Author Topic: Dreamstime is going MICRO MICRO MICRO (Read 17111 times)

luissantos84 · « **on:** June 14, 2011, 16:07 »

I am getting quite upset with Dreamstime, they want 100 pics on the same picture.. this ain´t good for stock and even worst for us contributors.. this is just NUTS

my latest work on spices is just incredible, imagine you have a picture from ABOVE and other front view.. they won´t took both.. they want both on the same pic.. this is just NUTS

I don´t know how much I will give to them when they don´t care about nice pictures.. but only nice pictures to sell at 35cents and worst keep on rejecting due to similar when they aren´t and WORST approving crappy pictures from newbiews..

where is Dreamstime going??.. THANKS GOD they are the only one doing this... sorry but I am quite pissed and seem that support doesn´t help, only repeats to do COLLAGE!!!

Slovenian · « **Reply #1 on:** June 14, 2011, 16:49 »

Then do the * collage or just upload on from each subject. Or stop uploading alltogehter. Nothing else will help, that's for sure

luissantos84 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 14, 2011, 16:51 »

Quote from: Slovenian on June 14, 2011, 16:49

Then do the * collage or just upload on from each subject. Or stop uploading alltogehter. Nothing else will help, that's for sure

I am getting quite *removed coarse language* of doing collages just for their desire.. so I believe I will do when I feel the picture will be nicier if not I won´t... their lose for sure

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #3 on:** June 14, 2011, 16:55 »

I recycled some of my old 2 Megapixels pictures from 10 years ago for their collages. Otherwise, I am not going to put on a collage any new picture which is selling elsewhere.

click_click · « **Reply #4 on:** June 14, 2011, 17:07 »

I wrote them off, as much as it hurts as they used to be very, very awesome.

For some unknown reason they came up with this collage thing and I contacted them about it.

Sadly, they don't even bother to personally write you an email anymore. It's just a template that they send out to contributors, trying to explain why they do it this way.

However, we know better since we sell the other images at other agencies that they refuse but they won't listen.

I say it again, it's "just" a matter of implementing a good search algorithm, one that groups images of the same item in something like a lightbox within one's portfolio, displaying a thumbnail of the best seller of the series.

If a buyer is intrigued, they can click on the light box and see different angles etc.

They screw themselves thinking they're doing themselves a favor.

It's upsetting yes, but we're not running that place so let them run it up the wall. Sad that they don't even want to listen to us or appreciate our feedback.

sharpshot · « **Reply #5 on:** June 14, 2011, 17:21 »

I hardly ever upload there now. There's no way I'm doing collages just for them, they would have to sell more and for more money.

I sell a lot less there now than I used to, the increased prices keep my earnings from sinking too far but there's really little incentive with their rejection policy and lack of growth.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #6 on:** June 14, 2011, 18:48 »

It is a very discouraging time in microstock; none of the agencies are offering happy faces.

Rejections at DT and SS; nothing selling at BS and CC; and the really infuriating results (for me) at iStock. I just had three consecutive sales giving me .... 10 cents, 14 cents, and 18 cents.

Makes the DT Level Zero stuff look pretty good.

Mantis · « **Reply #7 on:** June 14, 2011, 19:52 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 14, 2011, 18:48

It is a very discouraging time in microstock; none of the agencies are offering happy faces.
Rejections at Dreamstime and Shutterstock; nothing selling at BS and CC; and the really infuriating results (for me) at iStock. I just had three consecutive sales giving me .... 10 cents, 14 cents, and 18 cents.

Makes the Dreamstime Level Zero stuff look pretty good.

But not if it's a collage. For that you have to divide the sales price by the number of images in that collage to get your true RPI. So an old 20 cent subscription for a four image collage will get you .05 cents (before taxes) $:-\$ per image. Hardly fair. Microstock seems to have a similar relationship as that of a toilet the Coriolis effect.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #8 on:** June 14, 2011, 20:00 »

Dreamstime has the worst strategy right now.
- They approve crappy iamges from Noobs.
- They reject GOOD and professional work just because of one or two different angles.
- Their commission is going DOWN. Sometimes I jsut get a couple of cents for a sale.
- NO WAY to take a Agency like that for serious. W
- I VERY oftenly sell various images of one series (not only on DT), obviously there is a demand. They are screwing their own market.

