Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Firn

  1. As already explained, the data is incorrect and does not mean anything. For all we know the image cold have sold 10.000 times.
  2. When there are trademarks in an image, it does not matter whether they are the main focus of the image or not. You can only submit images containing trademarks as editorial.
  3. There was a thread where this was discussed already. Sadly the system seems to be flawed - all my images submitted in the past 12 months shows as having low popularity and never having been used, even my bestsellers, as some of my most successful images are form 2020. Images that sold far less often, but have been submitted in 2019 show as popular and often used. So right now this , whatever the purpose, is a system that basically gives wrong information to customers. Whether it motivates people to buy not used images or the other way around - I don't know. Some people here argue that
  4. @Milleflore Images I kind of feel like your e-mails aren't really helping the case. 😅 I understand you want to speak up for the guy, but at least for me, this makes it look like his whole stock business was rather a mess? And from what I understand you had your port up there, but twice since it was already up there through Depositphotos, so Jon removed your port from there again (After you had gone through the work of submitting your images) - And now he is asking Gunter to submit his photos there, but his port is also already up there through Depositphotos? It sounds a bit confusing and
  5. No, I am not sure. I thought I had read it somewhere, but maybe it was just my assumption because only the first 5 keyword fields were highlighted. In the MG forum Mat from Adobe himself says he thinks the first 10 are the most relevant, but not even he seems to know for sure? So who really knows? I wish microstock agencies wouldn't always make such a big secret out of how the order of search results are determined. One should think they would want us to know as detailed as possible, so we could present our images as good as possible.
  6. As others said, on SS keyword order does not matter. They re-shuffle the keywords in alphabetic order. However, I think that on Adobe only the order of the first 5 keywords matter, not the first 10.
  7. Ah, I remember this one. There was a thread about it in the MG forum once where it was discussed. https://www.[do_not_advertise_other_microstock_groups]/new-sites-general/stockphoto-com-36170/ It's a site by a guy who used up $250,000 of his family's savings to purchase the domain Stockphoto.com, because he thought with just this name alone he would rank No.1 on search platforms and it would be an guaranteed success without having to do any promotion work. Looks like that did not work out if he is approaching contributors directly and making such desperate offers. How you decide is up t
  8. I think the ranking only gets displayed if you have a rank lower than 40.000. At least that was when the ranking showed up for me for the first time after I joined Adobe.
  9. No, it is not against the rules to edit photos, unless it is an editorial usage only photo. In this case photos might not be edited in a way to change the context of the photo.
  10. I am at position 13.150 right now, but I don't know what position I was in May 20. I think something around 18.000-20.000? I just checked and my download number for Jan-May 20 was actually lower than Jan-May 21, but my earnings were more. So I would conclude that the position ranking is considering download numbers instead of earnings, thus my improved ranking despite lower earnings. But it doesn't make sense that you have dropped in position despite more downloads. I can't make sense of this position system.
  11. Adobe was doing well for me until around middle of last year. Like with all microstock sites I take part in I kept expanding my portfolio and my earnings keep rising. With small income sites the rise was obviously less noticeable, but Adobe is, or was, one of my top 3 earners. For a brief moment it was even my best earner. But then something seems to have changed for me on Adobe. My earnings keep stagnating for months and then the trend started to be even going downwards. More than on any other agency I seem not to be able to rally sell new content. Most of my sales are from files I uploaded
  12. No, of course size is not an issue if the photo is in focus. But if your photo is in focus, your image will not get rejected for focus. No matter how often people here tell "but my photos are in focus", whenever someone posts a 100% size version of it, in 95% of all cases it turnes out the photo was not in focus. Some people don't seem to see it. I don't know why. But a photo with a soft focus that would have been rejected in large size can possibly get though the review process if sized down as the soft focus becomes less noticeable.
  13. As said above, if you are a company who doesn't want to use the same photos as your competition, you are probably not buying your photos on microstock. At least you should not....
  14. I would think that something is fishy about a product, vacuum cleaner or whatever it may be, if it has been on the market for months and no one bought it. But maybe that's just me? The problem here is also that SS does not tell customers whether an image is less than one year old or not. It would be better if, instead of showing "not used yet" or "not popular" with newer images even if they have sold hundreds of times, they would just honestly say "image not old enough to provide data".
  15. I think if that's a real concern for a company, then microstock probably is not the place where they look for photos in the first place. I think as a customer I'd rather stay away from images that have no or low polarity and, according to SS, haven't sold, because I would automatically think "What's wrong with this photo? I thought it looked good, but if no one else liked it enough to purchase it, there must be something wrong and I better stay away from it". Just think about it, no matter what product, who would feel motivated to buy something where the shop is basically telling yo
  16. There appears to be some kind of logo on the tuck on the right side. That's all I could spot.
  17. My mistake. When you said that downsizing images makes no difference for you, I must have wrongly assumed that you must have a reasonable amount of data to make that statement.
  18. I could not see it anymore as well this morning, but it's back by now.
  19. Or maybe they aren't? Must be a reason why you get many images rejected on the first or second try while other people don't have such problems 🤷‍♀️
  20. In this case the focus and noise issue in your photos must be so severe that downsizing isn't enough to fix it and you need to find a way to reduce noise and make sharp photos with your camera from the start. It sounds harsh, but it's not meant that way, but honest advice. If you take care to use the proper camera settings, upload not in original size and fix noise issues in areas where it is necessary, rejections for focus or noise will be a rarity.
  21. Payment is sent between the 7th and 15th, sometimes a few days earlier. https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/How-do-I-get-paid-for-my-work?language=en_US
  22. In Photoshop you open your image and in the menu bar you go to image -> image size. Make sure pixel are selected and enter 2500 in the "width" field and then save your image again.
  23. No, not crop. Your images are very large, 6.000px × 4.000px size. But all you need is 2.500px on the wides side. That's enough for Shutterstock. And the smaller the image is, the less soft focus becomes noticable. It depends on what graphic program you are using. You just open the image in it and there should be an option somewhere, usually when you save the image, but I can't tell you where to find it without knowing what program it is.
  24. You can calculate it by using your level. For example, if you are level 1 you get 15% of what the customer paid. 0.38$ are 15% of 2,53$, so that's how much the image was sold for.
  25. I've seen worse examples for focus problems for sure, but yeah, if looking at these photos in 100% size, there is always some part of the object that is not in focus. There are images where selective focus is okay and gets through the review process, but usually when you take a photos with many objects then it's okay for not all of them to be in focus as long as the main subject of the photo is on focus. But since you are photographing single objects they should be completely sharp. My suggestion to fix this issue: There is really no reason why you would need to submit your photos in s
  • Create New...