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 - wordplanet

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 45
I wanted to share this open letter from ASMP (American Society of Media Professionals) to Adobe responding to their latest advertising:

An Open Letter to Adobe

Adobe, you might imagine that asking your users to skip the photoshoot as you did in a recent set of ads would be a clever way to promote your new tools in Photoshop, but instead, this campaign indicated a shocking dismissal of photography and the photographers who have dedicated their lives to creating it.
As one of the largest professional associations representing photographers and all visual creators, and as our 6,500 members well know, creating a career in photography is harder than ever, with the average photographer having to navigate stolen images, copyright infringement, broken business promises, and now, the specter of wholesale replacement of their art and craft by AI platforms.

But while fighting these battles on these multiple fronts, photographers would not have expected to have to defend themselves from attack by the company whose products are inseparable from the current and past toolbox of the professional photographer. Put simply, why, Adobe, would you dismiss and discount all that your most fervent and loyal customers aspire to?
And this was an attack; an attack on the creativity of the photographer, on the skill and nuance they bring to the photoshoot, and the countless hours they spend preparing for, and working after the photoshoot you are so cavalier to simply throw away.

Great photography is born in the vision of the photographer first, and then brought to life by the artisans who have focused their creative energy for years and decades to make the final image. It is not mechanical; it is not replaceable by a button or an algorithm. Despite your intimation, great photography is more than pixels it is passion.

While you may change your campaign, soften your language, or otherwise blunt this anger you find currently pointed in your direction, we hope that this is not a stopgap measure. Adobe should take a hard look at how it describes photography and photographers and determine if you support this industry or wish to aid in its destruction.

For the legions of photographers who have used your products, both ASMP Members and non-members alike, we ask you to do better. To stand with us to strengthen all that photography is and can be. To engage in good faith to find technological solutions that professionals can be proud to use.

Do better Adobe.

Gabriella Marks
Chair, American Society of Media Photographers

Looks like any problems with plan overlaps have been resolved.

My prepaid bonus Photography plan from last year ended on April 28, 2024. I didn't wan't to forget so instead of worrying about losing a few days, I used this year's bonus code on April 24 and the extra days were added automatically, with my plan ending on April 28, 2025 now.

Thanks again Mat & Adobe!

Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe bonus program 2024
« on: May 02, 2024, 11:55 »
On the right side of the dashboard page near where you can view your images by either # sales or date there's a box where you can sort by price which lets you just see any of your free images.

I think last year they changed it so if you had any free images for the year you had to opt them out or they'd be automatically included. I think this was in December or January - I only had 3 or 4 & now they are all opted out. Anyway, that's how you see them.

I just completed a very short survey on shutterstock's home page about submitting pngs. If you make png files, you might want to complete it.

It looks like shutterstock is considering adding png files to what they accept.

They are actually asking for our feedback. It took under a minute - just three or four multiple choice questions. I am so disappointed in ss generally but took the time to fill it out, since it would be nice to have another outlet for pngs besides Adobe Stock.

I can relate to what Tom said, including wishing I'd done more with microstock back then.

I started in 2008 with shutterstock and Alamy.

Even with a small portfolio on shutterstock I was seeing daily downloads all over the world and moving up - back then the levels were based on lifetime earnings so it was slower but it made a bigger difference. It was a blow to go from the top level to starting all over again each year. 

I believe ss had 6 million images when I started and I loved the idea that someone found mine and licensed them when there were so many to choose from. It seemed mind-blowing when they hit 8 million LOL. The competition has grown so much that I suppose it's more mind-blowing now that our images are found in that enormous sea, and not surprising they get found less and less. SS was often my best agency "back in the day," now it is consistently my worst.

My stock photo income rose steadily everywhere until around 2015, my best year on nearly all of the sites, and stayed pretty steady through 2017 when it leveled out or fell. Alamy has come close to the 2015 peak in most recent years, but I have twice as many images as I did in 2015, so I've been running to stay in place. ss has crashed. DT was never great but I made payout a few to several times a year, now it's closer to once every 18 months or more.

