Well I gave Photoshelter a try, and of course was not expecting anything, but it was a good introduction to stock photos...however, Photoshelter has tossed in the towel: they are closing their Stock Photo site, going back to simply storing and hosting photos.
Me too! I am sick about it. The PSC forum is crazy with everyone trying to fingure out where to go and how to keep in touch. Arrrgh!!!! Back to square one.
Maybe these MicroStock sites that are giving it away are just making it too difficult to sell anything at a reasonable price?
Unsure if its true or not but they are certainly the scape-goat. By the way, what defines a "resonable price" changes based on whether you are the buyer or the seller...
Unsure if its true or not but they are certainly the scape-goat. By the way, what defines a "resonable price" changes based on whether you are the buyer or the seller...
Never looked at it that way...so true.
I guess I was referring to agency's like iStock that that sell images for very little, Great bargains for the buyer like you say.
But it begs the question...why would you sell a photo for $1
Great point Bill
Also depends on as a stock seller if you are making money, even if it's at a buck a pop.
I've made a few hundred dollars at iStock, just since the first time photoshelter was mentioned in this thread as the place to be.
montec,
I have multiple images at iStock that have earned me over $100 apiece, one over $500 and plenty that have surpassed the $50 mark.
I realize that you can earn money but I guess I question why you would give away the usage rights to a photo for so little? I can see selling a photo to an individual for $50.00 for their personal use but when you are talking about a company buying your photo and using it in an brochure or other advertising media you should be getting much more for your time and expertise.
You can purchase photos for use on websites for as little as $1. These could have potentially millions of views and you do not get fairly compensated in my opinion.
So you have sold several copies of one image to be used in a multitude of methods to generate revenue for the buyers and you got $50? Does this make sense?
I don't mean this as an attack towards you Bettle8...I hope it doesn't come off that way. Only my opinion on the Microstock situation.
While logically I can understand your argument,
The fact is there is a market for microstock, and I am making money at it, with very little effort. If I decided my work was worth more than a buck a pop than someone else would have all the money I have made at istock and I'd be wandering around scratching my head.
Again while I understand your argument, a friend of mine deactivated his images with istock to put them on photoshelter, with a similar reasoning, that one sale "could" get him more than he would make on a year of sales at istock. Now here we are however many months later and he's putting his images back on istock.
During the winter I also make thousands of dollars selling 4x6 prints of youth sports through SmugMug, I have heard people tell me that a 4x6 is not a professional size print and shouldn't be sold at at any price. While they are starting 5x7's at $14 and going out of business due to (I'm assuming) lack of sales, I lost a gig to one of these last year, come to find out they didn't even show up for the gig, and told the coordinator that they don't make enough money to make it worth their while. If I told you I knew they were sitting at home on their ideals, well I'd be lying, but that's what they are doing in my opinion.
I'm giving Alamy a try. The only problem with them is they have very high standars for photo size submission. They want a minimum of 48MB UNcompressed. TIFF not JPEG. I have to figure out how to increase the size of my photos. I have a Sony A300 10 MP camera and the largest uncompressed size is 28.8mb. FYI, Alamy offers 65% of the sales.
I'm giving Alamy a try. The only problem with them is they have very high standars for photo size submission. They want a minimum of 48MB UNcompressed. TIFF not JPEG. I have to figure out how to increase the size of my photos. I have a Sony A300 10 MP camera and the largest uncompressed size is 28.8mb. FYI, Alamy offers 65% of the sales.
Try changing the file to 16 bit mode instead of 8 bit and you will easily obtain the 48MB threshold.
I use Photoshop Elements 6 and there is no opition to choose a 16 bit only 8. I'm hoping either I'm looking in the wrong place or there is away around this or the new version PSE 7 coming out in October offers the 16 bit.
I use Photoshop Elements 6 and there is no opition to choose a 16 bit only 8. I'm hoping either I'm looking in the wrong place or there is away around this or the new version PSE 7 coming out in October offers the 16 bit.
In Elements, upsize it to have more pixels. I don't know the Elements menu structure, but in Photoshop it's Image/Image Size and you can then enter a new longer pixel dimension for the long side.
