Getting better and better lately. I assume it's probably because of search algorithm changes. I never invested time in keyword order and that's almost certainly the reason Fotolia was crappy in the past.

p.s.: But I still hate .svg format limitations of 1MB, unfriendly IPTC data migration on rasters (why on earth does it parse IPTC description in the title box?) and on vectors (.svg format doesn't support it).

Be also aware that by building a 64-bit system (that of course taking into account the latest market prognoses saying the OS sales will soon slide towards x64 in the following months/years - particularly because of funny low memory stick prices (now colonizing the DDR3 market as well)), which is the only way to go if you want more than 3GB of ram available, your pc will be futureproof for the new CS3 Adobe package coming later this year. The latest Lightroom already is compatible and works flawlessly.

If you're buying two new workstations, I can't think of any reason going the 32-bit route. It's senseless.

p.s.: As for compatibility issues: a year ago I couldn't recommend any 64-bit system, neither XP nor a "tweaked" Server OS of any sort. The driver issues were popping all over the place and the security software was almost unavailable. Now I do. Antivirus/firewall software has catched the OS developments and all the best suites do work on Vista x64. And if there's an application that doesn't support the x64 foundation, it will smoothly run in 32-bit compatibility mode.

Done, lovely photo. Congrats, man.

I'm not sure the whole downsizing thing is not detrimental to SS with this new SOD programme. I might me wrong (and please someone correct me if I am), but does that mean that SS sells on demand inflated photos? 4Mpix uploaded pictures interpolated to bigger sizes and sold at the highest price tier?

p.s.: If that's true, buyers won't like it.
p.p.s.: I understand the upsizing for subscription sales is acceptable (pricewise), but definitely not for "credits". If a buyer goes off to buy a "super" size, he * sure wants it to be an original 1:1 pixel format.

Well, the image price for buyers isn't astonishing and I could bet that those already purchasing "our" images on other sites are not swapping agencies at all.

p.s.: Let's not forget there are other competitors out there with, imho, better site structure, better buyer experience browsing-wise and primarily lower prices.
p.p.s.: The good news is that we don't lose a nickle. SS subscribers will definitely not change plan (from sub to sod), which means this is mostly a marketing boost for SS.. They now offer the complete package (that is nevertheless less competitive in the "credit" department than what most other agencies offer).

Quote from: rene on August 05, 2008, 12:17

Quote from: domencolja on August 05, 2008, 11:35
and offering PPD options for EPS format vectors ranging from 50$-250$, I confess I was delighted. PPDs priced as mid-macrostock is good news and on top of that on a site that I would never get anyways.

So you think that 50-250$ sales are posible at Photos.com ?
For me it looks like "everything for 1$" shop with one display with 250$ prices. Not same kind of buyers.

To say the truth we don't have any info on the amount (and type) of sales photos.com produces, but it's still better than nothing. I'm inclined to think that too much weight is being assumed from the EL vs. regular RF license differences. And as a vector "artist" that gets no ELs at all, another market opportunity is always a good deal to me.

Of course I refrain from writing final words, but right now every sale is a sale to me.

As little as a singular opinion would matter, their first announcement never shocked me anyways. My EL sales across all the sites were and are non existent. Vector artists usually don't get them at all (unless their product is of a very particular sort). Said that, when StockXpert announced that they would expand their market potential to photos.com with regular subscriptions (at least to me: 0.30$ not getting ELs is still 0.30$, no matter the usage) and offering PPD options for EPS format vectors ranging from 50$-250$, I confess I was delighted. PPDs priced as mid-macrostock is good news and on top of that on a site that I would never get anyways. This fact to me sounded like contributing to an additional site with subscriptions plus PPDs for free (no uploading process, no anything).

I will stay opted in and the latest news don't concern me at all. But I deeply understand all those that confide in EL sales (with certain differences not to be ignored) and don't want to throw them away for free. I do not get EL sales anyways, so this is no matter what a win-win situation. I'm completely aware that a lot of my sales are used illegally for purposes not covered by standard RF license, but that's something I knew from the very beginning.

For vector artists like me, PPDs and semi-EL subscription (for raster versions) are good news. For photographers that value their work and found their income (and honor) in ELs, there's the opt-out option sorting things out. If you can't accept it, bail out. It's easy (at last).

p.s.: I'm not fond of this subscriptions trend, but if that's where the agencies are going, I'd rather stay in (with earnings on the rise) than "close shop" for pride reasons (btw, there's a LOT of low earners leading the pack for these EL sales and a couple of dozen Dollars a month - excuse the term - I'm really grateful for their free community work, but sometimes they could spend less time on forums and more in shooting/drawing pictures). At the end of the day, if you work (hard or not, relative to your expectations and plans), ELs mean nothing. Getting robbed while earning for bread (and a lot more)? Fine with me - that's how things work in the microstock industry. If you can't stand it, look elsewhere.

Just received the July payment and with it a clarification about the computation error:
"Please disregard the July earnings computation sent to you earlier today, as the email went out prematurely.  We apologize for any inconvenience."

The same.

