chris kolaczan

Tonnes of noise and even the uncropped version is pretty soft. The cropped one is sort of a mess. The first deer is also really underexposed compared to the background. Your eye tends to be drawn to the bright parts of the image. Seems to be a blue cast (probably from the sky) on it as well. Hope you don't mind, I played a bit with it (30 seconds in photoshop). Not awesone, looks a bit too HDR but just trying to illustrate the point. Honestly, the deer could still use a bit of brightening. If it was sharp and had less noise, I think this would have a better chance:

Hacked accounts seem to be an end of the month tradition around here. If only Shutterstock could implement something like two-factor authentication or something to reduce the occurrence of this sort of thing. Its almost like they don't care.

Upload a quarter million commercially useful images on subjects that are in high demand. Negotiate your own private deal. Profit.

Options to consider: Sign with a minority background. Sign with a background of color Sign with a background which does not reflect light. Sign with a background consisting of all pigment colors Sign with a background that is not white, red, blue, green etc. Welcome to clown world.

Just think about how much lighter your wallet will be! And, your shelves and pantry will be so much less cluttered! You'll help save the planet by not driving as much as well! Nothing but winning.

By mid month: June 2019 $0.887 average per download June 2020 $0.375 average per download Even with my ODDs and SODs I'm making less than I would have with only subs. Sorry Shutterstock. If this is what is meant by "to create fair opportunities for all our contributors, and reward performance with greater earnings potential." I guess i'm not wanted around here. Not sure what I was doing last year that was unfair to be honest. It has been a good run all things considered. Time to go.

Likewise. Best of luck elsewhere.

In the post above yours it says that you can contact them to reactivate an old account. Either way, contact them to let them know that you want the account to remain open until it is paid out. If it is already deactivated, get them to reactivate it, then wait until it gets paid out to deactivate it.

Now imagine if all of your subs were 0.38. Those 0.40s wouldn't look so great and all of the 0.10s that replaced the 0.38 would look pretty bad. Glad you're happy. U don't really understand why but whatever works for you.

So far in June I am averaging $0.247 per sale. At this point in June 2019 I was averaging $1.15 per sale. I was firmly in the "lets see the numbers before we hysterically pull our portfolios and rant on the forums". I might leave my images up until the end of the month. Not convinced yet. Being functionally bumped down to the $0.25 per download level is frankly insulting. Especially knowing that SS is now making MORE off of my sales. I'm a pretty small player in this game but I've been here a bit over 10 years and have made decent money off of my small portfolio. That will end soon. It has been a good ride and I've learned a lot along the way. Off to greener pastures.

Not only is it soft but you have some strong chromatic aberrations on the high contrast areas which is only adding to the effect.

Pond5 allows you to set your own prices. Just saying.

There is your solution. Go do it. You get 100% of the sale and get to cut out the middle-man. How hard can it be?

Minimum aperture for that lens is f32 so something is off with your numbers. Even f22 is going to give you diffraction blurriness. Use f16 maximum (Preferably f8) and stack focus. It is best to actually try the range of apertures in a controlled setting to see for yourself where the range of clean focus is. When I had an older Tamron 90mm it was f5.6 to f16. Beyond that on either end it was a bit (for a macro lens) soft. And, yes, your image of the rose is blurry.

This is not helpful Is "what the customer pays for the license" calculated for subs by averaging out the package (i.e. 750 images for $199 = $0.27 per image) or what they ACTUALLY pay (i.e. if they don't use all 750 images in a month but still pay $199). If it is the former, subscription sales are going to be a pittance and given that that is the bulk of most contributors sales, it is going to hit hard (meanwhile SS is still making $199 per month regardless of what the customer is actually buying). I'm willing to wait and see how this actually pans out but it looks pretty bad right now. A 12 month moving average for determining levels would certainly be sensible I think.