Whenever I buy bundles the lightroom presets and photos that are included are total crap and I think they stuff the bundles full of this so it looks like are really good deal (although this is a photography bundles so maybe they are actually good).  The regular design tools and fonts are a steal.

Stocksy might be testing the waters on CM to see if it is worth offering bundles on their own site?

If that is the case, isn't that the first step to the "stack it high and sell it cheap" mentality? Supermarket mentality versus boutique niche mentality? I may be wrong but I thought Stocksy were aiming more for the niche, unusual, non-stock aesthetic market, not the high volume pushing prices down market?

I appreciate things change, but in this case wouldn't that possibly indicate maybe things aren't quite as rosy as everyone hoped?

To me it looks like a car dealer selling high end marques who is struggling and then comes across a job lot of GM models dirt cheap so buys them and sticks them on the lot and sells them. All of a sudden his marque sales get worse because people are waiting for the next job lot of GM models at low prices. Although there are two distinct and different markets, they do not complement each other, and both attract different buyers and repel the other buyers/markets.

I guess you can disagree with a "fact" if you don't believe it is a fact. How do I know that your BDE is your BDE and you are not just posting that to wind people up that are moaning about dwindling sales?

Someone saying something doesn't make it so.

Is this another of those topics where you post on here to collect information then collate it into an article and try to sell it back to us?
Sorry for the cynicism but we learn from experience

Quote from: ultimagaina on May 26, 2015, 09:02

Your horizon doesn't look horizontal too me.
And it looks like it is taken at high noon. This is why it is considered not much as "poorly lit", but rather taken during "unfavorable lighting conditions"

Quote from: Mantis on May 26, 2015, 07:31

Quote from: PZF on May 26, 2015, 04:43

I am SO fed up! Another 100% rejection. Most nature, some macro shots - perfectly fine, all accepted elsewhere. All outdoors.

Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.

TRULY well p'd off.  And sales plummetting.

You're not alone. I just shot some beach images in a remote area using a tripod, remote release, F8, no wind, Nikon 17-35 2.8 (about the sharpest wide zoom Nikon makes) and most rejected for out of focus and poor lighting. Here is a sample of my poorly lit image.

Is there a rule somewhere that says that you are not allowed to photograph mid-day?

I don't see anything wrong with the lighting on that image. Bright, colorful, no harsh shadows. Should be just what SS wants.


Maybe if 1000 more images of virtually the same thing (tripod moved 6 inches to the right, tilt up 1 degree, pan left 1 degree, piece of pot on the road) the reviewers would have approved it.

Totally agree. All landscape advice is to shoot during golden hours, beautiful light, etc, etc but when you look at travel brochures, city guides, etc they are 90% full of blue sky shots. If you want to shoot landscapes that look great then shoot during golden hours in beautiful light, if you want to shoot landscape images that sell do it on a blue sky idyllic day.

I have changed my shooting habits to match what sells, especially in RM and the difference in sales has been noticeable. Blue sky sunny day pics sell to businesses. Golden hour shots look great as prints and sold as prints.

Whilst 1000 images at $0.25 may sound ridiculous you need to consider that you could produce 100 images or more from the shoot, selling across ten agencies and now you are only looking at each images selling once on each agency. Then factor in credit purchases and ELs where you receive more than $0.25 and the whole seems a lot more achievable.

Maybe it is not viable when you are a production house and your overheads are huge, but for an individual photographer hiring studio space and a few models and props it should be more profitable.

I di try searching threads but couldn't see definitive answer - does 500px read metadata when you upload and activate on Prime?
Many thanks

Saw this when it started and my experience is;

On all of my images I keyword what I feel is relevant and correct based on the image and my experience of effective keywords for those type of images e.g. for a landscape I may include the location, colours in the sunset, different words for sea e.g. ocean, tide, waves, etc.

What P5 automatic keywording is now doing is deleting some of my thought out and considered keywords based on knowledge and experience  and either not replacing them or replacing them with keywords it thinks are relevant.

I may input 30 non-mindless keywords and P5 delete 15 of them and replace with maybe 4 of what they think is correct after scanning my media.

I'm sorry, but tell me again, how is that good for me?

What data do you have that your AI is accurate to the content of the image and is not just adjusting keywords based on their content?

How does your AI "scan my media" to know what the content is?

How does it tell the difference between a blue sky shot and a blue water shot?

How does it tell the difference between a landscape image of crop fields in the Summer and furrowed fields in the Fall?

Haven't tried uploading today but have received that message before, you need to use one of the other ftp servers; ftp2 or ftp3. If you check the site it gives details

Why do you want this information?
For what purpose?
To make some inane assumptions and meaningless comments that no-one cares about?
What difference does it make to you, or anyone else, what I earn, you earn or anyone else earns?
You are asking for personal information without explaining why or what you will do with it.

Yes, I saw those topics but nobody is talking about their sales :/

Thanks anyways

No one seems to talk about their sales for some reason, can only deduce that they maybe aren't as fantastic as everyone is led to believe, or the sales are so good the current contributors are scared of saying so in case too many others get on board?

Quote from: heywoody on April 07, 2015, 16:20

You submit 1400 files to these guys (who are they? - can't see them on the list to the right).  Guessing they are below low earners and they presume to dump on you, yet you very few on DT who are relatively decent, with reasonably competent reviewers and just gotta earn far more per image. Doesn't add up 

photodune one of the fastest submission process. Same as 123. Dreams time submit every photo one by one. Waaay to much work.

What good is fast approval and easy submission when 90% gets rejected?

Quote from: Deyan Georgiev on March 31, 2015, 04:17

A lot of conclusions, but when we can't see the portfolios on the every particular contributor who make this conclusions this mean nothing, or will not be objective. One thing is to say no ELs from portfolio 500 images and other thing is from portfolio 5-10K or 50K images.

Its about the print run allowed within the EL, not portfolio size. I didnt get much ELs but surely I will get even less now. Thats the whole point.

It will be interesting to see for the people who did get a lot of ELs if they maintain their EL volume or if it drops over time.

Agreed, I get between 10 - 15 a month and as stated previously I am expecting to see a drop of around $200 or 7 ELs a month. Nothing to base that on, just a gut feel. Portfolio size of nearly 10,000

Trying to look on the bright side, I wonder how many of the ELs were for runs of above 250,000 but less than 500,000. It might be very few. There are other things that ELs are needed for http://www.shutterstock.com/license_comparison.mhtml

This is the information we will never get, but basically all of those will not now need to buy an EL, whether it is 5% or 50% the contributors lose that income now.