Who cares, in the end these pathetic editors reject everything anyway, don't matter if it's your best selling subject or not. I suggest they go flip burgers.

not really.... i have an 70% AR with SS.... the part with the burgers.... i agree on.

also taking into account that - depending on your FT currency - credits may have changed value in time

e.g., once upon a time it was 1 credit = 1 GBP, now it's 1 credit = 0.75 GBP

in my case now 1 credit = 1 euro

hi,

I have a question regarding FT:

How can i see all time earnings on FT?

I just need to vent my frustration.

I just submitted a handful of images and had 3 rejections, all for different reasons, none of which made sense.  

One had to do with a public domain item included in the photo, which I clearly explained in a note to the reviewer, which I have to assume wasn't even read.

One was for "focus", the image is an isolated object at f/27 and is sharp as a tack from corner to corner.  

One was for "lighting/shadows" and I am absolutely clueless on this one, I thought the shot was perfect.

I've had very few problems with rejections at SS in the past.  But it seems like things are changing. Maybe they're outsourcing inspection like other agencies have admitted to doing.  

It's totally frustrating   There is no point doing these carefully set up object shots if the reviewers just don't get it.

Thanks for listening.  You can all just nod and move on.

regarding the public domain issue:

for images submitted  in public domain you must provide all the information about the subject in the DESCRIPTION not in the box to the reviewer.

those information must be:

- name of the subject/art/ painting drawing or what the subject represents.
- source of the subject ( book, publication,museum etc.)
- year of creation/ publication
- country of origin
- name of the author

if the author is unknown ( and the other mandatory information's are known) you must write in the box to the reviewer that the author is unknown and why ( ex, the books and/or publication is not specifying who drew the sketch, drawing).

i have hundreds of public domain pictures with SS and i have not encounter any problem with them if i filled the description with all the required information.

Quote from: traveler1116 on March 01, 2012, 17:29

Quote from: Herg on March 01, 2012, 14:18

IS isn't much less than what it was earning me before so I am not losing out.

How is that possible?  You went down 50% or more in royalty % and 50% on RCs, so right off the bat you would have lost 75% of income per sale not to mention worse best match placement.  Are you saying your sales nearly quadrupled since dropping exclusivity?

Just to share my experience here as a recent indie. I went live on SS on 23rd of Feb and have managed to build a portfolio of about 330 images there, most (75%) of which was added either just before (as in a few days before) I went live or since I went live (yes I have been busy). I have been averaging about 8-10 dls a day (so $2-$3) since going live and a few dollars a day. Quite frankly I expected a lot more, especially while my images were "new" (maybe they are still "new" - when does the "newness" wear off?). I have achieved about 75% acceptanceof the images I have submitted and have about another 400 to submit so expect to end up with about 600 images on SS once the portoflio upload is complete. I'm uploading in large batches in order to grow my portfolio there as quickly as possible - the slwo inspections are killing me though. 6 or 7 days for inspections is not the sort of responsiveness I expected and by the sound of it is a mor recent problem on SS.

Meanwhile over on iStock I have seen the 75% reduction in royalties traveler1116 was talking about, even though most of my DLs are images I put into P+. My actual number of downloads is surprisingly, not too bad and at least comparable to what I was getting as an exclusive which I was a little surprised about. That may however drop off if most of the downloads I'm getting now are the result of people lightboxing my images prior to going indie (in which case they have saved themselves a bunch of money!).

So basically I'm taking a big hit financially at the moment (I was averaging about $20-$25 a day as exclusive on iStock, now it's more like $7 -$10). I really hope SS picks up because otherwise going indie is looking like a false step. I realise I need to spread out to other sites which I will do as I go, but I was expecting a lot more from SS. It seems like, in most cases SS is indie contributors No.2 and occasionally No.1. If my No.2 is going to only bring in a few $ a day, then it is not going to work. The reasons I went indie are still there, so I will stick with it for a few months and start uploading to other sites and see what happens.

In my personal case after 3 months of independence i started to earn two times more. in march i expect at least +20% more revenue than the last month. i new from the beginning that for a period of time i will earn less than when i was exclusive.

now SS is making 60% of all my microstock earnings with many dozens of dls/day

Feb is  BME by + 30% compared with my previous BUT....

 SS is a DISASTER in review time. my files are reviewed once/ week, Monday or Tuesday regardless of what images i upload (illustrations or photos) and the number . This is happened for 3-4 weeks; In the past the images were reviewed in 2 days max 3....    

in my case:

SS - two words: they  rocks   
DT - DISASTER; NO SALES in the last 3 days   
FT - starts bad and recovered in the last days ... in one word GOOD .
123RF - above average week  .

Quote from: KB on February 23, 2012, 11:31

Quote from: sharpshot on February 23, 2012, 03:45

I'll be shocked if they don't have more than 22mp.
I can't see how they can noticeably improve the IQ much, it's already very good.  Some extra mp's to allow more cropping would be a big improvement.

Prepare to be shocked, then. Canon Rumors assigned it [CR3]; they're never wrong on those.

What's missing from those specs is details.  Maybe they can't improve IQ much, but what about IQ at higher ISOs? What if they can make ISO 1600 as noise-free as ISO 200 is now? Or ISO 6400 as good as 1600 is? Maybe there's better weather sealing or (oh, I wish!) a better dust removal system. (Sure those are not worth $3500 by themselves, but the more improvements, the more worthwhile it becomes.)

But the 22MP number (I read somewhere) was aimed specifically at video. So I expect most of the improvements will be on the video side. Reducing or eliminating moire and the jello effect, and adding features that I can't even guess at (zebra stripes? 1080p 60fps? 4:2:2?).  We'll know soon enough.

There's also talk of a 45mp camera and that Canon will quickly look at the new Nikon and come up with something a bit better.

While a lot of people want more FPS and faster auto focus, I would be much more interested in a stripped down camera that wasn't so heavy to carry around all day.  I only use manual and aperture priority, don't need all the gimmicks.  Can't remember ever using ISO past 3200.  I don't really see why digital full frame cameras are so much bulkier than some of the 35mm film cameras I used to use.  Hopefully a manufacturer will make a lightweight full frame camera with an EVF one day.

There is such a camera on the market.... Leica M9 .... maybe the price of the camera anser your question regarding a lightweight full frame camera.

$3500 is way too much for these improvements, I'd rather invest in some more lenses and keep my 5D2s.

i can't wait to be officially announced.... For me, the reason is simple: i will buy a new 5D2 at a better price...

DT was always on par with FT, this month it's not even 50% of FT (FT went up a bit as well). Looks like this site is loosing ground, a shame, I kind of liked them for their level system

The lvl system is  the reason.... from lvl 3 up the images are just too expensive for the buyers (using credits) and lvl 5 using subs.

Quote from: heywoody on February 19, 2012, 07:44

Quote from: ChasingMoments on February 18, 2012, 21:40

Whoa, pretty amazing how DT performance varies for people! I have recently been again revisiting the idea of going exclusive with DT. I already gave it some serious thought last year and decided to wait... One thing I noticed is that exclusive images rank a lot higher in search results than non-exclusive (I compared some of my baby images with comparable keywords and exclusives were always on page one of relevance search whereas non-exclusives did not do as well). Also, DT may be slow in the beginning for "new" joiners, but after images "mature" and sell more, they gain more visibility and momentum.

On the other hand, I am giving up on SS as it just does not find in searches and does not sell any of the new images I submit... very upsetting because I used to be the biggest fan of SS and now here I am again, wondering about DT exclusivity...

Why not just put everything on IS and FT also?

After last year's (or has it been two years?) changes on IS I pulled my port from IS and only left about 60-70 best sellers, they sell consistently and still bring in as much $ as my port used to. I am on FT, but FT doesn't do as well for me as DT (with almost identical portfolios); on FT only my older images do well, not newer ones. I am on a couple other sites too but nearly not as much income from them. Going exclusive with DT makes sense as my images would bring in more  $ per sale and they'd probably appear better ranked in searches (and there's a small upload bonus per upload for exclusives)

how are your sales on SS compared with DT?

thanks for the info.... Very helpful

@leaf

i suggest a control  poll (only for indies) regarding this matter.... include only IS,SS,DT,FT and 123RF. the question is simple:

Mark the fallowing agencies in order of income. ex. 1- SS , 2-IS , 3 DT,FT etc.... If the results will be similar to the actual pool than the new algorithm is representing the reality correctly.