Quote from: Mactrunk on June 03, 2013, 22:02

" accepted images not selling".  heck!  this is old news. been going on all through May and more. its all over the SS forum. Where have you been mate?
[/quote]

I am not seeing this at all. With every 10 - 15 images I upload there are always one or 2 that pick up the same or the next day and most within a week. Fotolia is the same. That is what I love on Shutterstock. You know within days if your images are any good.
[/quote]

Oh well mac, youre alright then. Myself and Ron, were only kidding around.

Quote from: Poncke v2 on June 03, 2013, 15:20
So my latest batch of 7 images was 100% rejected. This batch also contained a few resubmits from a previous batch of 24 images which had about 40% rejected. The images rejected for lighting (fixed it) were now rejected for composition.  One of the latest rejections was composition on an isolation of the new 5 euro note.

My approval rate on SS was 90% for a long time. So not perfect, but I knew basically what would get in and what not. At the moment I am lost as all of a sudden my acceptance rate is far below my average.

And from the latest 100 accepted images, I am not seeing any sales, well, I think I sold 2 or 3 images of which 1 is picking up sales. These 100 images were people images (seniors, kids, moms) and images of landmarks in Dublin, Ireland.

So with accepted images not selling, and my latest batch 100% rejected, whats the use?

I will post a few images later.

" accepted images not selling".  heck!  this is old news. been going on all through May and more. its all over the SS forum. Where have you been mate?

Quote from: gostwyck on June 03, 2013, 14:57
^^^ Get in there Sean! You know you want to. Just think ... you'll actually get to discuss things with Yuri HIMSELF! You even get paid $100 per month for speaking to Yuri HIMSELF.

There is a warning though;

"Don't just "criticize!" - anybody can do that - show that you know the industry by suggesting smart solutions."

LOL. come now old chap you know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit 

Quote from: shudderstok on June 03, 2013, 02:46

Quote from: gostwyck on June 03, 2013, 02:16

Quote from: shudderstok on June 03, 2013, 01:43
i don't think i am pessimistic at all, rather realistic in where the industry is heading in terms of profitability for individual photographers.
As for being a clairvoyant, we all know prices for images won't really go up, so you more or less have to be realistic and accept this fact, and using a diversion like currency is not what the discussion is about. Once you start raising prices in this environment, buyers will shift, as happened with IS, of which is also trying to get into the sub game.
This combined with the technology involved and the total lack of editing at micros, means you get the deadly combination of over saturation of imagery. Sure the agency owner will make huge profits, but the supplier will get an ever declining slice of the pie, it's already happening and has been for years, and I really don't see that improving.
I hardly think a royalty of 0.38c as one friend got for the cover of an in-flight magazine is worth what you are deeming to be realistic - i think this image is worth much more and should be "highly distorted".
I am only suggesting that things will go south for most if not all photographers in the stock industry within 10 years based on technology, stagnant to declining prices of images, oversupply of images, a slowly diminishing print media, and an overall acceptance that photos are as you suggest more realistically priced at less than 0.50c for royalty free usage.
I really don't think you need to be a clairvoyant to see this one coming, low prices are here to stay, and oversupply is here to stay.

I come from a completely different perspective than you. Eight, seven, six, five, etc years ago my income and my RPD was a fraction of what it is now. Things have only been getting better for me.

If I divide the total number of images in my portfolio now by the total sum I've earned in microstock since I started then it works out at about $50 per image. I'm pretty confident that if I were to die tomorrow (or stop uploading anyway) then my existing portfolio would eventually go on to double the amount currently earned ... even if it took another 20 years to do so (though I doubt it would take that long). On that basis every image I've ever produced for microstock has probably made me and/or my descendants about $100+. If you knew the sh!t that I'm shooting, and how little it costs me to do so, then that's utterly amazing!

Why on earth cretins old-timers like you are wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth at their inability to earn money from stock photography utterly alludes me. The truth is we've had a Klondike-like gold rush in earnings potential in microstock. Where were you, with your supposedly wonderful skills, six, seven, eight years ago? You could have cleaned up. I only wish that I had the skills then that I have now back then. It would have been ludicrously easy money.

well i guess we are a bit different, or maybe a lot different. firstly i don't classify my work as sh!t, I prefer to think of it as very high end work, you know, the type of work that enabled me to cash in huge on the first gold rush pre getty, during the getty reign, and unlike your assumption, during the second gold rush at the micros, only IS. so please, don't speculate about me, and also, i am not gnashing my teeth as i have made a very good living shooting stock - better than most i'd say, and still continue to do so. i am also not clear where you read that I had the inability to earn money from stock so that is throwing me off a bit, i am however very clear that the returns for individual photographers will slowly diminish over the next ten years, and i think it will start with the ones who proudly shoot what they deem to be "sh!t", they are a dime a dozen on the micros. it will take the quality shooters longer, but they too will slowly have their returns diminish over the next ten years.

Put high-end work where it belongs, its rightful place and you will earn good money. As far as the rest, Gostwyck is quite right. It certainly dont belong in micro.
You wouldnt go to Marks&Sparks to buy Versace would you.

Cant help thinking. here comes Sean placing thousands of highly skilled images with a bunch of Micros thats has never had his images before.
Man!!  I would just hate to be a lifestyle, model shooter right now with all these smaller agencies. Got no chance in hell. Good thing is, some 75% specializing in this category will have to go back to the drawing-board and raise their standards or else. Goodbye Mr. Chips.

Healthy competition.

Good month almost overall. IS show a big increase,+ 40% I would say. DT, way up in sales. SS, steady as always. FT down 10%, becoming a has-been really.

RM sales way up with an average of 600 bucks per sale. RF slightly up.

Not only Googles fault!

GL started off with great expectations, here was creative guys, graphic people, etc. They invited photographers to place their material but not once, not once did they promote the fact they ALSO sold pictures.
GL always gave the impression they were first and foremost an agency for illustrations, vectors and graphics. How can you then expect an increase of buyers for photography?

Apart from that, good agency, run by professional people. Its a great shame its gone this way.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 01, 2013, 10:56
The guy probably has a mortgage to pay.  Reality has a habit of trumping ideology. Presumably he will be on all the sites now.

"reallity has a habit of trumping ideology".  Yep thats for sure.

Quote from: gillian on June 01, 2013, 05:22

Quote from: falstafff on May 31, 2013, 07:02

Quote from: gillian on May 31, 2013, 06:40
how so? for all the whining about Stocksy being a 'closed' co-op, Offset clearly is more so, at this stage. I hope I get the opportunity to pitch some content, I love my vintage, soft pastel style for stocksy, but there's plenty of times when I shoot "straight".

Agree! I like your Sarah Moon style, soft pastels as well. good stuff!  not very often seen nowadays actually. Stuff like that would also do well at Offset, so you go for it! when time comes.

is that for me? i googled Sarah Moon and I'm nothing like her stuff.

Jeez! you should be pleases, she was one of the greatest and highest paid photographers throughout the 80s, today her pics sell for 6 figured amounts.
No I didnt say it was the same. I did say that the pastel type technique, soft focus, etc, was similar. Not your subject matter, thats very different.

Now if you REALLY want to earn money from this, forget these two hole-in-the wall outfits. Go for the GI-House-collection!

best wishes.

Locke with DP??   I find that extremely hard to believe, surely not with their set base royalties? I thought he was dead against low-based royalty places as a code of honor.

Jeez!  I was only quoting a certain thread in the Alamy forum, thats all.

Quote from: JPSDK on May 31, 2013, 08:34
Until this debate I didnt care about anonymity. I thought it was OK and people had their good reasons. I was more concerned about the behaviour of some individuals.

Now things have polarized and the disadvantages of anonymity have come forewards:

1...As well as you can hide from the agencies and tax people, they can also hide from you.
2...Certain individuals slide to the dark side.
3...The forum becomes a lot less trustworthy, providing mostly hear say, guesses and false accusations.
4...The forums can be used to make and spread a spin on a story. We think we have a debate, but it might as well be, that it is a spin brought public by agents with economical interests.

Its true!!  you are a boorish oaf,  on and on and on, complaining.

Interesting. There is a thread in their new forum, " lets talk pictures"  many members reporting sales of the month and so on. Looking at the portfolios of the ones reporting is really an eye-opener for those who wish to sell through Alamy.

Its all generic content, dogs, cats, travel, cars, vintage-cars, scenics, landscapes. Its basically all chocolate box material from every member reporting sales.
Well its ofcourse a good thing that this material still sell in such quantities but my word?

Alamy is an old hand, been around for ages but this really gives good indication of the kind of material that should be placed and represented by them.

Quote from: gillian on May 31, 2013, 06:40
how so? for all the whining about Stocksy being a 'closed' co-op, Offset clearly is more so, at this stage. I hope I get the opportunity to pitch some content, I love my vintage, soft pastel style for stocksy, but there's plenty of times when I shoot "straight".

Agree! I like your Sarah Moon style, soft pastels as well. good stuff!  not very often seen nowadays actually. Stuff like that would also do well at Offset, so you go for it! when time comes.

Quote from: gillian on May 31, 2013, 03:59
I think Stocksy is more offbeat, with trendy editing. Offset reminds of stuff I had to shoot for college (and still very much SS's style), full of colour and 'correct' composition and 'correct' depth of field. 

But I have to stay when I scroll through the stocksy work it is (for the most part) a visual delight. Less so on offset (although i've only spent 5 mins on the site, but hey, if you can't grab a buyer in those first 5 minutes with your best stuff....) the home page photo looks very instagrammy and i can't work out why they aren't showing off a dozen images on that first page? *shrug* their sandbox.

But I do love the concept - it would be a great place to put stuff that isn't quite iS/SS and isn't quite stocksy.

but I bet you would rather have joined up with Offset, wouldnt you?  now its too late.

Quote from: gostwyck on May 31, 2013, 01:25

Quote from: JPSDK on May 31, 2013, 00:40
Let me add to this:
I was banned on the istockphoto forum because I criticized the google deal.
Lobo (pieman) did that, he pressed the button.
But so easy is it not, and there is such a thing as pride. There are buttons not to be played with but to be taken seriously.
Im not going to pay the monthly wages to an improfessional moderator in a foriegn country who wont listen and just presses buttons when he gets emotional unstable and thinks critisism is annoying.

So that push of the button cost the company.
I withdrew my port.
Then he can look around and see who else is going to pay his monthly wages.

Didn't you actually get banned for being a boorish and repetitive oaf, over a sustained period and involving several different issues? I was actually somewhat surprised you lasted as long as you did. I thought Lobo had the patience of a saint in your case.

How are IS losing money on you withdrawing your port anyway? Do you imagine that you have an ardent following of eager buyers, that have since opened new accounts elsewhere, just to buy your sought-after work? Can't see that myself. I suspect that IS customers had plenty to choose from without even noticing that your stuff was missing. I very much doubt that Lobo has had to take a pay-cut as a direct result of your lost portfolio.

Ha, ha, ha,! brilliant wording. . Boorish oaf. love it.

Quote from: Poncke v2 on May 30, 2013, 15:47
Confirmed as a passed law on Swedish Radio

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5549542

It seems the Dutch have it right.

Oh well if its confirmed by the radio then its passed. The newspaper headline however said, they were trying to pass it.

Quote from: OM on May 30, 2013, 15:33

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 15:23

Quote from: OM on May 30, 2013, 15:15

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 14:54
This legislation have not gone through yet and its hard opposition, especially from journalistic sides. At the moment they are trying to pass it but its highly doubtful it will go through.

Basically you cant take candid shots of people in public places, at their homes, gardens, etc without their written consent and so forth.

Personally I dont know what the big deal is?? you need a release anyway, dont you? Not really sure what they are trying to say.

I know this much. Sweden is sometimes run by a bunch of old women, desperately trying to be pioneers in just about everything and teaching other countries how to solve their problems, ofcourse forgetting their own backyard.

If you know for certain that the legislation hasn't yet been passed then part of the Dutch article is inaccurate because that asserts that "Swedish government sources confirmed today that the new law has been passed and will take effect from July 1st."

QuoteDat bevestigde de Zweedse regering donderdag nadat het wetsvoorstel hiervoor door het parlement was bekrachtigd.

Well the exact swedish wording was " trying to pass this bill,  trying to get it through"  thats the wording. So I take it its obviously not passed yet and there is huge opposition, not the least from journalistic sides.

All the troubles seem to stem from that a 14 year old girl was candidly photographed and then ofcourse the parents got mad and created a heck oif a noise.

Thanks. That means that the Dutch language articles are inaccurate/misleading. "Nadat het wetsvoorstel hiervoor door het parlement was bekrachtigd".....means, "passed into law."

