Benozaur, I just read your comment that the Brits wanted the Credit and deal with it. I live in Britain but I am not British. I am from Europe. A few days ago I thought that they thoroughly ruined going on holidays for themselves. I have been living here many years now and they are so horrible hostile towards Europeans and other foreigners. It didn't come as a surprise when they voted to get out of Europe. For my last two sales I received �0.19 for each image. I don't find that great at all. There might be many photographers who wanted the Brexit but I still feel sad that they get so little money for that hard work and all the hours they put into this whole business. I thought we are here all photographers no matter what nationality.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Please don't lump as all together.  I have no problem with foreigners, 48% voted to stay in the EU and a lot of the 52% that voted out aren't hostile to foreigners.  There is a problem here with a small minority but what country doesn't have those idiots?

Some 90% of sales are editorial. Creative content stand little chans at Alamy. Pity.

Not my experience, I sell lots of non-editorial.

I'm sure most people have good reason to complain about SS but I'm also wary of a few that have very small portfolios or have only uploaded what SS already has in vast quantities and have then spent years complaining about low earnings.  Why they waste their time doing that baffles me.  I have great sympathy for people that worked really hard at this but there's some in this thread that expected a lot more than was ever realistic.

I'm sure FT have punished a lot of us old timers in the search.  My sales fell off a cliff years ago and never recovered.

SS is different.  Some months are great and some not very good.  New images don't sell a lot but that's understandable with so many new uploads.  I don't think its worth supplying subjects that are saturated, there's still plenty of gaps to fill and some subjects that always need new images.

Good luck to whoever this person is.  Istock have allowed a person to be exclusive and have thousands of images on multiple sites in the past.  They might be so desperate to get more exclusives that they will allow this for a time period?  As long as the contributor is the copyright holder, I don't think its their fault.  Istock are at fault but its not surprising that they have different rules for different people, they have shown in the past that they have double standards.

Would be easy for Google to have their own stock site, or buy one that already exists and make lots of money from image licensing, paying us and hopefully at a higher percentage than Getty.  That would be a better solution than sending people to Getty sites where we might get as little as 15% or less, if the buyer gets a discount.

The sites should join forces on this.  Are the other sites too frightened of Google?

Quote from: sharpshot on September 21, 2016, 03:35

Quote from: op on September 20, 2016, 12:32

Quote from: sharpshot on September 20, 2016, 11:53

Quote from: op on September 20, 2016, 00:50

Quote from: PeterChigmaroff on September 19, 2016, 11:11

Quote from: op on September 19, 2016, 10:59

A full frame would be nice.. Pentax did it this year, why not them

Wouldn't really be a micro 4/3 then. I personally like the MFT format and see the GH5 being a mega seller. They could develop a full frame system but lots of those out there already. I'd rather see the MFT line fully developed than adding yet another FF to the mix.

When I look at the MTF format, it doesn't make me dream at all. I have always been a full frame user and cannot think one instant about going smaller.. And I would love to go bigger to medium formats..

I like using different sized sensors.  The smaller lenses with MFT mean I can walk around all day with 3 prime lenses in a small camera bag.  I seem to be using it more often than my full frame camera.  The difference in quality isn't a problem, anyone that can't use a MFT camera for stock doesn't know what they're doing.

Sony A7 series e-mount prime lenses are very compact too. And the quality difference is huge for me although I shoot only landscape/cityscape and plenty of low light.

Still bigger and heavier than MFT lenses and the difference in quality is more of an issue for photographers than buyers.  I have a Sony A7 and a Panasonic G7.  Having seen one of my photos from a compact camera, with a sensor much smaller than MFT, used for a poster, I don't see a problem.

I wasn't speaking about resolution but low light sensitivity and dynamic range. High iso and landscape photographers would find MFT very limited compared to full frame.

My ISO never goes above 800, had no problems with the newer MFT cameras.  I haven't tried the metabones speed booster but the reviews look interesting.  The dynamic range with RAW is OK and I use mine for landscapes.  A graduated ND filter or a bit of HDR gets around dynamic range problems.  There's some great low light and landscape lenses for the MFT cameras. 

Obviously the full frame sensor has its advantages but I don't think the differences are as big as they were a few years ago and the Panasonic cameras are great for 4K video.

Quote from: PeterChigmaroff on September 19, 2016, 11:11

Quote from: op on September 19, 2016, 10:59

A full frame would be nice.. Pentax did it this year, why not them

Wouldn't really be a micro 4/3 then. I personally like the MFT format and see the GH5 being a mega seller. They could develop a full frame system but lots of those out there already. I'd rather see the MFT line fully developed than adding yet another FF to the mix.

When I look at the MTF format, it doesn't make me dream at all. I have always been a full frame user and cannot think one instant about going smaller.. And I would love to go bigger to medium formats..

I like using different sized sensors.  The smaller lenses with MFT mean I can walk around all day with 3 prime lenses in a small camera bag.  I seem to be using it more often than my full frame camera.  The difference in quality isn't a problem, anyone that can't use a MFT camera for stock doesn't know what they're doing.

You are a photographer who doesn't carry a camera while going around town?

I think the new iphone looks good, the colours seem to have improved, it records DNG files and two lenses mean better quality for portraits or even macro.

I will sell my 6s + and get the new one. Only a small difference if I buy it through my provider.

I like that they upgraded the front facing camera to full hd. Will give us better family group videos.

I wonder if somebody will write an app for 360 degree video, if that is possible. Not sure if the cameras on both sides are placed in convenient positions to be able to do that.

I doubt either camera covers 180�, so it would need more than an app   This is a cheap option but the quality might not be great http://www.insta360.com/

Not sure about the lack of bias.  When I did a few searches, I saw a lot of images from Getty in the first pages.  A lot of contributors wont use them because they only pay 20% or less.  Do we really need an image search engine that pushes Getty so much?  Why can't I find any of my Alamy photos?  Have they asked not to be in your search engine?

Quote from: sharpshot on September 12, 2016, 10:52

I don't know why the camera manufacturers haven't used amdroid more.  There's a few cameras using android but not many.  Then they could have apps like instagram, snapchat etc. on the camera.  I use dropbox to backup my phone photos, would be great to be able to use that on my camera.

Sony and Olympus have tried cameras that use a smartphone for the screen and connect wireless but they didn't do a good job.

We're all wondering about this.  I think the camera companies just don't have the engineering resources to make this happen.  The Android group probably supports phones to the max and supplies a complete platform kit for anyone wanting to make a phone. A camera is a different game and would require a lot more software development which companies like Sony and Nikon aren't able to do.  They're just not big enough, and they're not software companies.

That can't be right because Nikon have used android in a few compacts like this one compact http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/compact-digital-cameras/coolpix-s810c.html
Samsung have android in an interchangeable lens mirrorless camera http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxycamera/nx/

So it can't be that difficult, they just haven't got it right yet.  The compacts were too low quality and the Samsung meant that most people would have to buy another set of lenses.  If Canon or Nikon made an android camera that used their current lenses, I think it would sell very well.  A higher quality compact with android should do well, if they used it in a 1" sensor camera, I would buy it.

Quote from: sharpshot on September 10, 2016, 04:54

Do buyers want even more images to wade through in a search?

When you have a search that encompasses the whole industry, why wouldn�t you just go to ONE place that has it all?

I think most buyers seem reluctant to use more than one or two sites.  That's why I never got too enthusiastic about Symbiostock, it looks like buyers don't like signing up to many sites or we would see the smaller sites doing much better.  I presume that with PictureEngine, if they found 20 photos they wanted on 20 different sites, they would have to sign up to all of them?  I just don't see how that will work.  Then there's price.  Not much point finding what they want on PictureEngine only to find its not the right price.  What about quality control?  All the sites have different standards, some buyers might be OK with images that are on the sites with almost no review standards but I'm sure many wouldn't be.

If you can sell images from all the sites with only one sign up, standardise prices and make sure all the low quality old images that really shouldn't be on some of the sites were excluded, PictureEngine might be a good idea but then you would still have to convince buyers and that doesn't seem easy.

What happened?  Wasn't this supposed to go live 5 years ago?  I suggest people wade through the previous threads, if you can still find them.  Some things went on that really put me off PictureEngine.  Do buyers want even more images to wade through in a search?  Might be more exciting if PictureEngine didn't work with sites that pay us very little.