Richard Thornton

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Richard Thornton

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/06/1936

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Central California
  1. I had no idea the Nikon 5000-ED scanner commanded such a high price now. I should have kept it! Back, maybe ten years ago, I digitized a few of my 30,000 Kodachromes. Only a few made it through SS's approval process. Even those that were accepted took a great deal of time to make acceptable. In the end, I decided it was not worth the effort.
  2. Just like other manufacturers, the 50mm range is the least costly (relatively, in the case of Leica). Although if you can buy a Monochrome you shouldn't sweat the lenses. At the bottom of the price group you can find old screw-mount lenses that can be fitted with an adapter. Then don't overlook the newer M mounts by Voigtlander, which aren't bad at all. (Look up Canera Quest.) The older Summarit is f1.5 and just OK. The f1.4 Summiluxes are very expensive. The best compromise for me would be the f2 Summicrons — none sharper, even the older ones.
  3. Unlike most of my new content submissions, my take on a protest rally was snatched up within a couple of days. One thing about editorial . . . it becomes history, which can't be authentically duplicated. Good for the long term.
  4. Are you joking? Out of a hundred thousand how will you choose three? What criterion? Sorry, I can't do it.
  5. Well, Laurin, I guess I can't complain since, with my limited portfolio (under 6000) I still get a respectable monthly income. In truth, I thought it would be worse with the incredible addition of millions of images. Still, it would be nice to see a download of a new image once-in-a-while.
  6. I seem to remember reading why newly accepted images aren't doing well . . . Something to do with the search algorithm. Would someone mind explaining it to me, since I can't seem to find anything about it? Thanks!
  7. I've never used any. Words just flow and I have trouble limiting them. I do keep some text files of keywords related to subjects I commonly submit.
  8. After the initial email, I received another (less than 24 hours later) informing me they had deleted 3 images based upon complaint # XXXX which I did not know how to access. So the nature of the complaint is still a mystery to me. Only three images will not make a difference but . . . it's the principle of the thing . . as they say! Then, of course, the apology today after the fact.
  9. I think I knew the whole business model for microstock was not sustainable, even in the beginning. Now, that is becoming evident. The idea that you can keep increasing your image stock without limit, that you can lower your standards even while pretending to have standards via those pathetic reviewers selecting from their pallet of inane canned responses, is wishful thinking. Shutterstock and the others will canabalize themselves. Cavalier treatment of contributors and not communicating effectively with them is just another part of the cheapening and industrialization of the stock picture business in order to squeeze a little more profit from the mix. I personally looked for this to happen sooner than it did. I count myself lucky to have been a happy amateur, shooting what I wished, pushing the limits making the reviewers work hard and pocketing $25,000 in the process. Thank you Shutterstock, but you need to give some thought to the future before it's too late.
  10. I've been here ten years and have the message, too, Linda. I just uploaded a file and it was processed without a problem. Just a glitch, I suppose.
  11. I just uploaded a file to see what would happen. It seems as though it's business as usual. It was placed in the que as always with no exceptions. I guess this is just something to keep us involved and excited about the SS experience!
  12. After ten years with Shutterstock, this appears on my page: Before you can upload photos, we'll need to review the ID you uploaded. Generally this should be done within 48 hours after you sign up, but may take longer. If you have any questions, please email contact support.
  13. Aha! Thank you.
  14. I'm a part-timer, retired, dilatant only in it to finance my hobby. I'm with Laurin Rinder who noted we sort of killed professional stock photography. I didn't feel bad about it. Now after a personal record 2015 my 2016 sales have nose-dived. I'm not going to feel bad about that either. It was nice while it lasted but, given the nature of the business, no other outcome was possible. By the way, I went to and had a look. Number 2448 with 75.5% of sales. Can anyone tell me what "% of sales" means?
  15. I've had this lens. It's a good one. I sold mine along with all my DSLR gear in favor of Fuji mirrorless. It shouldn't be much of a risk if your "guy at work" is decent and available in case there's something wrong with it. Look through the lens against a strong light to observe any dust on/in the lens. You won't discover it looking at the images. Filters are not nearly as necessary as they were in the film days since many filter effects, not all, can be duplicated in post processing. You apparently haven't used them in the past so why be concerned? I'm sure you could fit gel filters in front of the lens if absolutely necessary. It's a pretty nice lens for the Nikon FF series.