We should not supply professional work to an Agency which is not driven professionaly!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 14, 2011, 20:18 »

Quote from: velocicarpo on June 14, 2011, 20:00

They are screwing their own market.

exactly, they are going MICRO MICRO MICRO, they are offering buyer these collages and in a few time they will want only that pics.. I love smart guys, they seem to have a lot there

or we have collages or we have ONE picture of the subject

heywoody · « **Reply #10 on:** June 15, 2011, 05:17 »

I find it kind of strange that folks who refer to themselves as “professional” seem to be blaming “crappy images from noobs” for getting rejections from sites instead of looking at their own work. Seriously, any professional in any market place has to know what his customer is looking for and go and meet THAT demand, not the demand he feels that the customer SHOULD have and, make no mistake, in this case DT is the customer and calls the shots whatever any of us think of that. To take the example of spices, there are 22.5 K images there already – every spice known to man in every combination from every angle – why would they wish to clutter up the site with 20 more of the same in a single submission? No buyer going there for such an image is going to go away empty handed. At least they’re giving the option to make a collage to make the submission a little different or to submit 1 or 2 instead of rejecting them all out of hand. The choices appear to be:

•   Do something different;
•   Do collages (if you can be bothered – seems like too much work for too little return to me);
•   Submit where the collection will be accepted.

lagereek · « **Reply #11 on:** June 15, 2011, 05:33 »

Yeah but there are lots of noobs here right now, too many for my liking, why dont they just bugger off to the DPR, forum or something, they never wash and they smell a bit, dont know why, but they do and OH! their images smell as well. Pugh!

heywoody · « **Reply #12 on:** June 15, 2011, 06:59 »

Quote from: lagereek on June 15, 2011, 05:33

Yeah but there are lots of noobs here right now, too many for my liking, why dont they just bugger off to the DPR, forum or something, they never wash and they smell a bit, dont know why, but they do and OH! their images smell as well. Pugh!

Not so. I change my socks as soon as I can lean them against the wall - not one minute longer

Perry · « **Reply #13 on:** June 15, 2011, 07:25 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 15, 2011, 05:17

Seriously, any professional in any market place has to know what his customer is looking for and go and meet THAT demand, not the demand he feels that the customer SHOULD have and, make no mistake, in this case Dreamstime is the customer and calls the shots whatever any of us think of that.

No, Dreamstime is NOT "the customer", they aren't the ones paying for the images. They only have a somewhat warped idea about what the customers want (for example rejecting some perfectly good shots that sell like hotcakes on other sites).

They don't even seem to understand why someone would want to choose between a vertical or horizontal image of the same subject.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #14 on:** June 15, 2011, 09:30 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 15, 2011, 05:17

I find it kind of strange that folks who refer to themselves as “professional” seem to be blaming “crappy images from noobs” for getting rejections from sites instead of looking at their own work. Seriously, any professional in any market place has to know what his customer is looking for and go and meet THAT demand, not the demand he feels that the customer SHOULD have and, make no mistake, in this case Dreamstime is the customer and calls the shots whatever any of us think of that. To take the example of spices, there are 22.5 K images there already – every spice known to man in every combination from every angle – why would they wish to clutter up the site with 20 more of the same in a single submission? No buyer going there for such an image is going to go away empty handed. At least they’re giving the option to make a collage to make the submission a little different or to submit 1 or 2 instead of rejecting them all out of hand. The choices appear to be:

•   Do something different;
•   Do collages (if you can be bothered – seems like too much work for too little return to me);
•   Submit where the collection will be accepted.

