Well it took me nearly a  year to get 1,000 on SS but I have a very small portfolio.  It was at 174 when I reached 1000 now at 308 and I will probably not quite break 2,000 dls before my 2nd year anniversary.

Biggest variable is how many images you put on-line (i.e. how hard you work!)

c h e e r s
fred

123rf freebies never helped me.  My theory is that giving away images only works on a one-to-one basis.  I donate photos occasionally but only at the lowest resolutions suitable for the application and with clear attribution and if I think the advertising value is at least $.25. 

This cannot work with an archive of free pictures just thrown up on the web with a take what you want system.  Users can't be traced so some will not bother with attribution so there is no advertising value.

An archive of free images might attract users to a site and some value may trickly down to the contributors but it is too small to justify giving away any single picture by any individual photographer.

fred

Well, I agree with Whitechild cloning works better than blurring but it can be a lot of work.  I spent way too much time getting this one accepted and it still hasn't sold.

This:


from this:



I started with just the girl on the wall and then did the trash can and then some more people.  Once you get started it is hard to stop!

c h e e r s
ffred

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 26, 2009, 17:41
With regard to similars, especially one vertical and one horizontal, they should be clearer about their policy because rejections (as far as I know) hurt your search results.  The same goes for limited commercial value or not what we are looking for or whatever they say now, why not post a list of things not to submit.  Some images that have been rejected at DT for "not what we are looking for"  have sold for over 1,000 times at IS, maybe it's bad business but it's their business.

Actuallly, it our business too (but we can vote with our feet!)  If DT is going to factor acceptance rate into search results then they need to be particularly careful about rejections for bogus reasons and favoritism.

fred

I would think cloning out is the best option.  If you blur the faces you could just get an OOF rejection.  I clone out people all the time - they don't seem to mind.

c h e e r s
fred

I like the composition but they all seem soft to me also.  The EXIF data says they were shot at ISO800.  I shoot with a D300 and have real fits getting acceptable noise levels at ISO 400 and would be reluctant to even try at 800.  Lately I have been shooting at ISO 100 whenever possible.

c h e e r s
fred

Quote from: sharpshot on September 15, 2009, 08:46
The prices look low but buyers don't use their full download limits with subs.  We will get 50% of the subs revenue and that should be much more than $0.13.

"All revenues of the subscription (also unused credits!!!) will be shared fairly with 50% with the contributor."
http://www.panthermedia.net/index2.php?page=cms/pages/display2.php&cms_id=577&cmswidth=960#h23

I will see how it goes, there is an opt out, so if commissions are too low, I can get out of it.

Of course if the buyers like it SS and FT and others will introduce the same model -- for the buyers but probably not for the sellers.  Not looking good.

fred

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 14, 2009, 01:55

Quote from: Fred on September 14, 2009, 00:28

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 14, 2009, 00:11
So does the creative side automatically discard the most basic of business rules? It looks like this has become commonplace simply because photographers as a whole just gave in.

This is awesome.

Seems to me we can only deal with reality.  The "invisible hand" of the market setting the prices according to the supply and the demand - with as little government intervention as possible.  What alternative would you suggest?

fred

I know nothing about fashion photography so I don't know what to suggest. Maybe in that industry giving freebies really does work out okay in the end with getting new work elsewhere.

It's just kind of surprising to hear because that type of stuff would never work in my day job. That would be like a company saying "We need you to do a software implementation for us for free. And in return we'll allow you to do a write-up about the project you can use to try and attract more business."

If one of my potential clients proposed something lopsided like that where they get immediate value and we get nothing, we would nicely let them know that's not the way we work. Then we'd nicely suggest a couple of alternative approaches that work for both of us.

Like if they proposed we work for free in exchange for a write-up I'd say something like "A write-up sounds great. If you'd be willing to do one we could offer you a discount".

Or if they proposed we do free work now because there's huge future work coming I'd say "Great, let's talk about that future work now. If you'd be willing to do all of the current and future work together under one agreement now we would be willing to offer a discount on our services."

If they still insist on some free deal, we evaluate it. If there's no immediate value we thank them for their time and suggest they find someone else who's a better fit for the way they work. If they go to a competitor that's fine. If a competitor wants to work for free they most likely won't be a competitor for much longer.

But my day job isn't fashion photography and I'm getting the impression these types of conversations would get you laughed right out of a fashion magazine company because it's against what has become the norm.

That makes sense.

I don't know anything about Fashion phtotography either but I do know there are fields, investing, property development, etc. where you put a lot of tiime in on work that gets you nothing or nearly nothing so that once or twice a year you can have a big killing to make up for it.  I think fashion photography could be like that.

fred

Quote from: gostwyck on September 14, 2009, 01:36

Quote from: Fred on September 14, 2009, 00:28
What alternative would you suggest?

fred

I think I'd start by not working for free __ easy really. Go and do jobs that actually pay a reasonable rate or give up doing it at all.

I'd never, ever, ever, ever do a shoot for free no matter what promises or suggested (possible) benefits may result. Those that do have no-one to blame but themselves if they get screwed and they fully deserve to be left as destitute and worthless as they have valued themselves. Simples.

It can make good business sense to do free shoots.  If the market you are in expects it you pretty well cannot avoid it.  Free work is a risk.  All of business is a risk.  Some risks payoff some don't.

It is sort of like stock options trading.  Something like 80% of all options contracts lose money but there are many traders that make a good living trading options.  They just have to make sure they make more on the 20% of their trades that are successful than they lose on the 80% that are not. 

In some fields free work is the best way to find paying work.  If you are one of those fields then you survive by making sure that your paying work covers your expenses for your free work.

I don't think it works in microstock though.

fred

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 14, 2009, 00:11
So does the creative side automatically discard the most basic of business rules? It looks like this has become commonplace simply because photographers as a whole just gave in.

This is awesome.

Seems to me we can only deal with reality.  The "invisible hand" of the market setting the prices according to the supply and the demand - with as little government intervention as possible.  What alternative would you suggest?

fred

Quote from: click_click on September 11, 2009, 16:16

Quote from: Fred on September 11, 2009, 15:45
Yeah, I don't really see the problem with this.  If someone wants to spend their time for $.02 what do I care?  Seems to be some paranoia in the air.
fred

Fred, I'm well aware that not everybody feels like me.

However you can read clearly that others don't agree with you either.

Removing "cat" from a lion image is ridiculous. Why?

Simple: somebody wants an image of a lion or a panther or a jaguar why would it be wrong to use the keywords "wild" and "cat"? So somebody looks for "wildcat" and somebody looks for "wild cat" which is totally appropriate in my opinion but maybe I'm just some crazy lunatic who dares questioning a fantastic flagging system... 

And how many millions of images would have to be re-keyworded to fall into the proper quotation category??? Talking about disambiguation here aren't we?

This is literally shooting birds with cannons (not CANONs) 

I'm more than happy to see the flagging system being USED appropriately for images that contain severe keyword violations. But from my experience looking at the flags that I got, too many people just take shots in the dark to get $.02 - that is what I'm referring to about wasting DT's resources.

Well taking your last statement first.  My understanding is that no one gets paid until the reviewers decide if the flag was appropriate.  If the DT reviewers get upset at too many mis-flagged words I am sure they will take whatever action they think is necessary.

Yes, this is disambiguation which is a reasonable process and cost wise this seems a very reasonable way of doing it.  No sweat from contributors (unless they are spamming) and little reviewer time. 

If you are not spamming what are you worried about?  Some twit flagging one of your keywords?  So what? If they flagged it wrong the reviewers will catch it if they caught one of your mistakes you have a chance to fix it.

Just don't fall victim to the "confirmation bias" inherent in what you read about the process.  You are likely to only see posts about stupid keyword flagging errors because people like to complain about it.  The corrected keywords will be a lot more frequent but few people willl post some story about how someone flagged one of their stupid keywords.

fred   

Quote from: madelaide on September 11, 2009, 01:55

Quote from: click_click on September 11, 2009, 00:50

Quote from: Whitechild on September 11, 2009, 00:36
For 2 cents.....my God.... that's sad.... looks like economic crisis still rocks

You see - it's not about the money. It's about pissing other contributors off.

Who . has the time to make the effort of flagging people???

I can't tell about the others, but for me it's certainly not for the money.  I come accross an image with wrong keywords, I report it.  It's not like I keep looking for images to report, and if people do that I am certain DT can detect that easily.

Yeah, I don't really see the problem with this.  If someone wants to spend their time for $.02 what do I care?  Seems to be some paranoia in the air.

fred

Looks reasonable to me.  If you don't spam your keywords you won't have a problem.  No action is taken until the flagged keywords are reviewed and you have plenty of time to fix it before review.

If someone makes a mistake on their keywords (copy/paste error or whatever) they should appreciate being made aware of it.

If someone is spamming keywords they need to be stopped.  

Simple as that.

fred

Quote from: HermanM on September 06, 2009, 03:04
If we apply simple statistics and keep in mind a gaussian distribution of population there has to be a % of photographers that make a living out of this.  How many (and how big a %) is the million dollar question... I guess we will never know, many (if not most) submiters spend little time at forums and most wouldn't give the info away either.  For me, it pays my (ever growing) new equipment, my family vacation and some monthly bills...

My guess would be that the distribution is more along the lines of a power curve with 80% of sales shared by 20% of the photographers.  Given the number of photographers involved many must be making enough to pay a mortgage - at least in Mexico.

Seems to me that:

   1) You can never properly evaluate your own work and
   2) In general everyone gets a few accepted that should have been rejected.

Few have any room to complain.

c h e e r s
fred

Quote from: goldenangel on August 19, 2009, 20:40
Oh OK. Thanks sc. Now I see the two columns there. They are just empty for my previous payouts. I guess my next payout will have that info.

I'm in the same boat.  Can someone tell us if they are getting the source data in the stats for previous payouts?

thanks.

fred

Quote from: Freezingpictures on August 17, 2009, 10:11
Great image! But I am curious, which camera focuses after you pressed the timer??

Most Nikon DSLR's (D70 and D300 for sure) have a setting for Continuous AutoFocus or "Continuous-servo AF " that would focus after the self-timer expired - if the focus changed.

c h e e r s
fred

Hmmmmmmmmmm I dunno, would be awfully easy to fake.  Great idea though!

Quote from: averil on May 25, 2009, 13:27
...every other field. I doubt that wedding photographers are charging less because of micros.

The economics could cause greater competition among wedding photographers as more stock photographers seek outlets for the use of their time and the equipment they have already purchased for stock photography.

fred

Quote from: Perry on May 23, 2009, 09:19
Yes, microstock photography DOES lower the value of photos ...

Value is a subjective judgment.  A photo has a different "value" for each buyer.  All I worry about is sales and that is out of my hands.  It is determined by the market - i.e. how many buyers place a value on my photo that is greater than the price.

Microstock has dramatically increased the supply of images and this has lowered the cost of using images.  This has made the value of images greater than the price for many more customers.  Total demand for images has increased faster than supply - at least until the recent economic slump - and this has supported prices.  I think we are now seeing supply start to outrun demand and I would expect prices to drop.

Your interlocutor can go on living in the past or deal with the reality of the changed marketplace.

c h e e r s
fred

Quote from: madelaide on May 20, 2009, 11:50
Suljo,

I confess I find your ethernal joke about "iStock" tiring.

And in the microstock world, WE are the cattle. 

Baaaaaaa!

Quote from: ProjectPlus on May 05, 2009, 20:16
I didn't come here to gather the troops against Fotolia and have no intention of trying to prove my point. This was just a vent as mentioned in my original post.
Don't see any problem in speaking my mind on a publicly accessible forum, that is what they are for (freedom of speech and all that)

I'm glad to here that others are not experiencing the same pattern as this makes me think that maybe I have an account glitch.

Seems that after 4 years of submitting to Microstock sites the shine has worn off and the over extended honey moon is over for me.
However, what I believe still stands.

P.S. this is nothing to do with rejections

I suggest you exercise your need to "vent" privately.  Freedom of speech does not extend to accusations that may damage someone else's reputation.  If you were submitting to a site I owned and called me a thief publicly I would be well within my rights to pull your account and might well do so.

fred

Quote from: WarrenPrice on May 05, 2009, 17:38
You're not alone.  There is much anger and angst in the "rejection explosion" thread.  The threat of "expulsion" is live and well.   

The "rejection explosion" thread deals with Shutterstock NOT Fotolia.

I have not seen anything unusual on FT.  They have been steadily improving over the last 6 months and have now moved into second place among my sites.

Seems to me FT is more upfront  than some sites that hide their commission rates behind subscription deals and make it difficult to figure out your stats by not conveniently showing downloads and not showing views at all.

fred

Hard to believe they didn't know.  What did they think the prices were all about when they clicked on the image?  Why do they think it has that ugly watermark?

fred

I don't think they have changed the login page since the raise last May.  It is $0.33 after $500 etc.

fred