|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - TonyD
101
« on: September 15, 2022, 07:44 »
I've had nearly 4x as many DL sales on SS than Al, AS, DT & DP put together over nearly 3 years. Although I joined some of these agencies many months later than SS, I've still had several times the no.of DLs per month on SS. Though I'm hopeful that the others will catch up because I have more images on each of them (bar AS) than SS.
However, the revenue I earned from the other four agencies is 84% of my SS total achieved with only 26% of my DLs. That said, I've only had one payout from AS but two from SS so far.
102
« on: September 07, 2022, 02:58 »
If you close your contributor account on adobe stock they will pay you the remaining balance even if it hasn't reached the payout amount but they charge a few $ to cover the processing fee. Luckily I cashed out in the end at 25 (not $) after they paid me for free images. I wish Dreamstime would do the same because I've been adding images for over 2 years. but earned less than $20 even though I have over 1k in my port..
103
« on: September 05, 2022, 09:45 »
I would suggest istock because unless the pictures feature children or interiors, they'll all be accepted. Since they're old and you have nothing to lose, even 2 cents per picture would be better than zero. And generally, there are at least a few pictures every month that make me a dollar or more. I put pretty much all my mobile phone pictures and old images that won't be accepted anywhere else on istock and they generally make me at least a 100-200 dollars a month.
Thanks, I wondered about istock.
104
« on: September 05, 2022, 08:32 »
When I downsize my images, as you guys said, most of them get accepted, but does that means that they will not be sold for an extended license and mostly at 10c?
That will completely depend on what the customer wants the image for, not necessarily the type of licence. If he wants to print it on a huge billboard in town, then, yes, small image size might keep him from buying the image. But if he wants to print it as a postcard, then the minimum size Shutterstock requires is more than enough. I guess in the end it's probably like this: Downsizing will not keep you from getting extended licence sales, but it will make the chance of it smaller as it does limit the possible usage of an image.
But, in the end, the one image you won't get an extended license sale for sure is the image that never got accepted, so I'd say it's better to have a downsized image accepted than not having it accepted at all.
I don't see many printed billboards anymore. They are mostly adverts on big LED flat screens and if you look at them closely you can see the dots that make up the image which means even a 4MP image would work fine with them.
105
« on: September 05, 2022, 08:23 »
I would say that resubmit always goes to human reviewer, but the first attempt... who knows. Basically all landscape images from full frame camera are rejected for focus (but they are just detailed - it seems that some AI does not understand grass straws and consider the details as noise). It is much easier to get accepted blurred images (soft corners) from a compact camera than perfectly sharp images from a full frame.
Its been like this for a while - full resolution images at 30-50mp get rejected for focus and noise. Downsizing that same image to 8MP and it gets accepted.
The AI seems to struggle with smaller pixels when ranking an image for focus.
I once submitted a completely blurred image taken at night because the AF failed & was accepted.
106
« on: September 05, 2022, 08:19 »
I also get more than 95% of my submission through the first time, so I don't have a problem with them other than their similarity rejections (Which you can mostly avoid by not submitting images from the same shoot in one batch) If you look at their newest images of any random topic you will usually find countless almost identical images where the camera was moced 5 centimeters and that's all the difference, and then you will get two images form the same shoot with a competely different composition rejected for being too similar. There similar rules are also pretty concrete, yet some reviewers seem to have never looked at them or understood them.
Other than that I am almost glad that they have become a bit stricter - I was only looking through my old photos last week to sort some out to possibly submit to FAA and, oh m gosh - there are so many old photos of mine SS accepted that I would not even try to submit these days as the focus is horrible. I am almost ashamed at the thought that a customer might download one of these only seeing the small preview and then realizing how blurry the image is in full size. If I didn't know that 95% of my photos only end up being used in small size on the internet anyways, I might even delete these photos from my port.
When I downsize my images, as you guys said, most of them get accepted, but does that means that they will not be sold for an extended license and mostly at 10c?
Yes, I often have to downsize photos from 16MP to 12MP and they mostly get accepted.I nearly always have to do this with photos that have small subjects in the distance which would be naturally less sharp due to heat haze or pollution. Also photos with trees. This A.I. won't take subjects and weather conditions into account. Shutterstock must know about the problem but are in denial because when I complain to CS (they are not even a part of SS) they keep saying the same old garbage about SS requiring very high technical standards.
107
« on: August 10, 2022, 14:16 »
I had a $15.47 for one photo DL a few months ago.
108
« on: August 08, 2022, 08:35 »
Anyone else getting more rejections on Adobe - loads rejected mainly on "aesthetic appeal" or tech issues. Usually have only a few rejections with Adobe. Oddly less rejections on Shutterstock recently (fingers crossed).
Thanks
Yes same here. I was fine for photo being accepted untill a couple weeks ago Now they are rejecting everything for quality issues and I can't find anything wrong (even at 100%) and the photos are just as good or better than what's in my port. I think revewers click on the wrong reasons or just not doing their job. It's no good going on adobe contrubutor forums either because they ALWAYS agree with adobe. I think they're paid by adobe.
109
« on: August 02, 2022, 00:07 »
You certainly don't need formal qualifications like diplomas for stock. They only help in learning composition color lighting DOF etc. & background stuff like spreadsheets, computers etc. so qualifications do help with the technical side (although they won't stop your work getting rejected from SS for example) And they don't teach you what subject matter to shoot for stock.
110
« on: July 10, 2022, 12:53 »
15 rejected - 2 film noise/grain, 1 focus and 12 file transfer error, next submit all accepted, then 8 rejected - file transfer error, next all accepted
yes I think that's true but SS should be more honest about it. If they don't want a certain type of photo, they should say so, NOT reject it foir noise /focus when every other agency you submit to accepts same photo which always seems to happen to me.
111
« on: July 10, 2022, 12:33 »
Shutterstock have lost their credibility in stock. After 2 years of an idiot being in charge their rejections are mainly wrong. I complained about it yet the people you complain to are useless & don't even work directly for shutterstock. They are alienating everybody (not just contributors) and it's about time buyers realised this and buy elsewhere. I am a qualified designer and shutterstock are bollocks. They haven't got a clue about photo quality. Someone there is definately NOT doing their job properly because even abdobe accept my photos that SS rejects. Shutterstock are going downhill fast.
112
« on: July 08, 2022, 15:01 »
you have some great photos there.
113
« on: July 07, 2022, 06:50 »
I don't get many photos rejected by adobe now but if there's a lot of dark in the photo they seem to reject it
115
« on: June 14, 2022, 15:31 »
I hope Dreamstime get as good as you forcast - my favourate agency
116
« on: May 24, 2022, 17:03 »
You need the system where the website sends you a code via text to your mobile and you login with that & your password on your laptop etc. paypal do it and a lot of big sites now do it.
118
« on: May 19, 2022, 05:58 »
I just remembered that many of the photos rejected on adobe had quite a lot of shadow & shade in them which could be a tec reason for them.
119
« on: May 19, 2022, 05:37 »
I only know rejects for technical reasons on adobe are not often for noise or focus because the same photos are often accepted on ss who seem to have a phobia for noise/focus.
Adobe did accept one of my photos which I just noticed had sensor spots.
I did read (maybe on their forum) that they reject for Tec reasons if they don't like the composition of the photo or even the subject.
On Alamy I've only had one rejection since Dec 2019 which is when I first started contributions there. I even uploaded old film & compact cam photos & were accepted but I cleaned & downsized them to the minimum size they accept.
120
« on: May 14, 2022, 16:32 »
I've had this happen on fotolia with 40+ consecutive downloads of the same image. After reporting it support answered that it's just some unusual way of paying for a specific licence.
Report it, just in case.
oh, it could be, sure. Thank you, interesting.
That's fantastic! Without seeing the image it's difficult to know what could be the trigger. One thing you may want to do is take a look at the curated asset collections seen at the bottom of stock.adobe.com. If you image is featured there, it could explain the sudden jump in sales.
-Mat Hayward
Thank you Mat! The image is this https://stock.adobe.com/de/stock-photo/id/163032063
very attractive image
121
« on: May 11, 2022, 13:04 »
God they're taking over pond5. Have some videos on there but never sold any - I might now probably for chump change if new CEO's anything like Stan the man.
122
« on: May 11, 2022, 04:09 »
I keep getting photo rejections for 'technical reasons' on adobe when there's nothing wrong with them, they are at least properly focused, lit & exposed. Is there anything I'm missing there? I even shoot in RAW now and get slightly sharper and better quality images. Some photos rejected had a small DOF area in focus intentionaly but will the rewiewer realise that?
When I started over 2 years ago I hardly ever got any rejects apart from IP rejects even though I only shot in JPEG and was a stock beginner but have improved greatly since
123
« on: April 27, 2022, 17:35 »
Is this why I've had some old photo DLs on SSTK recently that are at least 2 years old & not sold before? One DL was for a very decent amount.
124
« on: April 26, 2022, 09:50 »
125
« on: April 25, 2022, 10:57 »
I just go by the zooms because hopefuly sales will follow and recently had a lot more as my alamy port aproached 1000 images.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
