What I don�t get is this (and I have obsessed far too much about it and will definitely stop after this post!): if he's doing this intentionally � doesn�t matter how � why doesn�t he shoot more profitable subjects?

If I had a magic button that rockets every picture I take to number one in the search, I would quickly rig together a semi-professional setup � use a set, hire some models, maybe even throw some money at a professional photographer to coach me on lighting and posing etc, so that my shots look the best they can.

If you�re guaranteed to get to the top for simple but profitable subjects like �woman uses computer to shop online�, �man gives his girlfriend/wife a gift�, �couple fighting�, �woman holding a bill looking worried� and so on, you would get rich very quickly, wouldn�t you? Maybe my examples aren�t the best, but you get what I mean, right?

He seems like a dude who mostly just shoots some editorial of bikers and motorbikes, because that's where he hangs out anyway. Maybe this is all shittystock�s fault and he has nothing to do with it? Maybe he doesn't even know it's happening!?

Ouch. Seeing this hurts, especially since "puppy" is a competitive field for me.

Sorry, Firn. I didn't mean to be tactless. I'm no longer on SS, so I don't care even if they show this guy's entire portfolio first for every keyword in the world.

Your puppy picture is stunning, btw. If it's any consolation, at least if you hacked their system and put all your pictures at the top of the search, they wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb.

It's amazing! I tried it with random stuff - tree, clouds, woman, man, truck, grass, color, ... He's always there, usually in the very first row.

And you can always tell which photo is going to turn out to be his! 

For example, this stunning shot is the second result if you search for "rabbit": https://www.shutterstock.com/de/image-photo/little-funny-rabbit-running-on-field-1627393333

I got my May payout today. That safely in the bag, I looked at the new RPD since 1st June - it's more or less exactly $ 0,50 - that's close to 20 % less than what I used to get before. Less than half of Adobe's RPD.

And it's not just about the money - in the past five days, I cringed whenever I saw that someone bought one of my vectors and I got $ 0,10 or thereabouts. Ten freaking cents! No way. Making those took time and effort and creativity and they are worth more than that.

That's another account deactivated & another level 5 contributor gone. Goodbye Shutterstock. I hope you burn in hell.

I really don�t see what the problem is or why Dreamstime is supposedly doomed all of a sudden.

Yes, Dreamstime is a small and kind of low-earning agency. Yes, it can take a while until you reach payout. So? Their upload process is painless and speedy, their average RPD isn�t so low that I feel ripped off (hello, 123rf!), they pay without delay or fuss when you reach the threshold.

For me, they have been a slow but steady earner and as long as the abovementioned criteria don�t change, then I�ll keep my portfolio there & keep uploading when I have the time. I�ll worry about them going belly-up if it actually happens.

A 50 dollar payout? I thought 100 was the minimum, lol, oh well, too late now

I went and double-checked when I thought I was within spitting distance of the � 50. (Which was half a year and at least five more miniscule sales ago, so with my luck, they've probably changed it to $ 250 by now... )

I actually just had my third extended license sale for a whopping 65 � within three days (among some smaller ones). This never happened before - I normally see one of these every 6 months, if that.

I'm now getting paranoid that Adobe is having another glitch and they're going to deduct the money right back off again and leave me with maybe 0,66 � per sale. Has anyone else sold a suspicious number of extended licenses in the past few days?

I�ve had a theory for some time on why they�re doing this � and it has been kind of confirmed for me with their latest email. I even made an account here specifically to share my thoughts on this and see what you guys think: could I be right or should I hang up my Sherlock Holmes hat? (And sorry for the long tl:dr post...)

Here goes my wild theory: in their email from Thursday when they announced the 100 MB max file size, they wrote: �You will only need to upload vectors, with no JPEG required. A JPEG will automatically be created for your vectors when you upload. This ensures there is a correct matching preview for your vectors, with consistent quality and minimum dimensions.� (emphasis mine.)

And to me, that is the reason for this whole ugly change to the upload requirements, right there.

Why? If you upload 2 files, jpeg + vector, that have to look exactly the same, then SS needs to check if that is true, right? It would be embarrassing if a customer bought a vector and discovered that it doesn�t match the preview. And that can happen easily, if the contributor has a bad design workflow or is a bit scatterbrained. You create the jpeg, then you make a quick last-minute change to the vector, forget to export a new preview, upload the two files � damage done.

So SS presumably has some automated process that compares the vector to the preview (because I don�t think some poor employees had to do that by hand up to now, that would be an awful waste of time & money, and even more reason to make their own previews if that is truly the case.)

And maybe that automated checking process is flawed and creates a lot of hassle for them and they want to abandon it. Or maybe they don�t check if the preview and vector match at all and had problems with customers in the past because of that.

Or maybe I�m totally wrong. But this is the only reason I could think of that makes sense to me, and also explains why they are not budging on this, despite all the hate they�re getting from the contributor community... it's just a shame that the program they use to create the preview is so crappy that now we all have to hike up the size of our vectors.