The only exception is Adobe, which, when it was fotolia, was my worst performer, and I left. I started again with Adobe in mid-2015 and my earnings have grown steadily, with a big jump up 40% last year (from 2022 earnings to 2023).

I have small portfolios, some under 1,000 images, so I'm not a full time stock photographer like many on here, but that's my experience FWIW.

Print on Demand Forum / Re: Selling on Fine Art America
« on: March 29, 2024, 16:48 »
My experience is similar to those who suggest you pay the $30 and upload what you have, don't limit yourself to just 25 images. I make the $30 back easily in January of each year, and I set my prices high enough to make a healthy profit, this year clearing roughly 10 times the cost of membership with a single large print sale at the beginning of the year, which isn't unusual. Products don't earn much but I sell those there too since, like microstock, they add up, but it's the prints where I make my profit.

I've got a little over 900 images there which you can check out if you'd like. https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/marianne-campolongo/shop

I sell mostly travel related images, a lot of lighthouses, and landscape and nature, and occasionally black and white photos. I have a core group of images that sell frequently but you never know what will do best year to year.

I've done best when I was active on social media and was part of a group similar to what Steve describes cross-promoting with other artists there, mostly on twitter. I haven't been very active on social media nor on FAA groups the past few years and sales have slowed a bit, but they are still strong even without my doing anything. I expect them to do even better if I can find the time to get back into social media again later this year when I'm less busy. But I've been on there since 2010, and I assume my repeat sellers get a boost in searches. If you're new, you'll need to do some promoting on your own I'd assume.

Uploads are slow but you can save your prices which speeds things up. I have a few different tiers of prices and try to upload similarly priced ones at the same time. I haven't added anything new in a while, since I don't have much chance to shoot fine art in winter, but like stock, uploading regularly can help boost sales. With a big portfolio to add, you'll have plenty to feed the beast.

Shutterstock.com / Re: nothing for contributer fund?
« on: March 28, 2024, 09:54 »
I don't have any images in data licensing and have a small portfolio (602 images), but I got a few dollars from the contributor fund this week.

My sales on ss have been pretty abysmal since I reactivated my portfolio a little over a year ago. I make more than 10x as much on Adobe. I was making a lot more before I deactivated it - now both the sums I'm paid and my number of sales are awful and I don't think it's ever going to rebound. In retrospect, I'm sorry that I deactivated my portfolio as I only hurt myself.

Thanks to Antonio Gravante! Really wonderful hard work he's doing.

It's so weird that the agencies all say they are strict about having a policy that rejects "too many similars" and then they take thousands of identical images!

It seems like it should be easy to set up an automatic check to prevent identical images from being uploaded but perhaps it would also grab too many similar photographs? Like landmarks taken from a similar position much as you often find similar but not identical images when you do a google images search? That would then require a human to check - and I suspect the agencies pay reviewers poorly requiring them to get through as many images as possible in the shortest amount of time, so adding this burden would require the agencies to pay reviewers more - or to have a separate review process that checks for identical images paying for that part of the review separately - that would seem the fairest way.

We certainly deserve to have this kind of review to protect our work, which has already been so devalued by the concept of microstock. It's the least the agencies can do considering we bear all the costs of production and keywording.

DigitalID sounds like a great idea but then I live in a country where I can't imagine my government punishing me for what I post. I can see how it could be dangerous for those who are not so fortunate to have their work identified. I assume that's what @SuperPhoto is referring to? Or am I missing something. If it's widely available but voluntary, wouldn't that avoid the problem?

Yes. Sometimes it's the only camera I have with me and many of them have been licensed, including a few at good (non-micro) prices. I have an iPhone 12 and I use Photoshop to process the raw files - I'm generally very light with my editing, though I have also used textures and filters on some that have sold, though generally the lightly edited images sell better. I mostly have them on Stockimo and Adobe - though a handful on Dreamstime (from my old 6S) that are exclusive from ancient "contests" there have been selling regularly for years. 

