Please, read the entire post before asking questions 

The default is $1 but it's too low: you'll get an error message if you try to submit. It must be at least $2.

We are setting the price for the maximum picture size; price for smaller sizes will be automatically scaled.

at 8$:

blog (569x857) $3.20
web (1139x1715) $4.40
print (1708x2572) $5.60
ultrahigh (2278x3430) $6.80
megahigh (2848x4288) $8

at 10$:

blog (569x857) $4
web (1139x1715) $5.50
print (1708x2572) $7
ultrahigh (2278x3430) $8.5
megahigh (2848x4288) $10

I believe they need to lower the blog/web prices

This is rubbish.  We should choose the price of smallest size.
If I have only L size of some image because of cropping or other reason, price of blog size is extremely high (in microstock world) if 10 USD is set as default. I don't want to go through all the images to set price individually.

I absolutely agree. And then the $2 minimum price ($1 commission) would be a decent one. I hope they consider changing that.

^^^There's several other sites that pay 50% commission.  Try GLStockImages, 52% commission and they already have stills buyers.  Pond5 is great for video but they seem like different markets.  Some of their buyers might want stills but I think it will take a long time for them to be competitive with the big microstock sites.

Sharpshot, thanks for the advert, yes I'm selling video on Pond 5 too, Did you already tried GLstockimages?

Quote from: KB on August 22, 2012, 11:51

Quote from: Smithore on August 22, 2012, 11:40

The default is $1 but it's too low: you'll get an error message if you try to submit. It must be at least $2.

Ah, $2. That's much better.

 

I didn't mean $2 is good. It's just the minimum price you can technically choose. In fact, I set everything at $9.

I didn't think you meant it was good. I was just being a bit sarcastic, as I don't see why they would allow such a low minimum price for maximum size. It hurts them, and it hurts contributors. $2 as a minimum websize pic is ok (though I'm sure there are plenty who would prefer an even lower price), but as a minimum price for max size, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Quote from: sharpshot on August 22, 2012, 13:43

^^^There's several other sites that pay 50% commission.  Try GLStockImages, 52% commission and they already have stills buyers.  Pond5 is great for video but they seem like different markets.  Some of their buyers might want stills but I think it will take a long time for them to be competitive with the big microstock sites.

sure but its impossible not to imagine a good future (I guess) for them, aren�t they number 1 or 2 in terms of video? I believe we have a good chance here

I hope so but some of the microstock sites have struggled to sell footage, so I wouldn't be surprised if Pond5 struggled with stills.

I hope so but some of the microstock sites have struggled to sell footage, so I wouldn't be surprised if Pond5 struggled with stills.

Their search is truly appalling, both from spam and from lack of any allowance for keyword phrasing. Even putting phrases into 'quotes' doesn't help.

I noticed lower and lower footage sell on the other sites (fotolia,revostock,shutterstock,istock...) these last months, Pond 5 seems to be the leader now.

My footage portfolio isn't very commercial, I've sold more on Pond5 than anywhere else but haven't uploaded much this year and my sales have slowed down.  SS has picked up a bit and others are mentioning it in their forum.  Sold one with Reveostock this month, the first in a long time.  Didn't bother with FT and removed most of my clips from istock, as 15% commission is too low for me.

Just got my 600 first photos accepted and online, let see...

Oh good, someone to test the water.

Write in a couple of months and tell me how it's going. 

Some of batches that I uploaded do not appear in uploads at all...

I've sent my pictures last week, around 7-8 days ago.
Crestock ? What is it? 

Alright thanks, mine are in que since aug 20 so hopefully reviewed next week.