Here's a first (for me) from DT.  A motorcycle camshaft gear on white background was rejected -- along with several other motorcycle parts images -- because it was:

++This image is a little simplistic as a single image, please submit a more complex version, or submit a series of such works related by a concept, as one image.

So much for KISS.   

PS: similar images are my best sellers at iS and SS and .... AT DREAMSTIME!!!   

DT and the collages.. or you have one online or three but in a collage.. jeez, not easy and we keep on selling us cheap, what the heck can we do??

Collages suck. I've done one set for Alamy with a dozen things on it but they go to the micros as single objects. Why should I put in the work it takes to create a dozen images and then spend time pasting them together just to get 24c for a subscription? That values photos at less than 2c.

I can see Dreamstime's idea, that it is a nice attraction to bring in buyers, but it is a rotten idea for artists.

I really cannot understand the "collage" thing at DT. If I wanted the OP's high resolution image of the camshaft, should I really download some collage where the camshaft is small? Or should the OP make collages that are for example 25,000 * 25,000 pixels so he would not need to downsize the image? And then I would need to download the full size file just so I can get the d*mn camshaft in full size? Thinking about this makes my brain hurt...

Did Jackie Chan sign a model release for that? 

My experience with collages is positive. About a third of my sales are collages, and I saw it as a marketing tool a long time ago.
Just another way to set you apart from others.

But you don't know if you would have sold twice as many images with less effort by not doing collages.

DT may calculate that it is a good idea for them because it brings in buyers who take a lot more than just some collages, so the loss to them from reduced sales as a result of the collages is compensated for by the increase across the whole site.

I do realise, thought, that the pricing levels reward a file that gets a large number of sales, which could offset the disadvantage somewhat

It was difficult for me to accept the fact that simple vector is bad vector in Microstock twisted logic (although my experience is - simpler vector - better sales). As for photography I don't understand it at all. Is it forbidden to upload images of unicolor objects on white background? Or spherical unicolor objects on white background? Anything on white background that is not zen stone?

I believe that collages sell well. But selling ten images for the price of one - it is such a great deal as uploading to PhotoSpin. Maybe it makes sense with old images with no or few downloads. But I wouldn't make collages of new images if they are accepted on other sites as single images.

I can see bright future of microstock clearly - no, we are not going to cut commissions anymore but now we accept only collages of minimum twenty images.

Collages suck. I've done one set for Alamy with a dozen things on it but they go to the micros as single objects. Why should I put in the work it takes to create a dozen images and then spend time pasting them together just to get 24c for a subscription? That values photos at less than 2c.

I can see Dreamstime's idea, that it is a nice attraction to bring in buyers, but it is a rotten idea for artists.

Surely collages are just taking microstock's business model ... one little step further. The individual images are usually hugely downsized, too small to be used on their own. Collages certainly seem to be popular with subscribers on SS and, if they wanted to, they could probably just download the full-size images from the same author within their download limit. Therefore they seem to be buying the additional composition work and probably use the collage directly within a design. A good composite of similarly themed images has lots of potential uses.

Quote from: rimglow on October 26, 2011, 15:36

I think some of you are getting carried away by using the "ten images" template for a collage. It can be as simple as two images.
As far as clients not wanting to spend $40 for a hi-res image, you've got to be kidding. Most of these clients are high dollar ad agencies.

Yes, but if you don't get even a full resolution image with the $40, they might choose the "non-collage" image at $10.

Perhaps I need to explain my point once more.
Two photographers, Photographer A and Photographer B shoot an object with similar 24 mpix camera with 6000*4000 pixels resolution.
Photographer A resizes the image smaller to 1500*1000 pixels and put it in a collage with 11 other files. Photographer B submits the image as a separate image at 6000*4000 pixels.
Customer needs an image to fill out a whole spread in a magazine. Which image is he going to buy?

The point is, Rimglow, is that the image was rejected for being simple.  It it is too simple, why would I want to include it in a collage?

Quote from: Perry on October 26, 2011, 15:52

Quote from: rimglow on October 26, 2011, 15:36

I think some of you are getting carried away by using the "ten images" template for a collage. It can be as simple as two images.
As far as clients not wanting to spend $40 for a hi-res image, you've got to be kidding. Most of these clients are high dollar ad agencies.

Yes, but if you don't get even a full resolution image with the $40, they might choose the "non-collage" image at $10.

Perhaps I need to explain my point once more.
Two photographers, Photographer A and Photographer B shoot an object with similar 24 mpix camera with 6000*4000 pixels resolution.
Photographer A resizes the image smaller to 1500*1000 pixels and put it in a collage with 11 other files. Photographer B submits the image as a separate image at 6000*4000 pixels.
Customer needs an image to fill out a whole spread in a magazine. Which image is he going to buy?

The point is, Rimglow, is that the image was rejected for being simple.  It it is too simple, why would I want to include it in a collage?

I understand your point. The reason for the rejection is ridiculous. I have an isolated toothpick that was accepted by Dreamstime and has sold. Can't get much simpler than that. But if you create a collage with 2 camshafts then you would probably get a different reviewer and get accepted. Sometimes you just have to play the game.

I think the important point is that the reviewer probably had no clue what a camshaft gear was, or why anyone would want a photo of it.   So here's a crazy thought - why couldn't they just TRUST THE PHOTOGRAPHER, and assume maybe he knew something about the subject of the photo?