|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Uncle Pete
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 195
26
« on: April 10, 2025, 13:14 »
Its a full circle for me. I started out with most on Alamy/macrostock and RM. Then migrated to the RF/Microstock model.
Now im seriously considering doing the same and retreating back to that. Although to be fair, AS is still growing well for me currently.
And I would also like to go back to Macrostock or Midstock. But does it sell?
On Alamy, my historical average for 910 downloads is $7.52 net (about 20% are RM exclusive) vs SS's 39,000 downloads at an average of 60cents.
40x less volumes for 12x the price but then Alamy sells mainly editorial and no real point sending them generic commercial micro shots.
At the end of the day, for me, it's more about taking back control of our assets and retaining some dignity.
Speaking for myself, I don't know what dignity there is to retain after I sold out to Microstock. A little late to take back anything, after it's out in the wild. New images, yes, that's possible. You're right about Alamy, and people will argue, the volume isn't there. But last year, and Alamy is down, I made more on Alamy than P5, DT, IS and all of the minor sites I distributed to on Wirestock, all added together!. Selling out for pennies is just as desperate for any last money and this terrible plan from SSTK. I suppose it's difficult to say goodbye to DT and P5. I spent time uploading, now that's just residual. Mostly, I'm waiting for the "Next Big Thing"  Which is the merger of IS and SS, to see what happens. Im also thinking of just contributing to Adobe and Alamy. Seems most agencies now pays pennies anyway.
I think that's a good plan to be considering. They don't care if we leave, we don't get paid for the effort. What's the loss?
27
« on: April 10, 2025, 12:58 »
Yesterday I had some accepted, some rejected "for quality reasons". All non-editorial. I resubmit, and this morning all accepted.
Different reviewer most likely. This cat and mouse game is becoming quite ridiculous and has nothing to do with consistency or quality
Just like the delays, some of the reviews are just what you say. Ridiculous game. I want to add that I wrote this before and people keep telling me, "Oh no it doesn't say that." Yes, Adobe does and they have before.  And for some other creative theories, how's that caption things working for people who claim, that leaving out specifics and places, makes things go faster. Now we have, smaller batches are faster. Note: I only upload small batches, always have, and I have had images fall into a black hole of review. When that theory is debunked there will be another new theory, of how to beat the flaws in the system. But you are right. "This cat and mouse game is becoming quite ridiculous and has nothing to do with consistency or quality"
28
« on: April 09, 2025, 12:37 »
One part of the answer, free sites. But also, some places that had subscriptions for years and years, downloaded their full quota, and have a stockpile of images, so large, that they don't need to buy anything, except maybe new ideas and news. I was asking myself the same question.
It's easy to put the blame on the agencies, but is that really the case? If Pond5 or Shutterstock dropped the ball and lost customers, where did the buyers go? If that were the case, other agencies would have picked up the slack.
All of them are down and Adobe is just holding on.
29
« on: April 08, 2025, 15:45 »
Either way its a complete random crapshoot now.
That's the real answer. Whether it's random, AI, based on similar to others or something else, which we are not informed of the facts or the truth, "its a complete random crapshoot" where analysis, reason or logic, don't help anything.
30
« on: April 07, 2025, 10:20 »
much worse is a bug that rejects groups images saying they need adjusting
but when submitted one by one just get a msg that incorrect keywords ignored but without showing the offenders & images are always accepted
in the last non-buggy version, a msg would appear BEFORE submitting and SHOW the flagged keywords, so one fix allowed the entire group to be submitted successful
I've seen this one too. It is related to plurals. Basically if you have "ruin" and "ruins" in keywords, it will do that without saying what is wrong. Just remove plural (i.e. "ruins") and all is ok.
Problem is that they constantly keep modifying script behind this; by now it is likely a monster and bugs easily creep in.
And people can add, "ING" endings that cause the same problem. Sometimes it will say, they have been removed, sometimes I have to edit, one by one, and some the word was removed, but the submit still failed. I hope they fix that soon.
31
« on: April 07, 2025, 10:12 »
t. For all I know, it could be, too many images like that, and the similar is like the "Quality Issues" which is just a generic rejection.
If that's the case, then the rejection reason should reflect this. For me the rejection reason literally says "we found that your image resembles other images you have already uploaded."
You are correct, but we have been told, that similar may mean, similar to other images, already accepted. Like some other issues and questions, a clear and straight answer would be nice. We don't get that.
32
« on: April 06, 2025, 13:59 »
The "similar" thing they've brought in appears massively flawed. A lot of people are finding images flagged with no similar ones in the collection and no real theme or hint.
Suspicion is they've introduced some flawed AI thats making these random decisions based on incorrect data or training.
Good answer. I have only had minimal rejections for similar, but I know others that have had more. One of my rejections was nothing like anything I ever did or uploaded. Adobe people have said, it's not just our images, it can be for being similar to other images, for the same subject. For all I know, it could be, too many images like that, and the similar is like the "Quality Issues" which is just a generic rejection.
33
« on: April 06, 2025, 13:51 »
now 6800
I seem to move up in increments of 20, like every week or 10 days
For me, it's exactly the opposite. I drop 10 positions every three to four weeks.
So you can see that your diligence is rewarded and my laziness is punished.
Well then you need to blame Cobalt for your drop in rank!  Yes, I agree with you. I get paid something, based on my effort. I thought in the past, it was fair to get what I deserved, as it is Microstock. The problem is, I now have thousands more images and get paid much less. That part irks me. I don't care where Adobe slots me, in the position. It's unreliable and we don't know what it means of how it's calculated. One person says it the last week, but it changes on Sunday night, back to zero. Where's the reasoning and logic in that? Can't be. People with the identical rank, have different sales numbers. People with identical sales numbers, have different rank. In other words, mostly, it's just a mysterious number, with no basis in fact. If the weekly is unreliable, I can't assume that the Lifetime, is any better. If someone from Adobe would come out and say, here's what it is and how it's calculated, that would make the number more entertaining, but it doesn't change anything else. The only thing that matters is, how much did Adobe deposit into my Paypal account, last year.  Not RPI, RPD, Views, Rank, Position, likes, or anything else. 
34
« on: April 05, 2025, 10:24 »
now 6800
I seem to move up in increments of 20, like every week or 10 days
Good to see that you are passing people. I re-joined about ten years ago. Seems like it wasn't that long back. But by 2015, the market and activity was already slowing and dropping. My theory is, I'm just starting to pass people who quit ten years ago, but had sales on FT for the good times. If they closed their account, that means, they won't be improving, maybe they aren't counted? But for what's probably many more, people just stopped adding new, stopped participating and they have whatever residual income from the early years. I'll look at the end of the year and see if I crept up any. I suppose, the limited number of new people, who work harder could be passing me, but that's the AI boom, which will eventually level off. More people producing means less individual gains.
35
« on: April 05, 2025, 10:16 »
Track and deduct your work miles. Do it auto-magically with an app. I do lot's of road trips for photography and this is my biggest business expense by far. This year it's 67 cents a mile.
I use paper log pages, which I keep detailed information, start miles, distances, days, gas and lodging. I wonder if I'm missing anything else, for photo trips? What App? Thanks for the idea. I already depreciate photo equipment. have a separate "business" phone, I don't take home office space, that's a buffer, in case I get audited again, I have some insurance. I don't claim the computers, laptops, or printers. More leeway for an audit. The internet is a business expense, I don't know how to detail what's personal or business exclusive.
36
« on: April 03, 2025, 12:09 »
Current lifetime is 6820
Come back and of the year, I'll bet you're moving up.
37
« on: April 03, 2025, 12:07 »
Maybe you can not fight progress, but real question is: Is AI a progress?
Not in the sense of things like, refrigeration instead of ice chests, or flying instead of railroads, but AI in many fields, may be able to simulate or discover things, that are useful, from data. I think too many comments here are using AI and a catch-all for computer generated images, when the whole field of machine leaning, goes much deeper and further.
We will be overwhelmed by a tsunami of content of all kinds, but our human attention span remains the same. Who will watch all this content?
There are already bots created by AI that increase the engagement of social profiles ... made by AI. 
Sorry the human attention span, is not the same. It's much shorter now. Go watch any old B&W movie from the classic era and start to see how people want everything right now and fast. There's no drawn out, slow development and sub-plots, most of the time. Go to a website and try to read content, text. You are assaulted by pop up ads, videos that self start with noise and audio. What ever happened to reading?  Instead of a few network TV stations and some movie houses, we have streaming services and networks upon networks. New movies every month from places, that are churning out made for TV content. I sure can't watch all of that, and I don't want to. That's not AI, it's just making more and more, faster than ever. The Facebook and other social media places, didn't call them AI, but since the start, we are led to believe that people with like minds, are posting what we agree with, and we are fed that, to keep us satisfied and interested. If your tendency is towards nature and the environment (as a simple example) and you are a liberal, you will get news that follows that and agrees. If someone is a conservative, and wants less government spending and waste, or a better protected border, they will get more stories supporting that. We are being programmed to think that the Internet, agrees and supports, our personal views, while opposing views are filtered out. Sure I'd rather take my own photos, created by my hands and eyes. As amusement, artificially generated images are entertaining. The problem is, just like hand knit was replaced by machines, or any other craft that has been altered by machines, assembly that's done by robots, not humans. Machine made goods have replaced hand made, mostly. Clerical services that were done by people, have been replaced by computers. AI isn't going to replace human made art and designs, it's just a new way to create easy and fast solutions for simple uses. Sure it's a killer for some crowdsourced images and will replace the need for many types or stock image. But AI can't replace, real photos of events, or real objects that need to be accurate, and can't cover the news. AI is too stupid to understand how things work and function.
38
« on: April 02, 2025, 11:49 »
I'm now at 446... up from 451 in my last post (453 beginning of the year). Creeping up one by one.
Nice going, a real number, not like mine. I'm hoping that over time, I'll pass people who quit and are no longer going up in rank. Just a note, since the number is always changing. March 1st, 2025 Survey was at 34 April it's up to 56
39
« on: April 02, 2025, 11:41 »
The scary thing about GPT-4o image generation is that it really enables people with no knowledge of graphic design to create the exact image in their mindjust by putting it into words. In seconds.
The problem with photography is, it enables people to make an exact image, without having the skills or knowledge to draw or paint. Just by pushing a button on a box. I don't like AI and I don't use it to make things, except humor or quick fun, but I also recognize that just like computers and cameras and other technology, you can't fight progress or or stop change. As long as you want a six fingered person with three arms and half a leg sitting in a chair that is floating in a room with two sources of sunlight.... ok, I exaggerate... they might have one full leg.
That too. And three legged chairs or impossible mechanical features.
40
« on: April 01, 2025, 11:44 »
Sandisk and others make some really small (like the size of a stack of credit cards) SSD drives that are incredible fast and portable, which is another option if you're worried about internet speed and connectivity. I have a couple of 1 TB and 2 TB ones where I store a lot of my photos that I'm working on.
Super light and easy to plug into your desktop. If you use Lightroom Classic, your catalog can point to the images on the SSD drive so you know where they are.
Having plenty of room on dropbox or google drive is also a very easy solution and I assume your catalog can point to those too.
All of the above and I have a simple USB hard drive that I carry with me, on the road. How much space does someone need to have to carry current works, is the question? 2T is around $70
41
« on: March 31, 2025, 11:44 »
@alan b traehern:I don't think that deleting content causes any kind of problem,whether it's the approval percentage or something else,simply by deleting a content it is no longer for sale,I don't think there are any other consequences.
maybe i'll start deleting some content,probably 400/500 to start,but i haven't decided yet,for now i'm focusing on creating new videos.
Well if you don't think so, then it can't be true?  There are people who believe and say that deleting images from Adobe, will harm your image rank and acceptance ratio. There are others that say, that it makes no sense and should change anything. I don't know. I don't claim to know. But the place this started was, years ago people would delete images and re-submit them, so they would be new again. All kind of silly, wasted time, trying to game the system. Then the subject came up when the reviews got terribly slow, and people would delete and re-send the same images. Someone else said that Mat told us this was a fact, but no one has quoted Mat's message or provided a link, so it's the same as knowing that Bigfoot is real, because someone, knows someone, who says they saw one. My basic point is, if you don't know if this will harm your rank or acceptance percentage, and you are deleting images, why are you deleting images? How will less images for sale, make more sales? You just wrote that you uploaded many new images and sales are lower, you make less. Wouldn't less images, logically, make even less?
42
« on: March 31, 2025, 11:28 »
An up to date list:
https://upstock.guru/information/stock-sites-list-for-contributors.html
Very nice list. Just one quick comment, Alamy is now 20% until people reach $250 in the past years sales total. Not commission, but net sales. You might want to change that to 17% to 40%? Because Distributor sales are even worse.
Basicaly Alamy is saying 95% of contributors will take 20% from now on, such crappy people, is a low erner majority wont rick that 250 usd, and further on when they drop to 20% will be even garder, so basicaly almost everybody will take home 20% that is worst than iStock.
We're going off the subject but I don't see how 15% from IS, is better than 20% from AL? Not dollars, but pure percentages. Every year except 2023 I made enough in Net sales on AL to be at the 40% level, and I'm not one of the big time Stock people with many diverse and interesting photos. My only correction was, Alamy was listed at 40% and the truth is, 17% for Distribution sales, 20% for anyone else, and the 40% is for people who have enough licenses to make it to the higher level. The list has been updated since then. An up to date list:
https://upstock.guru/information/stock-sites-list-for-contributors.html
43
« on: March 24, 2025, 10:42 »
So if you buy a SS share at 19 dollars, getty will pay you 28 dollars for the merger per share?
hm
If yes, then why is 28 dollars not a stable floor?
This looks like somebody knows something negative.
Exactly! I suspect that investors aren't high on Getty, who will be the new controller, even if this is called a merger. Shutterstocks sales grew at a tiny, 6.5% compounded annual growth rate, over the last three years. That's slow and unimpressive. Assuming that the merger is set and being big business, not a popcorn stand, the offer is in writing and not at the whim of, "we changed our mind". Also before these tenders are made, the companies and attorneys make deep, due diligence investigations. That can take over a year, of going through everything, in detail and proof of what's there or not. Keep in mind, that Getty is looking at future value, long term. Whether it's ROI or amortizing the investment, this isn't like a used car. Getty wants to own and control the market, and for years has been buying collections, archives and agencies. This pretty well completes that. Maybe there are archives, still out there, but as far as buying stock agencies, Microstock, high numbers of contents, I think it's pretty much the end. But, yes, that's the proposal. For every share of SSTK, Getty in effect is offering around $28, even though it's selling for $19.35 right now. Some people may want the Getty stock in trade. Whatever it is, people aren't ining up to buy SSTK for the gains they expect when the merger is done. You're 100% right. Something the insiders know, says this isn't right.
44
« on: March 22, 2025, 09:35 »
I agree with this theory. Mine that have got stuck in review have location keywords that the bot probably didn't understand and may have flagged for IP concerns. When I re-uploaded them without the location names they were accepted overnight.
WOW! This could be useful. Unusual keywords, send images off to review limbo, to wait? Keep It Simple
45
« on: March 22, 2025, 09:31 »
I still haven't had any images removed even though I received the email
I did it the easy way and checked the number of "Not Accepted" as soon as I got the email. The number has not changed.
46
« on: March 22, 2025, 09:27 »
It happened to me too. I was opted out... I am gradually removing my portfolio anyway. Sales are down 94% since 2016. Little to lose by leaving.
I wanted to say that none can trust this agency anymore. The best to do is deleting images and leaving.
I'm close to next payout, so I'll take that and then shut it down. It's a shadow of its past self anyway.
I think that's a pretty good group of ideas. I've tried to refrain from commenting, because I did the same, years back. There's no reason to support a parasite that just drives the market value for images down. I mean none of them, not just 123RF.
47
« on: March 21, 2025, 10:17 »
... a few weeks ago i uploaded them again, a 3rd time but wrote the minimum number of words in the metadata fields. they have been reviewed and approved. my suspicion was metadata caused some of these files to get flagged and put in the "we'll get to it in 10 years" pile. in this particular case i used specific name places (like the name of the county, etc) that this bridge is located in. if you have images stuck forever try re uploading with minimal metadata and fill it all in once they get reviewed. as for the original images... it seems i will soon find out what comes after "1 year ago."
If this theory is true, good point. We need more people to test. Maybe mixed upload, a couple with the full data, Dateline, location all that, and a coupe with simple descriptive words. Sure would be nice. Interesting that one of mine that went into Never Never Land, was a bridge and a news headline. Problem is, I uploaded more than one, and all but one got accepted in a reasonable time, only one, and they had the same type caption, if not identical, only that one went over six months. So someone test the theory, and lets see. That sure would help.
48
« on: March 15, 2025, 11:39 »
What a shame
I keep wanting to answer... What a sham.
49
« on: March 15, 2025, 11:37 »
If it crashes even more, they might renegotiate the merger.
Otherwise buying the shares will add free money.
I'm not sure that it's as easy as changing their mind about the offer. Getty made the offer, they are pretty well obligated to stick to that, unless some legal problem or disclosure of false information, or anti-trust issues, would change things. On the other hand, the reason the SSTK stock is dropping, may be, just because Getty is taking over. Consider that possibility. Getty is in debt and doesn't earn as much as the interest on the loans. That's not a good financial situation. The price is driven by buyers and sellers. If people are only offering $19 a share and the asking price is $20 a share, the people holding the stock have two choices. 1) Lower the price or 2) Sit with what they own and hope.  This isn't about people like us, who could own hundreds of shares. The big investors with SSTK in a number of cases, are holding 1 Million shares. When their price changes $1 that means, $1,000,000 gained or lost. Shutterstock has 34.89 million shares outstanding.
50
« on: March 14, 2025, 12:36 »
There is certainly a factor for luck in this. My best seller on SS by a wide margin was a fireworks photo - it was a good photo which I spent a fair amount of time cleaning up so the background was pure 000 black but there were plenty of other images available that were just as good - some by me. The thing that made this my #1 seller was the day I uploaded it - a few weeks before July 4th I think (or maybe it was a few weeks before new years) SS had a glitch in their indexing and didn't index any new images for a few days. The luck factor for me was my image was on the first row for "fireworks" sorted by newest first. In those 4 days it got enough sales so that it got onto the first page for a best match search for "fireworks" and it stayed there for 3 years, often in the first line. Then one day SS changed something to favor images that were more pixels or from newer cameras or newer images or whatever and it dropped out of the first few pages of search and went from a few to 10s of sales a week to a few sales a year. The end. This image sold a few times on other sites, but never got the traction it did on SS.
So I had a decent image and I uploaded it at the right time, but I also got lucky.
You can't get lucky if you don't have decent images uploaded at the right time, but you still need some luck. Of course the more tickets you buy the more likely you are to win, and hitting niches or timing things well will help too. Steve certainly does that - for example his covid theater marquee sign. A good idea done well at the right time.
Oh you're the one, and that's why my fireworks images didn't sell. I think you are bringing up another good point. I've had images, on page one or two, where they stayed there for a good long time, maybe years. Some searches, I still have a couple. The agencies don't mix up the search and move "top images" or "best sellers" down, just because they are mean or random, they don't want the first page, to be showing the same old images, for years. They want to mix up the content and show buyers something new, not the same old crap, for year after year. For some of us, that will mean losing placement and for others, it will mean moving up and a chance. I don't mean, just new images, that get their boost while they get some exposure, to see if they catch on. I mean, just for age, and the reason, that mixing up the SOS in a search, makes a better experience for buyers. This isn't just about us. I have always felt it never was. First the company and the profit, which comes from the buyers. We're just some expense and nuisance at this point. 436,599 fireworks at night Some are mine and I probably couldn't find them if I tried, because the images all look so much alike. But for some searching for a specific pattern, or colors, or composite design, I'm on page one.  The more from this artist might help some day. These are not my best selling images. But I took them and maybe someone needs one?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 195
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
