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 02, 2013, 20:16

Quote from: shudderstok on June 02, 2013, 19:43

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: JPSDK on May 30, 2013, 18:40

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: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 09:23

Quote from: OM on May 30, 2013, 09:15

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:54

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."

Quote

Dat 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

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:54

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."

Quote

Dat 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: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:59

Quote from: ShadySue on May 30, 2013, 08:56

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:54

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.

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.