I've already had as many ELs on SS this month as I have in the last year or more.  That would be seriously cool except I'm still bleeding from the clawbacks from IS.  So now I'm nervous about celebrating any seemingly too-good-to-be-true news.

Is anyone noticing an unusual trend in the EL download department?  If so, any suspicion this might be fraud?  Of course, I don't know why someone who was stealing images would pay for ELs rather than simply ODs at top resolution but I figure criminals aren't always the sharpest knives in the drawer.

I know what you mean.

I guess I'd be classified as a "hobbyist" since I don't do this full time or for a significant amount of my income.  On the other hand, I got pretty serious about this about 3 years ago because I thought I'd eventually get pretty good at it and build a large enough portfolio to support me when I decide to retire from the high-pressure day job in a few years.  It's become clear to me that's never going to happen now.

My income peaked two years ago.  Even though the quality of my photography has increased tremendously and the size of my portfolio has more than doubled since then, my income continues to degrade.  With the recent changes I'm seeing an even bigger drop than in previous shake-ups.  I expect my income will be down over 20% this coming year even if I maintain my current upload rate.

It's killed a lot of my motivation.  I've not been shooting much new stock stuff at all since January.  

On the other hand, instead of always shooting for stock and feeling the pressure to feed the beast, I've been shooting lately just to please myself.  I've been experimenting with new styles and techniques and it's been a lot of fun.  Most of it would never be accepted by the micros but I'm finding I don't care.  I like some of what I'm producing very much.  So right now I'm just concentrating on enjoying what I'm doing and ignoring the profit motive.

Wow.  Scary.  Thanks for sharing that. 

I am signed up through Bluehost, which is one of the hosts they recommend.  Hope that doesn't happen down the line though. 

Out of curiosity, were you getting sales in those 6 months? 

I sold a few files--never enough to pay back the cost of the software.  Mostly stuff I shot for Phoenix Marathons and Ironman triathlons.  None of my other regular stock sold at all.

I have similar experience on Smugmug.  Some event stuff sells.  Very little other stuff.  So far I'm making enough to pay the annual fee but not much more.

Is there a way for independent stock sites to work together as peers in order to drive traffic? A directory of sites would be a beginning but lists are not so useful. A hub needs to provide search across multiple independent sites. One site which takes people to other sites.

There would need to be agreed standards from go. The independent peer sites perhaps all submitting their updated keywords, links, comp links, to an agreed format and structure. The hub would be a database of that data. And to be completely cell like perhaps everyone in the guild also puts that search box on their own site as part of the agreement. Then everyone is linked to everyone else. Any ideas ?

I'd support something like this.

With all the chaos from the stock agencies and dwindling royalty percentages, about a year ago I thought I would try self hosting.

I tried a couple of solutions and found they all have drawbacks but I eventually settled on a SmugMug pro account linked to my regular web site.  I'm happy with the the look and capabilities of the resulting on-line store (although I recognize there are limitations). So far, however, I've sold only a smattering of images and prints.

I haven't really attempted to build any traffic to my site because I wanted to get things set up, establish my portfolio and become familiar with how sales worked before dealing with significant numbers of customers.

I'm ready to scale things up.  In fact, I need to.  At the current rate it will take years to reach a pay-out and I'm not making enough to cover the annual subscription costs.  So, I'm at a point where I would like to begin marketing and finding ways to drive traffic to my site. 

I did some marketing by shooting photos at local events and handing out slips of paper with links to where the photos would be.  I did get a few sales that way (a couple of prints from the Phoenix Marathon and some downloads from a local parade I shot).  I don't think this is going to pay for itself and nothing else has produced much of anything.

I was wondering if anyone has any good ideas or experience in this.  How do you reach customers?

Has anyone else considered the other cuts we've suffered beyond this royalty cut?

I thought about it and I realized that this royalty cut will actually hurt me a lot less than other things they've done.  I'm an independent and back in October of '08 when they changed the best match it cut my income by nearly 50% (on a portfolio of about 500 images). 

After a year of hard work and more than doubling my portfolio I had recovered those losses and was starting to get BMEs again for the first half of this year.  But then I guess they made changes again and since June my income is down 30%-40% again.  This royalty cut is peanuts compared to that.

Obviously IS doesn't really want my photos even though I've made thousands of dollars for them.  Seems like a ridiculous way to run a business.  Regardless, I know where I'm not wanted.

A lot has been said about the top exclusives not being able to make the cut to get the highest royalty rate and maybe they'll drop their crowns.

But I wonder, do they really get the same deal everybody else gets?  I wouldn't be surprised if the biggest players with the most profitable portfolios don't negotiate secret sweetheart deals so that IS can continue to lock up their portfolios.

I was wondering if anyone has ever received something like this:

-----------------
"This is a requisition for your photography services.  I am  Guojun Li. Based in UK. I am contacting you in regard of my wedding.  My wedding is coming up on  September 11, 2010. I have been browsing the internet for a professional photographer  in USA when I found your contact. Pleese I will want to hire your service to be the photographer on my wedding day in UK.

You will cover the whole events from Getting ready, Ceremony, and the Reception.  I want you to capture the atmosphere of the event so that we can moment, photo by photo, for a life time. Capture all those little moments that make the wedding day incredible. Also, I will want you to make an album from the event.I will prefer popular flush mount albums that are custom designed.

 I am  of the opinion that you are capable to provide the incredible services as requested. Please accept my sincerest appreciation on behalf of my fiance, in advance for your willingness to render your services as I look forward to your prompt response to my request.

Pleese  let me know  if you will be able to make it.

Kind Regard,
Guojun Li"
-------------------------

I can't imagine why someone would try to hire a US-based photographer to shoot weddings in the UK.  I don't have any intention of following through on this (couldn't if I wanted to--I have a day job) but I was wondering if anyone's seen something like this before.  I'm just curious where the hook is...I figure at some point there would be some kind of request for money.

How about this one:



"The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.

{[ Agave,  Agave (Succulent Plant)]}"

Last month was BME for me at IS.  In fact it was almost 50% above my previous BME.  Sales where at or above average everywhere else too.

This month IS is down almost 50% from my running average.  Everything else is on track to match or beat the same above average sales as last month.

The problem is that many companies are intentionally mis-using copyright and trademark law to benefit themselves.  They know they can't enforce some restrictions but they also know that no one wants to fight a costly legal battle with them.  So when they see a usage they don't like, even a legitimate one, they speak the magic word "lawsuit" and everyone knuckles under.

The same goes for companies and organizations that improperly prohibit the taking of photographs in public places.  They can't do that (at least in the US--the Supreme Court has upheld these rights repeatedly) but they intimidate people with unenforceable legal threats that they know no one wants to fight because of the costs involved.

It's a shame.

I recently purchased a Canon 100-400mm L IS lens to use with my 5D MKII and have been using it trouble free off and on for a couple of weeks.  Today I was out shooting a marathon with it.  The shots were looking great but I decided to put a polarizer on the lens to cut down on some glare as the sun moved across the sky.  As soon as I did, the focus on all the images degraded dramatically.  I was shooting in shutter priority mode so the only camera setting that changed was the camera picked a more open aperture (typically from about f11 to about f5.6) to make up for the reduced light through the filter.

I've used this same filter on my usual lens (24-105 mm L IS) and never saw this issue with focus before.

As soon as I took the polarizer off the images came out perfectly sharp again.  I checked to make sure the filter was clean before I put it on the lens and I checked it again when I took it off.

I've never seen this type of behavior before.  Anybody have any ideas why this might happen?

Thanks!

Actually, the release I used was dated.  The signature on the release was dated.  The reviewer apparently wanted the date of the shoot, not the date of the signature.  This is something new from Shutterstock

My new releases have that along with all the other nonsense that IS has decided to require but this model release was older.  I've used this model release for years with no problems.  Since the photos and the release are several months old I hope they don't suddenty change the rules.