Ah Ok,  then they certainly got it wrong. Big cry from, trying to pass. They tried this a few years back but failed, never got through and I doubt it will this time.

On a side note. This

Even if its supposed to be ironic? yet another piss poor thread.

Quote from: OM on May 30, 2013, 15:15

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 14:54
This legislation have not gone through yet and its hard opposition, especially from journalistic sides. At the moment they are trying to pass it but its highly doubtful it will go through.

Basically you cant take candid shots of people in public places, at their homes, gardens, etc without their written consent and so forth.

Personally I dont know what the big deal is?? you need a release anyway, dont you? Not really sure what they are trying to say.

I know this much. Sweden is sometimes run by a bunch of old women, desperately trying to be pioneers in just about everything and teaching other countries how to solve their problems, ofcourse forgetting their own backyard.

If you know for certain that the legislation hasn't yet been passed then part of the Dutch article is inaccurate because that asserts that "Swedish government sources confirmed today that the new law has been passed and will take effect from July 1st."

QuoteDat bevestigde de Zweedse regering donderdag nadat het wetsvoorstel hiervoor door het parlement was bekrachtigd.

Well the exact swedish wording was " trying to pass this bill,  trying to get it through"  thats the wording. So I take it its obviously not passed yet and there is huge opposition, not the least from journalistic sides.

All the troubles seem to stem from that a 14 year old girl was candidly photographed and then ofcourse the parents got mad and created a heck oif a noise.

Quote from: Poncke v2 on May 30, 2013, 14:56

Quote from: cobalt on May 30, 2013, 13:33
Tyler didn´t say he wants to delete anonymous accounts. He just said he is thinking of moving the forum rules to make it clear he prefers accounts with members who can recognize each other.

He also offers the option of anonymity if you want it, but wants to charges a fee from those who do. It could also become a "premium perk" for those who pay and support msg.

I think it is worth trying it for a month, to see how people would feel about it. And of course the question is, would such a forum attract new people?

I am not paying 60 dollars a year to be anonymous. Thats a whole year of DP earnings, come on now.

In your case we make it 150, pounds sterling. Hows that grabbing you?

Quote from: ShadySue on May 30, 2013, 15:01

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 14:59

Quote from: ShadySue on May 30, 2013, 14:56

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 14:54
Personally I dont know what the big deal is?? you need a release anyway, dont you?

Do newspapers, editorial books, television news reports etc normally need releases in Sweden?

YES!

Oh, totally different from here. So editorial photos from Sweden must have releases from everyone in the photo?
That must be interesting when trying to get releases from criminals, rioters etc.

No not everyone, if its a crowd and none in particular stands out a mile, i.e. camera not zoomed in on a specific person, no release needed.

Quote from: ShadySue on May 30, 2013, 14:56

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 14:54
Personally I dont know what the big deal is?? you need a release anyway, dont you?

Do newspapers, editorial books, television news reports etc normally need releases in Sweden?

YES! and if Im not mistaken its the same in UK, Germany and France? exeption: news which are daily news, such as wars, etc.

This legislation have not gone through yet and its hard opposition, especially from journalistic sides. At the moment they are trying to pass it but its highly doubtful it will go through.

Basically you cant take candid shots of people in public places, at their homes, gardens, etc without their written consent and so forth.

Personally I dont know what the big deal is?? you need a release anyway, dont you? Not really sure what they are trying to say.

I know this much. Sweden is sometimes run by a bunch of old women, desperately trying to be pioneers in just about everything and teaching other countries how to solve their problems, ofcourse forgetting their own backyard.

Quote from: gostwyck on May 30, 2013, 10:56

Quote from: ShadySue on May 30, 2013, 03:07

Quote from: Eyedesign on May 30, 2013, 02:29
Try Urilux.

Does Roche know about it?
http://www.micglobal.co.uk/roche-urilux-system-i1006.html

"The Urilux 100 is the smartest test reader most suitable for rapid screening of diseases of the kidney and the urogenital tract, carbohydrate metabolism disorders (diabetes mellitus) and liver diseases and haemolytic disorders. "

Must admit the name 'Urilux' does sound more like a painful medical condition than a stock photographer.

Your right actually. Its Latin and stands for incontinence, comes from incontinecium-fatale.