I use Photoshop Elements 6 and there is no opition to choose a 16 bit only 8. I'm hoping either I'm looking in the wrong place or there is away around this or the new version PSE 7 coming out in October offers the 16 bit.
You might find yourself in need of a more professional editing program, if you are doing such stock upsizing and such.
In Elements, upsize it to have more pixels. I don't know the Elements menu structure, but in Photoshop it's Image/Image Size and you can then enter a new longer pixel dimension for the long side.
You do not want to do this as image quality will suffer when resampling.
You do not want to do this as image quality will suffer when resampling.
Agreed on principal, but the upsampling algorithms these days do seem pretty good. I would suggest, however, if trying to submit photos to a high class stock agency as this that one spend the money on Photoshop CS3, which will likely upsample with a higher quality than Elements will. I'd also like to suggest that their minimum file size requirement seems a bit arbitrary in the first place. :shrug
Yes, but she's trying to meet a submission requirement and her tool is Elements. If you have a better way, please propose it.
You should not be upsampling your images for submission to a stock agency at all.
The point of using a service like Alamy is that they offer only the highest quality images with a minimum file size requirement that allows graphic artists that purchase the files to work with them in their pure form. An image that has been upsampled already and then may need to be upsampled yet again by the purchaser is not going to have the quality they expect. Also, Alamy is more than likely to reject any photo that has been upsampled this much.
It is very simple to achieve their file size requirements with 16 bit tiff images. As suggested in a previous post perhaps the OP should invest in a professional imaging program if they intend to do this on a regular basis. I am not certain but there must be inexpensive programs out there that will do this besides CS3. I know LightRoom will do it and is half the price.
An upsampled image most likely will not get accepted anyway.
Simply changing from a jpeg to a tiff will not increase your pixel dimension, or image quality, You would need to go to tiff directly from raw. Changing to tiff will increase your file size but if you've come from a jpeg what's the benefit?
seems odd that they would use MB file size as a requirement. This is very subjective, 2 of the same pixel sized image can easily have very different file sizes.
Cate if your not shooting raw then that should be where you start your effort for bigger files. You can create (I think) 16bit Tiff with sony's image data converter that came with your camera. The problem being that you won't be able to do anything other than basic editing in IDC and if you try to go to pse6 it
ll tell you that you have to convert to 8bit.
Lightroom is a great tool with (imo) way more power and benefit than pse, Cate if I were you I would save my money and instead of upgrading to pse7 get lightroom2
You can take your raw workflow right from your a300, Skip Sony's IDC, tons of top of the line editing that just makes IDC useless. I have 2 a700's and an a350, I can't tell tou the last time I opened IDC.
Simply changing from a jpeg to a tiff will not increase your pixel dimension, or image quality, You would need to go to tiff directly from raw. Changing to tiff will increase your file size but if you've come from a jpeg what's the benefit?
I agree with you 100%...I never suggested converting files from jpg to tiff. Same as converting sRGB to RGB...makes no sense.
Thanks for all of your good advice. I asked another photographer who was with Photoshelter and has been with Alamy for some years and he has written this littl guide.
Hi Cate, I just put two and two together and recognized you from PSC.
Darrell's tutorial is pretty straightforward, but if you have any problems feel free to pm me and I can help walk you through it if needed (by phone or im, even). Even though I use CS3 I have a copy of Elements on my computer too.
Hi Cate, I just put two and two together and recognized you from PSC.
Darrell's tutorial is pretty straightforward, but if you have any problems feel free to pm me and I can help walk you through it if needed (by phone or im, even). Even though I use CS3 I have a copy of Elements on my computer too.
I can't find the actual writeup, but I recall reading that someone did a side by side comparison and noted that GF is based upon an older algorithm. The result was that CS3 now actually does a tiny bit better than GF, but if you're using an older version of PS, GF is better. People have used CS3 to successfully uprez 6 mp files to Alamy standards Many people have also noted that the old advice to uprez in increments or steps is no longer correct, either.
Thanks much. Are you on Darrell's new forum yet? The "gang" PSC has taken "shelter" over there.
Hi Cate, I'm there, I'm just haven't posted yet. There are also a lot of folks on the flickr forum (about 125 or so). And I joined Kendall's forum because I learned so much from him and I thought a lot of the "old timers" would migrate there, but there's only 8 including myself so I'm not sure if Kendall will be able to keep it going.
I can't find the actual writeup, but I recall reading that someone did a side by side comparison and noted that GF is based upon an older algorithm. The result was that CS3 now actually does a tiny bit better than GF, but if you're using an older version of PS, GF is better. People have used CS3 to successfully uprez 6 mp files to Alamy standards Many people have also noted that the old advice to uprez in increments or steps is no longer correct, either.
I use CS3 and uprez in 1 step.
OK thanks
Is it best to use bicubic smoother/sharper or what? ( I KNow what photshop recommends but is that the only correct options?
So back to SmugMug....I didn't read through this whole thread so I don't know the latest on the stock plan for SmugMug. Where's that stand now?
Here's where I stand:
Posting this thread was eye-opening, to say the least. The feature requests for rights management & other things made us say, "Hmmm.... There's a lot more to this than meets the eye."
Watching Adobe, Photoshelter and the others back out after awhile was eye-opening too.
Listening to a guy from Flickr talk about how hard the Getty relationship has been was humbling.
And realizing that we we had lots of work to do yet to make our existing offering better kept us off the case.
But it seems to me that at least I was missing the obvious: giving our search interface a simple makeover so it's easy to find your images for sale, whether printed or digital, is the juiciest of low-hanging fruit.
We have millions upon millions using our search function to look for images and many are looking to buy. Why make it hard?
Comments
Yep, got my "unfortunate" letter too
www.photobycate.com
http://photobycate.wordpress.com/
Maybe these MicroStock sites that are giving it away are just making it too difficult to sell anything at a reasonable price?
Monte
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Never looked at it that way...so true.
I guess I was referring to agency's like iStock that that sell images for very little, Great bargains for the buyer like you say.
But it begs the question...why would you sell a photo for $1
Monte
Also depends on as a stock seller if you are making money, even if it's at a buck a pop.
I've made a few hundred dollars at iStock, just since the first time photoshelter was mentioned in this thread as the place to be.
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
I have multiple images at iStock that have earned me over $100 apiece, one over $500 and plenty that have surpassed the $50 mark.
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
I realize that you can earn money but I guess I question why you would give away the usage rights to a photo for so little? I can see selling a photo to an individual for $50.00 for their personal use but when you are talking about a company buying your photo and using it in an brochure or other advertising media you should be getting much more for your time and expertise.
You can purchase photos for use on websites for as little as $1. These could have potentially millions of views and you do not get fairly compensated in my opinion.
So you have sold several copies of one image to be used in a multitude of methods to generate revenue for the buyers and you got $50? Does this make sense?
I don't mean this as an attack towards you Bettle8...I hope it doesn't come off that way. Only my opinion on the Microstock situation.
Cheers
Monte
The fact is there is a market for microstock, and I am making money at it, with very little effort. If I decided my work was worth more than a buck a pop than someone else would have all the money I have made at istock and I'd be wandering around scratching my head.
Again while I understand your argument, a friend of mine deactivated his images with istock to put them on photoshelter, with a similar reasoning, that one sale "could" get him more than he would make on a year of sales at istock. Now here we are however many months later and he's putting his images back on istock.
During the winter I also make thousands of dollars selling 4x6 prints of youth sports through SmugMug, I have heard people tell me that a 4x6 is not a professional size print and shouldn't be sold at at any price. While they are starting 5x7's at $14 and going out of business due to (I'm assuming) lack of sales, I lost a gig to one of these last year, come to find out they didn't even show up for the gig, and told the coordinator that they don't make enough money to make it worth their while. If I told you I knew they were sitting at home on their ideals, well I'd be lying, but that's what they are doing in my opinion.
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
www.photobycate.com
http://photobycate.wordpress.com/
Try changing the file to 16 bit mode instead of 8 bit and you will easily obtain the 48MB threshold.
Monte
I use Photoshop Elements 6 and there is no opition to choose a 16 bit only 8. I'm hoping either I'm looking in the wrong place or there is away around this or the new version PSE 7 coming out in October offers the 16 bit.
www.photobycate.com
http://photobycate.wordpress.com/
In Elements, upsize it to have more pixels. I don't know the Elements menu structure, but in Photoshop it's Image/Image Size and you can then enter a new longer pixel dimension for the long side.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
You do not want to do this as image quality will suffer when resampling.
Monte
Yes, but she's trying to meet a submission requirement and her tool is Elements. If you have a better way, please propose it.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
You should not be upsampling your images for submission to a stock agency at all.
The point of using a service like Alamy is that they offer only the highest quality images with a minimum file size requirement that allows graphic artists that purchase the files to work with them in their pure form. An image that has been upsampled already and then may need to be upsampled yet again by the purchaser is not going to have the quality they expect. Also, Alamy is more than likely to reject any photo that has been upsampled this much.
It is very simple to achieve their file size requirements with 16 bit tiff images. As suggested in a previous post perhaps the OP should invest in a professional imaging program if they intend to do this on a regular basis. I am not certain but there must be inexpensive programs out there that will do this besides CS3. I know LightRoom will do it and is half the price.
Cheers,
Monte
Simply changing from a jpeg to a tiff will not increase your pixel dimension, or image quality, You would need to go to tiff directly from raw. Changing to tiff will increase your file size but if you've come from a jpeg what's the benefit?
seems odd that they would use MB file size as a requirement. This is very subjective, 2 of the same pixel sized image can easily have very different file sizes.
Cate if your not shooting raw then that should be where you start your effort for bigger files. You can create (I think) 16bit Tiff with sony's image data converter that came with your camera. The problem being that you won't be able to do anything other than basic editing in IDC and if you try to go to pse6 it
ll tell you that you have to convert to 8bit.
Lightroom is a great tool with (imo) way more power and benefit than pse, Cate if I were you I would save my money and instead of upgrading to pse7 get lightroom2
You can take your raw workflow right from your a300, Skip Sony's IDC, tons of top of the line editing that just makes IDC useless. I have 2 a700's and an a350, I can't tell tou the last time I opened IDC.
anyway good luck
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
I agree with you 100%...I never suggested converting files from jpg to tiff. Same as converting sRGB to RGB...makes no sense.
Monte
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
Thanks for all of your good advice. I asked another photographer who was with Photoshelter and has been with Alamy for some years and he has written this littl guide.
http://www.youngimaging.com/Article-HowDoISizeAnImageSoAlamyWillAcceptIt.asp
Regards,
Cate
www.photobycate.com
http://photobycate.wordpress.com/
Darrell's tutorial is pretty straightforward, but if you have any problems feel free to pm me and I can help walk you through it if needed (by phone or im, even). Even though I use CS3 I have a copy of Elements on my computer too.
Lori
My Photos
My Blog
On Google+
On DrivingLine
talking of which: are folks' preferences for 'photoshop' or 'genuine fractals' for upsizing?
...pics..
Thanks much. Are you on Darrell's new forum yet? The "gang" PSC has taken "shelter" over there.
www.photobycate.com
http://photobycate.wordpress.com/
www.photobycate.com
http://photobycate.wordpress.com/
I use CS3 and uprez in 1 step.
My Photos
My Blog
On Google+
On DrivingLine
Hi Cate, I'm there, I'm just haven't posted yet. There are also a lot of folks on the flickr forum (about 125 or so). And I joined Kendall's forum because I learned so much from him and I thought a lot of the "old timers" would migrate there, but there's only 8 including myself so I'm not sure if Kendall will be able to keep it going.
My Photos
My Blog
On Google+
On DrivingLine
OK thanks
Is it best to use bicubic smoother/sharper or what? ( I KNow what photshop recommends but is that the only correct options?
...pics..
- Posting this thread was eye-opening, to say the least. The feature requests for rights management & other things made us say, "Hmmm.... There's a lot more to this than meets the eye."
- Watching Adobe, Photoshelter and the others back out after awhile was eye-opening too.
- Listening to a guy from Flickr talk about how hard the Getty relationship has been was humbling.
- And realizing that we we had lots of work to do yet to make our existing offering better kept us off the case.
But it seems to me that at least I was missing the obvious: giving our search interface a simple makeover so it's easy to find your images for sale, whether printed or digital, is the juiciest of low-hanging fruit.We have millions upon millions using our search function to look for images and many are looking to buy. Why make it hard?