Adobe Clip can mute audio or replace it with something else. But exports max 1080p. Other options is to turn audio recording off with camera app like Filmic Pro for example.
But neither are free.

I have synced and use Adobe Stock now, it has better interface, however I really hate to order the keywords manually. It would be much better if this was no longer important. Please do something about it. Photographers have better things to do than wasting their time with keyword reordering.

Hey guys,

First of all, thank you for everyone who has been a Beta user. It is probably our fault for not communicating our appreciation of them well enough, maybe through a bigger discount. Lesson learned.

We wanted to make a few mentions, maybe to clarify things a bit.

1. The market for microstock photography is comprised of thousands of contributors out of which only a fraction are willing to pay for a software helping with sales tracking. This means there's a cap to the number of subscribers we'll probably have and a certain price we cannot go below for this project to be worthwhile. We have thought about the prices long and hard for over 2 years. We have even contacted a few marketing and pricing specialists so we'd have an amount that's affordable to as many people as possible. This is very close to as low as we can go, to support us the creators of this software and the infrastructure/hardware needed. Developing this requires expert level design and IT skills and A LOT of time. None of which comes cheaply. But we are stock photographers ourselves and this product is our baby.

2. Microstockr Pro is definitely a niche product. Since the market is so small, no big company will enter and develop such an app because it is not worth it. Hence, comparing our app to Photoshop and Lightroom which have a mainstream market of millions of users is not really fair. Adobe does not have any competition and can charge whatever they want. The reason, we think, they charge $9.99 for Photoshop & Lightroom is because a lot of people would use their software illegally anyway, so why not grab a piece of that market too? They can afford it and it's a smart move.

Not many people remember that only a couple of years ago Photoshop cost $699 and you also had to pay a few hundred dollars for every update.

Comparing this to Microstockr Pro is like comparing apples and oranges. What if Adobe decided to charge $4.99 instead? Following that logic no other product should be more expensive since it's not more complex. It is called dumping price and is used by dominant players to control the market.

3. The agencies change all the time. Our app will never be a finished product because it will always require updates and adjustments. Hence development will never cease. In order to support it, we needed a subscription based model and a steady income to support it. Otherwise, we would've charged once and considering the market is small, when the cash ran out development ceased. So, in a way, subscription was the only way to go.

Hope this perspective clears things up a bit and helps others see things from our side too.
Cheers.

I think you should listen more to your subscribers and not the marketing "specialists", they are wrong so many times. I would consider to buy subscription if it was 1/3 of the price and probably many more would do. I pay for you mobile app, so I'm willing to pay, if the price is reasonable. It doesn't seem to me logical to sell it for this price. I wonder how many users you loose now, those who could be your prospective customers. Vast majority of microstock contributors are earning less than $150/month, those you will loose almost all. You will keep those who are at 500$/month maybe and you also compete with stockperformer for them. How many of such microstock contributors are there left? 1/1000?. I believe you could go with the price to 1/3 and earn much more. If it works in stock photography business, why wouldn't it work with the app like this. I wonder how would it affect infrastructure cost? App is self standing with its own database. It probably use microstock sites apis to acquire data. So it's not your infrastructure. I don't know what cost is for api, but it's not usually too much. So what is your infrastructure? Website and cloud storage where users download app and updates. I'm experienced web developer so I know that's not that expensive, also you have been paying for all that infrastructure until now. I understand stockperformer's price, as they store and process data on their own servers, which require far greater infrastructure, and they didn't have competition. Well, I'm sorry you haven't asked users for their opinions on price and I am sorry I have to part with the app, as it was great for me.

Quote from: salparadis on May 04, 2017, 05:23

Lately many people are complaining about declining sales especially on shutterstock and bring some conspiration theories about shutterstock messing with the search engine and so on. I think that real reason might no be so inconspicuous. For example one of my bestseller picture of London Tower is still on top of the search results on shutterstock but income was reduce to 1/5 comparing to the best years. I think this might be connected to the sites like pixabay which gives similar images for free. I have been watching increasing amount of these pictures on websites even in newspapers and other medias. I think this might be the real business killer for many people. Of course shutterstock as a company is still doing well as their tactics now is bringing more and more content and much of it is not covered by the sites like pixabay. But for example as a website designer why would I buy the picture of london tower from shutterstock if, I can have it for free and customer will not see much difference. Just look at the number of downloads of pixabay pictures. I believe it is not just from people who wouldn't buy the picture otherwise. 1000 downloads of a picture on pixabay may be 200 downloads less on paid microstock sites.

Maybe some effect but the fact is sales for shutterstock are Growing how many more pictures of the tower of london are there now than 5 years ago? a few I bet.

Actually there is around 73 000 pictures of London Tower on shutterstock, but that number doesn't matter that much. Two years ago it was maybe 50 000 and 5 years ago let's say 30 000. But the sales were highest 2 years ago with significant drop only last year, so it doesn't correlate with the trend. What matters is if a picture is good enough to keep between the most popular results on the first page. And it is still there on the second place. So the reason why the sales are declining is probably something else.

Lately many people are complaining about declining sales especially on shutterstock and bring some conspiration theories about shutterstock messing with the search engine and so on. I think that real reason might no be so inconspicuous. For example one of my bestseller picture of London Tower is still on top of the search results on shutterstock but income was reduce to 1/5 comparing to the best years. I think this might be connected to the sites like pixabay which gives similar images for free. I have been watching increasing amount of these pictures on websites even in newspapers and other medias. I think this might be the real business killer for many people. Of course shutterstock as a company is still doing well as their tactics now is bringing more and more content and much of it is not covered by the sites like pixabay. But for example as a website designer why would I buy the picture of london tower from shutterstock if, I can have it for free and customer will not see much difference. Just look at the number of downloads of pixabay pictures. I believe it is not just from people who wouldn't buy the picture otherwise. 1000 downloads of a picture on pixabay may be 200 downloads less on paid microstock sites.

1. Shutterstock
2. Getty
3. Fotolia
4. Istock
5. Dreamstime

I've seen it. They were reviewed while I was uploading them.
Anway, fast review has probably something to do with people avoidng to submit on weekend because of that reviwer that works only on saturdays and sundays and rejects everything.

Lately I've been uploading on weekends and pictures were reviewed on Monday and almost everything passed, until last weekend. It was reviewed immediately and almost everything declined. I guess the bad-ass reviewer has reached another level of bad-assness and just decline immediately everything which is not produced with leica glass, fullframe camera and studio lightning.

Hi Sean.
Do you know how long does it take to have a response
For Getty , I send my application one month ago and still no answer from them .

Forever, if you are not successful, they don't respond.

I guess the rejection reasons were mainly softness and noise. Their technical quality requirements are ridiculous high. Some lens + camera combinations can't even meet those requirements. For the night shots anything handheld and with higher ISO than 200 is rejected in my experience. I'm using Olympus OM-D system. I upload my Shutterstock rejects to Getty Moment. They accept most of it, however income is lower.

First image is underexposed. Don't be afraid to burn the white background. If you set the lights good there's a little need to do something in photoshop. I suggest to use 3 light sources for this. Two diffused for the object and one for the white background. Experiment with the light directions and power. In composition it is better to avoid object touches with the borders like in picture 1 and 4. And blue dish distracts attention from food in this case. Hope this helps.   

Quote from: travelwitness on July 15, 2013, 06:41

Just out of interest is there anyone out there considering Symbiostock but is holding back?

Definitely extremely complicated bureaucracy/legislation/tax requirements that must be meet if someone wants to sell virtual goods directly from his own online store.
(At least from where I am based. Slovakia, European Union.)
I mean those requirements are REALLY complicated.
Most of you probably cannot even imagine � not even in your wildest dreams � how can be some of those legislation requirements complicated here!

In contrast selling through stock agencies is relatively easy from point of view of bureaucracy/legislation/tax requirements, because those complicated/problematic parts of business are left on stock agency.

You don't sell goods with symbiostock, but licences. So you have to look at author law. I'm from Slovakia too and as I know this should be the "passive" income according to the law. And it's the same income as you get from other microstock agencies, so use the same way as you pay taxes from that.