Quote from: andresr on April 02, 2008, 16:57
317,190 since Dec 2006

Started with no images now I just passed the 10,000 barrier

I thought you started in 2004 or 2005 with SS?
Anyway great number

Mine is 26,032 for exactly 2 years and about 800 pics.  But I have almost no people in my port, which I think explains my low number.

Quote from: 3pod on April 02, 2008, 13:03
hello,

As far as I know SS does not accept image larger than 25MPixel. I see lots of images at 6000x6000 (36Mpixel). How can this be ?

Thanks

Konstantinos

36MP for 30 cents   No way!  I guess those must be illustrations.

Anyway I can understand why the reviewer would reject it.
1. at this size the image/picture is way too large for the vast majority of buyers (too big to download, too much memory needed to work on it, etc...)
2. they have to review the image at 100%, so for the time they have to spend reviewing a 36MP image they could review about 9 4MP images and make 4 times more money ;-)

My rule is generally to never upload anything bigger than 4MP for subscription site.

Quote from: fintastique on March 31, 2008, 13:33
In terms of prices you can compare in my table

price comparison chart

Sorry don't have time for an other comments

Nice write up but you should update StockXpert prices: they doubled most of the prices last week and introduce a new XS size.

Quote from: iofoto on April 01, 2008, 02:14
March was our best month ever on SnapVillage doubling February numbers. I'll post our March sales chart tomorrow.

Ron,

How did you manage to get 11765 images online with SV?  Until today I thought the only way was to upload 5 at a time?

The only reason I'm reluctant to upload my 1000 image collection is obviously because it would take ages to do so.

I'm really curious to know how you managed to get all of your images there.

Thanks,
-Christophe

Quote from: sharply_done on March 27, 2008, 03:56
Okay, maybe I'm wrong. If I am, StockXpert's cut is much smaller than I think it is, and they're not making much money from subscribers.

Very doubtful.  They have pretty much the same submission model as SS, which could be making about a 80% cut from what I read on this forum...

Let's not be naive ;-)  If most of micros are so desperate to do the submission model plunge, it's because they know there is big money to be done there!

They would certainly not do it for a 20% cut, LOL.

Quote from: sharply_done on March 27, 2008, 01:30On the surface this seems to split things something like this: 530 images downloaded per month per subscription (25 images/day * 21.25 days/month), $160 paid in commissions, $40 gross profit for StockXpert.

...But of course you know that never happens, nobody uses their quota (sub downloads are almost dead on weekend).  So I imagine the gross profit for StockXpert being closer to $150 for a $200 month sub package.

EDIT:
Never mind I just saw you excluded week-end   But I still think that most subscribers won't even get close to 530 images downloads.

Quote from: hatman12 on March 27, 2008, 01:05
The most important point of the thread at StockXpert is that the buyer says he has to 'pay more' for larger sizes under the subscription.  He has said quite clearly that he can download 25 XS files a day or only 5 XL files (because an XL file uses '5 subscription credits').

Although Steve has clarified above that there is only one subscription 'price', Steve can you confirm specifically that a subscriber does not have a reduced number of downloads for larger file sizes?

If that's the case (which I highly doubt) we are being ripped off!
For all that time StockXpert told us that regardless of the size being sold they would charge 1 sub credit, but in fact they would charge 5 sub credits for an XL file?  Then of course we should get 5x.30=$1.5! 

I guess this is why we might see more and more traditional buyers moving to the subscription model:

With new price structure:
For the same price of 20 XL images, buyers can now buy a $200 subscription and get 750 any size images.

Even worse, for the price of 14 XXL images, buyers can now buy a $200 subscription and get access to 750 XXL images

I know it's a bit extreme but that's just to illustrate the obvious problem.
I think the gap is way to tempting and something should be done, like either restrict sub to smaller sizes up to L, or charge more sub credits for  larger sizes.

That's indeed a great move from StockXpert and I welcome the news.

BUT lately I noticed that most of my increasing sub sales (99%) are for L or XL and my decreasing regular sales are most of the time for S or M.

I wonder if some existing users are not converting to subscriptions so that for the price of a couple of XL, or XXL and they can get 25 larger size image using subscription model?

If they don't raise or change the way sub works, I think more traditional users might move to sub, which would turn into less profit us.

What do you guys think?  It's even a bigger problem when you invested in professional equipment like a 21MP camera, of course you don't want to give away anything larger than say 5MP for 30 cents! 

Quote from: sharply_done on February 28, 2008, 17:46

Quote from: Pixart on February 28, 2008, 16:08
...
But, having more means more work in a way.  Does BigStock still only take 10mb files?  I have no idea how big are most 16mp files are?  You will presumably downsample for them for BS and more for the subscription agencies... You will fill up a 4gb memory card in half the time.  The huge raw files demand huge memory on your computer. 
...

...
XXL sales don't occur in enough volume to solely justify the extra cost of this camera. As I see it, the raison d'etre of this camera is to remove all technical barriers in making a shot. The white balance, focus ability, focus speed, noise level, and battery life are outstanding with this camera, and it's fairly obvious after using it that the manufacturer could easily provide this same performance in their lesser models.

The advantage of using this camera in the microstock market is the ability to downsize marginal images - shots that might be unacceptable due to noise, artifacts, or blur can be downsized to XL or L size and be accepted. The extra image room also allows for freedom in cropping - XL size square and panoramic images can be made.
...

100% agree.  I now shoot 1Ds MkIII and I can get all of my ISO 1600 shots accepted everywhere.  I downsize to about 3MP with SS, and up to 8MP with FT.  No more rejection for noise, artifact, etc, etc...

Also I don't have to upsize anymore to get my shots accepted with Alamy!

And finally I can print larger 30x20'', which for my landscape work is key.

So if you can afford it, just buy a Canon 1Ds, you won't regret it

Quote from: sharply_done on March 04, 2008, 02:08
Nope, I use 'bicubic smoother' to downsize. My images are already sharp enough that I don't need to sharpen them further using 'bicubic sharper', and this option also smooths out problem areas a bit more.

As I said before: I think things look better when I use this option, and I never get images rejected for being too soft.

I go from 21MP to 2.5 - 4MP max with SS, and up to 8MP with FT, and I use the same method.  I agree that bicubic smoother seems to be working better, at least for me.  I think it helps to remove noise and other problems in the picture.

Quote from: Fred on January 11, 2008, 17:35

Well downsizing to minimum acceptable MP sizes on subscription sites may not be as painless as many here feel.  I can certainly see the wisdom in downsizing 39, 16 and even 12 or10 MP images but taking everything down to the minimum 2.5 or even 4 MP could well discourage Extended License sales I think.

fred

Fred,  I don't think 2.5MP affects much EL sales.
With a portfolio of 800 pictures, I get between 2 to 6 EL sales every months with SS, and most of my pics are arround 3MP.

I mentioned that already many times in the past and on StockXpert forum as well,  I'm OK with subscription model, as far as they DON'T sell higher resolution of our pictures!

They should have put in place:
1. either only allow 3MP max download
2. OR make the client use more credits for higher resolution image

On a brighter note just got TWO sales with Alamy.com today, that's worth 2 months of Microstock income

Quote from: Lizard on January 08, 2008, 22:57
Also I dont think resizing will solve the problem , and  many of people that are producing lot of images will find that a pain in the ass , bacause it takes time to resize for some sites , etc.

Hmmm hmmmm.... it takes me about 1 minute to resize 100 pictures!

Have you heard about photoshop actions?  There are also many free tools that resize a batch of image to any size you'd like.

Telling you what, sizing down has a lot of advantages, at least to me!

#1 No more silly rejection for noise, artifacts, etc etc.  I have 99% acceptance with SS
#2 You encourage buyers to go buy a high resolution at non subscription agencies, where they will pay depending on the image size
#3 Faster upload, saves a lot of time when submitting a large batch!

Just seems common sense to me ;-)  But again that's just my opinion.

Quote from: nruboc on January 08, 2008, 06:57

Quote from: cphoto on January 08, 2008, 06:28
Yuri,  I believe you're 100% right!  And I wish that all the big players such as Andres, VGStudio, etc... could start doing the same thing!

I hope the big players , Andres, VGStudio, IOFoto don't join this nonsence. If they have a problem with subscriptions then take your photos off all subscription sites that don't offer a choice, if you're so bothered by it. Yeah, let's punish StockXpert for giving us a choice, what a joke.

nruboc, thanks for quoting me but looks like you did not read my post.

I was saying that I think it would make sense that everybody, and especially the big players, submit their images at the minimum size requirement to Shutterstock.  I'm perfectly fine selling with subscription sites if my images are at the lowest possible resolution.  And, Like Yuri, I'm pretty sure that subscription buyers actually prefer smaller resolution image (faster download and 99% of the time they mostlikely don't need a super high resolution image).

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on January 07, 2008, 10:58
I haven't thought about this before, but maybe, by reducing the size I could actually (ironically) get a lot more downloads on subscription agencies. Maybe the minority of our microstock buyers are not at all interested (and probably can't tell the difference, McDonalds vs Gournet) in really super high quality.

Yuri,  I believe you're 100% right!  And I wish that all the big players such as Andres, VGStudio, etc... could start doing the same thing!

I'm a modest player compare to you but my strategy since the beginning has been to submit to SS pictures to the minimum size requirement: 2.5 MP, and I still get a pretty decent number of downloads (about 1500/month for a port of 800 images, mostly landscapes).  Why on earth would you want to give a way one of your super high quality image in 39MP for 30 cents?  I think I would just downsize it to 2.5MP and put the 39MP on macrostocks.

I actually upload different size on each site to make sure I optimize the pay based on the site payment structure:
FT:   8MP
StockXpert: 6MP
IS: 5MP
DT: 5MP
123: 5MP
SS: 2.5MP

ALAMY: 16MP

This way the customer will have to pay $$$ to get higher resolution of my pictures.

I too noticed a drop in sales for past 3 months, especially with SS and more recently with StockXpert, and I also agree that subscription model is bad for us.

Fortunately both Fotolia and StockXpert were both very reactive and canceled the payment request.  No money was lost.

The hacker was trying to send the money from both accounts to his MonneyBookers account (I still have his mooneybookers email address in my account).

I now use a different password on each site that I plan on changing every month.

One thing I just realized, the hacker waited that I have exactly $100 on my account to change the password to his.

So he might have known my password for a couple of weeks already and he was just waiting...

If you're getting close to your payout keep monitoring your account, just in case.

Quote from: Chode on November 21, 2007, 14:42
security leak is not in sites, it is in your computer most likely. It is called "key logger". it's basicaly a virus, trojan... you picked it up somewhere, and now it is sending everything you type to the person who infected you.

Also I was going through the forum and found an interesting thread:  It looks like there was a security hole with StockXpert, that is fixed now, but the hacker could have got the passwords at the time... http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=2747.0

Quote from: Chode on November 21, 2007, 14:42
security leak is not in sites, it is in your computer most likely. It is called "key logger". it's basicaly a virus, trojan... you picked it up somewhere, and now it is sending everything you type to the person who infected you.

Not in my case, I have an antyspyware (Spy Sweeper) and antivirus (McAfee Security Center) running ALL the time with automatic download of latest virus/spyware definitions.

Also if someone has access to what I type on my PC I would imagine he would have hijacked something a little bit more interesting, such as my bank accout, paypal account or email account!  And not just 2 of my microstock accounts.  For instance I had much more money in my istock account.

Quote from: volk65 on November 20, 2007, 22:29
Be aware of the keyloggers as well. If somebody infiltrated into your system with a keylogger, changing passwords won't do any good.

That's a great suggestion. 

In my case I use Spy Sweeper engine, so I should not have any spyware or keylogger in my system.

First of all just want to thank Steve from StockXpert and Charles from Fotolia, both responded and took actions within hours.

My email account has a different password and I doubt anyone was ever able to get into it.  Even if they did so I did not see any trace of a "forgot password email" that could have lead the hacker to my microstock account password.

Anyway I think it is time to make the profile page in all microstock sites more secure and implement basic features such as:

1) if someone tries to change his email or password, send an email to the old email to confirm the change.  That would alert immediately the account owner in case of hijacking
2) ask a security question whenever a critical change on the profile is made (like use forgot password question?)
3) use https on all login page!