But If I look at istock and search stone or stone-textures I get much more artistic resultshttp://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7042359-pebbles-in-water-ii.php?st=67ef12e http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18309361-background-texture-blank-slate.php?st=1a551cc http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6570024-smooth-sand-stone-beach-at-water-s-edge.php?st=1a551cc which often have nice shading. So I think something shouldn’t be attributed with being worth $3 just for the sake of having a default price of $3, if it’s only marketable to sell for $1 then it should be sold for $1 or rejected, quality and artistic-ness should be involved more in graphic river’s pricing. I mean I like this site, this site looks cool and has a nice modern feel to it, it should have more high quality or artistic graphics like other successful royalty-free graphic sites.
- Sold between 5 000 and 10 000 dollars
- Has been a member for 4-5 years
- United Kingdom
- Repeatedly Helped protect Envato Marketplaces against copyright violations
- Referred between 10 and 49 users
- Bought between 1 and 9 items
- Exclusive Author
- Author had a Free File of the Month
- Envato Studio (Microlancer) Beta Tester
In my opinion, here on graphicriver, when you buy an item, paying $3, you get much more than on istock. Compare the size and resolution.
you can also pay $1 for a photo (xs size) but go to photodune
You can change the size on istock as well, but just overall it seems like istock’s and shutterstock’s quality is better than this site for basic designs and textures. I mean a graphic designer can go take a picture of cement but it will cost the company a little time, which is why there’s sites like this, but even considering that I wouldn’t be happy to pay $3 for the first stone textures that came up in my search.
Go to photodune and search stone, you get much better results and istock charges way way way to much for a basic photo. I mean some of them ar $15 and up which is just way to much. Photodune is a great place to find photos at a great price.
they are many categories you can make a own marketplace out… like they should make texturedesert or something, where they can take more care about details like that.
Yeah I guess photodune is better, but there’s gotta be some reason why every pictures has 0 sales when I search “stone” meanwhile overcharged $15 photos have more sales.
In my opinion… sometimes there are people who prefer to buy different pictures from a not so popular place (although those pictures are not so professional if compared to popular microstock’s pictures).
Too many pictures from big microstock sites. They are so common, popular and many people use them.
While most people love to listen Rihanna, Taylor Swift, and Katty Perry, there some people who prefer to enjoy listening Lenka, Camera Obscura, She & Him, and so on.
(Anyway don’t you think that linking to other similar marketplace in Envato forum is forbidden? I think your thread will be deleted soon. .)
PhotoDune has only launched since end-2011 while iStock had been in the industry from 2000. I don’t want to compare between the quality or the sales of the two sites because I think a large number of stock photographers haven’t know about PD yet. Also, a large number of traditional photography stock buyer haven’t known about PD. We need more time to grow up in the industry and meanwhile, you guys buyer have a lot more options so just choose what suits you most
Ok well I guess if it’s that new then that would account for a bit. Btw, why wouldn’t graphic river and photodune combine? Why can’t I just have a single site and use a search filter for “vectors’ or something if I want vectors over photos?
.. Btw, why wouldn’t graphic river and photodune combine? Why can’t I just have a single site and use a search filter for “vectors’ or something if I want vectors over photos?
Funny you asked this, since many exclusive graphicriver authors actually want vectors to be separated from graphicriver instead. so unique and high quality items can gain more exposure.