I think that using non-professional reviewers means you are always going to see inconsistent decisions.

I remember last year uploading a bunch of very different illustrations based on a single photograph. They were very varied. Shutterstock took about 2/3rds of them. Adobe took 4 - the original image made into an illustration and 3 different color variations of that original image, which were similar to each other. But then they rejected all of the other very different illustrations when the only thing they had in common was that I had used the same image as a starting point.  If I hadn't uploaded that original image as a "property release," I think they would have accepted most, if not all, of the others

Even more inconsistent was their decision to accept all 32 illustrations of another subject I uploaded at the same Those 32 backgrounds all used the same basic elements (hand drawn, so no "property release"). After uploading, I thought I'd probably gone a bit overboard, and I figured most of them would get rejected. But SS, DT and Adobe took all 32. Go figure.

Of course, the stuff Adobe rejected is selling on SS and DT (or was until this month - I think this is my worst November since I started back in 2008)

I even had one flawless image that Alamy licensed to Travel and Leisure, rejected by one of the micros for "artifacts." Maybe the reviewer had dirt on their screen? It's the exact same file Alamy took with their pixel peeping and has sold there and via my site for $$$. Flawless in print but not good enough for a micro? Seriously, I re-checked the file at 200% on my retina screen and on my iMac. 

I guess you just have to shrug and move on.

The most telling I suppose was some years ago when I made $375 on DT for a single $750 one-year exclusive sale of an image that had already sold many times before there. I guess I should thank the other sites' reviewers because the only reason it was exclusive on DT was because every other site had rejected it as not being commercially viable.

It's very frustrating to get such inconsistent acceptances and rejections. If a file is rejected somewhere, another site would usually take it, and generally I'll feel vindicated that the inspectors were wrong when it sells elsewhere.

Quote from: Hoodie Ninja on November 22, 2019, 13:23

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 22, 2019, 12:06

Some people have said that they wanted one, and this will "replace the DSLR". Others say, we want a camera that has a phone, because then it would be a real Camera Phone? 

Enter the getting there camera: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-powershot-g7x-mark-iii-review?ref_=pe_1822230_454513780_dpr_nl_400_4

Canon PowerShot G7 X III with Live YouTube streaming support built-in

I won't be running out to get one, but I thought that was interesting.

Key Specifications:

    20MP 1"-type Stacked CMOS sensor
    24-100mm equiv. F1.8-2.8 lens
    Built-in 3-stop ND filter
    Touchscreen tilts up 180� and down 90�
    8 fps burst shooting with autofocus, 30 fps Raw burst mode
    4K/30p and 1080/60p video recording
    Microphone socket
    Live YouTube streaming support built-in
    Vertical video capture
    1080/120p slow motion video (with no audio or autofocus)
    Wi-Fi + Bluetooth wireless connectivity
    USB 3.1 (with USB-C connector) for data transfer and charging
    235 shot battery life per CIPA standard

I have the Samsung Note 10+, which has just as good of a camera as the iPhone 11 Pro Max and I have said several times since getting it that, if I wasn't doing photography professionally, I'd just use my phone for photos from now on.  The built-in HDR creates stunning images with no need to edit.  I've actually been using my phone as a reference to how a picture CAN look with the right editing of my DSLR images.  Since I can see all the lights and darks in real-time, it makes it easy to decide which composition looks best for a scene.

My second option for not using a DSLR right now is my little Sony RX100 IV.  I take it with me as a backup just in case the "real" camera fails me.  Of course, newer versions have come out since I bought it, but them adding 200mm zoom over previous models was a big selling point for me.  It also has a touchscreen that you can flip up for self-recording and can be controlled by your phone.

But I will always have a soft spot for Canon Powershots since that was my first camera that I bought when I started getting interested in photography. <3

All good points, I'm just not ready for a phone that's a camera quite yet, but I do see the nice images that some people make, and the computational analysis or whatever the phones have built in, does a really good job of making up for the inadequacies of a tiny sensor and a tiny plastic lens.

I've been a Canon loyal since my first film SLR a FT-QL. Mostly because of lenses and once married, there I am. I think the new Sony and Fuji, and Nikon of course all have some pretty nice features and models, so I'm not saying that Canon is the end all and everything, by any means. Just what I have and the L lenses fit nicely into what I like to shoot.

I actually have a couple of accepted and sold Microstock photos from an A-1200 that I always carried in my pocket, before the days of better phone cameras. I've tried some others, G series for two different models, and some other bridge camera. They got sold after having some fun, just not what I wanted. I eventually did settle on a EOS-M which is almost a pocket camera or is with big pockets.  Decent lenses and the crop sensor, nice for grab and shoot around the house.

But my personal opinion is, the new phones have not replaced the DSLR yet. In a year we'll hear the same and in 2021 we'll hear again. Just seems to be some people like to predict the demise of DSLRs every chance they can. There are loads of good and in some situations better cameras, but the replacement hasn't come quit yet for serious everyday work.

Quote from: Hoodie Ninja on November 21, 2019, 15:22

My gap for the year is $2.12 and $69.99.  But sales are few and far between.  Plus they take forever to release the money.  I've only gotten 40% of my earnings so far.  And my last sale was in September.  My first sale was in February.  And my one and only payout happened in October.

My view is, one or two payouts a year from Alamy beats the heck out of every other possible agency in the polls on the right, below them, who don't make a payout in a year for many people. I mean I can get sales on DT or 123RF or DP (as examples, not to pick) and not get a $50 payout in a year. Alamy isn't volume and isn't microstock, not comparable.

At the current sales and agencies, one $69 DL from Alamy is more than the little sites make a year. Also more than the best ELs I get from Microstock now. It's one more source and can be lower volume, but higher total?

Sure I'd like more consistant sales, but I'm also pretty happy with what I do get.

I do stock f/t but I'm not the family breadwinner. I could probably survive on my own living in Thailand on what i make, but living in Australia is expensive, kids are expensive. I make a really decent part-time wage, and given i'm the stay at home mum, it's been the perfect job that has allowed me to freedom to be home with my kids, and still work when I choose. I wish I'd started earlier than I did, I seem to have missed the good ol days.

Why is anyone still uploading there?

These rates are an insult

Quote from: Hoodie Ninja on September 17, 2019, 17:11

I guess no one bothered to look at Yuri's Instagram account.  He was looking for "new faces" for his portfolio.  The address listed for the casting call was in Cape Town.

yes I don't do Instagram....that was for January 2019 though last post Nov 18