MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Educated guesses welcome re: impact of deactivated SS on my other platforms sale  (Read 2243 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 07, 2020, 07:01 »
+1
Hello Group:

Am strongly considering deactivating downloads for SS, mainly out of principle re: the ultra low rates which are becoming more frequent.  I wonder if any of you could offer educated guesses regarding the positive impact of deactivating my SS portfolio, specifically in the area of non-dilution of my exiting portfolio on other platforms?

That is: how feasible / likely might it be that my other portfolios (Adobe, P5 etc) which contain many of those same clips might benefit from not being sold as lowballs at SS?

Thanks



Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2020, 08:57 »
+3
Hello Group:

Am strongly considering deactivating downloads for SS, mainly out of principle re: the ultra low rates which are becoming more frequent.  I wonder if any of you could offer educated guesses regarding the positive impact of deactivating my SS portfolio, specifically in the area of non-dilution of my exiting portfolio on other platforms?

That is: how feasible / likely might it be that my other portfolios (Adobe, P5 etc) which contain many of those same clips might benefit from not being sold as lowballs at SS?

Thanks

No difference, unless you have something that's a one of a kind, you have the only example in existence.

For years I've said, "don't feed the parasite agencies" and people came back with, "I need the money" or "it won't make a difference" well here we are and suddenly June 2020, people are saying don't feed SS and the story has changed to, how much it will make a difference?

The parasite agencies were fed and kept alive by people uploading, while for those agencies the only way of getting a sale was, cut prices, lower our image values. Now the market has been driven into a hole in the ground and someone wants to stop the decline. The last important agency has joined the race to the bottom, and that was Shutterstock.

Aside from the bottom feeders, free sites and thieves, every agency has had cuts and changes, levels eliminated, and more cuts, except Shutterstock Subscription. Now SS is the Devil?

I don't think that anyone who removes their images from SS and adds the smaller sites or concentrates on the alternatives, is going to see a noticeable difference, except losing 100% of their SS income. Of course I might be wrong.

There is the ethical consideration, and personal decision, that some people just won't work for 10 cents, I understand. The higher levels will make more, is a mirage, (or carrot on a stick?) because people on top are still getting 10c downloads. Next someone will reply how IS is better, where we get 4 and .0042 or some such number credits. Really, that's better?



Microstock is dead.

« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2020, 14:21 »
+1
i dont agree.

something that's a one of a kind you need anyway to get sales and costs covered

as far i can remember:
there are out some services that search and compare all agencies

customers buy what they need - not what is the cheapest

especially for new trends, concepts, news, colors, etc this will work for shure.

Let me leave a short gag:
if today ALL would deactivate the cheapies and only
support realistic prices
ALL would get a MASSIVE!!! raise tomorrow!!



« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2020, 14:54 »
+3
It won't make a difference, because the 0.10$, 0.12,$ 0.14$ and so on sales are all from people who have a yearly Shutterstock subscription. If you delete your file from Shutterstock, they will not go to a different agency  and make a second yearly subscription to purchase your file. They will simply buy someone else's photo/video/illustration on Shutterstock, because there are enough to pick from.

Maybe, in the long run, if not enough new good quality content can be found on Shutterstock anymore, some customers might not renew their yearly subscriptions and look into other agencies. But that's just a vague possibility for the future and personally I think it is unlikely.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2020, 03:25 by Firn »

« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2020, 15:44 »
0
....

Maybe, in the long run, if not enough new good quality content can be found on Shutterstock anymore, some customers might not renew their yearly subscriptions and look into other agencies. But that's just a vague possibility for the future.

truly vague -- it's unlikely as there's no evidence the good/bad ratio has changed - either in images disabled or new images added

« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2020, 19:31 »
+1
what do one will achieve anyway with 0.10$, 0.12,$ 0.14$
from people who have a yearly subscription ?

you cant finance with that any minimal shooting, keywording,
uploading, internet, tax work, the list is endless..
not even in the cheapest country.

« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2020, 03:10 »
+6
So you think the last important agency to join the race to the bottom was Shutterstock.
I would say that the first agency that started the race to the bottom has been SS. Remember there was a time when Istock had no subs, had Vettas and Agencies paying hundreds. Fotolia nad dreamstime were also paying better. Bigstock also was paying much better before taken over by the SS.
If there is one agency responsible for the ruin of this industry that is SS.
But as I see there are still a lot of delusionary people out there.

And as far as I am aware there are still agencies like Pond5 were you can price your content as high as you want and get 60%. There are still cooperatives like Stocksy that pay 50% and share benefits with their members, there is still Adobe that pays 33% and 35% video (lets see for how long).

The best that can happen is that pros and amateurs with top notch content turn forever their backs to this SS leechers so it can be riddled to a nightmare of the past in a few years.



The last important agency has joined the race to the bottom, and that was Shutterstock.
Microstock is dead.

« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2020, 03:20 »
+6
I think the biggest delusion is the idea that Stock photography will be the first industry ever to defeat the law of supply and demand.

« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2020, 16:03 »
+1
So you think the last important agency to join the race to the bottom was Shutterstock.
I would say that the first agency that started the race to the bottom has been SS. Remember there was a time when Istock had no subs, had Vettas and Agencies paying hundreds. Fotolia nad dreamstime were also paying better. Bigstock also was paying much better before taken over by the SS.
If there is one agency responsible for the ruin of this industry that is SS.
But as I see there are still a lot of delusionary people out there.

And as far as I am aware there are still agencies like Pond5 were you can price your content as high as you want and get 60%. There are still cooperatives like Stocksy that pay 50% and share benefits with their members, there is still Adobe that pays 33% and 35% video (lets see for how long).

The best that can happen is that pros and amateurs with top notch content turn forever their backs to this SS leechers so it can be riddled to a nightmare of the past in a few years.



The last important agency has joined the race to the bottom, and that was Shutterstock.
Microstock is dead.

Yes and no. Yes, you can price it as you like, but P5 can go in and change your prices to anything they like. If you are selling on Adobe for less, they will lower your prices to below Adobe. Kind of defeats the whole price your own content point. Seems like just a way to suck contributors in. And right now, only video sells there.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2020, 17:20 »
+5
Pond5 offers 40% for non-exclusives, which used to be 50%. 60% is only for exclusives. And they randomly change your pricing to suit their algorithms. People seem to forget the crappy royalty cut Pond5 gave us last year, yet now they're seen as 'one of the last good agencies'. Well, they're every bit as evil as SS.

Edit: grammar
« Last Edit: August 13, 2020, 04:58 by Noedelhap »

« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2020, 18:20 »
+3
Pond5 offers 40% for non-exclusives, which used to be 50%. 60% is only for exclusives. And they randomly changes your pricing to suit their algorithms. People seem to forget the crappy royalty cut Pond5 gave us last year, yet now they're seen as 'one the last of the good agencies'. Well, they're every bit as evil as SS.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2020, 18:49 »
+1
Hello Group:

Am strongly considering deactivating downloads for SS, mainly out of principle re: the ultra low rates which are becoming more frequent.  I wonder if any of you could offer educated guesses regarding the positive impact of deactivating my SS portfolio, specifically in the area of non-dilution of my exiting portfolio on other platforms?

That is: how feasible / likely might it be that my other portfolios (Adobe, P5 etc) which contain many of those same clips might benefit from not being sold as lowballs at SS?

Thanks

I can only speak for myself, but my income went up after I dropped SS a few weeks ago.  It's really to early to say if it's a trend or just a blip. My port isn't one-of-a-kind, but i do have some pictures of 2016 presidentil elections that are niche material.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2020, 14:50 »
+5
i dont agree.

something that's a one of a kind you need anyway to get sales and costs covered

as far i can remember:
there are out some services that search and compare all agencies

1) customers buy what they need - not what is the cheapest

especially for new trends, concepts, news, colors, etc this will work for shure.

Let me leave a short gag:
2) if today ALL would deactivate the cheapies and only
support realistic prices
ALL would get a MASSIVE!!! raise tomorrow!!


If #1 is true why is anyone complaining about SS cutting prices?  ;)

#2 I've been trying to get that point across since about 2007. Stop uploading to price cutters and cheapies, especially now the Free sites. Does anyone listen? Nope! Not until the last better paying (none are good) topples.

I think the biggest delusion is the idea that Stock photography will be the first industry ever to defeat the law of supply and demand.

Or that the business would keep growing forever and we'd make a steady residual income from years of uploads.

All the same images, virtually, available everywhere and anywhere, the only difference is price. If the same image from the same artist isn't available, something similar will be.

Some people act like, if there wasn't a Shutterstock, none of this would have happened. The future is inevitable, someone else would have done the same. Digital cameras, digital marketing, Microstock wasn't invented by SS it was just marketed in a different way. IS used to be the highest paying, where are they now? 15% FLAT.

When was the last time you bought a camera at a "camera store"? I don't think there's any left within 100 miles of me. Anyone buy anything on eBay that comes from Korea, Japan, Hong Kong? They make and sell for less than I'd have to pay for the shipping in the US.

The world changed because of the Internet and computers and progress. Pretty much anyone who has a phone, has a camera with them at all times. And they don't have a landline phone anymore. Big department stores and whole malls are going out of business.

You can buy a car online, without going to a dealer.

Shutterstock just did a better and smarter job of reading the market and the future. They didn't create the situation, Jon reacted to what was already happening and got in early with a better plan. (maybe not for us of course), but for someone creating a business to fill a market need.

Many people made some good money from their work and photos, early on. That's over.

« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2020, 15:38 »
0
i dont agree.

something that's a one of a kind you need anyway to get sales and costs covered

as far i can remember:
there are out some services that search and compare all agencies

1) customers buy what they need - not what is the cheapest

especially for new trends, concepts, news, colors, etc this will work for shure.

Let me leave a short gag:
2) if today ALL would deactivate the cheapies and only
support realistic prices
ALL would get a MASSIVE!!! raise tomorrow!!


If #1 is true why is anyone complaining about SS cutting prices?  ;)

#2 I've been trying to get that point across since about 2007. Stop uploading to price cutters and cheapies, especially now the Free sites. Does anyone listen? Nope! Not until the last better paying (none are good) topples.

I think the biggest delusion is the idea that Stock photography will be the first industry ever to defeat the law of supply and demand.

Or that the business would keep growing forever and we'd make a steady residual income from years of uploads.

All the same images, virtually, available everywhere and anywhere, the only difference is price. If the same image from the same artist isn't available, something similar will be.

Some people act like, if there wasn't a Shutterstock, none of this would have happened. The future is inevitable, someone else would have done the same. Digital cameras, digital marketing, Microstock wasn't invented by SS it was just marketed in a different way. IS used to be the highest paying, where are they now? 15% FLAT.

When was the last time you bought a camera at a "camera store"? I don't think there's any left within 100 miles of me. Anyone buy anything on eBay that comes from Korea, Japan, Hong Kong? They make and sell for less than I'd have to pay for the shipping in the US.

The world changed because of the Internet and computers and progress. Pretty much anyone who has a phone, has a camera with them at all times. And they don't have a landline phone anymore. Big department stores and whole malls are going out of business.

You can buy a car online, without going to a dealer.

Shutterstock just did a better and smarter job of reading the market and the future. They didn't create the situation, Jon reacted to what was already happening and got in early with a better plan. (maybe not for us of course), but for someone creating a business to fill a market need.

Many people made some good money from their work and photos, early on. That's over.


We all know that the rotten apple must be isolated so that it does not infect the whole group.

The market is saturated with competition, many books sold on how making money with your passion, photography. Do what you like and earn money easily.

The market is going to end the Agencies, yes, the internet does this. Facilitates new developments.

Agencies will disappear, and new ways of reaching customers will be created. The files and their creators will continue, simply because they are necessary.

Two decades ago, I described in a book how the black sheep in the sales group, the one who does not leave, dedicates itself with its negativity, to destroy the sales team. Everything is wrong and they must convey this idea to the group. If it is not detected, isolated and expelled from the group, it is a leader who ends up with the sales team. Everything is wrong, and your goal by not selling is that no one sells. Thus, the problem belongs to everyone, not himself.

I am motivated by this period in the Microstock archive trade. A time of changes in the market and full of new opportunities.

« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2020, 18:37 »
+4
It is now taking me months in SS to make what I am making with other agencies in one moth or less.  SS is not worth my time and not uploading there.  I Miss the income I used to get from SS but seriously, it is taking too long to get to what I used to make there in a month under their new pricing-- not worth the time to upload anything new to SS.

rinderart

« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2020, 00:08 »
+1
I would prefer to see a Link to your work before commenting. I've been around quite a while and Long Before Microstock. Im Personally doing Better at SS the last few months than the last few years. I won't be deleting My Port. Although, I will not add More and I do Not do Video anymore and Haven't for years. You can send Me a PM Link to your Port...But , only If ya want the truth based On experience.

Warning....I don't sugarcoat. Been shooting for a living since the late 60's and reviewed for 2 years when all this started.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2020, 00:11 by rinderart »

« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2020, 18:18 »
+5
I would prefer to see a Link to your work before commenting. I've been around quite a while and Long Before Microstock. Im Personally doing Better at SS the last few months than the last few years. I won't be deleting My Port. Although, I will not add More and I do Not do Video anymore and Haven't for years. You can send Me a PM Link to your Port...But , only If ya want the truth based On experience.

Warning....I don't sugarcoat. Been shooting for a living since the late 60's and reviewed for 2 years when all this started.

We have had several PM conversations, so we more or less read from the same page as for the microstock world from an trad point of view etc. What I don't understand Rinder is why oh why you keep your work up at SS. If you are in a precarious situation and those almighty dimes mean a lot then I can understand sticking with SS, but in your situation it concerns me. You of all people should be out because you really do know that a dime is a total kick in the face.

I ask this from a position of respect.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2020, 18:47 by Clair Voyant »


« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2020, 23:59 »
+1
No they are not. Shutterstock is the one selling images for pennies since it exists and now it sells videos under 1 dollar too. It pays from 15 to 30% at most for 99.99% contributors. Pond5 never has and is selling images for pennies. You get 40-60% royalty. You establish your prices but it is quite logic that they control that people don't plaster a much higher price on their content while selling the same for peanuts on other sites. That is a rule from them that everybody knows the same as download unlimited content for a sub is not really download unlimited content from most sites.

Alamy P5 and many more contributor friendly have lowered their commissions because it is harder to compete for them with "idiots" giving their content away for free or near free on scavengers sites (SS, Bigstock,Freepik,etc). People are still stupid enough that sell the same videos on Adobe that asks for 169 4k while shutters and the like give them away for dimes. It is not P5 Adobe, Alamy ,etc who are to blame, it is the crooks that keeps selling content on those horrible sites

Pond5 offers 40% for non-exclusives, which used to be 50%. 60% is only for exclusives. And they randomly change your pricing to suit their algorithms. People seem to forget the crappy royalty cut Pond5 gave us last year, yet now they're seen as 'one of the last good agencies'. Well, they're every bit as evil as SS.

Edit: grammar
« Last Edit: August 14, 2020, 02:47 by everest »

farbled

« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2020, 05:31 »
+4
And the blame game continues and it always will. All content is not equal and it never was, some stuff isn't worth even ten cents, and some should be on fine art sites making thousands. Trads had scarcity and quality (usually but not always). Micro came along and every joe or jane with a camera suddenly broke that scarcity into oblivion. Then they broke the quality barrier pretty quickly too.

Agencies just made a pile off it is all. Trads threw high quality concept stuff up for pennies and killed their own market off (yes more complicated that than of course, but it was  factor). It could and should have been micros for amateurs starting out and small business who could not afford thousands for photos, so that we had a place to go when we improved and higher paying clients to go with.

I guess I am one of those "idiots" who always believed that a 25/38 cent whatever payout was only worth the same level of effort going in. They got the work I was willing to put in with my thirty second photo shoots of my supper. My stuff is not, in my opinion, worth more than micro prices (according to some peers and experts it is the trailer trash of stock, lol :) ). That has worked for me all this time, and it would still work if I chose. My pulling of my port was less about income, more about the transparency of it all.

As for the free sites, again, there is a place for them, all the stuff that doesn't take effort or money to produce, those who are about the craft and not the sale, those who don't see a difference between free and ten cents or less... and there are returns to be had if people did the research. Some have found ways to use them to their advantage. If free sites hurt you that much, you're doing it wrong. Just my opinion of course. There is some good stuff there, but it is so inconsistent and small for things that are needed on a more regular basis.

