i have contacted their support, did you know that you can leave videos on adobestock and same videos can be exclusive to pond5?

because of adobestock and pond5 deal.

I admit that I'm finding that a little hard to swallow. P5 specifically states in their FAQ that exclusive videos hosted on their site cannot be made available on other agencies. If anyone wants to find out if such a deal does exist between these two companies, I would recommend contacting both P5 and AS and asking them individually.

So the protest from video content creators worked here is an update SS just shared about levels:

The video content creators may have protested but they did nothing to change SS' new payment model. SS admitted on their forum that they made some mistakes in the first e-mail that was sent regarding video commissions.

Looks like Alamy and DT will get my editorial photos from now on. As for my commercial photos and videos, the choices are pretty clear.

IF you're willing to submit your clip to an agency with its' specific stated terms then stop your whining. You agreed to the terms.

These weren't the terms I agreed to when I signed up to SS. They were changed long after the fact.

you add to the main url slash photo slash your image's photo ID. e.g hyperstock.com/photo/123456789

Can one's videos be found in a similar way be replacing 'photo' with 'video' in the url? I tried that with a few of my videos (typing in their IDs) but nothing came up.

Have you tried another browser ?

I'm assuming the SS pop up is connected to the Stocksubmitter program rather than any browser I'm using. Though I guess it wouldn't hurt to change the browser to see if that makes a difference. It used to wok fine when I was using Google Chrome at the same time as Stocksubmitter.

I have passed the photo test multiple times and verified it each time. Though I still can't place a tick on the 'I am not a robot' option.

Yea I'll definitely resubmit. By the way, this very same image was accepted by Adobe Stock fairly recently.

So there you have it - DT was being more strict than SS and AS in their review process.

Something has just happened to me that has me extremely puzzled. And it's something that's very rare too. I actually got a rejection at Dreamstime. As you know, DT accepts just about anything. I honestly can't remember the last time I got a rejection there but it was probably over two years ago. And I could probably count my total number of rejections at DT with just one hand.

And the reasons for the rejection are bizarre. "The image is overexposed." I disagree. The subject (an insect) is correctly exposed. I bracketed different power settings on my speedlight and selected the most pleasing exposure for submission. The background may look very light in appearance but that's because it's white. Pure white. And there's certainly nothing wrong with a white background as you'll find many of those in microstock images.

The other rejection reason is: "Poor lighting." I say nonsense. I used off-camera flash positioned at roughly 45 degrees from the subject and I also had a diffuser to soften the light. Additionally, I also used a reflector to bounce light back into the shadow areas. As a result, my invertebrate subject was evenly illuminated by soft lighting. I have no idea why DT regards this as poor lighting.

My gosh, is this a sign that DT is becoming more like SS? I haven't had any photo rejections from SS for a little while but Ive heard of many other contributers over there complaining about ridiculous rejection reasons. Actually, by the way, this very same image was accepted by SS. Ive also submitted it to Adobe Stock but haven't heard back from their review team yet.

Regardless, I'll resubmit it to DT and see what happens.

23.976?

That is accepted by all agencies, and used in many professional productions. You might have seen "23.98" in that list, which is just a lazy way of writing 23.976. You don't have to convert anything.

Woops! Ah yes it is 23.976. Yea maybe it was "23.98" that I saw in that list. Good to know I don't need to do these conversions anymore.

Yea the footage plays smoothly. There's no stuttering or anything like that. And the bitrate is decently high. According to the properties within Shotcut, the original footage is 16:9 so no worries about the aspect ratio when converting it to HD. Though the frame rate was 23.something fps (can't recall exactly) and I converted that to 24fps. The reason I did that is because the camera's frame rate is not in the list of SS' accepted frame rates. Though Ive done this very same conversion quite a few times in the past and it's always looked normal in playback. Ive never had a rejection for it by any of the stock agencies.

I'm using a Windows 7 pc.

Since I shoot star trails on film, Ive never bothered with such software. An old camera with mechanical shutter will give me a 7+ hour time exposure with no batteries and no noise.

Great image, Uncle Pete.

I currently have a dilemma concerning stock footage. Not too long ago, I recorded some 4k footage of some news worthy content (I guess I should say potentially newsworthy.) However, the laptop that I usually use to edit 4k video is being repaired and so I don't have access to it. So I'm forced to use my 9 year old pc with only 4GB of RAM and old processor. I seriously doubt it could handle rendering 4k video files so the best I could do is render HD files from 4k footage. But a weird thing happens when I do that. I currently use Shotcut for editing stock footage and I always use a two pass render for optimum quality results. Though at least one of those passes will fail (and I get a big red X to indicate that.) Ive attempted to export this particular video so many times and what happens is that either the first render pass will fail or the second one will. Or sometimes both passes will fail.

Though surprisingly, when I play back the exported file, the video looks completely normal. I don't see any issues. Though logically, there must be something not quite right since I repeatedly got failed render passes. So the question is - should I submit or not? Just wondering if there might be some kind of issue that's invisible to me but might be apparent to an editor working with the clip on a timeline.

I also took some photographs of the very same subject that I recorded footage of. And one of those photos sold through SS over week ago. I couldn't find whereabouts the image was used though I'm assuming it may have been featured in a news article. I'm probably thinking now that this is old news and so I'm likely too late in trying to submit the footage of the same newsworthy subject. However, this morning, another one of my photos of the same subject sold through SS. So there could be hope yet.

Though like I mentioned before, there could be some technical issue with my edited footage that I'm not aware of. Cos according to Shotcut, what I have is a failed video export. And no matter how many times I render, I get those red Xs and the fail messages.