MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: DT Subscription Plans Now include TIFF  (Read 3720 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WarrenPrice

« on: September 03, 2013, 13:04 »
0
http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_35047_pg6

Quote from Achilles:
    Yes, all subscriptions provide access to TIFF files.

Sad ...
 :(


« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2013, 14:39 »
0
DT earnings have been really poor recently. I'm coming off exclusive and trying at Shutterstock... I'm guessing earnings of about $5 a month from 180 images is (as i think) incredibly poor.

« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2013, 16:01 »
0
maybe I am missing something but are you uploading TIFF format pictures to DT or any other agency?

« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2013, 16:20 »
0
I just sold a bunch of tiffs on DT as subscriptions in the past week - level 4 and 5 images that would have earned me around $12 or so apiece under normal circumstances. I had my BME on DT last month so don't want to quit there but I'm really annoyed that my full sized tiffs are being licensed for peanuts. I assume they make the tiffs from jpegs, although I have uploaded RAW files there as well with the understanding that they would sell for more. If they are giving away tiffs made from my large RAW files (I shoot with a D700 and a D5100) then I may want to remove the RAW files from the site. So frustrating.

$5 a month with 180 images? That sounds so discouraging - even if you left off a zero that seems awfully low. Hope you were joking!?!

I'm getting a ton of subscription sales now and I guess the volume is making up for the regular high-level sales I used to get, but it is really discouraging that they think they have to give away our images for next to nothing to make any sales.  :(

« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2013, 16:31 »
0
Marianne, I don't think they are converting the RAW files you have sent, BTW why are you sending them? I don't think that many contributors are doing such

I believe they arent converting RAW to TIFF once I have never upload a RAW but I do have on my files the TIFF option for buyers

cuppacoffee

« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2013, 16:38 »
+3
They convert the uploaded jpgs to tiffs and have since the beginning.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2013, 16:43 by cuppacoffee »

« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2013, 16:41 »
0
They convert the uploaded jpgs to tiffs and have since the beginning.

yep, same with 123RF, this ain't the thing that should worry us...

« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2013, 16:54 »
+2
I'm happy to take the extra cash on TIFF credit sales, but I've never quite understood why I should expect more income than my max size revenue if the site converts my JPG to a TIFF...  (I do expect to get more if the site charges more, of course, since the royalty is a %)  Expecting more for a TIFF is kind of like expecting more for a small web sized jpg because the site has to convert my jpg to that format!

I don't see TIFFs via subs as being any worse than getting max sizes through subs...  If we were actually uploading full size TIFFs that would be a completely different story!

WarrenPrice

« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2013, 17:38 »
0
I do not see why it matters how the files got to be TIFF.  The point is that until recently TIFF files were selling for a very nice price.  The same thing that happened previously to upper level files.

It isn't difficult to see the next move.  Buyers will see that instead of buying a maximum sized file for 35 cents ... they can request that DT upgrade the file to TIFF format ... For 35 cents.

As for how they got to be TIFF ... DT upsizes our JPG.  If MY JPG file is good enough to upgrade to TIFF -- I should be getting more money; not less.

Sad that we seem to make things so personal.  It made me wonder what would have been posted in this thread had it been started by someone else ... Lisa, for instance.

 :-\


« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2013, 17:46 »
+2
Sad that we seem to make things so personal.  It made me wonder what would have been posted in this thread had it been started by someone else ... Lisa, for instance.

 :-\

it would make no difference, sorry but I can't see who attacked you in this topic, you shouldn't be so sensitive really

« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2013, 18:15 »
0
As the price of absolutely everything goes up, the price for our images goes down, that's the discouraging reality. I don't care if they're converted from jpegs, once tiff sales made us many times the $0.35-0.42 we now get from the  subs. I had one tiff go for 29 credits in mid August, netting me $12.48, no great sum but $12 sales add up way faster than 35-cent ones do. I see the same thing on Alamy when they would license a photo for $50 to one client and license the same size file to another for $6. And look what Getty did with the google deal - netting people $12 for images they'd licensed for $200-500 in the not too distant past. I wish I could see an alternative, but volume sales seem to be the only solution. There's clearly a market for subs and DT seems to be grabbing more of it than they did in the past. My SS earnings still beat out DT but they were closer than they've been in some time. Let's just hope the people spending $50 or so for the image that nets us $12 don't switch to the subs as well.

« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2013, 19:11 »
+3
They convert the uploaded jpgs to tiffs and have since the beginning.

Exactly. If anything DT 'TIFF' images are simply degraded JPEG's. This is a non-issue.

« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2013, 07:34 »
0
If they are giving away tiffs made from my large RAW files (I shoot with a D700 and a D5100) then I may want to remove the RAW files from the site.

You may want to do that independent of how they create the TIFFs, as they sell the RAW files as subscriptions as well...

lisafx

« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2013, 11:16 »
0
They convert the uploaded jpgs to tiffs and have since the beginning.

Exactly. If anything DT 'TIFF' images are simply degraded JPEG's. This is a non-issue.

Yeah, this is my reaction too.  If I was having to expend energy to upload TIFFs converted from RAW files I might see this as an issue, but since these are just uprezzed jpegs, done automatically by DT, I don't really see the harm.  Nothing personal against you, Warren. 

FWIW, this is not a topic I would have started. 

« Reply #14 on: September 04, 2013, 15:10 »
0
They convert the uploaded jpgs to tiffs and have since the beginning.

Exactly. If anything DT 'TIFF' images are simply degraded JPEG's. This is a non-issue.

Agree.  And when they do sell as credit, I still haven't put in extra effort, and they pay that bit extra.  (Funny never figured myself as that "glass is half full" guy)  :D :D

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2013, 05:28 »
+2
Convert a jpeg in tiff is absurd (except if you want to re-edit and re-save it then).
Enlarge an image more than its original size does not make much sense.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 05:38 by Beppe Grillo »

« Reply #16 on: September 06, 2013, 01:37 »
+3
It always struck me as a way of trying to profit from the ignorance of some buyers, which hardly seemed fair.  I'd rather they found another way of upping the revenues.

« Reply #17 on: September 06, 2013, 02:32 »
0
Disappointing.... i stop uploading the RAW files on DT long time ago... it's not worth it. Now the tiff's to....

« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2013, 14:30 »
0
I just sold a bunch of tiffs on DT as subscriptions in the past week - level 4 and 5 images that would have earned me around $12 or so apiece under normal circumstances. I had my BME on DT last month so don't want to quit there but I'm really annoyed that my full sized tiffs are being licensed for peanuts. I assume they make the tiffs from jpegs, although I have uploaded RAW files there as well with the understanding that they would sell for more. If they are giving away tiffs made from my large RAW files (I shoot with a D700 and a D5100) then I may want to remove the RAW files from the site. So frustrating.

$5 a month with 180 images? That sounds so discouraging - even if you left off a zero that seems awfully low. Hope you were joking!?!

I'm getting a ton of subscription sales now and I guess the volume is making up for the regular high-level sales I used to get, but it is really discouraging that they think they have to give away our images for next to nothing to make any sales.  :(


Nope, i unfortunately wasn't. Here's my portfolio:

http://www.dreamstime.com/portfolio.php?clientun=tridgers&page=&sortcriteria=6

I know alot of these aren't great stock images but surely that figure is taking the piss a little.... Honest opinions please


EmberMike

« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2013, 14:57 »
+1
I'm sure I'll ruffle some feathers with this one, but I think it needs to be said...

I always find it a bit ridiculous when I read these complaints about photographers feeling like they're giving away too much with RAW, TIFF, etc. Meanwhile us vector folks give away the equivalent of a RAW file with every sale.

Even if the TIFFs were generated from a RAW, who cares? It's still just an image and a use license. If you think that's giving the buyer too much, I don't know how you'd stomach selling vectors.

And I'll step down off my soapbox now.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3130 Views
Last post March 22, 2010, 15:57
by Phil
33 Replies
8808 Views
Last post July 01, 2012, 11:29
by Mantis
7 Replies
2232 Views
Last post February 02, 2013, 12:38
by brmonico
1 Replies
1811 Views
Last post February 27, 2013, 11:30
by MisterElements
51 Replies
8082 Views
Last post October 07, 2015, 13:52
by PixelBytes

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results