pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: the new DT  (Read 18675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 19, 2012, 10:38 »
0
Here's how it's been looking for me lately:


subscription   $0.35   maximum
subscription   $0.35   maximum
subscription   $0.35   maximum
subscription   $0.35   maximum
subscription   $0.35   maximum
subscription   $0.35   maximum
subscription   $0.35   maximum
subscription   $0.35   maximum


WarrenPrice

« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2012, 10:40 »
0
Here's how it's been looking for me lately:


subscription   $0.35   maximum
subscription   $0.35   maximum
subscription   $0.35   maximum
subscription   $0.35   maximum
subscription   $0.35   maximum
subscription   $0.35   maximum
subscription   $0.35   maximum
subscription   $0.35   maximum

+1 ... having a terrible month.  Must be offering a subscription special?

Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2012, 12:37 »
0
I have a very small portfolio - under 200 images, but I can't complain.
subscription            $0.35      maximum
subscription            $0.35      maximum
subscription            $0.35      large
subscription            $0.35      large
13 credits (2010)     $5.85      small
subscription            $0.35      maximum 
17 credits (2010)     $7.08      large
subscription            $0.35      medium
4 credits (2010)       $0.77      medium
10 credits (2010)     $3.46      medium

« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2012, 13:03 »
0
This August I probably won't even make half as much as I did last August !!

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2012, 13:56 »
0
Here's a small sample of recent sales in August.  Credit sales have been running about twice the volume of subscription sales.

Subscription - 5 for $0.35 each, all maximum
9 credits - $1.96   extra large
7 credits - $1.62   medium
15 credits - $5.56 large
16 credits - $6.35 medium
9 credits - $3.60   extra small
5 credits - $1.50   extra small
13 credits - $4.50 maximum
6 credits - $2.50   small
9 credits - $3.64   small

All the credits are marked 2010, although I don't really know what that means.  Small port of only 327 images.

edit - just noticed I left off the sizes.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2012, 14:02 by w7lwi »

red

« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2012, 17:16 »
0
Serban mentioned this in a forum questioning prices recently (and then closed the thread) -

"We test new prices, in fact various tests are up very often. We can't make an official announcement, at least not yet."

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2012, 18:37 »
0
DT is going down, down and down............

velocicarpo

« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2012, 18:42 »
0
I somehow fail to take DT seriously. Their approval policy is counterproductive. They continue to add ridiculous rules / rejection reasons. The income I get from them is declining from month to month. Plus: I haven`t yet forgiven them that they skipped the 50% royalty rate. I still upload but do not care about their rules, policies, what they accept from my material, etc. Depositphotos already brings me more and is less stress. I hope their importance will fade to zero over the time so that I can justify to stop uploading to them completely.

« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2012, 08:25 »
0
DT has done great for me the past few months but so far this month has fallen from a strong #3 to #5, not much ahead of the pack of low earners.  I get frustrated by their "too many similars" policy also but it does keep the searches reasonable and this may help in the future as the databases get more and more clogged.  For example, I just did a keyword search for a subject I am thinking to shoot.  On iS the search returned 89 hits, most by exclusives, on DT 491 and on SS 1307.  Many of those that came up on SS contained neither of my keywords in the image, compared to iS and DT where almost all were relevant.  Even if I can make a decent image it will never be seen on SS due to the ridiculous keyword spanning and acceptance of too many similars.  So maybe the DT policy will pay off if buyers get too frustrated sorting through too many similar images to find what they want.  I wish there was a way to flag keyword spamming on SS.

Of my last 10 sales on DT, 6 were $.0.35 subs, and the rest were from 3-8 credits averaging $1.25 per DL - much lower RPDL than in the past so hope it is just a statistical anomaly.

BTW, the default sort on SS came up as Recent.  Popular and Relevant gave much better results for the keywords I checked. This is the first comparative search I've done where iS gave a better result (i.e., more relevant to what I had in mind and expected to find) than SS - hopefully they have fixed their search issues.

Wim

« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2012, 10:39 »
0
Quote
- Subject of your submission is already well covered in our data base and the image does not exceed in quality, composition and technique most images already online. - Lighting and composition are very important in creating a quality stock image with high sale potential.

 ::)

« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2012, 13:19 »
0
in Portugal we use the following expression: "uns so filhos, outros so enteados"

some are sons, others are stepsons
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 13:21 by luissantos84 »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2012, 14:33 »
0
@luis - You had me really thinking before you changed from "orphans."   ;D

DT is really driving me bonkers but ... it was a short trip.   :-[
I'm really stunned by the number of files getting accepted at IS that were rejected on DT.  I would have thought it was the other way around.    ???

« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2012, 20:23 »
0
I am in mourning for the old DT.  This new version is really disheartening.

velocicarpo

« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2012, 08:56 »
0

We have to prove ourselves every day with our work, it's time they put in some effort too and prove themselves worthy.
Sales do not show any improvement with their strict policy so why bother giving them the extra treatment?

Well said

« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2012, 18:06 »
0
 What can we conclude, except that something totally corrupt is going on?  

Something TOTALLY corrupt must be going on!  Gasp!

If I've told you once I've told you 100 MILLION Times...Don't exaggerate! 