Every person has their own way of working, and if it makes you happy with the results, then it is the right way for you. The difference between a 38, 36, or 25 cent royalty and 10 cents isnt big enough to warrant calling people idiots without looking hard in a mirror. The issue as I see it, is the transparency in which the agency is making these cuts.

But that's the way of things. The agencies make all the money, and we blame each other.

*edit - its 3am and I can't sleep. Sorry for the essay :)

« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2020, 06:27 »
+1
Quote
Agencies just made a pile off it is all. Trads threw high quality concept stuff up for pennies and killed their own market off (yes more complicated that than of course, but it was  factor). It could and should have been micros for amateurs starting out and small business who could not afford thousands for photos, so that we had a place to go when we improved and higher paying clients to go with.

This is exactly how I viewed microstock. My stuff was never meant to compete with trads. I was a graphic designer working for small companies. Im over there designing newsletters and magazines, and one image cost $300+. It was a hard sell getting the boss to approve even one photo for the project. When microstock came along, it was a great solution. I could buy 3 or 4 or more micro images, not quite as good quality as a custom shoot or from trads, but acceptable to get the job done. But then, trads decided they could clean up by selling on microstock. For us buyers, it was great...trad quality for microstock prices. But then those of us who were just starting in photography are now competing with pros, and the race to the bottom began.

I was encouraged by a friend to jump into microstock for exactly the same reason she did...we were designers who thought we had a pretty good handle on what was needed and what would sell. We werent trying to put anybody out of business...we were just trying to fill the gap between large companies who could afford big budgets for photography from the trads, and the small companies who could not. And make a few bucks along the way.

As my skills improved, I totally expected to move to RM trads and out of microstock, and in fact sold some RM images directly to a large card printer. Then life happened, other things became priority, and I just continued with the microstock. Today, I still sell images but I dont even shoot anymore. My choice.

Multiply my story times how many hundreds of thousands contributors there are, and we are where we are. Its only gonna get worse, as long as people are ok with the agencies making all the money, and taking peanuts (or pretty soon, nothing) for their work.

As far as the OP, it will be difficult to predict anything like that, because the same image can be a blockbuster at one site, and hardly ever sell at another. If you are deactivating or removing at SS, you should do it on principle. When buyers cant get images or clips that they used in their comps, and the quality of whats left is not something they can use, they will go elsewhere. The more people take quality out of SS, the better chance everyone has of getting sales at other places for more money. Hopefully.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2020, 06:48 by cathyslife »

« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2020, 09:29 »
0
I don't know if you are one of those idiots. You are if you if pile crap on the contributor friendly sites and pretend that those sell low while you have the same  files for sale for a tiny fraction of the price. I repeat myself "many idiots" on that front. It is not the agencies that I blame. It is people that undervalue themselves or make erratic decisions like giving their content to "fair" sites vs "exploitive" ones.

I don't know if your work was or is worth micro or nano prices. Everything has a place. I was in trad (not anymore as most trads are gone and I pulled out from Getty trad collections- as my single 5 figure and 4 figure single sales disappeared quite quickly.) but I can tell you while everyone was raving about Shutter , Bigstock, Deposit blabla bla I went exclusive with 3000 files at Istock to try out the field (not models at that time) and I was making over 100.000$ year with quite simple studio images (concepts on blackboards and easy stuff). Would I had made more on subs like SS, I doubt it. My rpd was 15$ average and some files were selling 5/6 times a day. My week days were 400-500$ every day. Of course with people having their same stuff at "expensive" Istock and ultra cheap subs SS it could not last long. Another point that helped demise was Gettys greed but that another point not in discussion here.

People always blame the "higher powers": politician, the agencies, the corporations. We are our worst enemy. It is what it is.



I guess I am one of those "idiots" who always believed that a 25/38 cent whatever payout was only worth the same level of effort going in. They got the work I was willing to put in with my thirty second photo shoots of my supper. My stuff is not, in my opinion, worth more than micro prices

*edit - its 3am and I can't sleep. Sorry for the essay :)

farbled

« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2020, 09:37 »
+2
This is exactly how I viewed microstock. My stuff was never meant to compete with trads. I was a graphic designer working for small companies. Im over there designing newsletters and magazines, and one image cost $300+. It was a hard sell getting the boss to approve even one photo for the project. When microstock came along, it was a great solution. I could buy 3 or 4 or more micro images, not quite as good quality as a custom shoot or from trads, but acceptable to get the job done. But then, trads decided they could clean up by selling on microstock. For us buyers, it was great...trad quality for microstock prices. But then those of us who were just starting in photography are now competing with pros, and the race to the bottom began.
Exactly this, and much the same way I started in the mining industry.

