|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Uncle Pete
3201
« on: April 13, 2020, 11:43 »
If they were only allowing quality items in - I'm all for that.
That's not the case. They are just mass rejecting because the reviewers - whomever they are - just don't feel like working.
Sure looks that way much of the time. I can stand a real or honest rejection, but when 30% are rejected for "focus", it just seems like that's not standards but lazy reviews. When someone is taking photos and panning, the background is going to be out of focus and blurred.
Sorry, no one from us like rejections, but to me this sounds like good news from Shutterstock, the better news can be to start removing some existing crap.
P.S. I don't mention your rejections or someone's particular, I focus my thoughts as a whole about the collection.
I doubt if they will be removing much, except people with hundreds of similar images, patterns and that. Going through 320 million images for someone who has two similar shots isn't going to happen. People with hundreds, might happen. As for quality, and reviews, if it's accepted, I doubt they will be removing for that reason. But still, how about consistency and realistic rejections? Focus is being used just to hit a button and move on. Either that or as absurd as Microstock was with everything must be tack sharp and in focus, they have raised that another level. There should be some leeway for useful an marketable content. Of course maybe they have enough of everything and are starting to only accept super sharp content. I don't know if I want to play their game and start downsizing just for SS. How much should I care if they are mostly selling sub now?
3202
« on: April 11, 2020, 09:17 »
I understand you well. I vave tried to get a solid port but I think that now It's more interesting for me to produce some "small art pieces" that tons of pictures, now when I have a lot of them in all companies. In fact, as you say, when I sell these ones with my vision of a monument It's really cool, not the typical tourist shoot.
I have a plan. To buy a good cam to my wife to get her vision for our trips (not the compact one that she uses now).
Sounds like fun. I'm not going to say, here, do this, but a good bridge camera or a good Sony with a fixed lens and APS sensor might be the answer, without getting all fancy and expensive? Two visions is an interesting way to see things. Fujifilm X100F for example, not an expensive or complicated option? Years ago when it wasn't so difficult to get accepted as media, I applied for Valerie. She's not much into photography but what the heck, I was working, she was along for her interest in Indycar. (It was the IRL, 2011, that long ago) But there are rules and regulations, and a photographer standing out by the fences or in a corner with no camera is strictly forbidden. This isn't a free ticket or for connected spectators. (ps she has also worked safety team, corners and at the tracks, so not someone who doesn't lack the sense of how dangerous it can be) Anyway... Canon 20-D with the 70-200 f/4 L lens, nice setup. She shot what she wanted, followed around Dario Franchitti and Danica, I shot everything, as that's what I need, everything I can get or everyone. Nice idea though, both of you enjoying making photos of the travel.
3203
« on: April 10, 2020, 12:01 »
Anyone here who had 1 Million downloads? 
Definitely not moi! 
Reminds me of when Bigstock started levels and all someone needed was 50,000 downloads a year to go up. If I had stayed there from the time I joined in 2008, I still wouldn't have 50,000 downloads. How anyone got to 1 million on FT, they must have been really big and prolific. I didn't take notes on all the changes, but basically, I used to get 50c a download on BS. After SS took over, I got 25c a download. Talk about cuts! IS dropped the independent people to 15% for photo and 20% for illustrations. Oh thank you. Adobe bought FT and gave us all a raise FOR SUBS, but cut the price by size accounting. I'm just guessing that could have been what cut all the higher people down and made their earnings drop up to 60%?
3204
« on: April 10, 2020, 11:53 »
In a sense Adobe is worse then SS. Fotolia was great for me then came Adobe and wrecked a good agency. I had reached Emerald at Fotolia but that meant nothing when Adobe took over.
Why does that mean nothing?
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html
Lifetime Downloads Minimum Subscription Royalty
0-999 $0.33
1,000-9,999 $0.36
10,000 and above $0.38
Maybe they don't have cute metal or jewel names but you still make more than "Bronze and Silver".  Is that .38 a drop from what FT paid for the same subscription downloads?
Other royalties were raised and standardized, making them higher than Fotolia was. There's the bonus program, which I understand doesn't mean everyone benefits, but any artist type can now get a free years subscription to one of the CC products, for free. Only 150 downloads needed. That's not a huge number?
I can't speak if overall downloads changed, some people say they make more, some say they make less. I dropped FT when DPC came in, and only re-joined when Adobe bought them.