With all my respect. I am in the Market since 2004 and a Fulltimer since 2006. It took me alot of time to develop my current level of quality and quantity. If you look at the recently approved images on Dreamstime you see VERY low quality stuff, especially when it comes to 3D. The Problem is more that Dreamstime does not seem to understand their own market quiet well. If you can`t see this I am very sorry for you...

luissantos84 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 15, 2011, 10:03 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 15, 2011, 05:17

I find it kind of strange that folks who refer to themselves as “professional” seem to be blaming “crappy images from noobs” for getting rejections from sites instead of looking at their own work. Seriously, any professional in any market place has to know what his customer is looking for and go and meet THAT demand, not the demand he feels that the customer SHOULD have and, make no mistake, in this case Dreamstime is the customer and calls the shots whatever any of us think of that. To take the example of spices, there are 22.5 K images there already – every spice known to man in every combination from every angle – why would they wish to clutter up the site with 20 more of the same in a single submission? No buyer going there for such an image is going to go away empty handed. At least they’re giving the option to make a collage to make the submission a little different or to submit 1 or 2 instead of rejecting them all out of hand. The choices appear to be:

•   Do something different;
•   Do collages (if you can be bothered – seems like too much work for too little return to me);
•   Submit where the collection will be accepted.

you are SO RIGHT! thanks a lot

Pixart · « **Reply #16 on:** June 15, 2011, 10:13 »

This collages business really rubs me the wrong way. I don't mind the idea, but I do belive they command a greater perceived value. Certainly more than a common sub. They should really be priced specially - somewhat like Vetta.

The biggest concern is that if collages become expected by the customer for rock bottom prices, certain artists will specialize in them, get all the downloads and those us us with professional ethics will evaporate.

heywoody · « **Reply #17 on:** June 15, 2011, 10:24 »

A commercial arrangement / contract exists between the contributor and DT and between DT and the eventual downloader of the image. There is no such relationship between the contributor and the downloader. The customer pays a fee to DT and DT give you a small cut of this i.e. they are paying you. Therefore, in any meaningful sense, DT is your customer (actually the payment arrangement seems more like an employer / employee relationship). Now, as pointed out in another thread, the rejected images may sell like hotcakes elsewhere but, most likely, instead of, rather than in addition to, other images already there, so you feel the loss - but they don’t. I’ve seen nothing to indicate the guys running these sites are stupid so if they won’t accept both landscape & portrait it’s from choice rather than ignorance possibly with reference to the supply already available.
velocicarpo
I’m around long enough to know that “with respect” means the opposite :-D I’ve have absolutely no reason to doubt what you say – if you’re actually making a living doing this you must be pretty good. However, this is a matter of commerce, not photography / 3D/ illustration. Do you actually think ANY commercial organisation actually gives a rat’s ass about quality as long as they are moving product? Have you seen the absolute crap that fills the TV schedules and music charts? Do you really think cheap and cheerful stock photography is any different?
Pixart
You’re dead right – 10, 20 images for the price of 1? Talk about giving people enough rope....

sharpshot · « **Reply #18 on:** June 15, 2011, 11:57 »

^^^DT are just an agency and accepting a landscape version but rejecting a portrait version is stupidity. If reviewers were able to read the minds of buyers, it would be sensible but do you really think the poorly paid reviewers are capable of doing that?

I also think it's stupid to alienate your suppliers and that's exactly what DT have achieved with lots of us. I don't expect them to accept everything I upload but when they reject something because they already have too many but I can't find anything similar doing a simple search, I know it's not worth my time uploading any more.

XPTO · « **Reply #19 on:** June 15, 2011, 13:11 »

I think that the argument of already having a lot of similar images to reject new ones is just bullsh*t.

How can a micro agency reject a 21megapixel image, photographed with professional cameras, with professional lenses and studio lighting, because they have a thousand really awful images of a 3megapixel compact camera that haven't sold for years because they are technically crappy images?

It's beyond me, how new content, with incredibly better quality can be rejected with that logic.

If they deleted the useless, non-selling content, they would not only support the active members, but also improve the collection quality. Again, how can someone reject great professional images because the database is filled with worthless 3mp pictures.

I think there either must be some brain damaged people running some agencies, or they are geniuses and know something no one of us see.

lagereek · « **Reply #20 on:** June 15, 2011, 13:13 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 15, 2011, 06:59

Quote from: lagereek on June 15, 2011, 05:33
Yeah but there are lots of noobs here right now, too many for my liking, why dont they just bugger off to the DPR, forum or something, they never wash and they smell a bit, dont know why, but they do and OH! their images smell as well. Pugh!

Not so. I change my socks as soon as I can lean them against the wall - not one minute longer

Thats a good one!

velocicarpo · « **Reply #21 on:** June 15, 2011, 13:38 »

Quote from: XPTO on June 15, 2011, 13:11

I think that the argument of already having a lot of similar images to reject new ones is just bullsh*t.

How can a micro agency reject a 21megapixel image, photographed with professional cameras, with professional lenses and studio lighting, because they have a thousand really awful images of a 3megapixel compact camera that haven't sold for years because they are technically crappy images?

It's beyond me, how new content, with incredibly better quality can be rejected with that logic.

If they deleted the useless, non-selling content, they would not only support the active members, but also improve the collection quality. Again, how can someone reject great professional images because the database is filled with worthless 3mp pictures.

I think there either must be some brain damaged people running some agencies, or they are geniuses and know something no one of us see.

Exactly. If it was for me, they should:

- Delete every image with 0 downloads after 3 years.
- Delete every image with 1 download after 4 years.
- Delete every image with less than 5 downloads after 5 years.
- ...... with less tha 10 downloads after 6 years.

I is NOT about if the image still ahs a chance to get downlaoded. Every image always has a chance. It is more about rewarding active contributors and keep the database fresh...

Perry · « **Reply #22 on:** June 15, 2011, 15:26 »

Quote from: velocicarpo on June 15, 2011, 13:38

- Delete every image with 0 downloads after 3 years.
- Delete every image with 1 download after 4 years.
- Delete every image with less than 5 downloads after 5 years.
- ...... with less tha 10 downloads after 6 years.

Those figures seems about right. Maybe I would remove the last row (10dl/6 yrs.), but otherwise your system does sound reasonable.

pancaketom · « **Reply #23 on:** June 15, 2011, 15:38 »

The idea of collages does rub me the wrong way too. Maybe they'd prefer cubist photos with all angles covered.

Unless server space is too expensive for them though, they ought to just put something in the algorythm that pushes old low sellers back. It is a little annoying when they reject something for too similar and you can't find anything similar when you search.

Still, it is their sandbox so they get to set the rules (and we get to complain about them here).

Tempusfugit · « **Reply #24 on:** June 17, 2011, 13:58 »

velocicarpo · « **Reply #25 on:** June 17, 2011, 19:14 »

Quote from: Tempusfugit on June 17, 2011, 13:58

They ARE deleting non selling images from 4 years go.

Shutterstock should do this, they have old stuff from 2004 and 2005 clogging their site and they reject files for "too many on the site"

the similars rejection is a bit annoying, if, for example, you have old files of a determinated subject and try to upload a new pic of the same subject they reject for too many

lol, yes, thats no secret...my proposal was deleting files sooner and more radical ;-)

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #26 on:** June 18, 2011, 07:54 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 15, 2011, 10:24

A commercial arrangement / contract exists between the contributor and Dreamstime and between Dreamstime and the eventual downloader of the image. There is no such relationship between the contributor and the downloader. The customer pays a fee to Dreamstime and Dreamstime give you a small cut of this i.e. they are paying you. Therefore, in any meaningful sense, Dreamstime is your customer (actually the payment arrangement seems more like an employer / employee relationship). Now, as pointed out in another thread, the rejected images may sell like hotcakes elsewhere but, most likely, instead of, rather than in addition to, other images already there, so you feel the loss - but they don’t. I’ve seen nothing to indicate the guys running these sites are stupid so if they won’t accept both landscape & portrait it’s from choice rather than ignorance possibly with reference to the supply already available.
velocicarpo
I’m around long enough to know that “with respect” means the opposite :-D I’ve have absolutely no reason to doubt what you say – if you’re actually making a living doing this you must be pretty good. However, this is a matter of commerce, not photography / 3D/ illustration. Do you actually think ANY commercial organisation actually gives a rat’s ass about quality as long as they are moving product? Have you seen the absolute crap that fills the TV schedules and music charts? Do you really think cheap and cheerful stock photography is any different?
Pixart
You’re dead right – 10, 20 images for the price of 1? Talk about giving people enough rope....