The micro agencies didn't steal the market. They created a new one and the big spenders and high end shooters followed. The free sites are simply one of the next steps for some types of shooting. I also think that if anyone should complain about free sites, it should the Stocksy/Offset crowd, since the photos I have seen are more art/style kind of things. For exampe, I was doing an article the other day and needed a shot of a sink full of dirty dishes. The only place that had them was a micro. The other places are too busy creating art (I don't mean that in a disparaging way, just different audiences/markets).

I think we will see more and more niche sites with exclusive stuff you can't get anywhere else. It just makes sense for the shots that take work/money to get. That is the one thing I really liked about the original Symbiostock, the search function.

farbled

« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2020, 09:52 »
+2
I don't know if you are one of those idiots. You are if you if pile crap on the contributor friendly sites and pretend that those sell low while you have the same  files for sale for a tiny fraction of the price. I repeat myself "many idiots" on that front. It is not the agencies that I blame. It is people that undervalue themselves or make erratic decisions like giving their content to "fair" sites vs "exploitive" ones.
Meh, every site is different, every market is different. It doesn't matter how good you are, it has gone back to how scarce your niche is, and how in demand that niche is. Value is what a client will pay if you are trying to sell it. Thats my opinion. Remember howmuch a computer used to cost?
This industry is funny. Its like being able to hand build your own car but clients only need a ford tempo.
Lol, and I do see the funny in someone who made "my single 5 figure and 4 figure single sales" now selling for pennies, calling people out for undervaluing their work.

« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2020, 10:36 »
0
Well nowadays niches are few and of unless you are the only one covering that field you better be good at it too.

I have never sold for pennies. Not at P5 not at Getty, not at Adobe. I had before their cash grab my videos (not photos as I am still exclusive Getty/Istock with stills) at Shutter netting 18-20$ sale, close to Adobe and something less that what I make at P5. At Getty my average is still over 3$ net sale. So no pennies here. At 3$ net I am already considering leaving the crown as it is too low and far from that 15$ avergafe I had years ago. Of course those 5 figure and 4 figure sales were not the norm. The average was more at 80-100$ sale but those 15$ sales crushed in absolute numbers my annual Getty revenue (the similar control policy, editor selection etc ) made submitting to Istock when subs did not exist more profitable. But I never sold for pennies nor will never do, this is why I disables my 3k video files from Shutterstock the day after the news hit the fan. Because I don't want to sell for low dollar what I sell for high dollars elsewhere.

You might not get it, maybe because you don't value yourself, maybe because you don't give a *. It is not my business what you do with your images and what income you generate. But someone who has an asset and cannot profit from it properly .....well you can't say he/she is very clever.....don't you think?

Meh, every site is different, every market is different. It doesn't matter how good you are, it has gone back to how scarce your niche is, who made "my single 5 figure and 4 figure single sales" now selling for pennies, calling people out for undervaluing their work.

farbled

« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2020, 10:45 »
+2

You might not get it, maybe because you don't value yourself, maybe because you don't give a *. It is not my business what you do with your images and what income you generate. But someone who has an asset and cannot profit from it properly .....well you can't say he/she is very clever.....don't you think?
Thank you for proving my point so eloquently and contradicting yourself too. You literally called people idiots for doing what they wish with their images, but it's not your business? I do hope your pictures are better than your debating skills.

*edit: as I said, I took stock (lol!) of the market available and tailored my workflow to make it worthwhile. Personally, I thought making money for doing almost zero work was pretty clever.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2020, 11:10 by farbled »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
3126 Views
Last post March 23, 2008, 15:42
by madelaide
2 Replies
4725 Views
Last post June 04, 2009, 18:47
by eppic
14 Replies
6514 Views
Last post March 10, 2014, 21:47
by Pixart
33 Replies
13085 Views
Last post September 19, 2015, 08:04
by silverrose1
2 Replies
814 Views
Last post June 20, 2020, 09:25
by aitor

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle