Jump to content

Wilm Ihlenfeld

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wilm Ihlenfeld

  1. These numbers seem to be a very optimistic estimation! ;-) Those 200.095.701 images is the stuff that makes shareholders happy. The rest is absolutely irrelevant. Very important as well: We now have thousands of new black shelf images, Number 5 images and outstanding puzzle images. And buyers like new stuff - not always those old leftovers. They will really be satisfied - that much is sure!
  2. This is a fantastic example, Maxal. Two weeks ago I tried to get one file accepted. Is is a vector emblem for the Oktoberfest 2018 in Munich including the actual data. Not accepted: "Similar content". Correct. Because I have already one file of this emblem in my portfolio: Oktoberfest 2016. Not every buyer might be able to exchange the circular typography with the data for 2018, so I thought that the file might probably be needed. I was wrong obviously!
  3. In Monaco the average income of any inhabitant is about 12.300 US$ per month. In the United States we talk about 5.000 US$ per month. In Peru the average monthly income is about 525 US$. In Bangladesh it is about 117 US$ per month. When you are able to make an income of 200 US$ per month by offering microstock images, your life should be pleasant in Bangladesh. In Madagascar you might be rated as a rich person. In Monaco this might be enough to have one good dinner for one person in an upper class restaurant. This is, what Alexandre is talking about: It depends, where you are living. And my answer is: Yes! I'm sure that there are many contributors making their income by offering images at microstock.
  4. Same here! @iNegar 96 Downloads in one day is fantastic with "only" 9 pages of images! But no wonder: Your vector work is absolutely impressing! Great work!
  5. You are right - those releases only seem to be necessary concerning 3D interiors: "Releases for 3D Interiors -- A property release must be submitted with each 3D interior rendering indicating the name of the software program used to create your submission and that you have the right to license content you create with the 3D rendering software. Read more about: Submitting Illustrations: 3D renderings of interior spaces." So I don't why shutterstock didn't accept your image.
  6. I can't answer your question because I'm not specialized in travel photography. But I like your photos and in my eyes they are very aesthetic and show high quality. Carry on this way and enlarge your beautiful portfolio. So in my opinion you don't have to improve your work. You'll have to enlarge it to be found among millions and millions of images (within a lot of them being worse than yours).
  7. Hmmm, I always write 3D rendering. I never added 3D illustration - although all images were accepted. New rules? But: What I always had to do to get the images accepted was to send a property release for every 3D image where I had to fill in the 3D software that I used to create the images. Did you upload such a property release, Molecular Arts?
  8. Curiosly I'm waiting for shutterstock's answer!
  9. Okay, I have misinterpreted those statistics. The data shows shutterstock's RPD and not the average RPD of contributors - I misread this. So of course it can be possible. I reverse myself!
  10. Do you all understand this that way that subscriptions are included in this $ 3.40 per download? I really can't imagine. I'm sure they must be excluded!
  11. This is interesting indeed, Mateusz! With a growth of 41.6% concerning image collection there is only an increase of 0.5% concerning paid downloads. What a bad proportionality. And - what really makes me wonder: RPD $ 3.40??? What they mean must be any download excluding subscriptions - otherwise this is not possible! My statistics in first quater of 2018 - without subscriptions: $ 2,28 in average per download (regarding several hundred On Demand and SOD downloads). I had no Enhanced Download in that three months! My SOD average in that three months is $ 1.73.
  12. Hi Tobias, as far as I know, the architecture/design of Frei Otto is protected. You need a permission to take photos of the architecture for commercial purpose. I think you can only upload this as editorial image. If you do so, you may not manipulate the images by deleting brands/logos.
