MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What do you strongly like about Dreamstime?  (Read 14506 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

vonkara

« Reply #25 on: November 08, 2009, 11:42 »
0

Gosh, do we need to check really everything on those sites?  :o  :'(

It seem as I have a couple of level 3 images and I don't remember to had noticed a 0.70$ sale before your post hahaha.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2009, 11:57 by Vonkara »


KB

« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2009, 12:03 »
0
I quit DT for being exclusive to IS shortly. Then I don't care that much as I find absurd getting 0.70$ for a max size image anyway.

Exactly. This is what I've hated about subs from the beginning. At least on SS, we can submit downsized images and not lose anything. But on DT (and now, with their "premium subscriptions", FT), if we want to have images that qualify for the largest possible pay-per-download, we have to be willing to give the maximum size away for just $0.35 or so.

This is stupid thinking on the agencies part, IMO. It also entices me to become exclusive at IS, but I make too much money at the other sites to do so -- so far.

eyeCatchLight

  • Imagination is more important than knowledge.
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2009, 12:18 »
0
hm i haven't had subscription sales on DT yet....that indeed seems disappointing. on FT i have almost only subscription sales, large size for 30c! that's kind of sad....for the maximum size on DT i got 2.40 instead....that's 8 times as much! maybe it needs more time to form an opinion.
in general, however, i prefer DT over FT.

vonkara

« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2009, 13:07 »
0
My last sales...

subscription $0.35 medium (RF) 
subscription $0.35 extrasmall (RF) 
subscription $0.35 maximum (RF) 
3 credits (2008) $1.27 extrasmall (RF) 
subscription $0.35 maximum (RF) 
1 credit (2008) $0.37 extrasmall (RF) 
8 credits (2008) $2.96 maximum (RF) 
subscription $0.35 maximum (RF) 
subscription $0.35 maximum (RF) 
subscription $0.35 maximum (RF) 
subscription $0.35 maximum (RF) 
subscription $0.70 maximum (RF) 
subscription $0.35 maximum (RF)   
subscription $0.35 maximum (RF) 
1 credit (2008) $0.50 extrasmall (RF) 
subscription $0.35 maximum (RF) 
5 credits (2008) $2.14 medium (RF) 
3 credits (2008) $1.16 extrasmall (RF) 
subscription $0.35 maximum (RF) 
subscription $0.35 maximum

No comment except, how can I continu creating high quality images for an agency earning me this kind of sales. It's not even worth the upload time anymore.

eyeCatchLight

  • Imagination is more important than knowledge.
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2009, 13:14 »
0
oh yeah that sounds kind of disappointing... 35c is really not worth all the work.... maybe a specific designer with a subscription package likes your work and downloads a lot from you.

vonkara

« Reply #30 on: November 08, 2009, 13:32 »
0
oh yeah that sounds kind of disappointing... 35c is really not worth all the work.... maybe a specific designer with a subscription package likes your work and downloads a lot from you.
:D Then I don't want him to buy and use my images  :)

eyeCatchLight

  • Imagination is more important than knowledge.
« Reply #31 on: November 08, 2009, 13:42 »
0
hehe....let's track him down ;-) :-)

« Reply #32 on: November 08, 2009, 14:03 »
0
I quit DT for being exclusive to IS shortly. Then I don't care that much as I find absurd getting 0.70$ for a max size image anyway.

Exactly. This is what I've hated about subs from the beginning. At least on SS, we can submit downsized images and not lose anything. But on DT (and now, with their "premium subscriptions", FT), if we want to have images that qualify for the largest possible pay-per-download, we have to be willing to give the maximum size away for just $0.35 or so.

This is stupid thinking on the agencies part, IMO. It also entices me to become exclusive at IS, but I make too much money at the other sites to do so -- so far.

How much do you downsize your images for SS?  I always thought it was not allowed to upsize or downsize images at SS.

vonkara

« Reply #33 on: November 08, 2009, 14:27 »
0

How much do you downsize your images for SS?  I always thought it was not allowed to upsize or downsize images at SS.

When People downsize they mostly do to the minimum which is 4mpx I think.

hehe....let's track him down ;-) :-)
More seriously this is not the the designer fault. They buy a subscription package that worth 200$ to 300$. This is not necessarily inexpensive. The problem is how much images the designers are able to use, the agency share from this package and the licence available especially with the photos.com subscription plan.

Small agencies like StockXpert "was" tend to lower their prices and allow high resolution downloads at buffet price, to get a better share from the micro market. What they didn't thought about it's that, any other agency can follow the instruction and release the same plan.

This will finally end in lower prices and no more share from the micro market IMO. I have doubt about how StockXpert people handled the situation back when they released this plan. It's obvious that they was seeing the end of StockXpert in a near future at that time, to me.

« Reply #34 on: November 08, 2009, 15:08 »
0
Currently (latest 20 dlds) 40% of my sales there were subs, one of them a 70c subs.  There were worse months, but subs really irritate me, especially when I see my best sellers go to these file-eaters. 

KB

« Reply #35 on: November 08, 2009, 16:32 »
0
My last sales...

subscription $0.35 medium (RF) 
subscription $0.35 extrasmall (RF) 
subscription $0.35 maximum (RF) 
That's very unusual; I don't think I've ever seen a sub sale at less than maximum size. Indeed, why would someone take an extrasmall even if that's all they needed at the moment? Very odd.

I just looked at my last sales. It's random, but I was pleasantly surprised to see I've had just 4 sub sales out of the last 20.

But here's something I've never seen before, and don't understand at all:
2 credits (old)  $0.43     maximum     
1 credit (old)     $0.20     maximum

what? Maximum size pay-per-downloads for $0.43 and $0.20?>:(

What in the world is going on at Dreamstime?

WarrenPrice

« Reply #36 on: November 08, 2009, 18:19 »
0
My last sales...

subscription $0.35 medium (RF) 
subscription $0.35 extrasmall (RF) 
subscription $0.35 maximum (RF) 
That's very unusual; I don't think I've ever seen a sub sale at less than maximum size. Indeed, why would someone take an extrasmall even if that's all they needed at the moment? Very odd.

I just looked at my last sales. It's random, but I was pleasantly surprised to see I've had just 4 sub sales out of the last 20.

But here's something I've never seen before, and don't understand at all:
2 credits (old)  $0.43     maximum     
1 credit (old)     $0.20     maximum

what? Maximum size pay-per-downloads for $0.43 and $0.20?>:(

What in the world is going on at Dreamstime?

A sale is a sale.   ::)

eyeCatchLight

  • Imagination is more important than knowledge.
« Reply #37 on: November 08, 2009, 18:23 »
0
mine:

$1.01    medium     (RF)
$1.32    large    (RF)
$0.64    small    (RF)
$1.47    medium    (RF)
$1.68    medium    (RF)
$0.36    extrasmall    (RF)
$2.40    maximum    (RF)

i guess i can't complain, no subscription sales...  :o

« Reply #38 on: November 08, 2009, 18:39 »
0
My last sales...

subscription $0.35 medium (RF)  
subscription $0.35 extrasmall (RF)
....

My last 20:
This is a level 2 image     4 credits (2008)    $1.70     small     (RF)
This is a level 1 image    subscription    $0.35    large    (RF)
This is a level 1 image    1 credit (2008)    $0.37    extrasmall    (RF)
This is a level 3 image    subscription    $0.70    maximum    (RF)
This is a level 1 image    5 credits (2008)    $1.82    extralarge    (RF)
This is a level 2 image    6 credits (2008)    $2.22    large    (RF)
This is a level 3 image    subscription    $0.35    maximum    (RF)

Update: mystery solved. At this time the image was still level 2 but turned 3 right after the download. That's why the new download a few hours later was 0.70 (green). It is then listed level 3 on all sales upstream, so that can cause confusion.

This is a level 1 image    1 credit (2008)    $0.38    extrasmall    (RF)
This is a level 2 image    subscription    $0.35    extrasmall    (RF)
This is a level 1 image    2 credits (2008)    $1.00    small    (RF)
This is a level 2 image    5 credits (2008)    $2.04    medium    (RF)
This is a level 1 image    2 credits (2008)    $0.70    small    (RF)
This is a level 2 image    6 credits (2008)    $2.36    large    (RF)
This is a level 2 image    subscription    $0.35    maximum    (RF)
This is a level 5 image    subscription    $1.26    maximum    (RF)
This is a level 1 image    1 credit (2008)    $0.38    extrasmall    (RF)
This is a level 1 image    subscription    $0.35    maximum    (RF)
This is a level 1 image    2 credits (2008)    $0.74    small    (RF)
This is a level 1 image    subscription    $0.35    maximum    (RF)
This is a level 2 image    subscription    $0.35    maximum    (RF)

In general subs are 50% of total sales for me. In the last 20, there were 9.

Achilles has been answering the subs issue a few times, also on this forum as I remember. It boils down to designers needing a few or many alternative images for a particular design, so that they can present these options without clumsy watermark to the customer. We read before here on this forum how designers hate comps with watermarks.
In fact, only one of those images will actually be used, so Achilles pointed out that sub sales are in fact an extra, those are sales that wouldn't have been happened on a credit package (except the image finally chosen of course).

So it isn't about greedy image hoarders scratching around for bargains, but about some comfort for the designer. Also concerning the max size downloads: imagine you want a crop or a banner out of the image, how can you do that in a credible way for the customer out of a 300px watermarked thumb? Makes you look cheap as designer to the customer. If your webpage is a 800px wide design, you will then have to upsize the thumb to give an idea about the final result, but that might not go well with the customer if he has deeper pockets and if he wants to have a realistic idea of how the result will look like. A designer might try different crops and that doesn't work well from an XS image.

If as designer, you want to evaluate how a particular image will look like (colors, crispness) in large print, you can't do that with a watermarked thumb. Small but vital defects can't be judged on a thumb at all. Take for instance sloppy isolations with plaques less than #FFF. I bought a few like those from LuckyOliver and I was totally p*ssed of I had to redo the isolation all over. So a designer with volume production might prefer to buy an expensive subs package in order to have some comfort in choosing the right and correct image amongst those downloaded. They cost of this might be much less than the designer's hourly wage.

The issue with photographers/illustrators is often that they are unaware of the needs of a designer. I still trust Achilles in the sub decisions as he has a track record of honesty towards contributors, and since he has an overview of what happens on both sides of the fence, contributor needs and buyer needs. Other agents are not as good in this, but apart from the occasional slam, they seems to get away easier with subs.

The "bitter" pill has been sweetened by the higher weight for level 3 and up images in the subs package. You could argue that they just represent a small part of any port, but proportionally, they have more sales or they wouldn't have become level 3+ images in the first place. Finally, DT is the only agent that rewards good sellers with higher yield. On SS, you'll get always your 0.36 (or whatever) independent of # of downloads.

This was a positive thread about DT.  :P
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 00:58 by FD-amateur »

KB

« Reply #39 on: November 08, 2009, 20:07 »
0
But here's something I've never seen before, and don't understand at all:
2 credits (old)  $0.43     maximum     
1 credit (old)     $0.20     maximum

what? Maximum size pay-per-downloads for $0.43 and $0.20?>:(

What in the world is going on at Dreamstime?

A sale is a sale.   ::)
Aha! Caught you, Achilles! Using an alias, are you?  ;D

Seriously, those 2 sales are amazing to me. I've been with DT for 3.5 years, but I don't recall credits even that old allowing you to buy a maximum size image for what would be $0.40. So how can this be?

KB

« Reply #40 on: November 08, 2009, 20:15 »
0
So it isn't about greedy image hoarders scratching around for bargains, but about some comfort for the designer. Also concerning the max size downloads: imagine you want a crop or a banner out of the image, how can you do that in a credible way for the customer out of a 300px watermarked thumb? Makes you look cheap as designer to the customer. If your webpage is a 800px wide design, you will then have to upsize the thumb to give an idea about the final result, but that might not go well with the customer if he has deeper pockets and if he wants to have a realistic idea of how the result will look like. A designer might try different crops and that doesn't work well from an XS image.

The "bitter" pill has been sweetened by the higher weight for level 3 and up images in the subs package. You could argue that they just represent a small part of any port, but proportionally, they have more sales or they wouldn't have become level 3+ images in the first place. Finally, DT is the only agent that rewards good sellers with higher yield. On SS, you'll get always your 0.36 (or whatever) independent of # of downloads.

This was a positive thread about DT.  :P

You make some very good points, and clearly DT's sub plan is much more contributor-friendly than FT's (which not only pays you pennies for a maximum size sale, but to add insult to injury counts it as only a 1/4 sale towards your next level). However, I still don't understand the reasoning of giving away 15- 25MP images. If the crop is that tiny a portion of the image, perhaps the designer should find a more appropriate image? It seems to me that limiting a sub sale to a maximum size of around 10-12 MPs would be more friendly.

« Reply #41 on: November 08, 2009, 21:46 »
0
It seems to me that limiting a sub sale to a maximum size of around 10-12 MPs would be more friendly.

Well the contributor has that choice, doesn't he? I will never upload the future 21MP of my 5DMKII on microstock.

In fact, when you upload full size, you do that in the hope that once in a while, an EL will be sold for a billboard or so.
What you get is loads of max size sub downloads by larger design companies, but what the heck? They do it for their comfort. When making a composite, it's much fancier and better looking to start with the max size to cut out the overwhite object (beware of the jpg jitter even at quality 12) then reduce the size of the finished composite. Also don't forget template elements like buttons in one illustration image: they can be very tiny in any other size than max and awkward to extract.

The only danger is that a hit-and-run HeroTurko would download his max quorum and throw the images on the net for "free". That could be prevented by an account manager at the sites that checks the subscription package buyers. I still feel DT is more cautious as to that than for instance FT. But I might be wrong of course. All we can do is look at the track record of the different agencies.

« Reply #42 on: November 08, 2009, 23:29 »
0
...Also concerning the max size downloads: imagine you want a crop or a banner out of the image, how can you do that in a credible way for the customer out of a 300px watermarked thumb?...

Talking about watermark thumbs... What do you all think about the new size of comp images at Dreamstime? I think it's too much for a comp.  Personally I prefer only the zoom option like IS.

« Reply #43 on: November 08, 2009, 23:32 »
0
...Also concerning the max size downloads: imagine you want a crop or a banner out of the image, how can you do that in a credible way for the customer out of a 300px watermarked thumb?...


Talking about watermark thumbs... What do you all think about the new size of comp images at Dreamstime? I think it's too much for a comp.  Personally I prefer only the zoom option like IS.

« Reply #44 on: November 09, 2009, 00:29 »
0
So it isn't about greedy image hoarders scratching around for bargains, but about some comfort for the designer. Also concerning the max size downloads: imagine you want a crop or a banner out of the image, how can you do that in a credible way for the customer out of a 300px watermarked thumb? Makes you look cheap as designer to the customer. If your webpage is a 800px wide design, you will then have to upsize the thumb to give an idea about the final result, but that might not go well with the customer if he has deeper pockets and if he wants to have a realistic idea of how the result will look like. A designer might try different crops and that doesn't work well from an XS image.
IMO this "comfort' should have higher price than 0.35$. If the designer propose 10 different compositions he earns money thanks to 10 of our images. Why he should only pay for one of them?

eyeCatchLight

  • Imagination is more important than knowledge.
« Reply #45 on: November 09, 2009, 00:33 »
0
well i don't know...but this post was a "what do you LIKE about DT" post...  :-[  ???

anyhow i like DT (with my limited experience). Compared to FT you are far less anonymous, you can at least write down who you are, whereas in FT you are just a link to click on. For me personally moreover i have had >70% subscription sales on FT and none on DT so the earnings are better at DT, but this experience is just limited as I started very recently.

be happy!
simone

« Reply #46 on: November 09, 2009, 01:04 »
0
IMO this "comfort' should have higher price than 0.35$. If the designer propose 10 different compositions he earns money thanks to 10 of our images. Why he should only pay for one of them?

Ah but the main point was exactly that he will only use one image out of the ten for the approved design.

« Reply #47 on: November 09, 2009, 04:30 »
0
Achilles has been answering the subs issue a few times, also on this forum as I remember. It boils down to designers needing a few or many alternative images for a particular design, so that they can present these options without clumsy watermark to the customer. We read before here on this forum how designers hate comps with watermarks.
In fact, only one of those images will actually be used, so Achilles pointed out that sub sales are in fact an extra, those are sales that wouldn't have been happened on a credit package (except the image finally chosen of course).
For me "presenting" is a part of his job - so he USES these images (even if only one is a part of final design).
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 04:32 by rene »

« Reply #48 on: November 09, 2009, 12:46 »
0
well i don't know...but this post was a "what do you LIKE about DT" post...  :-[  ???
Yeah, I think the haters took it over. Let's see... I like that I make money on Dreamstime because if I didn't I wouldn't contribute there. ;D Was that too obvious? I also like that they tell you what keywords were used to download your image. They also have a decent referral program.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #49 on: November 09, 2009, 13:24 »
0
well i don't know...but this post was a "what do you LIKE about DT" post...  :-[  ???
Yeah, I think the haters took it over. Let's see... I like that I make money on Dreamstime because if I didn't I wouldn't contribute there. ;D Was that too obvious? I also like that they tell you what keywords were used to download your image. They also have a decent referral program.

I certainly didn't mean to come across as a Hater.  I'm not.  I like DT as well as any of the agencies that I HIRED to sell my pictures.  They do a good job of selling.  I do wish they didn't sell so cheap.

Anyway, my point is that NONE of the agencies have YOUR best interest in mind. 
As far as likes, I like a lot of things about DT.  I just don't feel that they are as open an honest as the "cheerleaders" seem to think.  Achilles is just as quick to censor a post as any of the other agencies.  What is left is cheers.   ;D




 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Dreamstime down?

Started by Greg Boiarsky Dreamstime.com

5 Replies
3489 Views
Last post July 26, 2006, 05:58
by Kiya
5 Replies
3312 Views
Last post September 26, 2006, 16:13
by pelmof
20 Replies
6103 Views
Last post January 18, 2007, 11:51
by leaf
15 Replies
6536 Views
Last post July 07, 2007, 12:04
by ManicBlu
158 Replies
38023 Views
Last post October 30, 2009, 22:01
by traveler1116

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results