funny, pretty sure I deleted my account there months ago, and yet it's still there with 65 images.

i'm just not sure what the benefit is to other photographers liking your work, is there a popularity ranking based on how many likes we have?
if so then here's mine: https://crated.com/vintage

It's not just a SS thing. Pretty much all the microstocks seem totally averse to picture elements that make an image interesting. The "golden hour" that photographers love around sunset/sunrise will result in a lower color temp than the reviewers can tolerate. Wrong white balance. Cross lighting or back lighting to show modeling or drama. No. Exposure issues. Full frontal lighting, flattening the subject and reducing tonal values. Oh yes! Scans of 70-year-old negs that would be of great interest to some buyers are out because of (horrors!) film grain or artifacts. And inconsistencies in editorial policies? Don't get me started.

So SS has their product: 35 million bright vacuous happy isolations on white.

Thanks. I feel better.

well that's their "style". Stocksy has a style, and it's all the stuff you mentioned before, even the grain is ok. I have been about 50/50 at SS of late, but i'm shooting for stocksy first and foremost nowadays, so it's little wonder they don't like the few I offer them.  I did have one out of a batch rejected for "noise", even though all the others shot under identical conditions got through. *shrug* that's why we submit to more than one agency. Rejections suck, but they are part of the game.

oh goody, another bug.

yes, at this rate I could be heading for a WME. what is going on?

Quote from: fotoramka on May 14, 2014, 05:23

Look the truth in the eye - Fotolia came to a death agony, more than 6,500,000 images opted-out of DPC and the number keeps growing. Do you really think that you can return that many images back to DPC with the help of this news?

The difference is CHOICE.

 So if Fotolia had invited me into the DPC, offered me an individual opt in, a bonus for those who opt in everything...that would have been the right way, the professional way to do it.

I like what Jasmin had to say here, that if we could perhaps offer our $1 files into DPC we might participate, something like the dollar bin iS used to have,  but a shot that took me ages to get, and ages to edit, is worth more than this!

back on topic, i think a few might be ok for stocksy, but the clearly hdr stuff might be more offset style? good luck with whatever path you choose.

is it part of the T&C that FT can use images for their own advertising without crediting the photographer, or a little watermark? clearly paying for the use is ludicrous, but perhaps offering a link to the photographer's portfolio would be polite? 

happy to say I've never even heard of Dog The Bounty Hunter. Ignorance is bliss.

there's no point asking designers not to embrace this, it's brilliant for them, I'm not sure if creating a stir won't just generate more business for them? What a nasty mess this one is, and I agree, it's bad for business for all of us.

nothing for 1st and 2nd, or just me? 'twas a w/end, so higlyh likely.

Seriously if you don't have a basic understanding of photography, what makes you think you can sell your images like a professional?  Its like someone who just got their drivers licensing thinking they will be in the Indy 500.

I confess I wrote something similar but deleted it because I didn't want to be negative. I still make sales from images I shot whilst I was studying, but they were all shot at 100ISO on tripods with the utmost care/paranoia (college professors can do that to you).  There's a lot to grasp and selling stock, despite the peanuts paid, has high standards.