Noticing the same phenomenon. Sub sales are increasing consistently in July. Even if June was my BME on DT, it still had around 15% more sub sales than May. In July the RPD dropped from 1.10 to 0.76.

Well, judging by the most popular keywords stats, the site is pretty much dead (still). They're hell of a lot too random.

p.s.: I'll keep uploading, cause it's easy and only takes a FTP transfer and few clicks, but it doesn't seem like they're investing in marketing at all.

Link to the thread: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_10231

p.s.: Subscription packages stay the same, that's good. We shouldn't expect a drop in sales rebalanced with higher royalties (well, even if subscription sales are on the raise anyways).
p.p.s.: But they're introducing new credit prices as well, correct? Or do they continue to be as they are, but will be recalculated royalty-wise by the actual credit package bought?

Overall: great stuff.

It depends on what type of imagery you produce. If it's design elements, they tend to buy vector formats more than if you make "finalized" designs.

Hard to explain, but you get the point. Creations that allow "recycling" get downloaded in vector format more easily. And of course the same thing applies to a complexity curve.

p.s.: Either way, lately Dreamstime buyers have a happy trigger with subscription sales (vector-wise). So you might take this into account as well. I personally don't mind, since it all levels out anyways, but you might like to know it.

I remember speaking my mind about the potential issues this type of upload process for vectors brings (off-sync reviews of rasters and vectors). They replied that the buyer always has the option to request the "additional format" and with that I agree, but it certainly cuts off some sales, especially the impulsive ones.

On the other hand vector sales on DT are always great, the price is solid and the frequency more than acceptable.

p.s.: I'd like to see the reviews speed up and maybe a new uploading option made available (love the simplicity of the site, it's one of the best, but it mainly tricks you into thinking the process is smooth, when in reality it's very, very time consuming). They should implement some kind integrated FTP uploading for rasters and vectors (the one on 123RF works flawlessly, for example).

Isn't complaining about complaining always hypocritical? By definition it is.

Exactly, CC. It gets even worse if the image is a background with lots of stuff going on. I'll post some examples as soon as the last batch gets accepted.

p.s.: Mighty Magnum, instead of complaining about other people "whining", oh good poster, either tell us something constructive or don't write at all. I was going to write to Fotolia as soon as I gathered enough info that this was a site-wide issue. Here's where the reason this forum exists comes in, right?

I've been noticing really disgusting color balance reproduction on automatically generated thumbnails for vector uploads (EPS AI8) lately. Anyone else having the same problem?

Since BPS rasterizes vector format images itself, as things stand right now, no buyer is going to pick those with ugly colors (guess it's a recent phenomenon, maybe one or two weeks, can't say). No chance. It looks like there's no color profile and the saturation is way, way off. Not sure if this applies to thumbnails only, though. But logically I'd assume the whole rasterization process is broken...

For a moment there I thought the thread was started by Miz;))

Even if Miz's post is provocative and jerky (lately pretty much a constant), there's truth written all over it.

p.s.: And some might take it personal (myself included), but that's the way things stand. I've been saying the same * thing regarding Shutterstock for a couple of months now.
p.p.s.: The problem is "mediocre" (defined by God or Miz, whatever) sells. And the vicious circle of a saturated market affects us all.

Mine too, thanks:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=5547505
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=5547483
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=5028207
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=4915691

Bateleur, you're right, but it made me laugh big time;)

p.s.: Can't say that I'm nervous, though. The uploading process was a breeze and the guys, especially Roger, are very helpful and friendly. Hope they make something out of it. But I would be angry if I spent days uploading and keywording (which I of course didn't).

So, any sales yet, guys?

)) The businessman "on its way to a boardroom meeting" is hilarous!

The only reason I'm still there is because the uploading procedure is fast, very fast. (even if lately the FTP didn't work, files never showed up in the tagging area)

p.s.: If it wasn't for that, I'd quit a "long" time ago. No sales yet.

I would like to introduce a rather reductionistic polarization here: between "overabundance" on iStock and other sites. It's fairly simple:
- overabundant category on iStock translates in "hell no, this is exclusives' territory, denied",
- overabundant category on other sites mainly means "fuck yeah, come get some, we love floods".

I'm simplyfing here, but I think you get the point. Either way the things happening on these two poles generalize problems that we have to cope with every F. day. On one side you can't submit what someone else already did (reviewer/submitter issue anyone?), on the other hand you're allowed to do so, but it consequently means you crap on your own head (eventually).

p.s.: Excuse the terms;)
p.p.s.: And these are only edges of a problem that is now maybe only visible, but will get experienced and "felt" very, very soon.

I still firmly stand on the opinion that the main reasons why Shutterstock earnings are falling are:
- Shutterstock hasn't changed crap for years now (sticking to their becoming-obsolete subscription model when everyone else is evolving in a complex mixture of either credits AND subs or "subbed" credits; not marketing enough, not responding to competition advances, last but not least not upgrading their brand),
- the quality standards have CONSIDERABLY degraded,
- and consequently the flood of new images does not have only a quantitative effect (dilluting database) but also a qualitative turn-off for buyers.

There are wider economical considerations to be taken into account, but this is mainly a Shutterstock related issue. I would not pick excuses outside the house.