I've only submitted photos for years, but am considering adding videos - mostly from drone footage.
For those of you who do both, do you find one better than another, worse than another, or "it depends"?

OK - here's a kind of interesting situation. I have interior photos of a manufactured home, taken for the owner of the park. She is the owner of the home...but, the home itself is a design by a major company.

So, the question is, do I need a PR signed by the home's owner or company? I'm guessing the owner, but thought I'd just toss it out to the group.

Anyone that reads these boards on a regular basis (especially newbies, including me at only 4 years) must be puzzled by the wildly different results we all seem to have from each other. Just look at some of the posts. "DT sales dead", "SS dropping badly", "BME on Alamy".
OK...I made that last one up; but you get the idea. There are always posts that people make giving totally different experiences. We can all have different sales within the same site and wonder if it's due to management, policy changes, partner sites, etc.

But I'm thinking there might be another reason that we don't think of or check: what are the subjects of the photos? It seems to me (looking at my own portfolio) that sales of the same image can vary wildly from site to site. Why? I dunno. Different types of search technologies? Attracting different types of art directors? Attracting more bloggers than designers? Who knows?

So, here's an example of one of my images. Both uploaded the same day.
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=200092391

Total Sales on SS: 9
Total Sales on FT:  331

Hard to know just what to do with this information. But sure is interesting.

I've only been in microstock a short time (3 years), but already have quite a stack of signed model releases. Always looking to simplify my life, here's my question:

Since I have them all digitized as JPGs, do I need to keep the original?
If so, for how long?

Thanks in advance for chiming in.

I was going to post this to the subject below; but then I realized that, while related, it's not the same (although it is related to Google ).
I design and manage my sister's website on early literacy through singing, and because I photograph stock, she knows all about what we do and values our work and creativity.

Plus, she's a very ethical person, and does not mind paying for what we do.
Recently, she put together a poster to publicize a local scavenger hunt, and wanted to have an image of a child looking through a magnifying lens. Found it, and printed 15 posters to put around her town in stores.

I took one look at the image and (like any of us) recognized that it was a professionally done microstock image. I asked her what site she bought it from, and she said it was free. She had carefully looked for a copyright or credit; and seeing none right-clicked to capture the image. Small res, but ok for the small picture on her printer. (and CERTAINLY large enough for a website.)

I did a quick search, and immediately found it on SS and BS. The site she got it from was totally unrelated. I'm sure THEY purchased it legitimately from one of the agencies for use on their website - which is where she found it.
(Of course, with not credit or copyright.)

When I showed her the image for sale on other microstock sites, she was mortified, aghast, and understood immediately how this had happened. And, will never do it again, now that she knows.

This from a highly intelligent, moral, educated person. (ok...maybe I'm biased. But she is; and an amazing person to boot)

The point is, there is always going to be a certain amount of this "capture" being done, whether the person is aware of it or not. That's just the reality we live with in this digital age, and really nothing we (or the agencies) can do about it.
I guess it goes along with the "cost of doing business" like store write off a certain amount of inevitable shoplifting.

Like many things in our modern world, we have a love/hate relationship with Google. Sometimes, it's just too * good at finding information.

This month my earnings from Fotolia stayed ahead of Shutterstock every day, the entire month and finished higher as well by 8%!. (Both closed above my minimum payout.)
I have no explanation.

I have a small portfolio (300-350 images) with more accepted at Shutterstock. And, like most of you, my SS earnings have historically been way, way more than FT, DT, and BS combined.

Until this month.

My SOD have dropped to nothing on SS for the past few months (which was where the earning difference was), but FT just kept on going steady every day.

SS has been dropping the past several months for me; but this really took me by surprise.
Am I all alone in this experience, or have any of the rest of you had similar experiences?

Just had cataract surgery on one eye; not because I thought I needed it, but because my optometrist said I should.  (The other eye has a cataract also, but not bad enough to operate on yet.) The type I had was more "frosted" than yellow; but none of this was bad enough to affect my work, because I could still see pretty good.

Or so I thought.

After surgery, guess what?
I can now clearly see (with my corrected eye) everything is  brighter and "bluer"...as in less yellow. Also, everything is hyper sharp (you might say "normal"). Kind of like the difference between watching a VHS movie on an old CRT television as opposed to a Blu-Ray movie on a high-def flat screen.
Bottom line, I can NOW see that many of my submitted images are a little too blue (over-correcting out for yellow), and in some cases slightly out of focus and with noise and/or over-sharpened viewed at 100%

And I always looked at my images at 200% to evaluate. Didn't matter. Soft vision is soft vision at any magnification.

Bottom line, cataracts progress gradually over a period of many years (boiling frog syndrome) and you think it doesn't matter...UNTIL you have them removed.

Just info to consider for all you older photographers that think you shouldn't be getting so many rejections.

Many times I can crop a photo for more impact; not only making the image better, but also making it read more clearly as prospective buyers browse through hundreds of thumbnails. So, I know (or think I know) that it will have a better chance of selling.
But on the other hand, I will be removing options for cropping that might be important to the designer in fitting it into their space or having room for text - or even having the flexibility to change it's orientation. That might reduce its saleability.
I normally shoot a variety (far and cropped) in any given situation; but sometimes I have a single shot or one with expressions that are really great on one image.

So, I'm looking for your collective wisdom based on experience. Or heck...just gut feelings.

Yesterday I ran into an interesting situation that I hope members can shed light on. I did a shoot of an interior designer in her home with several pieces of framed art in the background.  One was a large framed print of a Picasso. Another was an abstract of an unknown artist. Both were framed posters used for decor. In both cases they were enough in focus to be recognizable.
So, here's what I'd like to know.
Can I not have either of them appear in the background because I don't have a (property?) release from the artist?
Or, since they are both reproductions, can I not have them appear in the background because they are products of the printing company?
Or, is this not an issue, because they fall into the same category as any other decor objects in the house (Ethan Allen furniture, distinctive lamp.)