If the problem is lower sales, not lower royalties, that's a different issue than being Emerald and somehow getting less commission? Or both maybe?
Not sure I understand what you are trying to say?..I reached Emerald about six month's before the Adobe takeover and was earning very well indeed. Adobe came along and after two month my income was down by 50% and I wasn't alone I spoke to at least a dozen members in my position and it was all the same down by 50% the sales started to go to lower members with a lower royalty percentage....Adobe treats Fotolia as a side-kick thats all.
You made less and your sales were less, but if you look, you actually got a raise. Everyone except Rainbow or whatever that one is, got a raise. And because you were Emerald you made 38 cents instead of 33 cents for a sub. That's subs, it's near impossible to figure out how the others changed. So if becoming Emerald did nothing, I'd disagree. But the other part seems to be what many people found. Less sales, lower commissions on sales, and in general, less earnings. I don't think it has to do with being Emerald or not, was my point? You'll have to wait for someone who has found better sales from AS than FT and I can't make that claim as I left during DPC and came back after Adobe. There are some people who are saying that their sales picked up after Adobe, and others like you have found their income has dropped after Adobe. Maybe the flood of new people and returning artists had something to do with taking away your business? I do feel that the drop is unfortunate since you worked hard and stuck with FT for so long. I can't see much of a change except, like other times when there's re-organization, more things were made subs and less specific licenses. Look at the whole old FT thing, image sizes and a shopping list of different types. Adobe simplified. FT had Royalty based on size? We've also been making less at SS even though no commission cuts. Same things happened, Licenses changed, priced charged changed, less EL, OD and Single. So Oh nice, I make the same commission, but the agency charges less, so in reality, I make less. Just a guess that that's part of what happened at Adobe? Hopefully someone else who didn't leave will know how their percentages changed. But subs didn't go down, everyone makes more now, than we did before. I kind of like the 99c subs. But I still don't make as much as I do on SS.
3206
« on: April 10, 2020, 11:23 »
All right, it is getting ridiculous. I just had a photo of the US Capitol rejected. Not for noise or focus, but because I did not include a property release. I have never needed a release for an exterior shot of the Capitol.
And besides, who do I get to sign the release from? I am a US taxpayer, therefore, I am technically an owner. Can I sign the release?
I'm a taxpayer, I own that building, I'll sign a release for you?
3207
« on: April 09, 2020, 14:07 »
I have to experiment with my cam, a bit lazy sometimes. When I'm outdoor I'm with my wife sometimes so I don't have a lot of time and use to shoot in the way I feel comfortable (don't want my cam banned on our trips ). When I shoot landscapes I feel in a hurry for the light or the perfect picture that is in my mind and use to shoot too quickly.
But I need more time and calm.
The good thing of stock (the only one) is that my pictures are much much better now after one year and a half. So I'm happy about that. Maybe I need to think less in the commercial value and the things the costumer would need and more in my technique.
Thank you for the tips anyway, the calculators are amazing.
Darn I was going to remove those, Oh well, now linked in a quote. Here's what I've found. I worried so much about getting things right, that I stopped just having fun and doing experiments. Sure with film that cost me money, but digital? Click, it's gone, no one will see a poorly exposed, crooked, blurry shot of half of a car. I don't carry a computer to figure hyperfocal distance, I bet it's available for people who care, on their phone. I think anyone here can estimate depth of field after a few years of experience and some learn faster. What I mean is, have fun, take some intentionally with bracketed f stops and see what you see? How bad is it to shoot at f/8 instead of f/22? Is there some gain in the lighting? I know what you mean. Fortunately my better half is pretty tolerant and will play candy crush or have a smoke, while I'm out with the tripod because "oh wait honey, I see a shot". She even came along for a couple of my Nature Walks, to the rail yards and tunnels, which she has no interest at all. Railfan photography is pretty much foamers and guy stuff? And yes years ago I got so set for, will this sell, that I stopped having a good time. With the market down and we're getting mostly subs, I'm not that worried about 38-99 cents made or lost. I make more "not suitable for Microstock" (no commercial value) now than every before. Sometimes I actually make a shot that will sell, by accident? I mean really? 14 downloads? Why? Who wants this? No I'm not going to be rich, but I will be amused. 
3208
« on: April 09, 2020, 13:45 »
In a sense Adobe is worse then SS. Fotolia was great for me then came Adobe and wrecked a good agency. I had reached Emerald at Fotolia but that meant nothing when Adobe took over.
No, they have not wrecked it. It is just not better for you but that does not mean that it is worse for everybody. Many other contributors are happy with the performance of Adobe Stock (including me).
Here's what happened when Adobe took over. I can't compare the percentages for the other licenses, that could have dropped or increased. And I think for many people, sales could have dropped. But the point is, Emeralds did not get cut, they actually got a raise.  White or whatever it was, was eliminated, (I didn't know that?) everyone starts as Bronze? 6c raise. Silver 7c raise. Gold, Emerald, Sapphire, Ruby all got a raise. The only people making less were the ones with over 1,000,000 downloads. If someone is making less, maybe the reason is less sales. Or what else changed? Type of licenses? But everyone is getting more per sub except who? Anyone here who had 1 Million downloads?
3209
« on: April 09, 2020, 12:48 »
Looking for same answer. Follow.
Thanks, maybe Mat will see this and give us the answer. Reason I'm asking is, I'm transitioning into making some of my illustrations into vectors, because for some silly reason, I think they might make me more. But if vectors are only vectors and I'm not uploading with the JPG in a zip, then I'm making a mistake. However if people can get the vectors as JPG downloads though the Adobe software, that' would be nice. I believe, and it's years old, that we were told not to upload the same files as images and then as vectors?
3210
« on: April 08, 2020, 11:48 »
Email also says they will continue to sell our photos after bankruptcy. Just they will not owe us anything. Amazing. It looks like fraud.
It actually says they will pay for any sales after bankruptcy via Design Pics Inc.
Of course there's no chance of anyone making payout before they disappear because all the money accrued prior to bankruptcy will be wiped from accounts.
And just to add something which is normal for bankruptcy, after they pay the obligations and other debts, that must be paid in full. Taxes for example. The rest of the claimants might get a percentage of what's owed based on how much they have divided into how much they owe. That number isn't going to be 100% in most situations. WOW - the Design Pics family of agencies includes: Design Pics, Printscapes, The Irish Image Collection, First Light, Axiom Photographic, Pacific Stock, Alaska Stock, AgStock Images and most recently, Disability Images.
3211
« on: April 08, 2020, 11:29 »
As far as I know, copyright expires 75 years after the death of the artist ? WWII was not THAT long ago ... If the photographer was 30 years old during WWII and died at 70, then you would still need a long wait. On the other hand, if you are the heir of the photographer, you might have inherited copyright ...
Depends on when they were copyrighted if ever.
I just found that quote surprising... Anything original that has been created by anyone is automatically copyrighted to that person and does not give the right to anyone else to use without his permission or license. You don't have to ''copyright an image'', the copyright is effective the day and date you created it (and in law cases that you can prove you created it at that date).
Right except under the old laws that wasn't true. The laws change, and before the US came more in line with the rest of the world, there are some odd situations. One of those is, if an item was never copyrighted, the protection under the old laws, was variable, depending, was the date known, the author known, was the author deceased and when.  I believe it was the copyright act of 1976 that froze the dates of automatic becoming public domain, at 1923. That has just started to age off again in 2019. That's why it was 1923 for so many years, but now is before 1925. Canada (where if I remember right, you are) had different laws, which were more standardized based on life of the creator, or I should say, death of the creator. Anyway, the catch in the 120 years, making the date 1900 is things before the automatic protection was made the law. For things that were never copyrighted. Where things that were and items that can be identified and have lost their protection. We live in interesting times. The longer these new laws are in effect, the easier it will be to know what is covered and how. For example, after 1977: 70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first Which has remained mostly unchanged. In the UK 1911 is the date when automatic copyright went into effect. The US was 1978 or later. Which also brings up some interesting problems, if something was published in the US and was now Public Domain but the same work published in the UK, was still protected. Anyway, yes you are correct, currently anything published in a fixed format is protected. It didn't used to be that way.
3212
« on: April 08, 2020, 11:07 »
In a sense Adobe is worse then SS. Fotolia was great for me then came Adobe and wrecked a good agency. I had reached Emerald at Fotolia but that meant nothing when Adobe took over.
Why does that mean nothing? https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.htmlLifetime Downloads Minimum Subscription Royalty 0-999 $0.33 1,000-9,999 $0.36 10,000 and above $0.38 Maybe they don't have cute metal or jewel names but you still make more than "Bronze and Silver". Is that .38 a drop from what FT paid for the same subscription downloads? Other royalties were raised and standardized, making them higher than Fotolia was. There's the bonus program, which I understand doesn't mean everyone benefits, but any artist type can now get a free years subscription to one of the CC products, for free. Only 150 downloads needed. That's not a huge number? I can't speak if overall downloads changed, some people say they make more, some say they make less. I dropped FT when DPC came in, and only re-joined when Adobe bought them. If the problem is lower sales, not lower royalties, that's a different issue than being Emerald and somehow getting less commission? Or both maybe?
3213
« on: April 08, 2020, 10:55 »
Mine was an old one but then I did an updated release and made sure everything was neat and legible and filled out to perfection, they accepted it on an image uploaded on Saturday and rejected it yesterday on another image! So apparently model releases are hit and miss ... They are good one day of the week, then not good (then probably good again).
Interesting. I was speculating that maybe they were not accepting older (whatever that my mean) releases. I guess it's not so simple.
While SS is unpredictable and insane, all my releases on IS (almost all) changed to "must have models date of birth" but the system allowed me to add that data. SS being insane, what I mean is, a release is good one day, not the next and maybe a week later, good again. The lost release, not attached Etc. I thought was me forgetting to check something or messing up when editing. Now I'm starting to think, it's just the system has some flaws and actually loses the checked attachment. I'll never know, but yes it has happened to me too.
3214
« on: April 08, 2020, 10:48 »
Email also says they will continue to sell our photos after bankruptcy. Just they will not owe us anything. Amazing. It looks like fraud.
Well the site is still up and says nothing. I wrote to Masterfile and asked. Maybe the email isn't real or maybe? I didn't get it, because I left in about 2010. That's when I stopped supporting the parasites of the industry. Keep in mind, anyone who stays with these terrible and troubled places, if you make a sale and don't get paid, you didn't do anything but give away a free image that might have sold elsewhere. So the illogical reasoning "I make a little something" is really hard to understand. Making nothing and being ripped off, is not making a little anything. Working for free isn't on my wish list.
3215
« on: April 08, 2020, 10:21 »
As far as I know, copyright expires 75 years after the death of the artist ? WWII was not THAT long ago ... If the photographer was 30 years old during WWII and died at 70, then you would still need a long wait. On the other hand, if you are the heir of the photographer, you might have inherited copyright ...
Depends on when they were copyrighted if ever. Very complicated. But in general you are correct, the heir can upload images to SS that are not in the public domain. That person would need to create a property release for their family images. We can license public domain images to buyers, we can't claim copyright. However a collection of PD images or a composite like a composition using a number of different PD images, could be protected. Nothing is easy or simple. I don't do "found images" just too difficult to figure out who took them and then are they dead or alive. Big problem is if someone says, that's my photo and sues. Family photos would be easier, because you can self release. I have some WW I photos, I'm not sure if I want to risk that. See above, 1900 for all those Unpublished works, is tricky. The cut off for images in the US being protected is 1924. If they were copyrighted before 1925 they are now public domain. SS doesn't take those, Adobe doesn't take those. Read here: https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomainiStock uses 1900 as the cutoff, here's why. Unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire (corporate authorship) 120 years from date of creation Works created before 1900 are public domain Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known 120 years from date of creation Works created before 1900 are public domain You would need to know the author and their date of death, or the restriction would be, before 1900. I don't know what other agencies require, but since those are the major three, that might be useful. Alamy will take many things are Editorial, without a release. There is a check box for public domain source. 2.7 Images can be marked as Only available on Alamy meaning the image is Exclusive to Alamy and any subsequent licences for these images will attract the commission rate applicable to Exclusive Images. If Alamy deems that the Contributor has marked an Image as Exclusive when in fact it is Non-exclusive then Alamy has the right to reclaim all commission paid in respect of such Image and/or terminate the contract immediately. The Contributor acknowledges and accepts that Images of artworks, or that are not protected by copyright, or that are in the public domain or for which copyright ownership is unknown must never be marked as Only available on AlamySo a PD image can't be exclusive on Alamy (or anywhere else) Side note: For people who try to read between the lines and cheat the agency and the system: If Alamy deems that the Contributor has marked an Image as Exclusive when in fact it is Non-exclusive then Alamy has the right to reclaim all commission paid in respect of such Image and/or terminate the contract immediately.
3216
« on: April 07, 2020, 08:41 »
Same for yours. Although f/18 is a little over the top and you could be getting some diffraction, that's not going to be enough for a legitimate rejection.
I expect that both of you are smart enough and experienced enough to know that f/4 to f/8 is the sweet spot for most lenses and going higher could cause a problem. But... I doubt that either of you are getting rejections for that reason. Besides if you want to have everything from small objects close up to the distant, all in sharp focus, true f/## is the only way to get that.
I have this mental fight, my sweet spot is between 8 and 11 but I like the textures with high f numbers and I use to have grass, snow, wood or sand close to my lens. Maybe in architectural pictures I should use more this sweet spot, I use to shoot with high numbers in facades f.i.
I'm still learning, any advice is always welcome.
To each their own. The whole diffraction thing is for pixel peepers. What I mean is, say I want really, REALLY, deep depth of field, so the grass at the foot of the camera, all the way back to the clouds, is all in focus. Sometimes the only answer is f/22 (I just made that number up it could be f/16) Give a little get a little. Sometimes f/8 is right because the foreground isn't always necessarily perfectly in focus. Easiest rule, which is a general guide, but pretty much standard and accurate. 1/3rd in front, 2/3rds in back of the point of focus. Depends on the lens, the length, and of course f number, but there you are. https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dofLook at hyperfocal distance, near limit and far limit. This isn't rocket science, you don't have to be precise. Just get an idea and mentally you can visualize for what lens in mm, what kind of depth of field you can expect. I shoot most of the time with a telephoto, I don't expect much depth of field. If I shut down, they I lose speed and get more blur. If I raise the ISO I don't like the way the grain and noise in the shadows looks. All about balance and decisions and deciding what you want. Or what you need? Probably 1/100th of a second, f/14 ISO 100, maybe only 100mm, I didn't check. He's probably slowing down, maybe in the 100 - 120 MPH range. The nose and tale of the car, are not in focus. The background blur is from panning. The drivers head and hands are in focus. Sometimes it's fun to take on a challenge.  But that's how different anything can be from a waterfall at 400 yards? Night, things get more difficult. 
3217
« on: April 06, 2020, 12:30 »
Same thing happened in November 2016. Huge drop in sales on SS. I hope it is connected with corona, but I doubt because other agencies still not affected. Besides that many of you reporting BME, or at least great sales, so probably older contributors are pushed down in search. 
No doubt about that, new files get a boost and better placement. If you upload new files, yours will also be pushed to the front for a time. If they don't get downloads, they will drop and drop.
3218
« on: April 05, 2020, 11:44 »
Hello friends, my question is how can I see my sales on the dashboard between the dates of Jan 1 and Dec 31, 2020 ?
Thank you in advance!
On the dashboard at the top left corner is a time frame box. I've been selecting This Year as I'm assuming it's from Jan 1 to Dec 31.
https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/en/portfolioDashboard Lifetime, Week, Month, This Year
3219
« on: April 05, 2020, 11:23 »
It sounds like someone doesn't buy your image, but has Getty (presumably iStock) images relevant to the keywords they put in automatically displaying? So I could interpret that as a way around buying a specific image (negative), or interpret it as the site wouldn't have purchased an image anyway so this virtually free commission isn't actually a payment (more neutral).
You can interpret it how you like! I have had a few reaching payments, but most don't net us anything, as they need to make at least a cent from one photo in a calendar month for us to get anything, it doesn't get carried forward or aggregated. In Feb my gross total for Connect was 5c, which Getty got to keep. Wonder how much they get altogether with us hardly getting a cent. So IMO it's disingenuous for Craig Peters to say, " Its a good thing for the business, for the copyright owners, and ultimately the photographers" - because what difference has it made to me that the pics weren't just stolen?
The only possible benefit for the photographers I can see is the extra exposure you get of a low resolution version your image being shared on social media platforms like Pinterest. It might reach someone that way who actually wants to license it. That would, ideally, require a link to the image on iStock and I suppose that's not happening. Apart from that, it's a take the money and run dick move from Getty.
