It is actually 90 days not 30. Crestock has no self deletion.  Supposedly the administration will do it for you...I asked FRiday and we will see how long it takes.  Dreamstime has some rather convoluted rules as to how many can be deleted and when, but does let you do it yourself.  I don't know what happens if you step over their deletion limit.

True...but I guess I can insist that they delete the ones that have been there for 90 days as they 'come due'.  I have noticed, however, in other posts that people HAVE gotten them to delete individual photos before 90 days upon request.

I decided to stop selling my images via the micro sites and am going to upload the micro images to Alamy and PhotoShelter and delete the images from micro as they hopefully get accepted.  Therefore I wrote to BigStock asking them to delete my account and telling them I knew I would have to forfeit the $15 of earnings I have.  Since it would presumably take only one mouse click to do so I didn't expect they would refuse.

They responded that I would have to wait 90 days but that they could delete photos that had been there for 90 days individually. This sounds like way more work than deleting the account (plus gives me the possibility of hitting the $30 payout.  Frankly, I was rather surprised (and disappointed).  Certainly the $15 and whatever they have earned on my downloads should more than cover the fee for reviewers having gone over my relatively meager 100 images.

I did write back to please bump the request up to a supervisor for consideration and to please delete those that were 90 days...but no response yet (though it hasn't been very long)

Any ideas as to how to get the account deleted faster?

Just curious if most people here will sell their RF images on micros AND Alamy or if you just sell an Alamy RF image on Alamy.  I just got accepted there and was thinking of loading my micro portfolio RF there....the issue is to leave it up on micro as well or pull them as (and if) they get accepted to Alamy.  I had a few responses on another thread, but not many and just wondering what most folks do.  My gut feeling is to pull them from the micros as I go but I want to get a clearer idea if that would be dumb or not.  Most of my stuff is nature oriented which hasn't sold real well on micros...maybe $175 in 5 months on SS and hoping they will sell better on Alamy

Yes, I did read the links...even printed them out and they were excellent discussions,and I do see what Photo Shelter did.  Frankly, I can see the point of once RF always RF (though it would seem to make sense that after a certain period of no sales it could be reintroduced as RM if taken off the micro sites...but that is splitting hairs).  What I have more trouble with understanding is saying that it shouldn't (note I said shouldn't instead of can't) be sold as RF in the micros and at the same time sold RF with the macros....to me that doesn't make sense.  If the buyer is that concerned about price they should shop around first...they are paying for the convenience and perceived better screening at macro RF and that is their choice...to me it seems that once you decide to 'devalue' the image by making it RF it should be able to be sold as RF everywhere.  Again, that is just what seems right to me...

Adelaide,

I really appreciate your following up on my questions and you make some excellent points.  There really is a lot here to think about...so I guess I have some thinking to do.  It would just make so much sense to have the rules more formally defined so that different people aren't playing by different rules in the same game.

Howard

Now I am really confused....

Both micro and RF Alamy are RF but it is unprofessional to submit RF to Alamy and micro...not sure I understand why.  Isn't RF RF?  You can buy your new camera from a local full price store or from B&H...well you get the analogy.  It doesn't look like (in a brief perusal) that there is something in the Alamy contract that forbids it.  Don't many RM sites specifically forbid selling as RF elsewhere...I would think if Alamy didn't want it to happen they would make it a part of their contract. I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand what and how the rules arose.

Adelaide, Why is it that you think that you should have different portfolios for macro and micro but sell the same image as RF (presumably for cheap) and RM, just pulling the RF one if a RM sale is made?  I would think that would be against the rules??  And it certainly goes against Loops comment that once RF always RF.

Again, I am not trying to be a pain but trying to sort it out in my own mind.  It is very confusing and it seems like there are so many rules, most unwritten, and with many people having their own versions.

I would really appreciate more ideas and comments as well.

I know this is probably a simplistic question, but I don't know where else to get it answered.  Can you submit RF images to Alamy as well as to microstock.  They , ar, after all, royalty free in either instance.  Am I right in understanding that a RF sale at Alamy nets more than on microstock?

I presume that you can't submit rights managed to Alamy and RF to micros...is that right?  I guess it would make sense to have that as a no-no.

Ho often is one likely to get a sale with rights managed as opposed to RF?  Do nature images sell 'better' at RM compared to RF.

Finally, if an image was listed as RF with micros and then taken off the micro sites, can they then be sold as rights managed after a certain period of time, assuming that they are no longer put back on RF micros?

Lots of questions and I am new at this and don't quite know where to get the answers!

Guess you are still reading the old thread

Don't know if anyone is reading the old thread so will post this here as well:

Regarding the lightboxes...

Can one remove an image from the lightbox and replace it with another...ie rotate the 5 images, or even just remove them if you wanted to?  I forgot you could only put in 5 when I initially submitted them.

Got it in....Can one remove an image from the lightbox and replace it with another...ie rotate the 5 images, or just remove them if you wanted to?  I hadn't realized you could only put in 5 when I submitted them.

Just want to make sure I got this right as I am still new at this and also to make sure this thread and lightbox is still open.

I just take the code that I get when I click on the word "THIS" in the first post and paste it into the description box of the photo and then put the URL of the up to 5 photos here and they will be put into the lightbox if they are good?

I don't know....any business, even on  a shoestring budget, should be able to afford a few hundred dollars for an advertising campaign or brochure that is intended to bring in revenue.  If they can't afford that then how can they possibly get a business going.  And if they really can't....I don't see that merchants of other low priced  business necessities lowering prices because the budget doesn't fit. They still have to buy pencils, notebooks, ledgers etc for the normal price.   And wouldn't revenue from people that can afford $10 photos, which have got to be more numerous than businesses who can't afford that, make up for losing the sales of those that can't afford it.

All i am saying is that the micros all seem to be trying to undercut each other and would probably make more by raising prices a bit....if the others followed in suit.

Also, aren't a lot of the buyers web designers etc who just keep the profit from the lower photo prices?  If someone has hired a graphic artist or web designer surely they can afford $10 photos?

I have only been participating in microstock for a few months now, so perhaps this is a foolish question....perhaps it has been answered before, and, if so....sorry.

I understand the need for microstock and the supply of quality images to smaller (or larger) companies that may not be able to (or want to) afford macrostock prices for images.  But, I presume the premise must be that people that use microstock still 'need' the image for a purpose.  So....sure, they may not want to, or be able to, spend $200-$400 for a single image, but surely, since they need the image for something that is likely going to be used to generate revenue for themselves, they would be willing to pay more than $0.25-$5.00 per image. 

Rather than compete to lower prices, as seems to be the case nowadays, I would have thought the microstocks would be increasing prices, giving a portion of the increase to the contributor, and keeping the rest for themselves.  More for us and a lot more for them.

I find it hard to believe that someone who 'needs' an image would not be willing to pay $5.00, $10.00, $15.00 rather than the much higher macro prices.  And the small percentage that would not be willing to, I would think, are probably not needing hundreds of images for clients and the loss in download volume would more than be made up for by the increased revenue per download. 

Is it really true that someone who needs an image would be willing to pay $0.25 but not $5.00.

Like, I said, I am new at this and this isn't a complaint so much as a serious question....I am trying to understand how the current pricing structure came to be and just don't get it.

congrats...i have only been in this game for 4 months but still waiting for my first EL at SS.  I got one on Fotalia, but that was only 7 bucks.

Zilch

Lizard...I appreciate the info...

Just curious since I have never done any audio before....if you wanted to make recordings of various sounds, but not music, what type of equipment would you need.  Any articles around on this sort of thing?

 ...I think reason 5 is the most likely!

Yes, the person was unidentifiable and the first reviewer thought so as well.

But my point is this....IMO, to maintain consistency, reviewers at any individual single micro company should respect the opinion of the reviewer that went first.  If that reviewer stated or implicitly implied "fix item x and the image will be accepted" then if item x is fixed the next reviewer should either accept it or say "item x isn't fixed well enough for it to be accepted".....not "well item x is fixed but I disagree with the initial reviewer from my own company and item y makes this unacceptable under any circumstances".  I wouldn't even mind if they said "now fix item y and we will take it". It is when item y was in plain view to the first reviewer and they thought it was OK that gets me mad.  It doesn't seem right to send the person back to fix the image and then boot it for another reason.

Ah well, what can you do?  I don't think it will change.

Just had this happen at SS, but it has happened at other sites as well with different images.  I submit a shot and get it rejected with the comment that " Not Approved:
Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.
Please increase contrast and resubmit. Thank you!"  The please resubmit comment came from them, along with the nice thank you.

So I increase the contrast and resubmit, along with a nice note that I do feel the image is now improved with the increased contrast.  So it gets rejected again...this time for limited commercial value!

I know that each reviewer is different, but yet they do work for the same company and so there should be some consistency and respect for the prior reviewers initial comments...it is frustrating when you go back to fix the problem and then it is rejected for something that was there the first time around.

Like one I had at IS...an unidentifiable person from the back at the edge of a waterfall.  I submit it and it gets rejected, not because of the lack of a model release, but because they were concerned about a graphic on the back of the persons tee shirt that could be a copyright violation...and they invite me to resubmit if I can fix the tee shirt.  I spend 20 minutes cloning it out well and resubmit.  Then I get back another rejection that they thought it over and they really think it needs a model release after all.  Well, you could have told me that before I spent my time cloning.

Don't get me wrong, I can respect a rejection for whatever reason but don't send me back to fix what was felt to be the problem and then reject it for something else that was there and obvious the first time round.  If you are part of the same company I really think the first reviewers analysis needs to be respected.  In both instances I would much prefer it if they had just rejected it out of hand and in a final manner.

There...glad I got that off my chest :>)

I love it as well.....a fantastic 'walk-around' lens.  But on a full frame camera I do find it vignettes a fair amount.

Doesn't it seem like there should be some option to delete your portfolio available so that for the next month buyers can't buy your photos with no chance of a contributor ever getting paid  because they are nowhere near the cash out point?

I recently had a logo rejection as well as 4 copyright rejections.  I wrote to them via e-mail and got a personal e-mail response in about 12 hours each of the two times I wrote.  With regards to the logo, I had no idea what they were worried about but in the very nice e-mail response they attached a copy of the photo with the logos of concern that I hadn't noticed circled.  I fixed the image and it was rapidly accepted.  With the other copyright issues the concern was explained to me but the person that responded felt that two of the four rejections could still be accepted and he pulled them out of the rejection bin and accepted them

Why don't you write them.  I have been very happy with the personal and rapid responses I have gotten...though they were far less images.

I am thinking it might be better to delete my potfolio from the site rather than just let it fade to who knows where....but I can't seem to figure out how to do that.  Anyone know?  Been there for 2 1/2 months but haven't had a single sale.