I'd submitted an image that was 7500 x 7500 and represented a lot of work.  DT just sold it at 'maximum' size via subscription and paid me 35 cents.

I think 'free' can't be far behind, and we can finally all just give up and go home.  It will be a relief.

And I thought of starting a thread this morning about how happy I was to get $5.29 for a Level 5 XS small sale.

Those subscription sales at DT annoy me as well.

I never submit anything over 5000px unless it's panoramic.

Quote from: pseudonymous on May 04, 2011, 11:34

Quote from: stockastic on May 04, 2011, 11:28

I'd submitted an image that was 7500 x 7500 and represented a lot of work.  Dreamstime just sold it at 'maximum' size via subscription and paid me 35 cents.

I think 'free' can't be far behind, and we can finally all just give up and go home.  It will be a relief.

A little tip for you that I learnt early on at Dreamstime...

Don't submit sizes that large.  Maximum size should be about 12MP.  Any larger and you're doing yourself out of TIFF sales that sell for extra credits.  

Cheers!

Are you saying I should have submitted this to Dreamstime as a TIFF and not a JPG?

The problem is, if you don't submit it at full size initially, it won't climb the price tiers and eventually bring some money at full size. 

No no, what I'm saying is that if you submit a really large file to DT as you have, DT will not convert it and offer it as a TIFF file, which usually gives us more credits than the maximum.  They don't do it if your maximum is already as large as a TIFF.  When I uplodaded my first 60 files or so, I was submitting large files like you.  Then I realised my files couldn't be bought as TIFFs and I questioned DT.  Carmen then told me that they don't convert large files to TIFFs.  I asked her what the maximum should be and she said about 12MPs. 

If you're with Stockfresh however, upload the file at 7500x7500 because there you get 20 credits for files up to 20MP (I think from memory).

I'd submitted an image that was 7500 x 7500 and represented a lot of work.  Dreamstime just sold it at 'maximum' size via subscription and paid me 35 cents.

I think 'free' can't be far behind, and we can finally all just give up and go home.  It will be a relief.

Please explain to me why then are you so happy with SS which sell your photos for even less ??

No no, what I'm saying is that if you submit a really large file to Dreamstime as you have, Dreamstime will not convert it and offer it as a TIFF file, which usually gives us more credits than the maximum.  They don't do it if your maximum is already as large as a TIFF.  When I uplodaded my first 60 files or so, I was submitting large files like you.  Then I realised my files couldn't be bought as TIFFs and I questioned Dreamstime.  Carmen then told me that they don't convert large files to TIFFs.  I asked her what the maximum should be and she said about 12MPs.  

If you're with Stockfresh however, upload the file at 7500x7500 because there you get 20 credits for files up to 20MP (I think from memory).

Thanks for the tip.  I have to laugh though at how little sense that policy makes from the buyer's point of view.  I could give Dreamstime a high quality full size TIFF, but they'd rather upsize a much smaller JPG and sell that instead.   The buyer gets no additional value for purchasing the maximum size.

I'd submitted an image that was 7500 x 7500 and represented a lot of work.  Dreamstime just sold it at 'maximum' size via subscription and paid me 35 cents.

I think 'free' can't be far behind, and we can finally all just give up and go home.  It will be a relief.

I just don't understand why you bother with microstock at all.  Almost all your posts are complaining about something.  If you don't want to sell subs, why upload to sites that sell subs?  And I don't know how many times it has been mentioned that we started with free.  Subs commissions were usually a lot less a few years ago than they are now.  It gets tedious seeing all this heading towards free nonsense over and over again, looks like I better hit the ignore button.

I would never ignore anyone either. I don't see the point.
But I have to agree with Sharpshot. You're becoming very negative and it seems to me, especially so with Dreamstime.

No site is perfect. Full stop. But Dreamstime is one of the best, hands down. (My most favourite).

