pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shuttterstock out when the next sale is 10 cent  (Read 3972 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SVH

« on: November 16, 2021, 13:42 »
+8
The title says it all.

Above the fact I'm tired of their AI system that rejects photo's that are perfectly focussed and they say they're not, I'm really fed up with 10 ct sales. On adobe I get at least 33 cts equaling 3,3 sales on Shutterstock. Getting tired of this company.

Next 10ct sale and I'm gone.



« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2021, 13:56 »
+15
That'll be very soon then.

« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2021, 14:06 »
+5
25 out of 25 editorials approved yesterday. 9 out of 10 commercial rejected today for focus. The funny part that only approved photo is the photo with focus issues from my point of view.

As for 10 cents. I have the great run with one photo. ~50 downloads in 1 months, and I earn whopping $8.79 !

« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2021, 14:10 »
+3
The title says it all.

Above the fact I'm tired of their AI system that rejects photo's that are perfectly focussed and they say they're not, I'm really fed up with 10 ct sales. On adobe I get at least 33 cts equaling 3,3 sales on Shutterstock. Getting tired of this company.

Next 10ct sale and I'm gone.

It's a mixed feeling. The sympathy for the company is disappeared.
But as long as I earn more on average than at Adobe, I'll keep uploading. If that wasn't the case anymore I would probably stop uploading. But to remove all the photos, while you still get money for it, doesn't make much sense to me. Doug Jensen once rightly wrote on the Shutter forum That the job is already done, so why not leave it there and collect the money?
And what is the alternative. After entering the 10 cents, I also started uploading to Alamy and Adobe. But next year I will go to 20% at Alamy and you can even earn less than 10 cents for a photo.
Years ago I was told that people fled from IS to SS for the same reason.
If I also upload a photo to Adobe and Alamy at the same time, it's not much more work to do it to Shutterstock as well, and it's not such a disaster if it gets rejected.

« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2021, 14:58 »
+2
I agree with leaving the images that are ready there as well.

« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2021, 15:10 »
+6
25 out of 25 editorials approved yesterday. 9 out of 10 commercial rejected today for focus. The funny part that only approved photo is the photo with focus issues from my point of view.

As for 10 cents. I have the great run with one photo. ~50 downloads in 1 months, and I earn whopping $8.79 !

At 10 cents an image, if you want to buy a 1000$ lens, you will have to sell 10000 images.. At 120 images a month, that's about 7 years.  Ouch !!

« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2021, 15:34 »
+3
Out of my last 10 sales there, 6 were for 10 cents and the highest was 49 cents - pathetic!  I won't delete them - as others have said may as well get something from your past work - but stopped uploading when they made the change and have no plans to start back up.  Still get the occasional high-value sale, but not enough to make the whole enterprise worthwhile - leaves more time to play with the cats, which is much more rewarding.

« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2021, 16:41 »
+5
I know I'm making myself unpopular here, but I am getting a little bored with these 10 cent discussions.

Nobody wants to get only cents for their images, that's why I left for example iStock. It just didn't fit, but I'm not making a big deal out of it.

If I had only 10 cent sales at Shutter, I would say goodbye and that's it.

But there are still some who earn good money with Shutter. I myself see sales in the double digits every day, which compensate for these stupid cent sales.
Except for Alamy, I don't have those sales anywhere, not even Adobe. That still makes Shutter my best agency.

The annoying review is another story.

And as Thijs rightly says, what are the alternatives? Exclusively 25 cent sales at Deposit?

So now you can jump all over me  ;)


SVH

« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2021, 16:53 »
+2
Rpd
Adobe=1.57
Shutterstock = 0.37

It's extra, I know. But why bother?

SVH

« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2021, 17:02 »
+1
Anyone knows how to delete all your photo's at once or close your account in one single action?

« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2021, 17:36 »
+4
Anyone knows how to delete all your photo's at once or close your account in one single action?

I take it that you got your next $.10 sale  :(

« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2021, 18:11 »
+2
Anyone knows how to delete all your photo's at once or close your account in one single action?

Unless you know how to write a script of some kind, you can only remove them one at a time.  You can close your account instead, but the best way to make sure your assets are removed is to do it yourself, get the payout (if you have one) and either let your account stay open or just request to close it.

« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2021, 18:42 »
+5

Next 10ct sale and I'm gone.

Why wait? Are you expecting some miracle to occur???

« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2021, 19:05 »
+2
The title says it all.

Above the fact I'm tired of their AI system that rejects photo's that are perfectly focussed and they say they're not, I'm really fed up with 10 ct sales. On adobe I get at least 33 cts equaling 3,3 sales on Shutterstock. Getting tired of this company.

Next 10ct sale and I'm gone.

Good luck finding an agency that sells more of your images and is as easy to work with.



« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2021, 19:09 »
+2
I know I'm making myself unpopular here, but I am getting a little bored with these 10 cent discussions.

Nobody wants to get only cents for their images, that's why I left for example iStock. It just didn't fit, but I'm not making a big deal out of it.

If I had only 10 cent sales at Shutter, I would say goodbye and that's it.

But there are still some who earn good money with Shutter. I myself see sales in the double digits every day, which compensate for these stupid cent sales.
Except for Alamy, I don't have those sales anywhere, not even Adobe. That still makes Shutter my best agency.

The annoying review is another story.

And as Thijs rightly says, what are the alternatives? Exclusively 25 cent sales at Deposit?

So now you can jump all over me  ;)

I'm not about to jump all over you for writing the truth.
People should do what suits them best but it makes no sense to me to desert the market leader.

OM

« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2021, 19:50 »
+1
Out of my last 10 sales there, 6 were for 10 cents and the highest was 49 cents - pathetic!  I won't delete them - as others have said may as well get something from your past work - but stopped uploading when they made the change and have no plans to start back up.  Still get the occasional high-value sale, but not enough to make the whole enterprise worthwhile - leaves more time to play with the cats, which is much more rewarding.

Exactly. Haven't uploaded for 2 years nor will I ever again......still money for nothing even though it is only 20% of what it used to be. Should that drop to 10%, then I might consider deleting my and their biggest money-makers. Leave 'em with the trash!

« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2021, 00:32 »
+1
I have the same problem. Just had a photo rejected for being out of focus which all other agencies accepted. How do I avoid rejections for similar? I took a photo on a dark grey texture background and the same one on white so that they can cut it out. The one on white was rejected for being similar. Bigstock rejected 2 photos for being similar who are absolutely not similar at all. Do they even look at the photos? I was thinking of buying a new camera but what for? I already paid more into it than I get paid.


« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2021, 03:28 »
+2
I have the same problem. Just had a photo rejected for being out of focus which all other agencies accepted. How do I avoid rejections for similar? I took a photo on a dark grey texture background and the same one on white so that they can cut it out. The one on white was rejected for being similar. Bigstock rejected 2 photos for being similar who are absolutely not similar at all. Do they even look at the photos? I was thinking of buying a new camera but what for? I already paid more into it than I get paid.

I had uploaded two different photos of a statue in Slovenia a year ago, one of which was rejected as similar. When I searched Shutterstock, I saw that someone else had submitted the exact same photo. I tried again this month out of curiosity, but it was rejected again for similar. So it wasn't rejected because of my other photo, which is what I thought at first. I understand they've gotten stricter on that with the sheer amount of photos they have.
If I have slightly similar photos, I don't upload them at the same time. Then you at least have less chance that they will be rejected because of similar.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2021, 03:34 by thijsdegraaf »

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2021, 03:36 »
+5
For the past year or so I've been sending pretty much all my microstock stuff to Wirestock and not having to worry about SS's silly AI nonsense. Don't even know or care if it gets through or not. Same with clips.

« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2021, 04:00 »
+2
I know I'm making myself unpopular here, but I am getting a little bored with these 10 cent discussions.

Nobody wants to get only cents for their images, that's why I left for example iStock. It just didn't fit, but I'm not making a big deal out of it.

If I had only 10 cent sales at Shutter, I would say goodbye and that's it.

But there are still some who earn good money with Shutter. I myself see sales in the double digits every day, which compensate for these stupid cent sales.
Except for Alamy, I don't have those sales anywhere, not even Adobe. That still makes Shutter my best agency.

The annoying review is another story.

And as Thijs rightly says, what are the alternatives? Exclusively 25 cent sales at Deposit?

So now you can jump all over me  ;)

I'm not about to jump all over you for writing the truth.
People should do what suits them best but it makes no sense to me to desert the market leader.

Right. It's an inconvenient truth. No matter how much I dislike some of the practices of Shutterstock, and how much I want to like some other agencies, the hard fact is that Shutterstock is consistently my top performer. Every month. Half of my microstock income of 2021 comes from evil Shutterstock. When I leave out emotions about how I feel about being a contributor to their wealth and thus agreeing with how they treat contributors, it would be a foolish idea to ditch them.

So yeah, I leave my emotions out, accept that I have to struggle myself through their crazy review process and I gruntingly collect the money which is a frustrating journey due to cheapasscrappy 10 cent trains rolling by day after day. But every now and then a nicely decorated luxury wagon is hidden in the train, as if they forgot to take it out, and a lot of my earnings at Shutterstock can be accounted those bigger commissions, which mainly float between 20 and 60 dollar for me. I don't see those coming in at Adobe at all, and at 15% commissions they are very scarce at iStock/Getty. In the end, I just booked myself a nice getaway trip in December from the money I earned on Shutterstock this year (to recover from the psychological trauma caused by dealing with them. ;-) ) And I reward myself with some extra gear (thinking about a decent macro lens because I didn't explore that part yet) with the earnings from the rest. Without Shutterstock I would have to choose.

After Shutterstock announced the change in earnings, I disabled my portfolio for a while. Joined the protest. At the same time, I dramatically increased my portfolio's on other agencies, and also included a few new opportunities by using Wirestock, Eyeem, Zoonar, you name it. While they surely bring in some extra cash, none of them come close to what Shutterstock brought in when I enabled my portfolio again. For most agencies, Shutterstock earnings are a tiny dot in the far distance, almost out of sight completely unreachable.

Now, this is my current situation, and it might differ from others. My earnings increased, a lot of others saw a decrease. So I fully understand and sympathize with the ones who ditched them. From what I read, they have a very fair reason to do so: if it doesn't feel right to stay, then leaving is certainly the right decision. No discussion. I just think most of them are still, despite decrease in earnings, throwing away one of the bigger pieces of their microstock earnings cake. And that's fine. Dignity has a price. But for me, right now, it's just too expensive.

« Reply #20 on: November 17, 2021, 04:10 »
+3
I had uploaded two different photos of a statue in Slovenia a year ago, one of which was rejected as similar. When I searched Shutterstock, I saw that someone else had submitted the exact same photo. I tried again this month out of curiosity, but it was rejected again for similar. So it wasn't rejected because of my other photo, which is what I thought at first. I understand they've gotten stricter on that with the sheer amount of photos they have.
If I have slightly similar photos, I don't upload them at the same time. Then you at least have less chance that they will be rejected because of similar.

Also my experience Thijs. They'd better tag their rejections with "We currently don't need more images of this subject in our database" instead of bugging contributors with fake focus rejections. Subjects that are not well represented get through way easier than hopelessly saturated topics.

Killer shot from the Canal Grande in Venice? Rejected. Out of focus sir.
Crappy cheap ass panorama landscape straight out of outdated smartphone from a landscape in one of the lesser known outskirts of Spain? There you go, thanks for uploading, accepted!

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2021, 04:43 »
+3
I know I'm making myself unpopular here, but I am getting a little bored with these 10 cent discussions.

Nobody wants to get only cents for their images, that's why I left for example iStock. It just didn't fit, but I'm not making a big deal out of it.

If I had only 10 cent sales at Shutter, I would say goodbye and that's it.

But there are still some who earn good money with Shutter. I myself see sales in the double digits every day, which compensate for these stupid cent sales.
Except for Alamy, I don't have those sales anywhere, not even Adobe. That still makes Shutter my best agency.

The annoying review is another story.

And as Thijs rightly says, what are the alternatives? Exclusively 25 cent sales at Deposit?

So now you can jump all over me  ;)

Same with the 25 cent discussions for video. Those that have left seem to be under the impression that that's all you ever get now, 25 cents and no higher! Sure, I get a few at that price, but my RPD average for November is $32, so it's not all doom and gloom.

« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2021, 05:54 »
+5
The $0.10 is a symbolic value. Of course, there are also the double-digit downloads. But they also existed before the new revenue structure.

In my case, I have an average monthly loss of $63 in subscriptions, compared to the income when each sub brought in $0.38. That's a loss of $750 per year. I can't compensate these losses with the double-digit downloads, because they haven't become more than before. Therefore, RPD is declining for me.

I can certainly understand that contributors want to close their account because they are frustrated, perhaps also in combination with the difficult selection.
I personally would not do that. It would destroy years of work and you give up revenue. You can just let it expire, not invest any more work and take the money that still comes in.

Fact is: The poll results clearly show that shutterstock has lost the position 1. Adobe Stock is the market leader.


« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2021, 06:05 »
+4
I know I'm making myself unpopular here, but I am getting a little bored with these 10 cent discussions.

Nobody wants to get only cents for their images, that's why I left for example iStock. It just didn't fit, but I'm not making a big deal out of it.

If I had only 10 cent sales at Shutter, I would say goodbye and that's it.

But there are still some who earn good money with Shutter. I myself see sales in the double digits every day, which compensate for these stupid cent sales.
Except for Alamy, I don't have those sales anywhere, not even Adobe. That still makes Shutter my best agency.

The annoying review is another story.

And as Thijs rightly says, what are the alternatives? Exclusively 25 cent sales at Deposit?

So now you can jump all over me  ;)

I'm not about to jump all over you for writing the truth.
People should do what suits them best but it makes no sense to me to desert the market leader.

Right. It's an inconvenient truth. No matter how much I dislike some of the practices of Shutterstock, and how much I want to like some other agencies, the hard fact is that Shutterstock is consistently my top performer. Every month. Half of my microstock income of 2021 comes from evil Shutterstock. When I leave out emotions about how I feel about being a contributor to their wealth and thus agreeing with how they treat contributors, it would be a foolish idea to ditch them.

So yeah, I leave my emotions out, accept that I have to struggle myself through their crazy review process and I gruntingly collect the money which is a frustrating journey due to cheapasscrappy 10 cent trains rolling by day after day. But every now and then a nicely decorated luxury wagon is hidden in the train, as if they forgot to take it out, and a lot of my earnings at Shutterstock can be accounted those bigger commissions, which mainly float between 20 and 60 dollar for me. I don't see those coming in at Adobe at all, and at 15% commissions they are very scarce at iStock/Getty. In the end, I just booked myself a nice getaway trip in December from the money I earned on Shutterstock this year (to recover from the psychological trauma caused by dealing with them. ;-) ) And I reward myself with some extra gear (thinking about a decent macro lens because I didn't explore that part yet) with the earnings from the rest. Without Shutterstock I would have to choose.

After Shutterstock announced the change in earnings, I disabled my portfolio for a while. Joined the protest. At the same time, I dramatically increased my portfolio's on other agencies, and also included a few new opportunities by using Wirestock, Eyeem, Zoonar, you name it. While they surely bring in some extra cash, none of them come close to what Shutterstock brought in when I enabled my portfolio again. For most agencies, Shutterstock earnings are a tiny dot in the far distance, almost out of sight completely unreachable.

Now, this is my current situation, and it might differ from others. My earnings increased, a lot of others saw a decrease. So I fully understand and sympathize with the ones who ditched them. From what I read, they have a very fair reason to do so: if it doesn't feel right to stay, then leaving is certainly the right decision. No discussion. I just think most of them are still, despite decrease in earnings, throwing away one of the bigger pieces of their microstock earnings cake. And that's fine. Dignity has a price. But for me, right now, it's just too expensive.

I created my own site to sell my best images, and the ordinary ones are sold elsewhere... but not on shutterstock, not worth the efforts. You might think 10c and image is reasonable, but it will go down to 1c sooner or later, unless you do something...

SVH

« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2021, 06:23 »
+5
You can just let it expire, not invest any more work and take the money that still comes in.

Yes that is maybe the wiser thing to do. Got frustrated yesterday seeing the 10ct downloads coming in, over and over again. I'll just stop uploading to them and try not to bother about the sales anymore. No effort should lead to no frustration, I guess  :)

« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2021, 06:36 »
+2
The $0.10 is a symbolic value. Of course, there are also the double-digit downloads. But they also existed before the new revenue structure.

In my case, I have an average monthly loss of $63 in subscriptions, compared to the income when each sub brought in $0.38. That's a loss of $750 per year. I can't compensate these losses with the double-digit downloads, because they haven't become more than before. Therefore, RPD is declining for me.

I can certainly understand that contributors want to close their account because they are frustrated, perhaps also in combination with the difficult selection.
I personally would not do that. It would destroy years of work and you give up revenue. You can just let it expire, not invest any more work and take the money that still comes in.

Fact is: The poll results clearly show that shutterstock has lost the position 1. Adobe Stock is the market leader.


Wilm, I think the way you look at it also depends a bit on how long you've been at it and your frustration and that of others, is understandable and comprehensible.
But for me, when the revenue structure was changed, I was still in the old 25-cent level (which you probably don't remember anymore  ;)) and then moved to level 4, which was a significant improvement for me.
Roscoe summed it up nicely. As long as I can afford a nice vacation at the end of the year from my Shutterstock earnings, for example, there is no reason to stare only at the "symbolic" 10 cents.
That it was certainly easier and faster in the past to earn more money here is not to be denied. However, this viewpoint is of no use to a newbie like me in the here and now.
Maybe I will see the situation differently in 5 years. ;)

« Last Edit: November 17, 2021, 07:03 by RalfLiebhold »

« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2021, 07:02 »
+3
I created my own site to sell my best images, and the ordinary ones are sold elsewhere... but not on shutterstock, not worth the efforts. You might think 10c and image is reasonable, but it will go down to 1c sooner or later, unless you do something...

I didn't say I think 10c/image is reasonable. On the contrary, I probably dislike it as much as everyone else around here.
My point is: I only look at total earnings, and Shutterstock still makes up for half of my microstock income. So for me, currently, it would be a foolish idea to drop them.

Sure, that might change, and then I will re-evaluate. But I don't believe dropping them would actually be beneficial for my total earnings. Not for the kind of content I provide. Nor do I believe that me (and with me a few hundred or thousand of contributors) leaving Shutterstock or iStock/Getty would make them change their mind and raise contributor commissions again. We are less than a drop in the ocean, and thus powerless.

The only thing I can really do is up my game, start shooting different content, and find a different market than Microstock for it.
Now in all humble honesty: I'm not there yet.



« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2021, 07:10 »
0
Despite the low ball 10c sales, Shutterstock is the only agency delivering well for me in recent times. 

« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2021, 09:35 »
0
I had uploaded two different photos of a statue in Slovenia a year ago, one of which was rejected as similar. When I searched Shutterstock, I saw that someone else had submitted the exact same photo. I tried again this month out of curiosity, but it was rejected again for similar. So it wasn't rejected because of my other photo, which is what I thought at first. I understand they've gotten stricter on that with the sheer amount of photos they have.
If I have slightly similar photos, I don't upload them at the same time. Then you at least have less chance that they will be rejected because of similar.

Also my experience Thijs. They'd better tag their rejections with "We currently don't need more images of this subject in our database" instead of bugging contributors with fake focus rejections. Subjects that are not well represented get through way easier than hopelessly saturated topics.

Killer shot from the Canal Grande in Venice? Rejected. Out of focus sir.
Crappy cheap ass panorama landscape straight out of outdated smartphone from a landscape in one of the lesser known outskirts of Spain? There you go, thanks for uploading, accepted!

agree. On some sites they reject due to 'No commercial Value' which I am okay with that reason.

« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2021, 13:49 »
+5
This whole thread is nothing but a whine full of negative thinking.
I have never bought into the "the going is tough, let's quit and run" mentality.
Yeah, SS now hands out a lot of rejections for focus, noise and similars.
You can whine and cry about it and accomplish nothing, or you can use
those rejections as a learning experience.
You can quit Shutterstock. That is your right. You can  disable your port if
you want to cut off your nose to spite your face. Shutterstock is so huge
they don't care. They won't notice you left.
It's obvious to me that SS has decided to stop accepting a lot of images
because their memory banks are bulging already. So they have become
a lot more picky. Good for them!
It has forced me to become a lot more picky in my uploads as well.
So, the choice is yours. Keep fighting and uploading and collecting money or
quit and lose. Your choice.
I'm going to leave this thread because it way too negative with a lot of loser attitude.
I'm going to find a positive thread, one with ideas on selling images, on increasing income
and on having fun. Know of any? Maybe I should start one.

« Last Edit: November 17, 2021, 13:52 by UPLOAD-UPLOAD-UPLOAD »

« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2021, 14:36 »
+4
This whole thread is nothing but a whine full of negative thinking.
I have never bought into the "the going is tough, let's quit and run" mentality.
Yeah, SS now hands out a lot of rejections for focus, noise and similars.
You can whine and cry about it and accomplish nothing, or you can use
those rejections as a learning experience.
You can quit Shutterstock. That is your right. You can  disable your port if
you want to cut off your nose to spite your face. Shutterstock is so huge
they don't care. They won't notice you left.
It's obvious to me that SS has decided to stop accepting a lot of images
because their memory banks are bulging already. So they have become
a lot more picky. Good for them!
It has forced me to become a lot more picky in my uploads as well.
So, the choice is yours. Keep fighting and uploading and collecting money or
quit and lose. Your choice.
I'm going to leave this thread because it way too negative with a lot of loser attitude.
I'm going to find a positive thread, one with ideas on selling images, on increasing income
and on having fun. Know of any? Maybe I should start one.

I have to completely disagree on this point.

If, for example, a batch of 30 photos is completely rejected because of focus and a few days later all the images are approved, then something is wrong. And not with the images, but with the review itself.
I don't see any learning effect there either. Something has changed in the last months and Shutterstock leaves us in the dark here.

I have the impression that batches with one or two less perfect images are then completely rejected. Just an idea.


« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2021, 15:03 »
0
25 out of 25 editorials approved yesterday. 9 out of 10 commercial rejected today for focus. The funny part that only approved photo is the photo with focus issues from my point of view.

As for 10 cents. I have the great run with one photo. ~50 downloads in 1 months, and I earn whopping $8.79 !

At 10 cents an image, if you want to buy a 1000$ lens, you will have to sell 10000 images.. At 120 images a month, that's about 7 years.  Ouch !!

You seem to forget that it's not just 10 cents. I can bet that your RPD is at least twice that amount, probably more.
And you already spread your assets across at least one additional agency.

Redo your math and you will realize that you can afford to buy your lens faster than you think.  ;)


« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2021, 15:18 »
+4
This whole thread is nothing but a whine full of negative thinking.
I have never bought into the "the going is tough, let's quit and run" mentality.
Yeah, SS now hands out a lot of rejections for focus, noise and similars.
You can whine and cry about it and accomplish nothing, or you can use
those rejections as a learning experience.
You can quit Shutterstock. That is your right. You can  disable your port if
you want to cut off your nose to spite your face. Shutterstock is so huge
they don't care. They won't notice you left.
It's obvious to me that SS has decided to stop accepting a lot of images
because their memory banks are bulging already. So they have become
a lot more picky. Good for them!
It has forced me to become a lot more picky in my uploads as well.
So, the choice is yours. Keep fighting and uploading and collecting money or
quit and lose. Your choice.
I'm going to leave this thread because it way too negative with a lot of loser attitude.
I'm going to find a positive thread, one with ideas on selling images, on increasing income
and on having fun. Know of any? Maybe I should start one.

I don't know if you have to look at all of that as a negative.

For me personally, the shutterstock development is negative - admittedly. The trend is also negative at 123rf and at dreamstime.

At Adobe the numbers are stable - to say something positive. The same goes for istock. And that's why I personally focus on that. That's why I don't accept the loser attitude. The bottom line is that I'm still happy that money is coming in, even if it's less than it used to be.

The ideas on how to sell more images have already been discussed by Annie and Firn, for example. There have been a lot of suggestions, thoughts and tips from Annie. You can read them here:

https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/this-month's-sales/100/

And from my point of view it is also positive that SVH now obviously does not want to delete the portfolio. That is a very positive result of this discussion from my point of view.

« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2021, 15:22 »
+1
25 out of 25 editorials approved yesterday. 9 out of 10 commercial rejected today for focus. The funny part that only approved photo is the photo with focus issues from my point of view.

As for 10 cents. I have the great run with one photo. ~50 downloads in 1 months, and I earn whopping $8.79 !

At 10 cents an image, if you want to buy a 1000$ lens, you will have to sell 10000 images.. At 120 images a month, that's about 7 years.  Ouch !!

You seem to forget that it's not just 10 cents. I can bet that your RPD is at least twice that amount, probably more.
And you already spread your assets across at least one additional agency.

Redo your math and you will realize that you can afford to buy your lens faster than you think.  ;)

@ 20 cents an image: sell 5,000 images @120 images a month = about 3.5 years  :)

« Last Edit: November 17, 2021, 15:27 by DOP »

« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2021, 15:23 »
0
The $0.10 is a symbolic value. Of course, there are also the double-digit downloads. But they also existed before the new revenue structure.

In my case, I have an average monthly loss of $63 in subscriptions, compared to the income when each sub brought in $0.38. That's a loss of $750 per year. I can't compensate these losses with the double-digit downloads, because they haven't become more than before. Therefore, RPD is declining for me.

I can certainly understand that contributors want to close their account because they are frustrated, perhaps also in combination with the difficult selection.
I personally would not do that. It would destroy years of work and you give up revenue. You can just let it expire, not invest any more work and take the money that still comes in.

Fact is: The poll results clearly show that shutterstock has lost the position 1. Adobe Stock is the market leader.


Wilm, I think the way you look at it also depends a bit on how long you've been at it and your frustration and that of others, is understandable and comprehensible.
But for me, when the revenue structure was changed, I was still in the old 25-cent level (which you probably don't remember anymore  ;)) and then moved to level 4, which was a significant improvement for me.
Roscoe summed it up nicely. As long as I can afford a nice vacation at the end of the year from my Shutterstock earnings, for example, there is no reason to stare only at the "symbolic" 10 cents.
That it was certainly easier and faster in the past to earn more money here is not to be denied. However, this viewpoint is of no use to a newbie like me in the here and now.
Maybe I will see the situation differently in 5 years. ;)

Yes, Ralf, you are right. I did not know that or have not had it in memory.

« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2021, 15:34 »
0
In a perfect world every rejection would be fair and square.
We don't live in a perfect world.
So, if you don't like what Shutterstock is doing, send them a message.
Close your account and quit.
That's fine.
Whining about these problems here on this forum accomplishes nothing.
You complainers never offer a solution except to cut and run.
Fine, cut and run. That's your choice and your right but please don't
bore me with the same old, same old complaints offering no solution.
Who needs that?

« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2021, 15:44 »
+1
25 out of 25 editorials approved yesterday. 9 out of 10 commercial rejected today for focus. The funny part that only approved photo is the photo with focus issues from my point of view.

As for 10 cents. I have the great run with one photo. ~50 downloads in 1 months, and I earn whopping $8.79 !

At 10 cents an image, if you want to buy a 1000$ lens, you will have to sell 10000 images.. At 120 images a month, that's about 7 years.  Ouch !!

You seem to forget that it's not just 10 cents. I can bet that your RPD is at least twice that amount, probably more.
And you already spread your assets across at least one additional agency.

Redo your math and you will realize that you can afford to buy your lens faster than you think.  ;)

@ 20 cents an image: sell 5,000 images @120 images a month = about 3.5 years  :)

Nope, because you only took SS into consideration.

After taking AS & Co into consideration, the time CSImages needs to buy that lens will probably fall well below 2 years  :P

And I'm almost certain that his SS RPD is more than $0.20 (btw, mine is $0.73 for images and $1.31 overall, year to date).

As I said, he should redo his math and come back with accurate numbers, not exaggerations.

Or, if he is only attempting to build a metaphor or play with our emotions, my advice is to refrain from using arithmetics.  ;D
« Last Edit: November 17, 2021, 16:36 by Zero Talent »


« Reply #37 on: November 17, 2021, 16:02 »
+1
In a perfect world every rejection would be fair and square.
We don't live in a perfect world.
So, if you don't like what Shutterstock is doing, send them a message.
Close your account and quit.
That's fine.
Whining about these problems here on this forum accomplishes nothing.
You complainers never offer a solution except to cut and run.
Fine, cut and run. That's your choice and your right but please don't
bore me with the same old, same old complaints offering no solution.
Who needs that?

I am not wining, I just see new problems and change in the review in recent months.

« Last Edit: November 18, 2021, 01:12 by RalfLiebhold »

« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2021, 16:12 »
+4
In a perfect world every rejection would be fair and square.
We don't live in a perfect world.
So, if you don't like what Shutterstock is doing, send them a message.
Close your account and quit.
That's fine.
Whining about these problems here on this forum accomplishes nothing.
You complainers never offer a solution except to cut and run.
Fine, cut and run. That's your choice and your right but please don't
bore me with the same old, same old complaints offering no solution.
Who needs that?

I'm happy to repeat it again.

The OP will obviously not delete the account, but has decided to leave the pictures online. I thought that would have become obvious. And I personally feel that is a good solution.

And for potential other solutions, I had posted a link. There are interesting thoughts to read about copy space, backgrounds behind the main subjects, image size and resolution. So to solutions.

Also the old shutterstock forum was a huge resource full of tips, thoughts, suggestions and ideas on how to make better images and get more sales. All this information is now unfortunately lost forever.

You didn't miss the forum, as you write yourself.
On the contrary. From your point of view, as you write, it was worthless and it was foreseeable from your point of view that it would disappear

What do you expect from a forum? That it exclusively blows your horn?

Also now I repeat myself gladly once again. The OP made a good decision from my subjective and personal point of view, which came about because it was discussed in this forum. Is that not a positive thing?

SVH

« Reply #39 on: November 17, 2021, 22:33 »
+4
[The OP made a good decision from my subjective and personal point of view, which came about because it was discussed in this forum. Is that not a positive thing?

Yes it is. At the moment of writing I was overly frustrated. You people helped me to calm down a bit and offered a solution other then impulsevily deleting everything. So thanks everybody :)

« Reply #40 on: November 18, 2021, 02:52 »
+4
I disabled and deleted my port at SS more than a year ago. I don't contribute videos to Istock, although I am still image exclusive with them as I earn a few thousand dollars every month with them. Since I left SS my video sales at Adobe and Pond5 have doubled. So fine with me. I rather bet on raising agencies that are more friendly to contributors than sinking ships, but every contributor should know exactly how to treat their time.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2021, 02:54 by everest »

« Reply #41 on: November 18, 2021, 04:19 »
+2
I disabled and deleted my port at SS more than a year ago. I don't contribute videos to Istock, although I am still image exclusive with them as I earn a few thousand dollars every month with them. Since I left SS my video sales at Adobe and Pond5 have doubled. So fine with me. I rather bet on raising agencies that are more friendly to contributors than sinking ships, but every contributor should know exactly how to treat their time.

A few years ago, many people left Istock because they started paying much lower. Was called an anti-social company.
Lately I've been hearing some more positive things about Istock. But most mention IS as third after SS and AS
Some also talk about Alamy, while I haven't been enthusiastic about that lately.
I also see a difference between people who make videos and people who only upload photos and between people who work professionally and the amateurs like me,
Doug Jensen for example, made a lot of money on Shutterstock with his videos. But he is a professional with very good videos of Musk, rockets taking off, forest fires in the Amazon etc.
If you earn that much I assume you are also a professinal.
I think everyone should decide what to do based on their own situation.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2021, 05:17 by thijsdegraaf »

« Reply #42 on: November 20, 2021, 02:25 »
+4
Yes I am "still "a stock pro although at the pace everything is going don't know for how long. I can perfectly understand those that like photography would shoot anyway and are happy if they can buy a new camera and lens in the process, even  if once you take the time spent and money to create the images they are at a loss.

In my case I have to pay equipment, taxes, social security and I live in an expensive European country. So I have to evaluate very carefully where my effort and future goes. I cannot produce at a loss or a 5$/hour scheme. I also don't want to support those companies that take advantage from their contributors and race to the situation I just was describing, and in the process destroy those that are more fair to their contributors.

This is the reason why I left SS , why I don't contribute to Istock video, why I don't support many other penny chasers. I concentrate on the few that still respect somehow contributors. That is Arcangel, P5, Adobe, Envato market not elements, Artgrid ( still on the fence on that it will depend on this year sales) Alamy (dont contribute for many years but I still have my portfolio with them RM) .... The market of all of those might be not enough to sustain me in the future. Then I will make something else. If the time arrives my relation with creative stock will be gone not even from an amateur point of view.

The reason is that I truly think that many amateurs are creatively taken down once they collaborate with stock agencies, they begin to chase pennies and create boring images for a few dollars when they could grow their passion to truly flourish. Pros don't have the luxury to create what they want as they have to take food on the table every month and the creative stock market is what it is: 99% boring, bland images. So when I leave this industry : no more smiling multicultural groups, no more "conceptual" still life that have to sell a product, no cute animals, no the 1000 times green meadow with a fake composite sky. All this ultra IMHPW bad content will be gone forever  :)


A few years ago, many people left Istock because they started paying much lower. Was called an anti-social company.
Lately I've been hearing some more positive things about Istock. But most mention IS as third after SS and AS
Some also talk about Alamy, while I haven't been enthusiastic about that lately.
I also see a difference between people who make videos and people who only upload photos and between people who work professionally and the amateurs like me,
Doug Jensen for example, made a lot of money on Shutterstock with his videos. But he is a professional with very good videos of Musk, rockets taking off, forest fires in the Amazon etc.
If you earn that much I assume you are also a professinal.
I think everyone should decide what to do based on their own situation.

« Reply #43 on: November 20, 2021, 03:27 »
0
Yes I am "still "a stock pro although at the pace everything is going don't know for how long. I can perfectly understand those that like photography would shoot anyway and are happy if they can buy a new camera and lens in the process, even  if once you take the time spent and money to create the images they are at a loss.

In my case I have to pay equipment, taxes, social security and I live in an expensive European country. So I have to evaluate very carefully where my effort and future goes. I cannot produce at a loss or a 5$/hour scheme. I also don't want to support those companies that take advantage from their contributors and race to the situation I just was describing, and in the process destroy those that are more fair to their contributors.

This is the reason why I left SS , why I don't contribute to Istock video, why I don't support many other penny chasers. I concentrate on the few that still respect somehow contributors. That is Arcangel, P5, Adobe, Envato market not elements, Artgrid ( still on the fence on that it will depend on this year sales) Alamy (dont contribute for many years but I still have my portfolio with them RM) .... The market of all of those might be not enough to sustain me in the future. Then I will make something else. If the time arrives my relation with creative stock will be gone not even from an amateur point of view.

The reason is that I truly think that many amateurs are creatively taken down once they collaborate with stock agencies, they begin to chase pennies and create boring images for a few dollars when they could grow their passion to truly flourish. Pros don't have the luxury to create what they want as they have to take food on the table every month and the creative stock market is what it is: 99% boring, bland images. So when I leave this industry : no more smiling multicultural groups, no more "conceptual" still life that have to sell a product, no cute animals, no the 1000 times green meadow with a fake composite sky. All this ultra IMHPW bad content will be gone forever  :)


A few years ago, many people left Istock because they started paying much lower. Was called an anti-social company.
Lately I've been hearing some more positive things about Istock. But most mention IS as third after SS and AS
Some also talk about Alamy, while I haven't been enthusiastic about that lately.
I also see a difference between people who make videos and people who only upload photos and between people who work professionally and the amateurs like me,
Doug Jensen for example, made a lot of money on Shutterstock with his videos. But he is a professional with very good videos of Musk, rockets taking off, forest fires in the Amazon etc.
If you earn that much I assume you are also a professinal.
I think everyone should decide what to do based on their own situation.

Yes that's the difference.
My situation is very different. I pay more attention to sharpness than before I uploaded to Shutterstock. In that respect, I've gotten better thanks to Shuttertock.
Now a retired teacher, before that worked as a technical draftsman in construction. My hobby is macro, determining insects. I now earn something from that and I also find it more fun to photograph other things. But I'm not going to buy equipment for stock, which I should do to sell more. I probably wouldn't recoup the money I spend, because I'm not that good a photographer either. I fear that then my pleasure would disappear.
I also live in an expensive country (the Netherlands). Our pension hasn't gone up for years, but we can still make a decent living if we don't do crazy things. So I keep uploading to SS, AS and Alamy.
But if I were to work for a company like SS for my profession, I would very quickly look for another company.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2021, 03:31 by thijsdegraaf »

« Reply #44 on: November 20, 2021, 04:22 »
0
I still find istock brings in the most money then Shutterstock, followed by Adobe. I just look at the end of month earnings not individual sale values. You will still get loads of 10 cent sales on Shutterstock at Level 6.
Don't see the point of stopping to upload to any agency myself as I use Microstock Plus uploader, my weekly uploading takes 20mins whether I upload to one agency or 50 agencies. Never create new keywords etc as just copy paste from previous photos.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #45 on: November 20, 2021, 10:53 »
0
I still find istock brings in the most money then Shutterstock, followed by Adobe. I just look at the end of month earnings not individual sale values. You will still get loads of 10 cent sales on Shutterstock at Level 6.
Don't see the point of stopping to upload to any agency myself as I use Microstock Plus uploader, my weekly uploading takes 20mins whether I upload to one agency or 50 agencies. Never create new keywords etc as just copy paste from previous photos.

How much does Microstock Plus, cost a year? I've limited where I send things, by choice, and decided to add Wirestock because I'm already keywording, Uploading to SS and AS myself, I just upload and send them off to everyone else via free. (well if 15% of what sells is free?)

But honestly does Microstock Plus return on what you pay? Maybe I should consider dumping images again, to everyone and anyone. How many agencies can you send things to from that?

My main use for SS is the keywording tool, copy and paste, and all my images are tagged for everyone else. I got an intentional rejection last week, but I did get the words from SS, so I could upload to some other sites that take that kind of work. Small fringe benefit.

Yes to your point, end of the month, not individual sales. I hate the dimes, but SS and AS are running even for the year in total income. There is nothing close, or worth mention, after that for me. AS and SS take different files and sell different content.

« Reply #46 on: November 20, 2021, 11:04 »
+1
I still find istock brings in the most money then Shutterstock, followed by Adobe. I just look at the end of month earnings not individual sale values. You will still get loads of 10 cent sales on Shutterstock at Level 6.
Don't see the point of stopping to upload to any agency myself as I use Microstock Plus uploader, my weekly uploading takes 20mins whether I upload to one agency or 50 agencies. Never create new keywords etc as just copy paste from previous photos.

How do you do that with the order of the keywords at Adobe Stock, which is very important there? And how does it work with the Microstock Plus Uploader at istock, where you have to correct half of all keywords?

And last question: How do you do the categories with this software?

And what it costs, I would be interested as well as Pete.


« Reply #47 on: November 20, 2021, 14:58 »
+1
If you do what you like and don't change that habit to make a few pennies more that is great. It is like a Flickr but with revenue attached. From that point of view I think nearly any half serious stock agency is valid. At the end the images would be on your computer and not generating anything. I also understand those that give them for free. It's their choice and if they are that generous kudos to them. What is not logical is to work for air. Nobody can pay their rents with badges, low revenues,....

I guess there are still some pro players at SS because:
1- They have huge portfolios and a very tight and streamlined production system
2- They live in countries with much lower costs of living. I live close in a big city in Europe where a lot of advertising shooting is going on. I have rented lofts at a minimum of 700$ day plus, assistant plus models. Things get really expensive fast and at 0.1$ a pop with ocassional 50-100$ sale you don't get very far if you want to recoup your costs and make a profit .
3- They produce content like illustration 3D motion graphics where costs are much much lower than with photography

As I am in neither of this groups I have to carefully evaluate where I put my work

Cheers.


Yes that's the difference.
My situation is very different. I pay more attention to sharpness than before I uploaded to Shutterstock. In that respect, I've gotten better thanks to Shuttertock.
Now a retired teacher, before that worked as a technical draftsman in construction. My hobby is macro, determining insects. I now earn something from that and I also find it more fun to photograph other things. But I'm not going to buy equipment for stock, which I should do to sell more. I probably wouldn't recoup the money I spend, because I'm not that good a photographer either. I fear that then my pleasure would disappear.
I also live in an expensive country (the Netherlands). Our pension hasn't gone up for years, but we can still make a decent living if we don't do crazy things. So I keep uploading to SS, AS and Alamy.
But if I were to work for a company like SS for my profession, I would very quickly look for another company.

« Reply #48 on: November 20, 2021, 16:30 »
0
If you do what you like and don't change that habit to make a few pennies more that is great. It is like a Flickr but with revenue attached. From that point of view I think nearly any half serious stock agency is valid. At the end the images would be on your computer and not generating anything. I also understand those that give them for free. It's their choice and if they are that generous kudos to them. What is not logical is to work for air. Nobody can pay their rents with badges, low revenues,....

I guess there are still some pro players at SS because:
1- They have huge portfolios and a very tight and streamlined production system
2- They live in countries with much lower costs of living. I live close in a big city in Europe where a lot of advertising shooting is going on. I have rented lofts at a minimum of 700$ day plus, assistant plus models. Things get really expensive fast and at 0.1$ a pop with ocassional 50-100$ sale you don't get very far if you want to recoup your costs and make a profit .
3- They produce content like illustration 3D motion graphics where costs are much much lower than with photography

As I am in neither of this groups I have to carefully evaluate where I put my work

Cheers.


Yes that's the difference.
My situation is very different. I pay more attention to sharpness than before I uploaded to Shutterstock. In that respect, I've gotten better thanks to Shuttertock.
Now a retired teacher, before that worked as a technical draftsman in construction. My hobby is macro, determining insects. I now earn something from that and I also find it more fun to photograph other things. But I'm not going to buy equipment for stock, which I should do to sell more. I probably wouldn't recoup the money I spend, because I'm not that good a photographer either. I fear that then my pleasure would disappear.
I also live in an expensive country (the Netherlands). Our pension hasn't gone up for years, but we can still make a decent living if we don't do crazy things. So I keep uploading to SS, AS and Alamy.
But if I were to work for a company like SS for my profession, I would very quickly look for another company.

You are absolutely right.

« Reply #49 on: November 20, 2021, 18:10 »
+1
several years ago a professional photographer (i.e., wedding) told me that I would never develop into a good photographer doing microstock. It took me a few years to realize what she was telling me.  Most of my images (like 99%) could never be purchased to hang on someone's wall lol! Almost all background images that are all in focus and overly light  8)

« Reply #50 on: November 20, 2021, 19:14 »
+7
several years ago a professional photographer (i.e., wedding) told me that I would never develop into a good photographer doing microstock. It took me a few years to realize what she was telling me.  Most of my images (like 99%) could never be purchased to hang on someone's wall lol! Almost all background images that are all in focus and overly light  8)

IMHO, that was very bad advice your snobby pro-tog pal gave you.

Nobody that I know of equates microstock photography with wedding photography suitable for a couple to hang on the wall in their new home. They're very different critters, each with its own purpose.

I think it *is* possible for a microstocker to develop into a good photographer. Maybe not a "fine art" gauzy bride-and-groom shooter, but there's a big need out there for something other than that.

« Reply #51 on: November 20, 2021, 19:52 »
+5
several years ago a professional photographer (i.e., wedding) told me that I would never develop into a good photographer doing microstock. It took me a few years to realize what she was telling me.  Most of my images (like 99%) could never be purchased to hang on someone's wall lol! Almost all background images that are all in focus and overly light  8)

Maybe yes, maybe no.

The reciprocal may also be true.

Professional photographers may have hard time becoming good microstock earners, when they insist on artistry instead of the utilitarian aspect of microstock.
It's a mistake to think that microstock content must be wall hanging ready.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2021, 20:05 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #52 on: November 20, 2021, 21:21 »
+1
several years ago a professional photographer (i.e., wedding) told me that I would never develop into a good photographer doing microstock. It took me a few years to realize what she was telling me.  Most of my images (like 99%) could never be purchased to hang on someone's wall lol! Almost all background images that are all in focus and overly[b][/b] light  8)

IMHO, that was very bad advice your snobby pro-tog pal gave you.

Nobody that I know of equates microstock photography with wedding photography suitable for a couple to hang on the wall in their new home. They're very different critters, each with its own purpose.

I think it *is* possible for a microstocker to develop into a good photographer. Maybe not a "fine art" gauzy bride-and-groom shooter, but there's a big need out there for something other than that.


There was that guy: yuri arcurs.

« Reply #53 on: November 21, 2021, 05:13 »
+3
From my point of view, being a good photographer is not that relevant for Microstock. A successful microstocker creates images. The images are generated as the market needs them. The photography is only a small part of it.

If you search for an image, you can see that a fraction of the images are pure photography. The biggest part are photomontages, CGI images, vectors, illustrations, composite images. The concept is in the foreground of the success, not the good photography in the technical sense.

There are extremely successful contributors who do not have a single photo in their portfolio. Therefore, I absolutely agree with marthamarks. It is certainly an advantage to be a good or professional photographer, but it is by no means a must.

« Reply #54 on: November 21, 2021, 05:33 »
+1
From my point of view, being a good photographer is not that relevant for Microstock. A successful microstocker creates images. The images are generated as the market needs them. The photography is only a small part of it.

If you search for an image, you can see that a fraction of the images are pure photography. The biggest part are photomontages, CGI images, vectors, illustrations, composite images. The concept is in the foreground of the success, not the good photography in the technical sense.

There are extremely successful contributors who do not have a single photo in their portfolio. Therefore, I absolutely agree with marthamarks. It is certainly an advantage to be a good or professional photographer, but it is by no means a must.

You will remember Wilm that this was vehemently argued about on the Sstock forum for years. 
A (photographer) contributor would post their portfolio and ask why they weren't getting many sales and a certain section of the community would criticise their photographic skills/sometimes give them photographic advice.
The other section of the community would say that the concepts were wrong.
It has become very clear to me over the years that it's the concepts that matter and good keywording, far more than anything else.
Good execution then makes the images more sellable.
For my Arcangel portfolio that's possibly even more the case as creating images specifically for books feels (to me) even more difficult/precise conceptually.
But then I wasn't very good at microstock.


« Reply #55 on: November 21, 2021, 05:40 »
0
several years ago a professional photographer (i.e., wedding) told me that I would never develop into a good photographer doing microstock. It took me a few years to realize what she was telling me.  Most of my images (like 99%) could never be purchased to hang on someone's wall lol! Almost all background images that are all in focus and overly light  8)

Maybe yes, maybe no.

The reciprocal may also be true.

Professional photographers may have hard time becoming good microstock earners, when they insist on artistry instead of the utilitarian aspect of microstock.
It's a mistake to think that microstock content must be wall hanging ready.

Yes, I remember the conversations on Sstock between you and others.
Although I know that techinically your images are super, I also know that they are very sellable and that you got the concepts right.
It's the two in combination that works the best but I've learnt, especially from my own experience, that it's the concepts that matter, as you say. 
I like your phrase ' the utilitarian aspect of microstock'.
That sums it up nicely.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2021, 05:43 by DOP »

« Reply #56 on: November 21, 2021, 14:45 »
+2
As we all know, there are different types of photography and different markets for those types. I'm not really an artsy person. I can't draw or paint to save my life, I can't sing and I'm a terrible actor. When I think about photography, I think about those photos that I like to look at and they tend not to be the artsy ones either. I like real life photos thinks such as street scenes and that is what I tend to be drawn to when out and about with my camera. I photograph what I like and what my eye is drawn to.

It seems to work for microstock. My photos sell and, year on year, I sell more of them. I seem to be getting better at it too as the percentage of my portfolio that has sold gets higher too. I know there are others out there who are better photographers than me. But that's okay too. I came to this late in life with no formal education but if I'm progressing then that works for me.





Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #57 on: November 25, 2021, 14:19 »
+3
Microstock is not fine art photography, it is useful images. Sure better quality and photography will make the images more attractive, but content is #1.

As for forum advice, I could post my best selling image and ask why it doesn't get downloads and get a half dozen replies explaining what's wrong with it.

We are different, see different, shoot and edit, design and styles are personal, interests vary, and that's good.

« Reply #58 on: November 25, 2021, 16:12 »
+1
Microstock is not fine art photography, it is useful images. Sure better quality and photography will make the images more attractive, but content is #1.

As for forum advice, I could post my best selling image and ask why it doesn't get downloads and get a half dozen replies explaining what's wrong with it.

We are different, see different, shoot and edit, design and styles are personal, interests vary, and that's good.

What you write is basically correct, Pete.

Nevertheless, there are commonalities of aesthetic feeling that apply all over the world - in every culture, in every society, in every religion, and in every ethnic group. These principles have been discussed and stated over and over again and in detail in the shutterstock forum, among others.

The aesthetic laws of symmetry, the golden ratio, the child's scheme, and many others apply everywhere on the globe. It is beneficial to know them and you don't have to have studied to use them.

Nevertheless, you are right with your thesis: every bestseller would be criticized mercilessly. But a bestseller is not necessarily an objectively good picture. Because many factors influence the sales success. I also don't believe that an algorithm follows the laws of aesthetics. My bestsellers are - from a purely photographic point of view - just about acceptable. Nothing more.

« Reply #59 on: November 25, 2021, 23:02 »
0

the child's scheme,

That's a brand-new term/concept to this old timer. Can you explain a bit about it?

Thanks!

« Reply #60 on: November 26, 2021, 02:20 »
+1

the child's scheme,

That's a brand-new term/concept to this old timer. Can you explain a bit about it?

Thanks!

Hello Martha,

you probably know this, but I translated it badly. I don't know exactly how it is correct in English.

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics.

It is not easy for me to describe it accurately in English.

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Nature designed babies this way to activate our protective instinct.

In addition to human babies, this also applies, for example, to puppies, kittens, chicks, etc.

In product design, the VW Beetle could be mentioned as a design example. Or the teddy bear. In graphic design, the Mario Brothers from Nintendo or anime characters are an example.

« Reply #61 on: November 26, 2021, 02:24 »
+1
I guess that the success Firn has with the dog Images is also due to this scheme.

« Reply #62 on: November 26, 2021, 11:24 »
0

the child's scheme,

That's a brand-new term/concept to this old timer. Can you explain a bit about it?

Thanks!

Hello Martha,

you probably know this, but I translated it badly. I don't know exactly how it is correct in English.

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics.

It is not easy for me to describe it accurately in English.

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Nature designed babies this way to activate our protective instinct.

In addition to human babies, this also applies, for example, to puppies, kittens, chicks, etc.

In product design, the VW Beetle could be mentioned as a design example. Or the teddy bear. In graphic design, the Mario Brothers from Nintendo or anime characters are an example.

Thank you for that, Wilm! I get it now.

And yes, you're right. There seems to be a universal human reaction to the cute, helpless little baby, puppy, kitten, etc. Maybe it's an evolutionary thing that helped to keep the big and powerful from destroying their own young.

The term Americans use is "the cuteness factor." Our Brit, Canadian, and Aussie friends may have another term for it, but that's ours. :D

And actually, you did very well in describing it!!!
« Last Edit: November 26, 2021, 11:50 by marthamarks »

« Reply #63 on: November 26, 2021, 11:44 »
+1

the child's scheme,

That's a brand-new term/concept to this old timer. Can you explain a bit about it?

Thanks!

Hello Martha,

you probably know this, but I translated it badly. I don't know exactly how it is correct in English.

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics.

It is not easy for me to describe it accurately in English.

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Nature designed babies this way to activate our protective instinct.

In addition to human babies, this also applies, for example, to puppies, kittens, chicks, etc.

In product design, the VW Beetle could be mentioned as a design example. Or the teddy bear. In graphic design, the Mario Brothers from Nintendo or anime characters are an example.

Thank you for that, Wilm! I get it now.

And yes, you're right. There seems to be a universal human reaction to the "cute, helpless little" baby, puppy, kitten, etc. Maybe it's an evolutionary thing that helped to keep the big and powerful from destroying their own young.

The term Americans use is "the cuteness factor." The Brits and Aussies may have another term for it, but that's ours. :D

And actually, you did very well in describing it!!!

Thank you very much, Martha!  :)

« Reply #64 on: November 26, 2021, 17:26 »
0
Why people still upload video or stills to SSTK?? for 10 cents a pic and $1.50 a video? delusional in that ya'll think you're gonna make hundreds of thousands of sales and bank?.

SSTK has become like the music streaming industry, unless you're getting millions of streams you are getting paid a fraction of a penny per stream/download.

Just google up music streaming royalty calculator.

SSTK is if you need a loss to report on your taxes.

« Reply #65 on: November 26, 2021, 22:27 »
+1
Why people still upload video or stills to SSTK?? for 10 cents a pic and $1.50 a video? delusional in that ya'll think you're gonna make hundreds of thousands of sales and bank?.

SSTK has become like the music streaming industry, unless you're getting millions of streams you are getting paid a fraction of a penny per stream/download.

Just google up music streaming royalty calculator.

SSTK is if you need a loss to report on your taxes.

How do I report a loss when SS pays me more money a year than anyplace else?

« Reply #66 on: November 26, 2021, 23:33 »
0
Thank you very much, Martha!  :)

You're very welcome! I just wish I could speak or write your language (whatever it is) as well as you write (and probably speak) mine. :D


« Reply #67 on: November 27, 2021, 01:51 »
0

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

« Last Edit: November 27, 2021, 02:28 by marthamarks »

« Reply #68 on: November 27, 2021, 04:15 »
+1
Thank you very much, Martha!  :)

You're very welcome! I just wish I could speak or write your language (whatever it is) as well as you write (and probably speak) mine. :D

Don't you speak a little German Martha? Looks like Dutch  :)   (You wrote that you as a little girl lived in Heidelberg)
« Last Edit: November 27, 2021, 04:27 by thijsdegraaf »

« Reply #69 on: November 27, 2021, 08:25 »
+1
Thank you very much, Martha!  :)

You're very welcome! I just wish I could speak or write your language (whatever it is) as well as you write (and probably speak) mine. :D

Thank you - once more - very much for your kind words, Martha! My mother language is German. And I usually use deepl for the translation. From my point of view it's the best translating software. Nevertheless I often have to correct the translated passages because they are translated in the wrong context.

« Reply #70 on: November 27, 2021, 08:30 »
+1

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

Thanks, Martha, I didn't know about this blog post.

Is what Thijs writes true? Did you live in Heidelberg when you were a child? I was born there and lived there until I was 23 years old.
At that time Heidelberg was the European headquarters of the US land forces. Were your parents or your father in the US Army?

« Reply #71 on: November 27, 2021, 12:13 »
0

SSTK is if you need a loss to report on your taxes.
[/quote]

How do I report a loss when SS pays me more money a year than anyplace else?
[/quote]

Well, that's a different perspective, so some are still making living off SSTK?, that's good to hear, I left them a few months ago, sales went from $800/month to around $12/month if that.

« Reply #72 on: November 27, 2021, 17:15 »
+1

Well, that's a different perspective, so some are still making living off SSTK?, that's good to hear, I left them a few months ago, sales went from $800/month to around $12/month if that.

That is an extreme decrease!  :(

« Reply #73 on: November 27, 2021, 18:19 »
0
Well, that's a different perspective, so some are still making living off SSTK?, that's good to hear, I left them a few months ago, sales went from $800/month to around $12/month if that.
[/quote]

That is an extreme decrease!  :(

Yeah unfortunately, only on Pond5 and sales there are crashing hard as well.

You'd think all through COVID there would be record sales for stock as travel is expensive and often restricted but with all these deals the agencies have it's become a lost cause I think for many of us, the agencies are doing ok but not the contributors.

« Reply #74 on: November 27, 2021, 18:26 »
0

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

Thanks, Martha, I didn't know about this blog post.

Is what Thijs writes true? Did you live in Heidelberg when you were a child? I was born there and lived there until I was 23 years old.
At that time Heidelberg was the European headquarters of the US land forces. Were your parents or your father in the US Army?

Yes, that's exactly right. My father was with the US Army. We lived at 107 Roemerstrasse (that's my own English phoenetic spelling) in Heidelberg from 1951 to 1954. During that time, we traveled all over Western Europe, from the boot of Italy to the fjords in Norway. It was a great time to be an American in Europe, because people were grateful and couldn't do enough for us. It was also quite a marvelous introduction to the world!

I'll add that I started school (first and second grade) in the American school there. Our teachers were Americans, but they had local assistants who taught us to sing in German a wealth of Christmas carols and folk songs, how to count, the German alphabet, colors, clothing, body parts, and other basic things. I can still sing many of the things I learned, but they would probably sound all wrong to you, because for me it's just rote memory from a loooooooooong time ago. :D
« Last Edit: November 27, 2021, 21:59 by marthamarks »

« Reply #75 on: November 27, 2021, 18:30 »
0
Thank you very much, Martha!  :)

You're very welcome! I just wish I could speak or write your language (whatever it is) as well as you write (and probably speak) mine. :D

Don't you speak a little German Martha? Looks like Dutch  :)   (You wrote that you as a little girl lived in Heidelberg)

Yes, I do. An itsy, bitsy, tiny, little, botched-up version of German!  See my answer to Wilm right above this.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2021, 18:58 by marthamarks »

« Reply #76 on: November 27, 2021, 19:48 »
+1

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

Thanks, Martha, I didn't know about this blog post.

Is what Thijs writes true? Did you live in Heidelberg when you were a child? I was born there and lived there until I was 23 years old.
At that time Heidelberg was the European headquarters of the US land forces. Were your parents or your father in the US Army?

Yes, that's exactly right. My father was with the US Army. We lived at 107 Roemerstrasse (that's my own English phoenetic spelling) in Heidelberg from 1951 to 1954. During that time, we traveled all over Western Europe, from the boot of Italy to the fjords in Norway. It was a great time to be an American in Europe and quite a marvelous introduction to the world!

I'll add that I started school (first and second grade) in the American school there. Our teachers were Americans, but they had local assistants who taught us to sing in German a wealth of Christmas carols and folk songs, how to count, the German alphabet, colors, clothing, body parts, and other basic things. I can still sing many of the things I learned, but they would probably sound all wrong to you, because for me it's just rote memory from a loooooooooong time ago. :D

Rmerstrae - it must have been called Mark Twain Village. Patrick Henry Village was located some miles away- as far as I remember

I used to play tennis there.  :)


« Reply #77 on: November 27, 2021, 19:55 »
0

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

Thanks, Martha, I didn't know about this blog post.

Is what Thijs writes true? Did you live in Heidelberg when you were a child? I was born there and lived there until I was 23 years old.
At that time Heidelberg was the European headquarters of the US land forces. Were your parents or your father in the US Army?

Yes, that's exactly right. My father was with the US Army. We lived at 107 Roemerstrasse (that's my own English phoenetic spelling) in Heidelberg from 1951 to 1954. During that time, we traveled all over Western Europe, from the boot of Italy to the fjords in Norway. It was a great time to be an American in Europe and quite a marvelous introduction to the world!

I'll add that I started school (first and second grade) in the American school there. Our teachers were Americans, but they had local assistants who taught us to sing in German a wealth of Christmas carols and folk songs, how to count, the German alphabet, colors, clothing, body parts, and other basic things. I can still sing many of the things I learned, but they would probably sound all wrong to you, because for me it's just rote memory from a loooooooooong time ago. :D

Rmerstrae - it must have been called Mark Twain Village. Patrick Henry Village was located some miles away- as far as I remember

I used to play tennis there.  :)

I don't remember it being called Mark Twain Village or anything like that.

But yes, it was Rmerstrae. I remember that spelling now. It's the first street address that I remember memorizing. :)

« Reply #78 on: November 28, 2021, 03:13 »
+1

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

Thanks, Martha, I didn't know about this blog post.

Is what Thijs writes true? Did you live in Heidelberg when you were a child? I was born there and lived there until I was 23 years old.
At that time Heidelberg was the European headquarters of the US land forces. Were your parents or your father in the US Army?

Yes, that's exactly right. My father was with the US Army. We lived at 107 Roemerstrasse (that's my own English phoenetic spelling) in Heidelberg from 1951 to 1954. During that time, we traveled all over Western Europe, from the boot of Italy to the fjords in Norway. It was a great time to be an American in Europe and quite a marvelous introduction to the world!

I'll add that I started school (first and second grade) in the American school there. Our teachers were Americans, but they had local assistants who taught us to sing in German a wealth of Christmas carols and folk songs, how to count, the German alphabet, colors, clothing, body parts, and other basic things. I can still sing many of the things I learned, but they would probably sound all wrong to you, because for me it's just rote memory from a loooooooooong time ago. :D

Rmerstrae - it must have been called Mark Twain Village. Patrick Henry Village was located some miles away- as far as I remember

I used to play tennis there.  :)

I don't remember it being called Mark Twain Village or anything like that.

But yes, it was Rmerstrae. I remember that spelling now. It's the first street address that I remember memorizing. :)

Rmerstrae. I found it on Google Earth. A friend of my mother's (aunt Hilde  :) ) lived in or near Heidelberg. I visited there as a child.

« Reply #79 on: November 28, 2021, 07:02 »
+1

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

Thanks, Martha, I didn't know about this blog post.

Is what Thijs writes true? Did you live in Heidelberg when you were a child? I was born there and lived there until I was 23 years old.
At that time Heidelberg was the European headquarters of the US land forces. Were your parents or your father in the US Army?

Yes, that's exactly right. My father was with the US Army. We lived at 107 Roemerstrasse (that's my own English phoenetic spelling) in Heidelberg from 1951 to 1954. During that time, we traveled all over Western Europe, from the boot of Italy to the fjords in Norway. It was a great time to be an American in Europe and quite a marvelous introduction to the world!

I'll add that I started school (first and second grade) in the American school there. Our teachers were Americans, but they had local assistants who taught us to sing in German a wealth of Christmas carols and folk songs, how to count, the German alphabet, colors, clothing, body parts, and other basic things. I can still sing many of the things I learned, but they would probably sound all wrong to you, because for me it's just rote memory from a loooooooooong time ago. :D

Rmerstrae - it must have been called Mark Twain Village. Patrick Henry Village was located some miles away- as far as I remember

I used to play tennis there.  :)

I don't remember it being called Mark Twain Village or anything like that.

But yes, it was Rmerstrae. I remember that spelling now. It's the first street address that I remember memorizing. :)

There was a bridge built by the Romans (German translation = "Rmer") in Heidelberg to cross the river Neckar and get to Ladenburg (founded in the year 40 after *) - a former Roman fort. So you were living on historical ground.

« Reply #80 on: November 28, 2021, 07:03 »
0

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

Thanks, Martha, I didn't know about this blog post.

Is what Thijs writes true? Did you live in Heidelberg when you were a child? I was born there and lived there until I was 23 years old.
At that time Heidelberg was the European headquarters of the US land forces. Were your parents or your father in the US Army?

Yes, that's exactly right. My father was with the US Army. We lived at 107 Roemerstrasse (that's my own English phoenetic spelling) in Heidelberg from 1951 to 1954. During that time, we traveled all over Western Europe, from the boot of Italy to the fjords in Norway. It was a great time to be an American in Europe and quite a marvelous introduction to the world!

I'll add that I started school (first and second grade) in the American school there. Our teachers were Americans, but they had local assistants who taught us to sing in German a wealth of Christmas carols and folk songs, how to count, the German alphabet, colors, clothing, body parts, and other basic things. I can still sing many of the things I learned, but they would probably sound all wrong to you, because for me it's just rote memory from a loooooooooong time ago. :D

Rmerstrae - it must have been called Mark Twain Village. Patrick Henry Village was located some miles away- as far as I remember

I used to play tennis there.  :)

I don't remember it being called Mark Twain Village or anything like that.

But yes, it was Rmerstrae. I remember that spelling now. It's the first street address that I remember memorizing. :)

There was a bridge built by the Romans (German translation = "Rmer") in Heidelberg to cross the river Neckar and get to Ladenburg (founded in the year 40 after *) - a former Roman fort. So you were living on historical ground.

« Reply #81 on: November 28, 2021, 14:23 »
0

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

Thanks, Martha, I didn't know about this blog post.

Is what Thijs writes true? Did you live in Heidelberg when you were a child? I was born there and lived there until I was 23 years old.
At that time Heidelberg was the European headquarters of the US land forces. Were your parents or your father in the US Army?

Yes, that's exactly right. My father was with the US Army. We lived at 107 Roemerstrasse (that's my own English phoenetic spelling) in Heidelberg from 1951 to 1954. During that time, we traveled all over Western Europe, from the boot of Italy to the fjords in Norway. It was a great time to be an American in Europe and quite a marvelous introduction to the world!

I'll add that I started school (first and second grade) in the American school there. Our teachers were Americans, but they had local assistants who taught us to sing in German a wealth of Christmas carols and folk songs, how to count, the German alphabet, colors, clothing, body parts, and other basic things. I can still sing many of the things I learned, but they would probably sound all wrong to you, because for me it's just rote memory from a loooooooooong time ago. :D

Rmerstrae - it must have been called Mark Twain Village. Patrick Henry Village was located some miles away- as far as I remember

I used to play tennis there.  :)

I don't remember it being called Mark Twain Village or anything like that.

But yes, it was Rmerstrae. I remember that spelling now. It's the first street address that I remember memorizing. :)

There was a bridge built by the Romans (German translation = "Rmer") in Heidelberg to cross the river Neckar and get to Ladenburg (founded in the year 40 after *) - a former Roman fort. So you were living on historical ground.

Wilm, I remember that bridge very well. Even have a photo that my mother took of me standing on it, with the Schloss behind me, I think.

I also remember the medieval Red Ox student tavern in old-town Heidelberg. Roten Ochsen I just looked it up! At age 6 or 7, I was too young to drink the beer on tap, but I remember eating there!

That was a very happy time in my life. Thanks for bringing the memories back to me. :)

« Reply #82 on: November 28, 2021, 16:20 »
+3

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

Thanks, Martha, I didn't know about this blog post.

Is what Thijs writes true? Did you live in Heidelberg when you were a child? I was born there and lived there until I was 23 years old.
At that time Heidelberg was the European headquarters of the US land forces. Were your parents or your father in the US Army?

Yes, that's exactly right. My father was with the US Army. We lived at 107 Roemerstrasse (that's my own English phoenetic spelling) in Heidelberg from 1951 to 1954. During that time, we traveled all over Western Europe, from the boot of Italy to the fjords in Norway. It was a great time to be an American in Europe and quite a marvelous introduction to the world!

I'll add that I started school (first and second grade) in the American school there. Our teachers were Americans, but they had local assistants who taught us to sing in German a wealth of Christmas carols and folk songs, how to count, the German alphabet, colors, clothing, body parts, and other basic things. I can still sing many of the things I learned, but they would probably sound all wrong to you, because for me it's just rote memory from a loooooooooong time ago. :D

Rmerstrae - it must have been called Mark Twain Village. Patrick Henry Village was located some miles away- as far as I remember

I used to play tennis there.  :)

I don't remember it being called Mark Twain Village or anything like that.

But yes, it was Rmerstrae. I remember that spelling now. It's the first street address that I remember memorizing. :)

There was a bridge built by the Romans (German translation = "Rmer") in Heidelberg to cross the river Neckar and get to Ladenburg (founded in the year 40 after *) - a former Roman fort. So you were living on historical ground.

Wilm, I remember that bridge very well. Even have a photo that my mother took of me standing on it, with the Schloss behind me, I think.

I also remember the medieval Red Ox student tavern in old-town Heidelberg. Roten Ochsen I just looked it up! At age 6 or 7, I was too young to drink the beer on tap, but I remember eating there!

That was a very happy time in my life. Thanks for bringing the memories back to me. :)

Hello Martha,


I am glad that I could revive your past.

I must correct you on one point: the bridge that the Romans built has not existed for countless centuries. There is only a memorial stone that reminds us of it.

The bridge you remember, the "old bridge" originally dates back to the early Middle Ages.

However, I would like to write a few lines on the subject on the occasion of other discussions in this forum.

When I was young, I was often at the "Neckarwiese" - the Neckar meadows would perhaps be an apt translation. This was full of people of every culture, ethnicity, religion, skin color, origin... It was a multicultural, peaceful, lively and usually sun-drenched place. Endless US Americans were there and the contact with them was friendly, positive and lively. Heidelberg had 130,000 residents, a great many students, and an additional 36,000 or so residents who were part of the U.S. Army. It was an open coexistence without resentment.

I would wish if such social coexistence would continue to prevail in all countries - including the USA and Germany. Unfortunately, this is disturbed today by multiple factors. I personally find that an infinite pity!

We should all make the greatest effort that a peaceful coexistence on earth is possible. I contribute with pleasure my part to it!

« Reply #83 on: November 28, 2021, 17:46 »
0

The bridge you remember, the "old bridge" originally dates back to the early Middle Ages.

Thank you for that, Wilm! I'm happy to know which bridge it is shown in the pic that my mother took of me in the early '50s. All I can say in my own defense is it sure did look awfully old to me. :)

And yes, I share your appreciation for peace and harmony in the world. At least at this time of year, one would think we could hope to achieve it.

And that brings up more beautiful memories of mine from Heidelberg:

** exquisite hand-made Christmas tree decorations, including many hand-blown and hand-painted ones, not to mention hand-carved nativity sets (creches).

** tales of Father Christmas depositing "lumps of coal" in naughty children's stockings (I was never one of those, of course!)

** festive open-air Christmas celebrations as people of all ages carried lighted candles and sang in the street and not a single time did anyone fear getting run over by an angry driver in a truck. Sad.

But we are talking now about 70 years ago. Very different times, unfortunately.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2021, 19:02 by marthamarks »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
3680 Views
Last post June 08, 2008, 02:39
by Karimala
5 Replies
3570 Views
Last post November 23, 2011, 23:16
by Morphart
6 Replies
3240 Views
Last post January 03, 2013, 13:52
by lisafx
4 Replies
2393 Views
Last post June 01, 2015, 19:49
by Jo Ann Snover
11 Replies
3809 Views
Last post September 26, 2019, 08:41
by davidbautista

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle