shutterstock is apparently good for sale once you in.....getting in is the hardest part!

i submitted 10 that have be accepted with istock to shutterstock only to find all 10 rejected.....wheres the sense in that?.....bds LOL

[Ed_P]

slartibartfast said:

i started with stock photography in january this year, i first tried with shutterstock.com but kept getting rejected with their 7/10 policy and having to wait 30 days to resubmit 10 for the 7/10 acceptance, i then found istock photo and got in almost straight away.

Yes, the one thing you have to get used to with stock photography - rejection! I've had the lot:

- Noise
- Artifacts when viewed at 100%
- Over filtering
- Poor lighting
- We are not looking for that type of image at the moment
- Out of focus or focus is not where we think it works best
- Incorrect white balance
- Etc
- Etc.

For virtually all my stock shots I use a Canon 5D, L glass and a tripod. I shoot RAW and do a minimum of post-processing. If I don't think it's stock-worthy, I don't submit it. Sometimes it seems though, that the review process is entirely just a matter of what side of bed the reviewer got out of that morning. But if one site rejects it, others will accept it. That's the stock game.

Do persist with Shutterstock though. I managed to just scrape in first time, but I spent weeks researching the best strategy. All shots were of very different subjects and scrutinised carefully at 100%. I used their best selling images for inspiration (not copying!). It get easier once you're in and sales are good, although payments are low for subscription sales.

Good luck with it.

[chrisga]

Hi there,

I have been thinking about this stock thing for a while and this post prompted me to look in to it a little deeper. However, I think all of my shots have "noise". I am not really sure what this means and how to prevent it in the future. Also is there a relatively easy way of removing it? This rejection thing seems almost inevitable. Once you are in though does everything still get vetted?

Here are some examples that i posted on the shutterstock rejection forum...

[andy-xr]

That looks like high ISO noise to me. Well, from what I've had when putting the ISO up it looks around about the same in the blues. Can you change the settings manually on the camera, as it appears they were taken in Auto with the camera deciding whats best?

Await the expert knowledge though

[chrisga]

Yes it probably was taken in auto. How did you know that?

Do you know anyway of removing noise easily. I have downloaded GIMP but it is all a smidge overwhelming to be honest....

[andy-xr]

Well, I went to the flick link thats in your profile and looked for the image you'd posted, then went to the EXIF settings

I'm going to add to my original thought, that the camera may have upped the ISO too much for the sky because it was exposing for the hills

You could try some noise reduction software, it might help but I think its a combination of settings there thats not quite right.

I've also had the same effect applying lots of unsharp masks

You might want someone like Rob, Simpo or the heap of others who understand the relation of ISO, aperture and shutter speeds better than I do to comment

Edited by andy-xr on Saturday 8th November 09:14

[slartibartfast]

always try and shoot on nothing more than 200ISO but preferably 100ISO to keep away from noise, and use a tripod when you can.
you'll still get some but not as much.
when viewing your photos view at 100% crop.
i use either paintshop pro or photoshop to remove noise.


i've been doing stocksince january this year and am still learning, best way to to search on the stock sites for a subject that you can easily take a shot of, say buildings, then look at what seems to sell well and give that subject ago.
i checked mine yesterday and i'm now up to $22.97.....in a year!

heres my portfolio if it's any use to help give ideas
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=...


Paul

[Ed_P]

slartibartfast said:

always try and shoot on nothing more than 200ISO but preferably 100ISO to keep away from noise, and use a tripod when you can.

Paul

Yes, good advice. Also remember that most stock images are bought by designers needing to illustrate a product or a concept. Landscapes, unless really high quality, rarely get accepted. Have a look at the best sellers on the sites. Flowers, pets etc, also are difficult to get accepted unless of particularly high quality or a bit "different". This is what a lot of beginners submit because it is easily to hand.

My best selling stuff is invariably the result of deciding what is likley to sell, researching it, planning it, shooting it, then submitting just the best shots.

[Pupp]

Ok, first submissions rejected on grounds of 'impact lacking', so I suppose that's a compositional comment rather than a technical one (at least it's not noise or artifacts)

How consisitent are they likely to be if was just to resubmit the same material in a different order, say (I like the images)?

[Ed_P]

Pupp said:

Ok, first submissions rejected on grounds of 'impact lacking', so I suppose that's a compositional comment rather than a technical one (at least it's not noise or artifacts)

How consisitent are they likely to be if was just to resubmit the same material in a different order, say (I like the images)?

I wouldn't recommend it! They will almost definitely look at your previous submission to see if you've improved. You are obviously capable of producing shots of the appropriate technical standard, so take note of the comment and shoot some new material with more "impact". You're going to have to do that anyway if you want shots that stand out from the other millions and have any chance of selling. There's also a special place on the forum where you can post shots for advice and comments. You could try that with some of your rejected shots or some that you're planning to use for your next submission. You can get really good advice there from the 'pros'.

Good Luck ...

[chrisga]

had all of mine rejected.... back to the drawing board!