Jump to content

Wilm Ihlenfeld

Members
  • Content Count

    1,619
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wilm Ihlenfeld

  1. They don't want to know the problem with rejections. I had written that somewhere else in the forum. This comment has disappeared.
  2. I love Brittany, but have not been there for a very long time. Since we decided in Corona times not to use an airplane in the near future, we have Brittany in our sights as our next vacation destination. Anyway: A nice photo! It is easy to see that you have mastered the craft of photography. I haven't uploaded an image here since the end of May. But before that I was annoyed several times, because I too had images rejected because of noise. Photos that would never have been rejected before. From my point of view the HI (Human intelligence) had done a better job in the past than today the AI. Also because they did not only pay attention to noise or Out of Focus, but also to the potential commercial value of an image. Today, every image that is technically ok goes through, even if it is useless in terms of content or aesthetics. But the flood of images is now so immense that the review can no longer be done with a HI. The mistake of the past was in my opinion that they abolished the contributor review. In the past you had to upload 10 images (I don't remember the number exactly) to prove that you know the job to make a good photo. With the abolition of this preliminary examination shutterstock has opened doors and gates for the daily flood of pictures.
  3. It seems that ODs, Enhanced and SODs have been abolished. Yesterday's RPD for 24 DLs = $0,14. If you extrapolate this to one month, with 744 downloads you would get a monthly income of $104. Level 5 is really worth it. 😫
  4. Luisa, I don't know how much the pictures here in this preview are compressed. But the sky has steps in the preview image. It is not a clean blue gradient. If this concerns only this preview picture, then you shouldn't care about my statement. Anyway: Why do you bother? If shutterstock doesn't want the photos, offer them somewhere else. Why invest the time to upload the images again and again if there are no problems elsewhere? Why reward shutterstock with double the effort if they pay 10 cents later? Especially the first image is really beautiful. Simply because I could imagine spending a holiday in exactly this bay - wherever it is. Regardless of the fact that the hydrangeas/wisterias are not perfect. We took ours from the balcony and planted them in the garden because they looked just as bad. We will see next year whether this will be of any use. But don't be annoyed with the AI from shutterstock! There are so many other agencies with more appreciation.
  5. The microstock business has certainly become generally more difficult - no question about that. But at shutterstock it's really as miserable as no other agency. Now the situation has certainly worsened significantly due to Corona. But I can see from other agencies that buyers are willing to spend money after all. So Corona alone cannot be the problem. When I compare it, my situation looks like this in September: shutterstock vs. AS 50% more downloads at shutterstock compared to AS 266% more income at AS compared to shutterstock Or, to put it in other terms: RPD at shutterstock: $0.48 RPD at AS: $1.94 This is four times the value of shutterstock. I readily admit that this does not correspond to the average of my respective RPD. But since the new revenue structure I get at least 2.5 times that at AS. And these are not the figures that keep shutterstock busy. Because they still get the same for our files. They simply keep more for themselves. And that in corona times. It is and remains a mess!
  6. Sorry, Doug, but this calculation does not work in the medium and long term. Because you'll need 10,000 downloads soon - and you won't get them as the amount of video increases steadily.
  7. My calculation of the hourly wage differs significantly from Doug's calculation. But we already talked about this years ago. I include the time I need to create a picture. Although I enjoy creating a picture too. If I didn't have the fun, I wouldn't do it either. My RPI/year at shutterstock is now the same as Doug's. Only 5 years ago, it was twice as much only at shutterstock. The RPI at shutterstock has dropped twice as much as the other agencies. And will fall even more sharply than at the other agencies because of the new earnings structure. I can imagine that this will also apply to videos. At what point it no longer makes sense, everyone has to decide for themselves. The keywording etc. at different agencies also annoys me. I also hate this job. On the other hand, from my point of view Doug could make well over $100,000 per year if he were to supply several agencies. But maybe one can't just transfer that. It's different for everyone.
  8. I'd be interested in your RPI per year if you count all agencies together. And I'd be interested about the development of RPD/RPI for videographers at shutterstock since the introduction of the new earning structure, Doug.
  9. I guess 10 years ago it was much more than $5 for really good ports. I'm sure to know samples of portfolios with an RPI of approx. $70/image/year - only here at shutterstock (and without videos). But you are right - that belongs to the past.
  10. Hmmm... "$ 35 and above revenues each month" Let's say it's a bit more than $40 per month = approx. $500 per year A bit more than 10,000 images and 500 videos = 10,500 files results in an RPI of less than $0.05/image/year. Or is my calculation wrong, Alexandre?
  11. Yes, you are right! There was a time .... it's long ago. Thank you anyway for trying to revive the old humor. You have succeeded!
  12. I guess it is not normal. I have already been paid yesterday (which is quite early).
  13. Yes, that's correct - he was. Phil Lowe as well and several others.
  14. He is still in "exile" and has no indication of how long this will last. But he sends his best regards to the forum.
  15. Dear Rudy, Thank you for your extremely fair and accommodating offer. A good $350 for a hand brush and dustpan is truly a bargain - especially since it is a museum heirloom. Unfortunately, my shutterstock income has dropped so much that I can't even afford such a bargain anymore. So I have to step back and hope for your understanding for my precarious situation. Many greetings, Wilm
  16. Yes, Evgeniia, this is a correct example. That is also the reason why I had written there "Yes, but you have understood how travel photography must look like". DaLiu knows how stock photos should look like. From my point of view, potential buyers have thousands of thumbnails to view. Even the small presentation must be attractive and "readable". If I don't recognize on the thumbnail what the image is about, I have a problem as a seller. And it has to look attractive to me in a split second. In addition, not every buyer can edit/postprocess an image. Those who can, and who find an image "overfiltered" or too dynamic, can adjust the image to their liking and reduce everything again if they wish. In my opinion, this is one of the problems of liam. On many of the thumbnails you can't see what it's all about. "Wild flowers at the lake": I don't see any flowers there. Even if I zoom in I have to search the flowers. Or "Close up lake shore raining": The image is sad, sort of depressing, I don't recognize much in the thumbnail and I wonder if what is shown in the foreground is interesting. Why should someone buy such a photo? This is the key question I have to ask myself as a photographer. When I go to a lake, I am usually interested in the lake, not the mud in the foreground. And if I make a tourist website, or a travel guide from the region: Do I attract tourists with it? Not from my perspective. 50% lake shore in a sad mood with rain, 20% lake, 15% lake shore opposite, 20% sky that is almost completely white. But if I want to transport the subject of rain, there must be rain, which I hardly can recognize either. Or I see a wooden fence at the lake. 50% of the image is meadow, but the meadow is sick because I see more brown earth than grass. I can hardly see the lake either, because the camera is positioned much too low. Or calm before the storm: I see yellowed reeds. There is no trace of signs of a storm. How could there be? There is hardly any sky to be seen in the photo. Liam: I think there are different approaches: - extraordinary landscapes with a unique atmosphere - sunset, sunrise, fog, low angle sun... - recognizable conceptual content - niche photography None of the three criteria I see in your images. And that is exactly where, in my view, the core problem lies. And one more sentence about niche photography: Even if there were no other photographer who photographed the bark of an elm tree, you still wouldn't sell many pictures of it, because in my opinion there is very little demand for it. Maybe for an encyclopedia or a specialized database - that's it.
  17. Sorry, Deb, but I can't open the attached image. But this is of secondary importance. The main thing is that copyright violations are prosecuted.
  18. There was the post last week where someone asked what was selling. I asked this person if she was aware that she must have created all the images herself. The post was gone the next day. I guess it was deleted by her. Now I looked again: The whole portfolio is deleted. This indicates that shutterstock does take the copyright violations seriously after all.
  19. Rudy, it would be great to get some detailed information about shipping costs to Germany. And: Could you please describe the condition of the hand brush and dustpan a little better? In Corona times we have to save money and my wife is always complaining when I invest in the wrong things that are no longer proper. And one more question: You presented it in a way that I can only buy on demand. Is there also a subscription plan? 10 cents per listed position is enough for you, isn't it? Otherwise I would look around at freehouseholdequipment.com - there I get all the stuff for free. I only would have to tell the name of the seller when using the toilet brush. But I'm willing to do that in Corona times – as long as I can save money..
  20. No, thank you very much for asking, Debbie, but I'm still here.
×
×
  • Create New...