"Something totally corrupt"....oh brother, are you kidding me?...what would be the corruption?  Maybe he's trading drugs for approval?  Maybe DT has a huge gambling debt and this photographer is the bookie?  Give me a break.  Wouldn't there be...oh, I don't know...MORE photos in the portfolio if he or she is running some giant conspiracy to undermine all the legitimate photographers? 

I think it's sad when people...especially anonymous people choose to single out a photographer that isn't involved in the forum in any way to talk about them, make fun of them and invent conspiracy theories involving them.  There are enough crappy photographers that are involved in the forum that should be able to occupy your time and effort in this sad, insecure attempt at feeling better about yourselves.

Have fun.

Mat

« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2012, 18:33 »
0
 What can we conclude, except that something totally corrupt is going on?  

Something TOTALLY corrupt must be going on!  Gasp!

If I've told you once I've told you 100 MILLION Times...Don't exaggerate! 

"Something totally corrupt"....oh brother, are you kidding me?...what would be the corruption?  Maybe he's trading drugs for approval?  Maybe DT has a huge gambling debt and this photographer is the bookie?  Give me a break.  Wouldn't there be...oh, I don't know...MORE photos in the portfolio if he or she is running some giant conspiracy to undermine all the legitimate photographers? 

I think it's sad when people...especially anonymous people choose to single out a photographer that isn't involved in the forum in any way to talk about them, make fun of them and invent conspiracy theories involving them.  There are enough crappy photographers that are involved in the forum that should be able to occupy your time and effort in this sad, insecure attempt at feeling better about yourselves.

Have fun.

Mat

Perhaps you are taking me a bit too literally - I actually don't see a direct connection to the Kennedy assassination.  But I think it's quite reasonable to ask how a group of 11 virtually indistinguishable head shots of a dog gets past a publicly acknowledged 'similars' policy which is being enforced on the rest of us with an iron hand.

« Reply #16 on: August 22, 2012, 18:34 »
0
 What can we conclude, except that something totally corrupt is going on?  

Something TOTALLY corrupt must be going on!  Gasp!

If I've told you once I've told you 100 MILLION Times...Don't exaggerate! 

"Something totally corrupt"....oh brother, are you kidding me?...what would be the corruption?  Maybe he's trading drugs for approval?  Maybe DT has a huge gambling debt and this photographer is the bookie?  Give me a break.  Wouldn't there be...oh, I don't know...MORE photos in the portfolio if he or she is running some giant conspiracy to undermine all the legitimate photographers? 

I think it's sad when people...especially anonymous people choose to single out a photographer that isn't involved in the forum in any way to talk about them, make fun of them and invent conspiracy theories involving them.  There are enough crappy photographers that are involved in the forum that should be able to occupy your time and effort in this sad, insecure attempt at feeling better about yourselves.

Have fun.

Mat

I would love to hear you thought on this matter, what should we as contributors do? contact agencies, contributors? please explain us

« Reply #17 on: August 22, 2012, 18:58 »
0
I guess sometimes the humor in a situation isn't as obvious as I think it is.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 19:00 by stockastic »


grp_photo

« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2012, 22:39 »
0
Why don't you care about DT anyway they have never be a real major player and now they are pretty much dead. And yes I agree with Mat to single out a photographer is lame.

« Reply #20 on: August 22, 2012, 23:24 »
0
Do you really think the editors are going through your entire portfolio when reviewing?

I dont think, I am sure of that, they look into keywords already on your portfolio

« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2012, 02:19 »
0
If I were to have a batch of similar images that I wanted all approved (not a big stretch right?) I would consider uploading them at separate times, keywording them at separate times and submitting them at separate times.  Do you really think the editors are going through your entire portfolio when reviewing?

You can only submit 70 images per week anyway..might as well switch it up.

Though it could be connected to the Kennedy assassination.  Maybe he has the Kenyan Obama Birth Certificate?  Just a thought.

Mat
That doesn't work.  They use software to find what they call "similars".  The problem seems to be that lots of reviewers rely on the results for that and will reject images that are actually quite different and in short supply on their site.  I don't mind them only accepting two different versions of each subject but they have taken it to an extreme.  I've had some quite unique photos rejected, probably because there were several elements that I use in lots of other photos and that gets caught by the software.  Some reviewers must be ignoring the software because they accept almost everything.  So they have a bad policy and it's a bit of a lottery.  As I find it tedious uploading there, compared to the newer sites, I don't do it very often anymore.  And I'm annoyed that they seem to be following the istock policy of raising prices and lowering commissions.

« Reply #22 on: August 23, 2012, 04:14 »
0
I've removed a few posts from this thread.

Please don't link to people's port's for the purpose of negative critique. I realize it's nice to have examples but it creates bad culture to start pointing fingers at each other.

« Reply #23 on: August 23, 2012, 07:37 »
0
Do you really think the editors are going through your entire portfolio when reviewing?

I dont think, I am sure of that, they look into keywords already on your portfolio

Hey Luis,

DT does look into your portfolio for similar keywords.  Serban posted that in his own forum that they use software to do a search in your port and many rejections for to similar are automated and never see the eyes of an inspector.  I think that's the big beef. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #24 on: August 23, 2012, 08:27 »
0
It's certainly not going to encourage specialists or those with unique access to a subject.
I wonder if their software is like the google reverse search thingy, which is often excellent, but sometimes the similars it throws up are hysterical, based on colour composition only.
Though I guess if DT's automated match is based on the image AND the keywords, it should be better.
Still, useless for specialists.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle