MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - TonyD

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
I just came home from my local gallery where a co-op of photographers run their own gallery. While I was there, I chatted with this week's exhibitor about her experience as an artist, and my own as a stock photographer. And the end of a long  and insightful exchange of our own experience, and our common aspiration ie. passion in photography, we were interrupted by a couple who asked the exhibitor if they could see her on one of her exhibits. As I was browsing around in the meantime, I overheard the couple arranging to buy one of her exhibits. Not the original one on the wall, but a copy . Priced - $400 .

As I left , I couldn't help asking the exhibitor why a buyer would pay her $400, while another buyer would pay us "stock photographer" 30 cents. Her insightful response was , "I suppose because they (the couple) know I won't be selling it for less than 400 dollars, and the buyer of your stock photos know that they can buy it for much less.".

This profound answer made me think about our "career" as stock photographers.
We have heard that during this recession, no one has the money to pay us the highest price of stock photography. Yet, someone just paid this lady $400 for her photograph. There is a recession here in my city as well, and the couple I am sure is not an alien who is immuned to the recession.
 
I suppose she is right. Why would anyone want NOT to pay $400 for our photograph? When they know we will sell it for 30 cents.

Something to think about, the next time we call ourselves proudly "stock photographers".

2
Yes, and others just over $1.00 and $1.40 as you mentioned. Adobe Stock has started 2024 really great for me and way in the lead. So far I feel like Adobe is the ONLY site that is rewarding the work I put into microstock.
yes, about 99p a DL

3
Off Topic / Re: This should settle some different opinions
« on: March 03, 2024, 10:02 »
Rare earths, for example, are hardly available in Europe.
Ukraine needs to use its mineral resources to prosper. This requires new technologies and large investments.
Which won't happen unless the Ukraine war ends

4
Yes, DT is a real pain to upload with the auto keywords turned off. It also keeps saying you have less than 5 words in the description even when there are well over that & won't let you submit. I have to re-word the description. The number & rate of sales is very poor & hasn't improved in more than 3 years since my 1st download even with over 1000 more photos.
The last time I had more than 35c a Download was in May 2022 when I had a $2+ DL very poor. SS & Adobe have been much better.

5
Adobe Stock / Re: Review time
« on: December 10, 2023, 05:10 »
I have photos on there for weeks if not over a month still in review.

6
Dreamstime.com / Re: DT is a Nightmarestime
« on: December 09, 2023, 01:56 »
by the way didn't they raise the sub download from 0.35 to 0.38 briefly? what was that about?
I kind of like how they adjust the royalty for credit download according to the popularity of images. I wish other agencies consider something like that too
Yes, 38c until Sept 2021 but I haven't had more than 35c per DL since then. For me, DLs have just stopped (the last DL was Oct 9th 23} even though I still submit photos & my keywords are good. The number of images in my port increases but sales don't rise in proportion at all. I don't think I will ever get to the $100 payment which is a shame because the agency ethos is good, SS on the other hand, my sale DLs are over 10x more for similar photos.
Why do the horrible (mean to contributor) agencies get more sales?
https://www.dreamstime.com/duns123_info

7
DepositPhotos / Re: How is DP for sales? (photos & vids)
« on: December 06, 2023, 11:57 »
on DP I have well over 1000 photos. I joined DP 18 months ago & had about 27 DLs so far the first DLs happened almost straight away. Some photos (of buildings & places) sold several times within a month then just the odd DL here & there so not really worth it, especially as the payout is at $50.
It's been even worse on Dreamstime though (a supposedly better agency) with only 36 DLs in the last 3 years & it was 6 months before I got the first DL there.
I think both agencies were much better for sales in the past but I think SS has taken a lot of sales from these in the last 10 years

8
Dreamstime.com / Re: DT Milestone Contests
« on: December 03, 2023, 02:58 »
10,000,000 Isn't that Ten Million images? How can anyone get that? Dreamstime has been a disaster for me as I've no way of getting to the $100 threshold for payout.

9

https://www.picfair.com/account/picfair_plus/new/?coupon_code=UPGRADE50
I've never sold anything there but maybe you need more photos than the free account allows to sell there anyway. Any thoughts?

10
You need to add the day. They changed the rules recently, I believe.

yes, I added the day & they've now all been accepted straight away so it's automated. Some other photos have even been accepted for 'data license'

11
You need to add the day. They changed the rules recently, I believe.
Oh great, I used to put the actual date but at least I still have those.

12
Shutterstock.com / SS keep rejectiong for editorial caption
« on: June 27, 2023, 14:34 »
I've no idea why but I GIVE UP. SS is up to its old tricks again. I've always written this ' editorial caption' correctly & have no idea how to do it differently yet they are rejecting it straight away. They rejected 3 others the same way for the 2nd time. Maybe they are getting fussy about editorial now.
 

13
Dear Shutterstock Contributor,

As the creative landscape evolves to include new uses for creative assets, Shutterstock wants artists to have the opportunity to take advantage of all the ways they can earn compensation for their work. Shutterstock is working to better support artists through ethically-sourcing our content, increasing transparency about its use, and financially compensating our contributors. Were excited to announce well now be accepting more assets into our library, following a change to how we process submissions.

Whats changing

Starting next week, Shutterstock will be introducing Data Licensing, a new opportunity that will include content that would otherwise not meet the criteria for our traditional stock marketplace. These assets will be found under your portfolio within a new section called Data catalog and will be available for licensing as datasets. Earnings on assets within this library will be paid via the Shutterstock Contributor Fund learn more about it here.

14
General Stock Discussion / Re: Rejections on adobe
« on: June 14, 2023, 06:34 »
I know that Adobe will reject flower or food pictures because they have so many, unless it's shot in a way that is unique.

15
General Stock Discussion / Re: Rejections on adobe
« on: June 12, 2023, 14:16 »
Same problem. I am contributor for more than 10 years, with approval rate above 95% (main rejections regarding intellectual property). Today I've got a 100% rejection on a set, quality issues. I don't think I've changed my editing style/skills in the past months/year and my images are all accepted on the all other big agencies.

Same here. I've been getting some ridiculous rejections in the past week from adobe when in the past, I have about a 95% acceptance rate like you. I would like to know what's going on and what, if anything, changed.
Maybe some reviewers from SS have jumped ship & joined Adobe

16
General Stock Discussion / Re: Rejections on adobe
« on: June 12, 2023, 14:15 »
Same problem. I am contributor for more than 10 years, with approval rate above 95% (main rejections regarding intellectual property). Today I've got a 100% rejection on a set, quality issues. I don't think I've changed my editing style/skills in the past months/year and my images are all accepted on the all other big agencies.

Same here. I've been getting some ridiculous rejections in the past week from adobe when in the past, I have about a 95% acceptance rate like you. I would like to know what's going on and what, if anything, changed.
Maybe some reviewers from SS have jumped ship & joined Adobe

17
General Stock Discussion / Re: Rejections on adobe
« on: June 12, 2023, 10:15 »
A week ago, I had 4 photos rejected by Adobe for "quality issues". Generally, I don't resubmit but I thought I would try resubmitting one of them as a trial.

Predictably, this photo has been accepted by Adobe.

Does this mean that, in the last week, Adobe has reduced their quality standards? Alternatively, perhaps it highlights that there is inconsistency in the review process and that Adobe's review guidelines lack the specificity to allow for consistent reviews.

Does it also mean that we must now adopt the ridiculous 'resubmission game' that has been a feature of the relationship with Shutterstock.

I had thought Adobe was better than that!
Agreed and it's not fair to make us use more energy to have to re-upload. Shutterstock has now vastly improved its reviews in the last few months so Adobe should do the same.

18
General Stock Discussion / Re: Rejections on adobe
« on: June 11, 2023, 14:26 »
I couldn't afford the electricity to upload 100s of photos & have them rejected even if I took that many, thanks to the outrageous behavior of UK utility companies.

19
General Stock Discussion / Re: Rejections on adobe
« on: June 11, 2023, 11:31 »
Obviously there is some issue with extraordinary rejection rate at Adobe, even if Matt is trying to deny that.