  13. First of all let me repeat what I wrote, because it seems to me that some of you didn't take notice of that at all: "A good search result should show a well-balanced mixture of new, contemporary/trendy (popular) and design classics (relevant) at the same time." Freshness of course is important for a good search result mixture - no question. When I started here in 2010 I had a portfolio size of round about "fresh" 100 images. I would never have uploaded more images if I knew that those "fresh" images wouldn't have a chance to be established / to be found. And of course I'm glad, that I have a few "fresh" images - uploaded in 2017 - that sell up to eight times a day each - maybe they are "poplar" or maybe they are "relevant" meanwhile - I don't know. This is exceptional for me - regarding the development during the last years - but it still is possible! So I'm not against "fresh"! But: I fear a development in search algorithms that might lead to an inflation. What defines "fresh"? How long is an image "fresh"? Those images mentioned above took me many hours to create them. Would anybody here invest hours of work if images disappear after several weeks? After a dozen subscription downloads? Because new "fresh" stuff moves those "older fresh" images into the nirvana? I don't know what you are trying to achieve. For me it is easy to say: Created a "fresh" image and hope to be fortunate to make a "relevant" image out of it. And this has become almost unattainable in the last years. The algorithm and the masses of uploads stand against this.
  14. I think it's not that easy. You search new chairs for your living room in the web. A good search result should show a well-balanced mixture of new, contemporary/trendy (popular) and design classics (relevant) at the same time. Relevant in that case means: It shows chairs that have been sold millions of times all over the world - and still do! Which means that they must be "popular" as well. Arne Jacobsen, Eames, Thonet - should they disappear in the search results due to the argument that this makes "customers unhappy because they constantly got the "same old, same old", in front of them"??? If the "same old" obviously is designed so brilliantly that it still can sell millions of times - so it should still appear in the search results in my opinion (this doesn't include the f...ing copies!).
  15. Sirio, why do you do that? "...(which I never did)." Your images are good and you seem to know how to make "stocky" photos - no question. But: I only picked out one of your images - (1086743759) randomly - and found out that most of your keywords for this image are absolutely irrelevant or incorrect. So I can understand shutterstock and agree. Most of the keyword have got nothing to do with your image. It takes you time to take the photos and make them look like they do. You should afford some more minutes for each image to find out correct keywords. If you don't afford this time, you steal time from those people who are searching images here. This is what spamming means!
  16. Impressing portfolio, Magda! And those kitchen interiors are really great! I'm sure that they will sell very well.
  17. Yes, Laurin, an intense "house cleaning" would be more than great. But I agree: as long as shutterstock's earnings grow continuously this won't happen. Shareholder value counts - nothing else. 1.500.000 images a week is an incredible amount for me. And this means that it is almost impossible to get a new image into visibility - with a few exeptions. Adrian: I don't remember when SODs were introduced here. Here I started in the end of first half of November 2010. Only subscriptions and on demands, nothing else. But in that first month I had more downloads than in the whole March 2018 - at that time within only several dozens of images. Wish we could turn back time... However: Your decision to concentrate on microstock was courageous. Appreciation for this! I wish you another 10 years of success and satisfaction!
  18. Congratulations, Adrian! Well done and impressing portfolio! And it seem, that you have found a successful niche. 2008 must have been a fantastic time to start this business here. El Dorado or Yukon feeling...
  19. In Germany we call this "Schnapszahl". I hope translating it with repdigit is correct... Reached 55.555 downloads minutes ago...
  20. I know about a lot of rose breedings that are protected and may not be shot for commercial purpose.
  21. It might be good for shutterstock. How do you know if it IS good for shutterstock? An algorithm that is highlighting first of all fresh content is NOT good for (most) contributors. It means that spending time for creating an image won't bring a return on investment any longer. Every single image will loose its value. Fresh content will be replaced by fresher content in shorter periods. To make money you will have to upload more and more content. This hamster wheel effect will be bad for all who don't have the time to upload permanently. Only the huge and rapidly growing ports might profit.
  22. Yes, 3d max (including vray) or cinema 4d are much better tools in my opinion. And once more thank you very much!
  • Create New...