A level 0 subscription for 0.35 is bad, but not that bad.
At Dreamstime, thanks to their levels, your image will soon climb up and so will your commission. It's not much, but it's something.
But of course, you already knew all that.

I'm thinking, you're not submitting to Thinkstock, are you? After all they only pay 0.28 cent with no chance for an increase...

Keep positive Stockastic, not everything micro is as bad as it looks and sometimes it's even a bit of fun

I find it hard to be enthusiastic about Dreamstime.  They have a painful submission process, the only one (since I stopped uploading to iStock and Fotolia) that requires me to submit each image individually.  Their policy about similar images is ridiculous and makes it more difficult to justify model shoots.  And their upload limits are the absolute lowest around.  All of which may explain how they moved from third in revenue (behind Shutterstock and iStock) to sixth (also behind Fotolia, 123RF and Veer).

Carmen then told me that they don't convert large files to TIFFs.  I asked her what the maximum should be and she said about 12MPs. 

I currently do see my newest 16 MP Uploads being offered as TIFFs, so maybe that maximum value has changed over time.

I frequently employ humor and sarcasm, for which I do not apologize.

Actually, just once and for the record (sorry you're not seeing this, SharpShot), I like microstock, have had fun with it and have been very pleasantly surprised by the demand for my images and the money I've made with my tiny portfolio.  I'm retiring from my day job as an engineer and had been thinking about spending some serious time on microstock.  

What frustrates me though is that for the last 2 years I've seen it go steadily downhill to the point where it's hard to get motivated and tell yourself that images you do today will pay off in years to come.   You could say that's just due to free market forces, which is true in a sense, but a 'race to the bottom' is a well documented phenomenon which benefits no one in the long run.   The market may correct itself, but that may take a very long time.

To each his own. 

Personally I never 'ignore' anyone, I like getting all points of view.  Some people like to read things that they agree with, or that reinforce what they already believe.   It's up to you.

I don't see the purspose of ignoring either.  It's usually the posts with complaints that are the ones that are going to make me think about something.

Quote from: pseudonymous on May 04, 2011, 12:12

Carmen then told me that they don't convert large files to TIFFs.  I asked her what the maximum should be and she said about 12MPs.  

I currently do see my newest 16 MP Uploads being offered as TIFFs, so maybe that maximum value has changed over time.

Yeah, my 24MP illustrations are also upconverted to roughly 48MP for TIFF download.

That's interesting.

This is what I wrote:
>> Hello again Carmen,
>> Thanks for your all your help.  Just one last question if I may...  What's
>> the maximum size I can upload in order to get the Tiff?  I'd like to
>> benefit from the tiff but at the same time, I'd like to achieve the best
>> quality image for the rest of the sizes.

This is what she wrote:
The size recommended is around 12 megapixels. We also recommend you upload
the additional format as this format sells for the highest price
- double the price of the highest size available online for jpg. This
is valid for credit based sales.

So it's the size she "recommends", not necessarily a cutoff but a safe size which sort of suggests that it's up to the discretion of the reviewer? hmmm.  It would be interesting to see if all 24MP sizes have TIFFS.  

LOL I saw leaf mentioning on another thread that sort of thing happens a lot here.  I haven't seen it yet but I'd probably find it entertaining to watch at first. 

Yeah, it was at first. 

I used to live next to a paranoid schizophrenic years ago.  I would hear huge screaming arguments between several people coming from his window on almost a daily basis.  Then one day I heard one of these arguments coming from his back yard and looked out to discover they were ALL him!  It was kind of like that.  Creepy! 

Eventually some guys in white suits (literally!) came and took him away in an ambulance.

**ETA BTW, I know that mental illness is nothing to laugh about, but this guy told the cops that aliens were telling him - via his television - to kill my husband and me with machetes, so my sympathy sort of went out the window at that point.  That was a few days before the ambulance showed up. **

Actually, just once and for the record (sorry you're not seeing this, SharpShot), I like microstock, have had fun with it and have been very pleasantly surprised by the demand for my images and the money I've made with my tiny portfolio.  I'm retiring from my day job as an engineer and had been thinking about spending some serious time on microstock.  

What frustrates me though is that for the last 2 years I've seen it go steadily downhill to the point where it's hard to get motivated and tell yourself that images you do today will pay off in years to come.   You could say that's just due to free market forces, which is true in a sense, but a 'race to the bottom' is a well documented phenomenon which benefits no one in the long run.   The market may correct itself, but that may take a very long time.

You have to realise that microstock is not about individual  sales, never has been and never will be. That's why it is called 'microstock'. You have to look at the monthly return of an entire portfolio or that of a series of images over a given amount of time. That way you will find, if you have the talent to compete, that it is still actually 'money for old rope' (literally __ I recently had an EL on an image of a piece of old rope that I had taken about 5 years ago). It certainly beats working for a living.

\We're looking at different sets of values.
Dreamstime below Istock? On a list of favourites?

Yeah, definitely different sets of values. I like to be able to set my own price, get around 50% royalties and have a high RPD. So agencies that allow you to adjust your price like Clipartof and Graphic Leftovers top my list of favorites. iStock is above Dreamstime because it has a higher RPD and no raster sizes or subs. It loses a lot of points though for having low royalty percentages. I think if you flip my list over though it might line up well with my top earners.  

Quote from: pseudonymous on May 04, 2011, 18:15

I was expecting to see a group of men but it was always just him... with his shopping trolly... swinging his fists in the air.  He used to remind me of Tyler Durden in Fight Club... but not as good looking.

Yes, that's exactly it! 

Thanks for referencing one of my favorite movies of all time

It's definitely one of my favourites.  It's right up there with American Psycho and a bunch of other sick and twisted movies.


Back on topic, here's something I've never seen before... at any agent.  I just sold a sub on DT for an XS size.  Either the buyer's really thoughtful or it's a mistake.

Quote from: pseudonymous on May 04, 2011, 18:08

I probably should bump up my files in future.

I just did a search for "solar panels" by resolution.  Funnily enough mine was the largest one there with no TIFF.  From that search th largest file with a TIFF was 29MP and from what I've gathered, it looks like the TIFFs for all are converted to double the size of the orginal jpeg.

I'll do a few more searches later when I have more time.

I have a 30.8MP file that does NOT have the TIFF offered - so it seems the cut off must be around 30MP...

Yes, you're right.  I just did four more searches and the cutoff is exactly 30MP.  So as long as we keep the file size under 30MP we get the TIFF.  This makes my day because it means I no longer have to create two different sizes for different agents. 

sorry but that�s sweet not DT level 0

To each his own. 

Personally I never 'ignore' anyone, I like getting all points of view.  Some people like to read things that they agree with, or that reinforce what they already believe.   It's up to you.

Me too. I don't ignore anyone in this forum or in real life, no matter how different someone's opinions are, or if someone just wants to vent some anger. I quoted someone recently in a Blog on msg, which I think rings true.

�I like the fact that peope can vent here. A lot of photographers work alone. People in corporate offices, can go to lunch or drinks after work to vent and share their frustrations about their company; changes, no raises, over worked, etc. This forum offers that �lunch/drinks� opportunity with others that are experiencing the same things.�

I've been on a lot of web forums over the years.  There's always a lot of negativity, ranting and arguing - it's just the nature of the medium.  I guess I've gotten used to that and don't feel put off by it.   My feeling is that negativity, venting etc is fine and is (or should be) a big reason for even having a forum. But you should never direct negativity at another individual on the forum.  So to me, ranting about the greed and short-sightedness of microstocks is ok and I actually enjoy reading it, but putting down another poster is definitely not and I don't get into that.  

Some people obviously feel brought down by negativity in general; maybe it kills their motivation or seems like rudeness directed at the people who run the agencies.  I don't feel that way and I think that the agency people - if they read this stuff at all - aren't in the least bothered by it.  They're the ones making the money after all.

I've been in the technology business for 30 years and you couldn't find a more opinionated group of people, either  on the web and in person.  Skins are thick.  If you think things get nasty here, I could point you to a couple of Usenet groups from the past that would curl your hair.

Just my own opinions here.  I see my 'ignored' count just went up by 1.  Farewell, sharpshot! 

(back off topic for a moment - LOVE American Psycho.  One of the very few movies I actually own!)

Yeah me too!  It just cracks me up!  I love all the reference to the 80s music.  Christian Bale is just amazing it it, isn't he?  If you haven't read the book though and have some time on your hands I highly recommend it... provided you can handle lots of gruesome detail.

 

I didn't know that. I'm glad you pointed that out. It makes sense though. How do they handle the Raw files though? Do you know?

Additional formats have nothing to do with the TIFF. 

I've been on a lot of web forums over the years.  There's always a lot of negativity, ranting and arguing - it's just the nature of the medium.  I guess I've gotten used to that and don't feel put off by it.   My feeling is that negativity, venting etc is fine and is (or should be) a big reason for even having a forum. But you should never direct negativity at another individual on the forum.  So to me, ranting about the greed and short-sightedness of microstocks is ok and I actually enjoy reading it, but putting down another poster is definitely not and I don't get into that.  

Some people obviously feel brought down by negativity in general; maybe it kills their motivation or seems like rudeness directed at the people who run the agencies.  I don't feel that way and I think that the agency people - if they read this stuff at all - aren't in the least bothered by it.  They're the ones making the money after all.

I've been in the technology business for 30 years and you couldn't find a more opinionated group of people, either  on the web and in person.  Skins are thick.  If you think things get nasty here, I could point you to a couple of Usenet groups from the past that would curl your hair.

Just my own opinions here.  I see my 'ignored' count just went up by 1.  Farewell, sharpshot!  

I agree with you. I have fallen into the negativity pit myself with istock, but I can say for certain that I am not the only one down there. Everyone "gets over" things in their own time. Some more quickly than others, and then they seem to forget that they themselves have likely expressed negative views about the very same subject at one point or another. That's the great thing about the forums.

I notice my ignore count went down by 1, so no worries, the universe is in balance!  

Back on topic...I see I have a level 0 purchase, XS, for .25. Sweet! Not.

I uploaded two similar files, one was 5657x8485 (48mp) and is offered as a TIFF file.

The other is 6000x9000 (54mp) and is not available as a TIFF.

These files were approved today.

Let me put a put a positive spin on the level 0 sales for you negative Nellies before someone else puts you on ignore! (I�m only joking.)  Here is my take on it though...

On the one hand it feels like I�m being ripped off receiving only 25% for the level 0 sale, especially if it�s a sale on a new but fairly decent image that I know will do well long term.  However, on the other hand, if it means I�m more likely to sell an image that�s been sitting there going stale, I�m all for it. 

Generally speaking, I think it�s a good thing, especially for those images that cover subjects that are oversaturated and are buried deeper than page 50 on search results.  If I don�t sell it, eventually I�ll have to remove it so I�d rather sell it for pittance one time to give it a little boost up the ranks and give it some potential to sell more times for more money.  Selling the image a second time will more than cover the money I lost on the first sale so it doesn�t bother me at all... I quite like the idea.

Overall I like the new pricing structure and I�m hoping other micros follow DTs lead and bump up their prices.  The only thing that concerns me is the weekly subs deal.

That is a good point. I'm sure this has been mentioned, but I haven't done any digging for the answer yet...does the image jump to level 1 after just one download? I am thinking that's the case, but I don't remember for sure.

That's what I thought. I guess that's not too bad, in the grand scheme of things, since as you stated, may give an otherwise forgotten, brand new or buried image a jump start.

As microstock and early images mature, I think that those images with hundreds and thousands of DLs, although excellent images, may be a turnoff for buyers, as that means the image is going to turn up everywhere. When I search, I typically search by DL and spend a few minutes going through the images with 0 downloads. I can't help but think that there is an excellent photographer out there who has just finally decided to jump in and has uploaded some excellent images with no sales yet.

That's what I thought. I guess that's not too bad, in the grand scheme of things, since as you stated, may give an otherwise forgotten, brand new or buried image a jump start.

As microstock and early images mature, I think that those images with hundreds and thousands of DLs, although excellent images, may be a turnoff for buyers, as that means the image is going to turn up everywhere. When I search, I typically search by DL and spend a few minutes going through the images with 0 downloads. I can't help but think that there is an excellent photographer out there who has just finally decided to jump in and has uploaded some excellent images with no sales yet.

I agree about images with lots of downloads end up putting off some buyers but I think that�s the case already.  Unless the image is unique, it will have to slow down.  That doesn�t bother me so much though.  Those level 5 sales are still nice when they come around, even if it�s once in a while and the subs for them are easier to swallow.
 
I usually search by relevancy, especially if it�s a saturated subject and I�m looking for something specific.  For example if I do a search for �beach ball� by relevancy, I come up with mainly isolated beach balls.  If I flip over to searching by downloads, I�ll get all sorts of images of beaches and balls of any sort. 

I think buyers search different ways depending on a lot of things.  Those that are in a hurry and can�t be bothered sifting through bad or irrelevant images are most likely to search by download descending.  Those who are price sensitive but not so fussy are likely to sort by downloads ascending.  Those who want fresh content will search by uploads descending and so on.   As long as we have a mixed bag with something to suit every time of buyer, we should be good.  That's how I see it anyway.

Quote from: pseudonymous on May 06, 2011, 09:43

Yes, that's right, it's:

Level 0 (0 downloads)
Level 1 (1-4 downloads)

I depends on the customer though. Nothing changed for the old customers. I think Dreamstime is working on making their pricing as confusing as possible. 

LOL I know!  As if it wasn't confusing already!

Actually looking at my recent sales, I think the new pricing stucture applies to all buyers now.  Either that or I'm just really lucky.  They've also updated the pricing on the Designer's Area tab too:

http://www.dreamstime.com/aboutimages

Are you still getting sales with the old pricing?

Are you still getting sales with the old pricing?

To be honest, I don't know. My sales numbers seem to line up with the new pricing. Did they just switch everybody over to it? I guess that was a short test period then.

OK, I found this in the forum...

Quote

Update: Level 0 has now been extended to old members as well. Everyone should be able to see now level 0 for the files that have no download. These files will automatically move to level one after the first download.

I don't know what that means for the other levels. I was only half kidding about it being complicated. I guess I didn't realize how complicated it was. 

lol I was just reading the same thing.  I think they first introduced the level 0 images on the 18th of April with the same credits as the level 1 images without changing the rest of the levels.  My last sale with the old pricing was on 17th April but I see others on the thread complaining about not recieving the new prices right until 20th.  I didn't think they planned to roll out the new structure for quite some time but I reckon they just got sick of everyone whining... either that or they were just as confused as we were and switched them over early 

My only real complaint with the level 0 is the 25%. That doesn't make the sale any cheaper, it just gets us less. If they had gone with the level 0 scheme without the 25%, I'd be 100% for it.

What's next, level -1 with 20%, and then level IS with 15%?

Did they change level 1 to 1-4 downloads, it used to be 0-5 as I remember, same for level 2, they now say 5-9 and it used to be 6-10 as I remember? That is nice if it is in fact true.

No they didn't change the levels.  I copied both the Jan 2010 prices page and the Jan 2010 commissions page a while ago and both of them show the downloads for each level as they are today.

That's odd, as I thought the 5th sale was still level 1... In fact I had the 6th sale of an image today (level 2), and the 5th sale was level 1 on 3/22/2011 with 2010 credits.

After some reflection I suppose that still fits what you are saying, as it had sold 4 times before. Just a different way of looking at the number of times it has sold before vs. the number of that specific sale.

You're right, the 5th sale is sold as level 1 and I agree that it's wrong to do that.  I've seen a few complaining about this issue in the forums before but Dreamstime doesn't see it that way.

All I'm saying is that their pricing structure download levels have remained the same... not that I think they're correct or that I agree with them lol.

Nikitu explains it on this thread.  

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_22673

^^ mostly zero level sales but not a lot of any level.  I seriously believe the search engine is adjusted weekly.  I should get a few sales next week ... if my theory holds.  


PS:  RPD thus far = 31 cents.   

I'm very happy with Dreamstime the last months. Lots of XL sales and Dreamstime is now nr 2 after SS. Istock  has sunk below 123RF and is hardly worth looking at anymore.  Dreamstime is doing well!

The biggest flaw that I see with the Dreamstime system is that you could have a boat load of subscription sales that launch you into Level 5 territory where most people won't buy your image, and instead will look for level 0 or level 1 alternatives.  Under this situation you'd almost make nothing except subscription sales.

The biggest flaw that I see with the Dreamstime system is that you could have a boat load of subscription sales that launch you into Level 5 territory where most people won't buy your image, and instead will look for level 0 or level 1 alternatives.  Under this situation you'd almost make nothing except subscription sales.

Let us know when you have a boatload of sub sales that launch an image to level 5 and then see it stop selling   It is possible, of course, but I've never seen it.  On the contrary, all my level 5 images have an RPD of about twice that of my average image.  I took a look at my top three level 5 images and all have had one or more downloads every month since June 2010 - so they seem to keep selling.  One, as an example, had 16 sub sales out of the last 50 sales...  That's a lot of credits - the minimum on a Level 5 image XS is 11 credits, and most purchase medium or higher.

Naturally, everyone will have different results - but I call false on the statement that buyers don't bite on level 5 images.

I say what I say, because I have, and continue to play both sides of this game, as a supplier and as a buyer for clients.  There have always been those who were looking for something really unique and were willing to pay for it. But to assume buyers won't shop for bargains in a garden of plenty, is being overly positive.  Not all buyers are running around with their hair on fire, grabbing the first cool thing that works at whatever the cost. They are sitting down with the client, and choosing which ones they like.  And if they can get five images that work for $50, versus 5 that work for $100, guess which ones they will choose.

I also think that those who are doing on demand shopping, versus the subscription route are more likely the smaller design houses, with smaller clients who will pinch pennies.

As for the scenario I painted, all I am saying is its possible, and its not hard to imagine an image to hit level 4, if not level 5 quickly on subs alone. I've hit the equivalent of level 4 in a month or less on Shutterstock, so there is no reason to assume it can't happen on Dreamstime, especially if subs become a greater part of the mix in the future.

Well, I never claimed that buyers won't shop for bargains. We're talking about Microstock so I have a hard time to believe that a buyer who needs a good image at level 5 wouldn't have a problem paying 13 credits for it.

If we reached the point in this industry that a license for an equivalent of $13 for an obviously successful image is too much for any buyer then we're talking about being close to turning those "customers" into rapidshare users, downloading images for free.

As long as a buyer can find the same quality image as level 1, sure I can see why they would go with the cheaper one.

But just the fact that an image has been yanked up to level 5 through sub sales, doesn't necessarily mean that credit purchases won't happen anymore.

We have no research studies or numbers on this topic and most likely we never will as those are numbers that every agency wants to keep for themselves, so we are left with speculation.

Now, whether we speculate or not or do our own statistics or not, we all end up uploading our stuff to as many agencies as possible to squeeze out the most money we can get, don't we?