Good reading, thanks, but doesn't address, what do we get paid? https://www.fastcompany.com/1817835/connect-getty-images-leaps-21st-centuryI think at the time in 2012 there was a contributor protest and no opt out and some people responded by pulling images from iStock, rather than have them used via API links on other sites. So lets see, I'm getting "exposure", is that it. LOL  As far as I see this, we are paid. Feb 2020 connect sales.
3220
« on: April 04, 2020, 10:28 »
The CDC has reversed its recommendations about using face masks as the coronavirus pandemic develops.
3221
« on: April 04, 2020, 08:07 »
Agencies claims of opening up new market have been total BS every time.
3222
« on: April 04, 2020, 07:57 »
If I have a vector on Adobe, is it only available as a Vector or does the site offer them an option to download as a JPG download as well?
I have some that are only the Vector, not uploaded with a paired image, and I wonder if I'm limiting the availability by skipping the paired JPG when I upload them?
Anyone know for sure? I don't have a buyers account.
3223
« on: April 04, 2020, 07:46 »
You don't really want to know the lowest commission on iStock
It is 0.01$
You triggered me to check again. Holy moly. I have some 0,00062$ (no typo) commissions.
Lots actually. Wasn't even aware.
And looking at my precious lowest commissions, all of them, without exception, are coming from territory California.
Guys! What's up there?
True, .01 is not the lowest, I have those 0.00062 commissions also.
3224
« on: April 03, 2020, 09:34 »
Just guessing.... Noise and artifact rejection?
Wasn't sure if this as for me or someone else, but my rejection was for focus. The focus was on the waterfall at f/13, so not sure what more they wanted.
I know what you shoot and how nice it is, they are being stupid and rejecting water moving for focus, others have found the same. So flowing water gets rejected! Same here. Landscapes with f18.
Sometimes all accepted. Sometimes all rejected for focus and noise.
Same for yours. Although f/18 is a little over the top and you could be getting some diffraction, that's not going to be enough for a legitimate rejection. I expect that both of you are smart enough and experienced enough to know that f/4 to f/8 is the sweet spot for most lenses and going higher could cause a problem. But... I doubt that either of you are getting rejections for that reason. Besides if you want to have everything from small objects close up to the distant, all in sharp focus, true f/## is the only way to get that. I had a clear landscape with a flag, way in the back on the horizon, which got rejected for blur. Yeah, a flag blowing straight out in the wind and they expect it to be sharp, like it's standing still?  Tough to fight a reviewer who looks at what the software finds and just clicks reject, without using any sense. By the way, they do look sometimes. I actually had one with intentional shallow focus and motion blur, accepted last month. How unusual and welcome. I had some that were rejected four years ago, I found them and though, hey maybe? All accepted. (except the similar of course) Then yesterday I had a wide crop accepted, but the rotated square of the same close up, rejected for lighting. Exposure: Content is underexposed, overexposed, or is inconsistently exposed. How's that possible? Not worth the time and I'm over caring. Fine rejected, it wasn't the best image in the world, or the only one, so I don't care. Bottom line, we still have something out of our control and that's lazy reviewers who want to be fast and make money per click, who aren't actually looking at the images or using any sense.
3225
« on: April 03, 2020, 09:08 »
If anyone can let me know what iStock (non-exclusive) generally pays per image and if there are some very low commission options, are these common. Or for any other agency I may try.
Thanks for your time.
Speaking for myself here: I see little difference in RPD between Shutterstock and iStock for the past year. Yes, iStock is giving away some images practically for free, leaving you with horrible 2$c commissions, but I also have a higher volume of bigger sales than I have at Shutterstock, so it more or less levels out. Yeah, I'm still with them, despite their respectless attitude to contributors. After all, they're my second best performing agency after Shutterstock.
If RPD is important, Adobe Stock does way better, but keep in mind that they don't take editorials from most of us.
Dreamstime's RDP is also better, but low sales volume, so for starters it will probably take ages to reach that stiff 100$ payout threshold.
Alamy has a great RPD ratio, but for me, sales became are so scarce there I don't even bother to check them anymore. I just wait for a nice surprise to hit me.
Yes to all of that, except my RPD on IS is lower than SS, otherwise, pretty much the same. Especially the parts about better RPD but less downloads, so less income. Since I'm 85% Editorial, that can make a big difference in my experiences and yours, or anyone else. Plus I don't do video.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
