Quote from: gbalex on July 02, 2014, 17:11

snip-

What is not to get?

It is very simple. All this talk about shutterstock morphing into something it has never been is non productive.

-snip

If SS stays the way it is (was?)  and doesn't morph into something like IS or FT or deposit or 123 or stockxpert or veer I will be quite pleased with them. Expecting them to suddenly become some midstock place is unrealistic. That said I think they did a poor job of implementing offset with respect to the SS contributors and I think the direction they are going with BS is bs.

Exactly. Shutterstock isn't supposed to be the place where you put high production cost images. If you do, that's on you, not Shutterstock.  If you have high production value images, put them somewhere else. What's so hard to get about that?

So they hold prices down to keep a larger share of the market? Good! Keep it up. It's the only site where I get regular EL sales and high dollar SOD sales. No other site has paid me $150 for a license.

When sites stop producing income, which they can't do if they have 5 percent commissions, people will stop contributing. Then the site will die.

It's like Veer. I like the site, and the folks who run it. But they've stopped producing income so I don't upload new stuff there anymore unless I'm really bored and have nothing better to do. If they had five percent commissions, they wouldn't get that.

Complain about DPC, but at least it's a 29 percent commission on every sale.

Luis, I gave you a heart to bring you back up!

I see the images at least got accepted on Shutterstock, so it's not a total loss. I've been uploading my port to istock recently, and I've been getting some overly cautious trademark rejections, especially on images that were proven sellers on Shutterstock. Their loss, driving more buyers off the site to get specific content like your soccer shots.

If you can't sign your name to it, then you probably shouldn't write it.

That's why the internet is so out of control nowadays. Anonymity tends to bring out the worst in people, allowing them to say things they would never say in public.

Quote from: robhainer on June 15, 2014, 15:35

Quote from: ShadySue on June 15, 2014, 15:29

Quote from: gbalex on June 15, 2014, 15:10

we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content.

And who is to gauge the 'quality' of our content?
It is 'most sales' so an apple isolated on white or a business handshake might be 'top quality'.
Or rarity of subject?
Or cost to take (how would anyone know?)
Or ... ?

That question has an easy answer. The market will decide. If your image is of such high quality that it can't be reproduced by someone more cheaply, then the market will pay you what you think you deserve for it.

Football players make a lot of money because they're the only ones who can play their sport at such a high level. They have a rare ability. Image makers who can make images on such a high level have nothing to worry about when it comes to microstock.

The buyer market lost its ability to decide, once the sites made search changes developed to serve content which would bring them the highest income per download; instead of letting buyers choose which content would be popular.

That's a load of baloney. All new files are treated the same regardless of who submits them unlike other sites that favor exclusives in their search even if nonexclusive images are better.

And who judges what "fair" is? I think what Shutterstock pays me is fair because I'd be earning zero off of stock without it. It's certainly more than enough to justify the time and effort I spend on the images I have there.

Quote from: gbalex on June 15, 2014, 13:12

Quote from: robhainer on June 15, 2014, 11:37

Here's a fact. If it wasn't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't be making any money from stock photography. Not one single penny. That's where I started, and that's where I've grown. If it wasn't for that model, I'd be $24,000 a year poorer. And that amount will continue to get higher.

It doesn't matter what they do, Gbalex, I wouldn't have that money if not for Shutterstock and only Shutterstock. It doesn't matter if that money came from other photographers somehow. Because that's money I wouldn't have otherwise.

SNIP
"Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. "
SNIP

I'm fine with that because I'm micro Paul!

This type of thinking is consistent with the decisions you report in various forum threads and explains why you have no problem staying opted into DPC.

The penultimate quote to your previous one (cthoman) sums up RH perfectly. FYIGM.

Part-time snapper happy to screw all others in order to make a few pennies more for himself.

I'd call $24,000 a year and growing from microstock more than "pennies." How much do you make from stock photography, Ethan?

I've been through this once with you, and I'm only going to do it once more. I'm a full-time photographer. I just don't sink all my eggs into the stock photography basket. I prefer diversity in my income sources.

I'm sorry, but I don't see why I should care what photographers in mid stock are making. If their photos are superior one of a kind images, then they have nothing to worry about from me. If they can't produce better images than my typical stuff, then they shouldn't be in mid-stock to begin with.

Please, don't shot me! 

I would be curious to known if somebody not having opted-out for DPC has noticed some increase in sales [?]

Not really. About the same. The problem is there's no way to tell if a sale came from DPC or Fotolia. I know some subs came from Fotolia after the raise, but all the rest could be from either site. You'd think they would make it so you could see what kind of impact it's having if they want you to stay opted in.

Quote from: Nikovsk on June 10, 2014, 14:34

I guess it all depends on where are your $$ expectations.
With U$ 500 / month people can live very well in most of the world.

Most of the world. Sorry thats very far from the truth. You cant live of 500$ in North America, Europe, parts of Russia, Australia, parts of the Middle East and parts of China and Japan. So leaves you with South America and Africa.

Yeah, I doubt $500 a month would get you very far in any place that has modern plumbing. So that probably leaves out a lot of South America, too.

Quote from: Goofy on June 08, 2014, 15:49

my cat if famous-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70mFXf6CqVk

that's me and my cat on national TV!

The Facebook cat?  That is precious!  I know this is off topic, but on the subject of cats:

Ten years ago when the kids and I lived out in the country in Tennessee, a black stray cat adopted us.  I didn't want the cat, but you know how kids can talk mom into just about anything.  So about 6 weeks later the one cat suddenly becomes 8 cats.  Our front porch looked like a kitten factory.  I was a little upset until I got the bright idea that kittens are cute photo props.  Long story short- we kept two (both neutered ASAP), found good homes for the rest and those cats made me some $$$ before they left.

I have a similar story. We adopted a dog from the shelter last May on the day he was going to be put to sleep. They cut the adoption fee from $50 to $10, so I thought I was getting a deal. I took him to the vet and it cost me $350 to cure his kennel cough. Well, fine. At least my kid is happy. So I take a photo of them together under the shade tree in the front yard, and that photo ends up selling over 1,500 times just on Shutterstock in less than a year. It sells well on the other sites, too, so I'm well over $1,000 ahead. I don't know why. I wish I could bottle that magic for every photo.

Shutterstock earnings average out to 63 cents, so I'm already doing it. As long as the same volume was there.

Ended up with a good first week. Best ever in earnings at nearly $450. Total sales not looking all that good.

You have to give some credit to Shutterstock. It's the only one of these microstock sites that will pay you $150 for an image. Anyone else doing that? Alamy?

Yes ingenuous - although I guess you meant disingenuous :-D

I question your judgement in questioning my judgement - experienced successful guys like Rob seem to be having no problems, inexperienced unsuccessful guys like me are having no problems and this whole thing just seems like folks feelings are hurt.  That aside, which is more likely

a) The bar has been raised an some people are struggling?
b) Someone has got it in for you?

Oh, I had some problems. I was getting a bunch of lighting rejections all of a sudden. Then I showed the images to other photographers, and they said my images were too bright. I adjusted my screen, and the rejections more or less stopped.

That doesn't explain everything, though. I'm convinced the issue is a lot of new reviewers, some of whom are being too harsh or not trained properly or something.

There are times when composition and lighting quality are subjective. Maybe an image is better to have some shadows in it for definition or maybe the image looks better with the subject centered. In these cases, the advantage should go to the contributor. The buyers will decide whether it's a good image.

It costs Shutterstock very little to store an approved image, but it costs the site and its contributors a lot to reject potential sellers.