Today I got really frustrated as out of batch of 500 diverse pictures 400 has been already rejected. And I am surely not an idiot trying to submit some useless crap, previously my acceptance rate was around 90% and I have almost 8000 pics in my portfolio.
I corrected all 3 photos & adobe has now accepted them. I didn't even have to downsize them. The other thing is that I wrote the exact location in some of the titles this time. Adobe doesn't have too many photos from my local area & there were no I.P. problems either

20
General Stock Discussion / Re: Rejections on adobe
« on: June 11, 2023, 11:23 »
Great! Adobe has now accepted all 3 photos I mentioned here. This is because people on here mentioned what was wrong so I corrected them accordingly, thanks. Although tech quality is only part of it - see the below post.
For all the trouble Adobe give, they have at least paid me 99c per photo for the last few DLs. which is much better than SS so it was worth it.

21
General Stock Discussion / Re: Rejections on adobe
« on: June 03, 2023, 03:32 »
Lets see if I can learn how to share with DropBox? Both sharing sites were down for 502 bad gateway today.



Something strange going on in the trees? The sky has noise. Maybe instead of sharpen, you should blur the sky?

Are you exposing for the shadows and then bringing the photo down? I suggest that vs making a exposure for the foreground and sky, for example, then bringing up the shadows.  Making the shadows lighter makes more noise and artifacts, while over exposure, + 1/3rd is usual, means you can bring down the shadows and it has the apparent effect of reducing noise.

Shoot to the right = ETTR (I'm a user, my cameras are set +1/3rd and advocate) https://photographylife.com/exposing-to-the-right-explained

I don't know about the size and the camera you have, very much, but 16MP image, you have room and size to reduce the images in the final version = save the original, and upload 10MP images. That also helps reduce artifacts.

This is a 100% crop.


I used HDR in the raw photo to try to equalize the exposure which raised the darker areas of the photo. The way the sun shines on the trees is though is showing mist or pollution yet the right side of the photo is much clearer.

These are the full images made a lot smaller to upload here Uncle Pete. The camera I used is a Sony NEX 5n

22
General Stock Discussion / Re: Rejections on adobe
« on: June 02, 2023, 01:45 »
I normally check for sharpness at 100% but Adobe seems to find other things wrong, they even reject for color balance which can be subjective. Shutterstock now seems to accept nearly everything including my river landscape shown here so they've changed their reviewing process recently.
Adobe also rejected the two below taken on the same day.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ctxupk0ybyw6bbt/DSC04736.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2secfv9jj3wkaw/DSC04738.jpg?dl=0

On one hand, I can see very soft, smushy trees, and on the other hand, sparkling oversharpening HDR like artifacts.
Attached is a 100% zoomed piece of the left side of the 1st photo, but the same is also valid for the 2nd.
I've now turned down the noise reduction in RAW & removed a lot of (but not all) the smudging in trees but there's some mist or pollution. Also, I had to shoot at f11 or f16 to get the most D.O.F as I could but it seems to reduce overall sharpness.
below is a 100% crop from the latest image.
NOTE: I submitted the below version of the photo & adobe accepted it along with the other 2.





















23
General Stock Discussion / Re: Rejections on adobe
« on: June 01, 2023, 08:15 »
You posted the same link twice, so I can only comment on one :)

As I mentioned for the earlier image, it's likely the quality rejection had more to do with "we don't want this subject matter", but I could also find some technical flaws they might be referring to.

The image looks really over-sharpened - crunchy - and for an apparently overcast day, has much more contrast that I'd expect. If you were concerned about softness, I'd back off on the processing and downsize to try and improve sharpness. If it was a cloudy day with relatively flat light, let it be that rather than trying to amp it up too much.
yes, I see what you mean. I reduced sharpness & increased the D. range to reduce contrast in the RAW files. I corrected the 2nd link but the same will apply to that as it was taken about the same time.

24
General Stock Discussion / Re: Rejections on adobe
« on: June 01, 2023, 04:59 »
I normally check for sharpness at 100% but Adobe seems to find other things wrong, they even reject for color balance which can be subjective. Shutterstock now seems to accept nearly everything including my river landscape shown here so they've changed their reviewing process recently.
Adobe also rejected the two below taken on the same day.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ctxupk0ybyw6bbt/DSC04736.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2secfv9jj3wkaw/DSC04738.jpg?dl=0

25
General Stock Discussion / Re: Rejections on adobe
« on: May 31, 2023, 14:45 »
Maybe Adobe has got like Alamy & rejecting the whole batch if they find something wrong with the 1st photo.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors