@cobalt:

Also microstock contributors are such a small minority of Photoshop users, that Adobe likely doesn't even care about making them angry.

Theres a whooping 23 million Photoshop users per month

I only sell photos on Shutterstock and Adobe Stock.  I have 2x more photos on Shutterstock because they accept editorials.  But my revenue is 1/3 of Adobe Stock.  Shutterstock definitely isn�t for creators.  They are for their stockholders.  Squeeze squeeze squeeze!!

I would ditch SS if i could but they take editorial.Adobe is better for creators & Alamy is for editorial but sales there are very poor for me.

When SS ruthlessly cut the rates they paid in 2020, I wanted to leave as soon as I got to first payout as I'd not been submitting for long. It took longer to payout though due to so many low cent DLs but later I got much more for some sales & the average price per DL went up. My sales also went higher.
 DT & DP worked out roughly the same price per DL as SS but with far less sales & didn't seem to increase even after adding more photos. Only adobe's average DL price is better & by quite a margain. Alamy also cut their royalty rate by half (for me anyway) but with no increase in sales making the other places (apart from adobe) worse than SS.

Yes, and others just over $1.00 and $1.40 as you mentioned. Adobe Stock has started 2024 really great for me and way in the lead. So far I feel like Adobe is the ONLY site that is rewarding the work I put into microstock.

yes, about 99p a DL

I have photos on there for weeks if not over a month still in review.

on DP I have well over 1000 photos. I joined DP 18 months ago & had about 27 DLs so far the first DLs happened almost straight away. Some photos (of buildings & places) sold several times within a month then just the odd DL here & there so not really worth it, especially as the payout is at $50.
It's been even worse on Dreamstime though (a supposedly better agency) with only 36 DLs in the last 3 years & it was 6 months before I got the first DL there.
I think both agencies were much better for sales in the past but I think SS has taken a lot of sales from these in the last 10 years

https://www.picfair.com/account/picfair_plus/new/?coupon_code=UPGRADE50
I've never sold anything there but maybe you need more photos than the free account allows to sell there anyway. Any thoughts?

You need to add the day. They changed the rules recently, I believe.

Oh great, I used to put the actual date but at least I still have those.

Dear Shutterstock Contributor,

As the creative landscape evolves to include new uses for creative assets, Shutterstock wants artists to have the opportunity to take advantage of all the ways they can earn compensation for their work. Shutterstock is working to better support artists through ethically-sourcing our content, increasing transparency about its use, and financially compensating our contributors. We�re excited to announce we�ll now be accepting more assets into our library, following a change to how we process submissions.

What�s changing

Starting next week, Shutterstock will be introducing Data Licensing, a new opportunity that will include content that would otherwise not meet the criteria for our traditional stock marketplace. These assets will be found under your portfolio within a new section called Data catalog and will be available for licensing as datasets. Earnings on assets within this library will be paid via the Shutterstock Contributor Fund � learn more about it here.

Quote from: photostockad on June 12, 2023, 10:35

Same problem. I am contributor for more than 10 years, with approval rate above 95% (main rejections regarding intellectual property). Today I've got a 100% rejection on a set, quality issues. I don't think I've changed my editing style/skills in the past months/year and my images are all accepted on the all other big agencies.

Same here. I've been getting some ridiculous rejections in the past week from adobe when in the past, I have about a 95% acceptance rate like you. I would like to know what's going on and what, if anything, changed.

Maybe some reviewers from SS have jumped ship & joined Adobe

A week ago, I had 4 photos rejected by Adobe for "quality issues". Generally, I don't resubmit but I thought I would try resubmitting one of them as a trial.

Predictably, this photo has been accepted by Adobe.

Does this mean that, in the last week, Adobe has reduced their quality standards? Alternatively, perhaps it highlights that there is inconsistency in the review process and that Adobe's review guidelines lack the specificity to allow for consistent reviews.

Does it also mean that we must now adopt the ridiculous 'resubmission game' that has been a feature of the relationship with Shutterstock.

I had thought Adobe was better than that!

Agreed and it's not fair to make us use more energy to have to re-upload. Shutterstock has now vastly improved its reviews in the last few months so Adobe should do the same.

Obviously there is some issue with extraordinary rejection rate at Adobe, even if Matt is trying to deny that.

Today I got really frustrated as out of batch of 500 diverse pictures 400 has been already rejected. And I am surely not an idiot trying to submit some useless crap, previously my acceptance rate was around 90% and I have almost 8000 pics in my portfolio.

I corrected all 3 photos & adobe has now accepted them. I didn't even have to downsize them. The other thing is that I wrote the exact location in some of the titles this time. Adobe doesn't have too many photos from my local area & there were no I.P. problems either

Lets see if I can learn how to share with DropBox? Both sharing sites were down for 502 bad gateway today.



Something strange going on in the trees? The sky has noise. Maybe instead of sharpen, you should blur the sky?

Are you exposing for the shadows and then bringing the photo down? I suggest that vs making a exposure for the foreground and sky, for example, then bringing up the shadows.  Making the shadows lighter makes more noise and artifacts, while over exposure, + 1/3rd is usual, means you can bring down the shadows and it has the apparent effect of reducing noise.

Shoot to the right = ETTR (I'm a user, my cameras are set +1/3rd and advocate) https://photographylife.com/exposing-to-the-right-explained

I don't know about the size and the camera you have, very much, but 16MP image, you have room and size to reduce the images in the final version = save the original, and upload 10MP images. That also helps reduce artifacts.

This is a 100% crop.

I used HDR in the raw photo to try to equalize the exposure which raised the darker areas of the photo. The way the sun shines on the trees is though is showing mist or pollution yet the right side of the photo is much clearer.

These are the full images made a lot smaller to upload here Uncle Pete. The camera I used is a Sony NEX 5n