That's not what the axes say they are representing. There are certainly diminishing returns in stock but it's not got much to do with the labels put on that graph. The key factors are age of files, number of files in your port and the number of files in total ... at least, those are some of the keys, just off the top of my head.

You have to think relative change, not absolute.

Your increase in quality will decrease. And your quality relative to others may decrease, even if you're still increasing the quality in absolute terms.

The replacement is called Google Photos.

Someone will probably buy the rights altogether and put the entire collection on the big stocksites.

They don't have the rights to sell the rights.

I've just noticed that I had $91.74 a couple of hours ago, and now I have $91.67 with the same number of downloads...

Do you sell the same clip over and over or are they evenly (more or less) spread out?

I'm assuming it goes on actual numbers, but those actual numbers may alter slightly during the month with new people signing up. But either way, as it's a fixed amount of downloads per membership tier, at a fixed price, it's easy enough to calculate.

Well, it also largely depends on the sales of other people. If you have no more sales your average may drop significantly. Let's say the average customer has only used half their credits when you check your estimate. At the end of the month, if they all use up all their credits, and you don't get any more sales, your earnings will drop.

Nice to at least see the current status, and the average probably shouldn't differ TOO MUCH from the $3.50 average.

Hit the $50 payout after 48 hours. Not too shabby, but we'll see how it goes moving forward.

It says you get 50% of the site's total monthly revenue (adjusted for relative sales of course), how do you know how much you have earned after 48 hours? Do they give you an estimate?

EDIT: Just read your first post a bit more carefully. So you get the sales figures from the previous month of their total sales? So if your sales happen in February, you actually get paid based on (their total) January sales, correct?

The Last "On Demand" stock thing I did about 6 Months before Microstock existed That Killed our Industry was for a commission of  $4800 that was for a national Life Insurance company. production cost was $6,200 what was left was $4800. 3 Models,2 assistants,3 wardrobes, a rain Machine and a Monster umbrella. Of course that was Long before folks Now will try and do it for 25 Cents.........ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just as strange as charging $10 to see a blockbuster movie that cost $500 million to make.

Thanks a lot for all information.

Mantis, thanks for the exposure info and wow stock photos with that high ISO! Probably it�s all about to take good pictures and try to hide the noice.

Chichikov, thanks for the very informative article. I�m going to read it again and again and......... One of my reasons for looking for the Nikon lens is the fact that I use a Nikon camera.

Increasingdifficulty, thanks again for all interesting input.


I�m talking about handhold shooting because you never knows where or when a flying bird shows up, but I�m sure sometimes I will also use a tripod.

Yes, exposing to the right (ETTR) is usually preferred. It's usually (much) better to use a higher ISO and bring the exposure down, than a lower ISO and bring it up.

Just wanted to say that the Sigma is quite heavy (3 kg), so you will get a nice workout for one of your arms if you use it handheld. One has to make sure to hit the gym to balance it out. 

Are you sure that you want to go with Nikon?
Today you have very valid alternative for less price.
https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c

I have the Sigma 150-600, but the more expensive Sports (S) version, which should also be a better comparison to the Nikkor than the C in the article. It is not much more expensive than the Nikon where I live.

I had the Tamron for a week, and it was a fun lens, but felt like a toy. Very plasticky. I wasn't impressed enough to keep it, so I bought the Sigma 150-600 S instead. It feels like a professional lens. I see now, however, that there is a new version of the Tamron, that looks a bit better than the first Tamron.

The Sigma is a tank. Very heavy, very robust. It is not perfect, but I've had a lot of good times with it. I've mostly used it for filming, and it can produce incredible 4k results if stopped down a stop or so. Every little detail in the feathers of a small bird, along with lice and ticks.

Of course, it's not a fast lens, and I don't like it as much for photography. When filming, I use a shutter speed of 1/50" most of the time, meaning that I don't have to boost the ISO too much.

It produces significantly better (I feel) results on close subjects. Of course, on a GH4, 600 mm means 1380 mm magnification, and you can see that the air quality really can affect sharpness, meaning animals far away on a hot day can never really be supersharp.

It might not be a cap, but it has the effect of stopping, capping or even reversing your growth when you've reached a certain level of success, because your content is then targeted to be pushed back in favor of newer contributors'.

I used to think this cap stuff was nonsense until it happened to me, and now I just see how naive I was until two years ago, when my earnings started dropping instead of growing and I started paying attention to why that was.

Exactly. It's not a cap.

Why on earth would you assume that your sales should keep growing forever? They (generally) won't! And especially not as the competition has been growing exponentially.

Just because you sold 10,000 images per day before, doesn't mean you should always do that. You had less competition before. Trends change. It's as simple as that. When you reach a certain level, you need to work really hard just to stay at that level. Just as hard as when you were still growing. This is natural. The sales potential is not infinite!

And why would they not promote new contributors? That seems like a very natural thing to me.

I don't think anyone's sales can prove (or disprove) an artificially imposed cap. Some people can reach a limit of their monthly earnings, doesn't mean anyone did it to them. Nothing short of the search engine source code can prove or disprove anything.

You can't 100% prove it, but you can show STRONG data supporting a hypothesis, or not supporting it.

Anyone with just a tiny, tiny bit of analytical interest would of course save the sales data over 6 months to a year in the spreadsheet app of their choice, along with screenshots of searches (logged in, logged out), showing that their items are hidden once they reach their cap.

The thing is, most of these conspiracy theorists don't seem to have any analytical ability at all - only emotional ability, which almost always lies.

They also don't understand that there is a NATURAL cap on sales. They will not grow to infinity. Once you reach a certain point it will take just as much effort just to keep sales the same, and not fall. This is true for most things.

Worst month since 2009.  I guess that's what happens when you stop uploading for several years.

Surprising fact of the day! 

Well ... here is the rumor ... time to get giddy

https://www.lightstalking.com/dji-mavic-pro-ii-sport-1-camera-sensor-better-quality-images/

Superb if true! The Phantoms were always too big for me, as I mostly travel on foot in the wilderness when I'm filming. That big extra bag just meant the drone was left behind too many times...