I mainly shoot with a 42MP and a 61MP A7rii & iv, but for use on the web iPhone images are fine. I've even printed a few that have been in gallery shows.

IMHO, it's the composition, not the pixel peeping that counts. That spur of the moment inspiration that makes me take it out of my pocket and shoot.

Alamy.com / Re: your biggest sale on Alamy? and when was it?
« on: March 16, 2024, 02:20 »
On Stockimo, their iPhone site which is now closing down, I had a sale with $327 net to me last month. I was nervous about if I'd be paid but I received $343 in my paypal account this week (includes a couple small sales from the past few months). The most I've received for a single license there. I get a 50% commission on Stockimo so they licensed the image for ~$750 (on Stockimo they report the net you receive rather than their full commission). I was very pleased.

Although the tiny licenses are aggravating, I get a few $$$ licenses every year, and enough high $$ licenses to make it worthwhile.

Anyone having trouble today uploading? Seems like new files can't be processed. I added 23 yesterday with no issues. Didn't want to start another thread for what's hopefully a temporary issue. Thanks.

I was sorting through ancient files to discard/shred and "the old days" were even better compared to now than I recalled. I started with ss in late 2008 and by 2009, with 100 files I averaged $60 a month - I made roughly that much all year in 2023 with 600 images.

I know I have a small portfolio and I put it on hold after the 10 cent subs, so it was shockingly slow when I reinstated my portfolio in the second half of 2022, compounded by not uploading.

Eventually, I started uploaded editorial at the same time I add it to Alamy & DT, and some of those images sold within days of upload, but none are getting the multiple downloads that used to be common. Add to that SODs for 10-20 cents and it's just untenable. Income in 2024 is higher than 2023, but it is still really pitiful; not hard to see an increase when most months I only made enough for a cup of coffee.

Perennial low earner DT has consistently beaten ss every single month but one since I reinstated my account. I have 522 images on DT, so about 80 fewer images there.

I earn more most days on Adobe than I earn in a month on ss. I have 900 images on Adobe so 50% more than on ss, but I earn well over 10x as much there.

Sorry for your illness. It can be so frustrating.
Even if you can't take photos, can you upload photos that you have on your hard drive? If you made $42 from only 34 images, maybe you can make it to $100 by adding some new ones? Also, you can change the settings so that your unsold photos don't go to the free section. I've had unsold images suddenly sell there so don't let them give yours away.
They also take AI images, perhaps you are well enough to make them?
DT is a frustratingly slow earner. It's a shame that they aren't reading your emails since you are in a unique situation. Good luck.

My photos have been going through fast and so were AI until January when I had uploaded two Easter images, one was accepted right away and the other sat there for nearly two full months until it was accepted today. I haven't uploaded any AI since January, but as late as last week, photos were accepted within a day or two.

I make more on fine art sales than on stock sites but that's a combination of POD sites such as Fine Art America (where many of my best-sellers have been selling for 10+ years), direct sales, and through art agents. I only have around 900 files on FAA and I spent years marketing them on social media. I've cut back on the marketing and sales have slowed but are still pretty good. I do better with agents who take a huge cut of my sales, so I make much less per sale, but they do the marketing for me and it adds up much faster than FAA. POD is a lot more work than stock and a different market. I also show my work in galleries in the NY tri-state area and make occasional sales that way.

Honestly, I made much more when I was doing photo assignments but between Covid and lingering health issues, I've switched my focus to photography I can do on my own time. Editorial assignments earned me okay but not a living wage, however, they helped me get commercial assignments for local businesses which earned me substantially more. If photography is your full time business, assignments can be the way to go.

But yes, I've found POD sites worthwhile but only in combination with other outlets. I also license stock directly but that took years of finding clients too and still requires a lot of contact.

There's no get rich quick answer and depending on what type of images you shoot, stock can be a better outlet than POD or vice-versa. With stock, you don't have to market, the agencies do it for you but they also take the lion's share of the profits. On POD sites I can earn $$$ from one sale, which is rare for a single stock photo license although that can happen too. This month I netted over $300 from a single license on Stockimo (the Alamy app that they are now discontinuing) but again that's rare - I usually get 2-3 $$$ licenses on Alamy in a year these days, it's the $$ licenses that add up.

You still need a lot of $$$ sales to make decent income from photo sales and the steady daily licenses from microstock also add up. You can try Fine Art America with 25 images on their no cost plan, or for only $30 you can upload an unlimited number. If you have 2,000 good images to sell, why not try it for a few years and see how it goes?

Redbubble is another outlet for merchandise like mugs and T-shirts (occasional prints). They now charge you if you don't sell enough - I've made enough sales there over the years with a very small portfolio so I'm not getting charged but I find my illustrations do better than my photographs though photo stickers sell. The markup on merchandise is small though so you have to sell a lot. And when I cut back on marketing myself sales slowed.

Good luck!

Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock Review Time
« on: January 24, 2024, 10:57 »
I had a couple of new AI images reviewed and online a few days after uploading. Easter content I almost didn't upload for fear it wouldn't get online in time - so I was happily surprised!
+1 to the OP - my experience the past week has been the same.

Thanks Mat!
Great idea Jasmin!

You can do a keyword search if you hit the link to your portfolio in the dashboard. You can then search your  portfolio from there. It's clunky but at least it can be done. Like Jasmin, I use collections to see where I have holes in my collection.

I wish Adobe would bring back the Adobe Collection plug-in option in Lightroom. It was a great way to keep track of what I'd uploaded and also to collect stuff I wanted to upload all in one place - e.g. travel images from the same location taken at different times - without the need to make additional copies in a separate folder to upload. I know there's a new upload from folder option but that defeats the purpose of Lightroom letting you make collections without the need to duplicate files. Adobe has such great software, it's a shame we don't get the benefits on Adobe Stock. 

Speaking of software, Mat, any chance we'll get another year of LR/PS or Illustrator for meeting certain sales goals?

Off Topic / Re: I'm back!
« on: January 08, 2024, 16:30 »
Welcome back! Sorry life has been so hard. Condolences on your loss.

Aside from the growth of AI, I'd say the biggest change, which you can see via the poll, is that Adobe Stock has replaced shutterstock as the top performing stock photo agency for most photographers (unless they are lucky and talented enough to work with Stocksy).

Adobe takes everything except for regular editorial. They do take "illustrative editorial" though you may need to have a certain number of sales before they'll accept them. You probably met that threshold already - it's small like 500 or 1000 lifetime sales, I think.

In my experience, every type of image seems to sell on Adobe. My top sellers range from travel to concept (with and without people) to abstract backgrounds to non-vector illustrations made with Photoshop - so whatever your style, my best advice would be to put some effort into increasing your Adobe Stock portfolio.

I have limited AI experience - about 70 files accepted on Adobe since late October, of which 2 have sold a couple of times each. It's fast to build up a substantial number of AI files and it was fun for a while, but I'm bored with it and am ready to put more effort into my photography again. Like you, photography is what I love. Photo sales have been growing there, so AI isn't killing that market despite dire predictions.  Others are having great success with AI and their advice is worth reviewing if you're interested.

I just hit 65 recently and it's weird to suddenly be in this demographic because in my head I'm so much younger. Glad you are healthy. Hope you can get your portfolio performing well enough to supplement social security - it sounds like you're willing to work hard enough for it to be doable. You also live in a place where the weather is lovely most of the year, so that's a plus (although I guess heat in the summer is as discouraging as the cold is here in the northeast in winter). Well, sure it's beautiful right now. So, best of luck!

Keep us posted on how you're doing.

Microstock News / Re: Beware of NFT scammers
« on: January 08, 2024, 15:47 »
I've gotten a few of these types of scam attempts recently.

The first was someone on Instagram who wanted to buy one of my works to use as a reference photo for an NFT for $1,000. I was extremely skeptical since they could purchase a stock photo extended license for far less, but since she had actually singled out the work she wanted, and sent me a couple of messages, I agreed to take a look at the proposed contract, in the hope that I was wrong. As soon as I read the "contract," I knew my misgivings had been correct. It purported to make me responsible for upfront costs, which they'd "cover" by sending me more than the $1,000 price for use of the image - a big red flag - your bank can "cash" a check for you based on your own balance covering it, only to discover several days later that it has actually bounced, meanwhile the contract required me to be responsible for various costs on a very tight timeline - before the time it would take to discover a check or credit card payment was actually no good. I politely declined her offer.

I've gotten DMs on twitter too asking if my work is for sale - when it's clear from any link that it is, followed by "I'd love to buy it as an NFT" - without specifying a specific work - another big red flag. I just respond politely that my work is not available as an NFT. I probably shouldn't waste my time responding at all but since I've had individuals, publishers and galleries contact me out of the blue who were legitimately interested in showing, licensing or buying my work, on the off chance that my cynicism has made me assume a legitimate inquirer is a scammer, I always respond politely even when I'm saying "no."

Since NFTs require you to spend money up front, they seem like the perfect way for a scammer to get your money. And if they offer to pay for the NFT costs up front and then send you more than needed, requiring you to repay the difference, or pay others, well, that's just a reworking of an old photo scam from the early 2000's. 

@ZeroTalent  Thanks for bringing this to people's attention - that some here don't believe you is a testament to how scammers stroke photographer's egos and why conmen have been succeeding for eons. It's easy for me to spot a bogus "contract" but I practiced law in NYC for over a decade. It's also easy to understand how much we want an offer to buy our work to be legit - I actually agreed to look at the "contract" even though I really knew deep down that it would be bogus. Human nature. Now I just politely decline so as not to waste my time.

I'd worry too if they are sending you to their own bitcoin site, that they can get more than whatever costs you're paying upfront, since this might give them private banking info? It could wipe you out, and my understanding is that none of this stuff is traceable.

I can relate to the frustration of having images rejected for "quality" with no hints as to why.

I had 65 AI images accepted with no problem followed by 14 rejected for "quality."

It's from 4 different batches/concepts.

The largest batch includes full-sized (i.e. 4-6MP) carefully edited illustrations, sets, banners and seamless backgrounds I designed from those edited elements, where the components were carefully shrunk down from the much larger elements (after they were already edited to remove defects at the largest size). I've looked at them at 200% and don't see any flaws, other than the type of "imperfection" you'd expect from hand-drawn images - with the lines still all smooth. I used my stylus and paintbrushes when correcting defects and I'm not pretending they are vectors. They've rejected everything - the individual components, the sets, the banners, and the seamless patterns.

I didn't rely on AI to create seamless patterns from the two rejected sets. Instead, I carefully planned each pattern out and worked with the offset filter, checking how each looked at different offsets to be sure each one worked well whether at +50 or +700 e.g. Then, for each one, I made a huge document so I could cut and paste copies of the final pattern to assure that it worked as a seamless pattern in every direction and that there were no stray lines appearing when the edges were combined.

Ironically, the AI images that were part of an even larger batch, where my edits were more minimal, were all accepted quickly and a couple have already sold a few times.

It feels like the less human intervention the better. Kinda depressing since I feel like it's important to add some human artistry - and in earlier batches heavily edited AI images were in fact all accepted.

There really is no way that every single component and group of images each batch had quality issues. I'm reluctant to put any more time or effort into it since I feel like they didn't even look at any of my images, but just hit "reject all."

Another reject was the final image of a themed group of different animals where the other 6 were all accepted weeks earlier.

A handful from the last set I uploaded are still waiting for review days after the others were rejected. It will be interesting to see how they do.

Meanwhile, dt accepted all of them. I'm tempted to make these themed sets exclusive there since exclusive images there tend to do well, despite the site's otherwise lackluster performance. I'd prefer to have them on Adobe, but I already spent way too much time on these AI images and having to spend hours trying to figure out if I missed something after already putting in a lot of work defeats the concept of quickly adding AI to my portfolio.

Requiring an explanation for why the quality is bad would help stop (perhaps lazy?) reviewers from just rejecting an entire batch. The 14 rejected included a cat, plants with leaves, flowers, cacti, drawings of feathers, a dreamcatcher, and abstract patterns. Hard to believe I got them all wrong.

I've given all the images another look and honestly I can't see what's wrong with any of them. Hard to correct when you don't know what you've done wrong.

Time to get back to my camera.

Shutterstock.com / Re: SS just screwed up the site again
« on: December 14, 2023, 11:06 »
I signed in to check and I still get the same old dashboard, but there is a banner on top telling me that something new and exciting is on its way. I'm in NY, ss's home base, so surprised it hasn't been rolled out here.

Shutterstock.com / Re: New files don't sell
« on: December 13, 2023, 16:10 »
I am seeing this trend that my old files are selling while new files don't sell... is this normal?

Just thinking of your post, I wanted to add this. Image ID# 2,399,478,055 was accepted this morning on SS. (It's one of mine) That doesn't mean 2.4 Billion live images will be competing for the buyers attention, but there are many more than when most of us started. If the blank search is accurate: 451,393,732 stock photos, 3D objects, vectors, and illustrations are available royalty-free.

I stopped keeping a close watch on this. Just in case someone new wonders, or for a refresher.

2006 = 1 million images
2009 = 6 million images
2010 = 10 million images
2012 = 20 million images
2014 = 40 million images
2016 = 80 million images
2017 = 160 million images
2020 = 320 million images
2021 = 340 million images
2022 = 405 million images

As others have pointed out, if I had 1,000 images in 2010 I'd need to have 40,000 now, to have increased at the same rate as the competition. 🤯

Sure thing, new files don't sell as fast or as much as old files did. If getting noticed is necessary to get better rank and future sales, then that's less likely.

I remember when I started and ss hit 6 million images, thinking how amazing it was that my photos could be found in such a gigantic database LOL. I sure miss the days when I averaged $60/mo with a portfolio of just 100 images. I wish I'd gone all in on microstock back when you could really make decent $$$ but you can't look back.

As I mentioned above, I've gotten sales with images uploaded this year and agree with your point that if you have something more unique that won't get buried under millions and millions of similar images, sales of new images are still possible. Granted, new stuff still has a better shot on Adobe, but since I can't upload regular editorial work there, ss still gets the occasional upload from me.

RM doesn't prevent theft or misuse. However, it can help with copyright violations.

Since no place else I license images uses the RM model anymore, I've marked my RM images on Alamy as exclusive. This got me a $250 copyright violation fee for an image of mine I found in a book that I wasn't paid for. Since the images was RM and exclusive to Alamy, Alamy chased up the use. It took nearly a year for them to collect and pay me (I finally got the payout in October of this year), and I brought the use to their attention. Still, even in this instance, it was the fact that it was exclusive to Alamy that made the difference. Moreover, the image had been credited to me and Alamy (which is how I found it) but with their loosey-goosey self-billing system, it never showed up on their end.

RM gives you more control over the use of images, letting you prohibit sensitive use, reproduction for fine art, etc. It also means that you are supposed to get paid a fee each time an image is used.

That control, however, can be elusive.

I have RM images on Alamy that they have licensed "in perpetuity," which might as well be RF. This is more and more common, and very frustrating.

A few years ago, Alamy licensed two images for a particular edition of a book under what appeared to be normal RM terms. Those two photos were reused in several subsequent editions of the book, without additional payment. When I notified them about this the first time, I was told that the license was worded to permit subsequent editions (despite the notation not appearing in the licensing info I received). Even at half the initial fee for subsequent editions, that's $$$$'s that neither Alamy nor I earned. Frustrating.

I have some photos that I often sell as fine art on Alamy as RM, with "do not sell for personal use" (i.e. one-off fine art prints) ticked as a restriction, so it doesn't undermine my prices. A couple of years ago, however, Alamy sold a series for $169 each, one was personal use for prints (an older scenic from the same area that I uploaded before Alamy changed the way we added RM restrictions). The other two images, "ticked as "not for personal use," were sold for newsletter use. I assume they were all printed but there was no way I could check on the license. I made less than I would have for a decent sized print, but at least it was a couple hundred to me, and not the measly $10 or so I'd get when they license RF images for print. Cynically, I assume they did it this way to make it worth enough to me that I wouldn't make a fuss.

My decision about when to make an image RM has evolved over time.

When I started in 2008, I used to agonize over which images should be which, which to upload to Alamy when all sales there were truly midstock or even macrostock prices, and this slowed me down in building my portfolio.

Then, I tried a few of my best travel images as RF on the micros and they made me way more $$$.

So, I think RM is worthwhile for certain images but most of my stock portfolio, even on Alamy, is RF. And my criteria for marking some as RM has evolved as well.

These days, I am selling more scenic fine art prints, so RM has become a way for me to license certain botanical images to magazines, calendars and books while still selling prints. I also do a lot of black and white more abstract images, which I don't upload as stock, and which I wouldn't license except for use in a fine art book or art show catalog. There, an RM license, even if it is gratis for a catalog, lets me protect the use of the image.

So, yes for me, RM makes sense. I got a few decent $$$ licenses this year, but I also had a couple of $$$ RF licenses. And just this month, I had RM images license  $7 and 16.  So I don't think that prices for RF and RM are necessarily all that different. In my experience, at least, it's much more about having some control over the image's use.

I do this part time, so I don't have a ton of data, but I hope the examples I've given you, some older (e.g. the book and subsequent editions) but mostly from 2021-2023, help you make a decision.

Dreamstime.com / Re: DT is a Nightmarestime
« on: December 12, 2023, 16:13 »
DT slogs along slowly for me. Since 2018, I've made payout roughly every 18 months. Before that, I made payout 3-4 times a year with a very small portfolio (250-350 images). Since 2022 I increased my portfolio to 500 images since their upload process is so easy, but with a drop in RPD from $1.35 in 2021 to 89 cents in 2022 to 53 cents this year, my income has remained nearly the same even though number of sales increased.

DT isn't the only outlier.  I have 100 files on Getty/iStock (unchanged for years) and their $100 payout gets me paid every 18-20 months.

It ticks along, so why would I close the account? I look at it as a surprise $100 every other year, rather than something more reliable.

General Stock Discussion / Tear Sheets New for 2023 and 2024
« on: December 12, 2023, 13:57 »
After posting this in a much older thread I saw that people were scolded for reviving something so old so thought I'd start a new thread for Tear Sheets for this year and next:


My model here is not a veteran - I know there was a NYTimes case that said it was okay to use an image of a person in this way even if they are not actually in the profession mentioned. Just glad it's his back. I submitted it as editorial only.

Actually, given today's prices I'm happy with this one - I made $30+ on ss for it, so I made payout LOL. I've hardly uploaded anything there in years, but it's generally my best bet for editorial images. They've licensed others from this set too.

I was driving from Ohio to New York and it was a beautiful autumn day. As we approached Harrisburg, PA, it seemed like a good place to stretch our legs. I took photos (of course) while wandering around. It's got a nice downtown area with pretty brick buildings. I enjoy architectural photography and managed to get in some of my steps despite a long day in the car. So I guess it was a win-win.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 45


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results