Jump to content

Thomas J. Sebourn

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Thomas J. Sebourn

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/01/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Southern California
  • Interests
    Anything outdoors

Recent Profile Visitors

1,042 profile views
  1. Why are you making this personal? I expressed the reasons why I'm not deactivating my portfolio, and you are free to disagree and/or point our where my logic is flawed. I'm sorry that your livelihood is in jeopardy, but that isn't an excuse to take shots at my portfolio and certainly not my reputation as an attorney.
  2. Sunk cost fallacy. Individuals commit the sunk cost fallacy when they continue a behavior or endeavor as a result of previously invested resources (time, money or effort) (Arkes & Blumer, 1985). The time and energy that I've all expended uploading to SS is not something I'll get back. If were to deactivate my account, I'd be guaranteed to receive nothing for that previously spent energy. However, I realized many many years ago that continuing to upload to SS would not be good investment of my time & effort--and the new payout structure confirms that decision even further as its a complete slap in the face to contributors. Until the juice is worth the squeeze, I won't be uploading new content; but I'm not having to squeeze for the juice in my existing portfolio. Personally, I do not take offense to the way SS goes about maximizing their profits. They are a publicly traded company and are required to act in the best interest of their shareholders, not their contributors. Until the demand for our images/footage exceeds the supply, the game is rigged against the contributor. If everyone with a Huntington Beach or Manhattan Beach pier image were to deactivate their accounts, I would have some true pricing power, so please go ahead and deactivate your account if you're in my market . PS- This was my first visit & post to the forums in 3+ years. I hope everyone is happy/healthy/staying safe!!
  3. I was referring to the piles of money and the image of the $100 that clearly violates SS terms
  4. There is no logic as to why some things get accepted and others get rejected. Don't get mad if you look at my port
  5. Only delete embarrassing self portraits that you took because you were bored and are now embarrassed of. Or if someone wants to purchase an exclusive use license for BIG $$$$$$$ (though you'll probably have to disclose that the image had been licensed previously as royalty free.)
  6. If you're images aren't selling we are all in deep deep trouble.
  7. If you're portfolio is failing to generate $5 a month, we should all stop uploading new images.
  8. Wildlife certainly isn't my specialty, but a lot of your images look like your are using an on-camera flash? It makes things look less natural IMHO. The image that Laurin posted appears to be using only natural light, which is why its more pleasing to the eye. I could be wrong (wouldn't be the the first time.)
  9. I do the same thing. I think I just got a 6gig for $150.
  10. If you can't identify which of your images have uneven lighting, then you're in trouble.
  11. SS def released a presser bragging about passing the 1 Billion mark.
  • Create New...