Wow. OK, newsflash, stock agencies are NOT our employers they're middlemen. Photographers are the suppliers, buyers are the customers and the agency is the retail store that sells our product to the customers. We DO NOT work for them and they are NOT our customer. It's more like a symbiotic relationship: without product to sell they would have to shut down and while we can sell our product direct, it's far far easier simply to use an already established venue like dreamstime to do all the grunt work of running a retail business for a cut of the profit. They take the lion's share which is another issue altogether but that's how it works.

They decide what product they represent (accepting or rejecting images) but to do that they use low paid editors that don't have a clue what to look for so instead they follow strict guidelines which leave little room to think or use judgement. i.e. this images looks alot like that image so it's too similar according to the rules, reject it.

Even if the argument for similars had any weight, buyers are ALWAYS looking for fresh material on particular subjects so keeping the same image in the catalog for years seems less productive than presenting fresh shots.

Having said that, I have a collage in my port that is a collection of images that, on their own, have little strength but together are very strong and fill a niche occupied by only one other image as competition. Makes for excellent sales. So collages do have their place.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #27 on:** June 18, 2011, 08:26 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 15, 2011, 10:24

A commercial arrangement / contract exists between the contributor and Dreamstime and between Dreamstime and the eventual downloader of the image. There is no such relationship between the contributor and the downloader. The customer pays a fee to Dreamstime and Dreamstime give you a small cut of this i.e. they are paying you. Therefore, in any meaningful sense, Dreamstime is your customer (actually the payment arrangement seems more like an employer / employee relationship). Now, as pointed out in another thread, the rejected images may sell like hotcakes elsewhere but, most likely, instead of, rather than in addition to, other images already there, so you feel the loss - but they don’t. I’ve seen nothing to indicate the guys running these sites are stupid so if they won’t accept both landscape & portrait it’s from choice rather than ignorance possibly with reference to the supply already available.
velocicarpo
I’m around long enough to know that “with respect” means the opposite :-D I’ve have absolutely no reason to doubt what you say – if you’re actually making a living doing this you must be pretty good. However, this is a matter of commerce, not photography / 3D/ illustration. Do you actually think ANY commercial organisation actually gives a rat’s ass about quality as long as they are moving product? Have you seen the absolute crap that fills the TV schedules and music charts? Do you really think cheap and cheerful stock photography is any different?
Pixart
You’re dead right – 10, 20 images for the price of 1? Talk about giving people enough rope....

I see your point, but you may miss that off course I think about commercial value of Images when talking about quality. There is absolute no point for dreamstime to approve a copyofycopyofacopy in a low quality (commercially spoken) version of what exists already thousand times.
The weak point of them is missing Inspector education. Not duplicates.

lthn · « **Reply #28 on:** June 18, 2011, 08:28 »

Quote from: digitalexpressionimages on June 18, 2011, 07:54

... It's more like a symbiotic relationship:...

How come they make all the rules than?

lthn · « **Reply #29 on:** June 18, 2011, 08:33 »

Quote from: velocicarpo on June 18, 2011, 08:26

.... There is absolute no point for dreamstime to approve a copyofycopyofacopy in a low quality (commercially spoken) version of what exists already thousand times.
The weak point of them is missing Inspector education. Not duplicates.

That makes no sense whatsoever, because repetitivness comes from their restrictive inspection: they only accept a few themes, in few lighting schemes. (micros in general) Quality of the shot has little connection to sales, some of the bestsellers are utter junk ugly crap as images, so... This is just stupid.

heywoody · « **Reply #30 on:** June 18, 2011, 10:16 »

Quote from: digitalexpressionimages on June 18, 2011, 07:54

... Photographers are the suppliers, buyers are the customers and the agency is the retail store that sells our product to the customers....

That’s pretty much QED as far as I’m concerned.

If I buy a bar of soap (even smelly noobs occasionally buy soap) from a shop, as far as I’m concerned, and legally, I’m a customer of the shop not the manufacturer of the soap. Of course there is inconsistency and good and bad reviewers - every organisation has good and bad staff. I’d bet my last cigarette though that the kind of policy we’re talking about comes from on high and the reviewers are working to pretty strict guidelines. On the collages front, what has competition of dozens or even hundreds now will shortly have competition of thousands $:-\$ . I hope at least the folks doing these keep the dimensions to whatever they would normally do for a single image.

velocicarpo, I think that this is as simple as putting a valve mechanism in place. It’s probably easier and cheaper to control the flow at the review stage than to do something about the stuff already on site. I can’t really see why a cull like you suggest wouldn’t work unless the kind of subject matter being rejected is actually selling pretty well already and may not be affected by such a cull – who knows?

Ithn, IS aside, the other sites seem pretty flexible about stuff that’s slightly different – in fact probably easier than submitting more standard stock. Upside is high acceptance and low competition for sales. Downside is a much smaller potential market.

Eireann · « **Reply #31 on:** June 18, 2011, 19:22 »

Hi Louis,
no, you shouldn't be doing any collages, (unless the images call for such a composition), and you're absolutely right to be annoyed.
I'm not sure where this 'make collages' story comes from (a request from a confused buyer perhaps), but it's not right and you shouldn't be doing it.
I'm not a designer (I work for a small print house) and although we have thousands of images on our hard drives, there's barely a collage or two (Yuri's I believe). I like to have full control over the way I position my images, and more often than not collages don't fit the bill.
We don't really buy them

Don't do it

I like Dreamstime a lot and I can only hope they'll change their minds about this 'make collages' affair soon enough

That's before they upset most of you.

Mantis · « **Reply #32 on:** June 18, 2011, 19:35 »

Quote from: Eireann on June 18, 2011, 19:22

Hi Louis,
no, you shouldn't be doing any collages, (unless the images call for such a composition), and you're absolutely right to be annoyed.
I'm not sure where this 'make collages' story comes from (a request from a confused buyer perhaps), but it's not right and you shouldn't be doing it.
I'm not a designer (I work for a small print house) and although we have thousands of images on our hard drives, there's barely a collage or two (Yuri's I believe). I like to have full control over the way I position my images, and more often than not collages don't fit the bill.
We don't really buy them
Don't do it

I like Dreamstime a lot and I can only hope they'll change their minds about this 'make collages' affair soon enough
That's before they upset most of you.

They're not going to do sh_t because Serban is inflexible. That collage thing is a disgraceful suggestion to the contributors.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #33 on:** June 18, 2011, 20:47 »

Quote from: Eireann on June 18, 2011, 19:22

I like Dreamstime a lot and I can only hope they'll change their minds about this 'make collages' affair soon enough
That's before they upset most of you.

I do them when I have in mind while shooting, if not I won´t thats for sure, sometimes I do it to get pictures online, rarely but it is going to screw our business and stock.. nothing we can do or we are out of sales

thanks for all comments guys, appreciate your feedback

sharpshot · « **Reply #34 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:37 »

At least the old stuff that sells gets higher prices over time, so my not uploading hasn't hit my earnings too badly. It gives me time to upload new stuff to sites that are more contributor friendly. I have absolutely no interest in doing collages for one site. The others would soon insist on them if it worked for DT and we really would be in an even worse situation.

Mantis · « **Reply #35 on:** June 19, 2011, 08:40 »

Quote from: sharpshot on June 19, 2011, 02:37

I have absolutely no interest in doing collages for one site. The others would soon insist on them if it worked for Dreamstime and we really would be in an even worse situation.

That is a very good point. I think there's been enough instances over the past year or so where we've seen one site copy the ideas of another. I will say this again, putting four good quality images into a collage and getting a .35 cent download effectively means you get 1/4th of the earnings (.0875 cents to be exact). I mean, come on....pretty soon we'll be making a penny a DL. FTS.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Dreamstime is going MICRO MICRO MICRO (Read 17111 times)

Slovenian

microstockphoto.co.uk

WarrenPrice

velocicarpo

lagereek

velocicarpo

XPTO

lagereek

velocicarpo

Tempusfugit

velocicarpo

digitalexpressionimages

velocicarpo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors