Jump to content

Rudy Umans

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rudy Umans

  1. 5 hours ago, balajisrinivasan said:

    Thank you. Earlier, I wrote a comment in this thread trying to say something similar to what you said in your two comments here but deleted it because people were getting (maybe justifiably) very angry and began reacting aggressively. But you've articulated what I wanted to say far better than I could. So very grateful to your rational, level-headed point of view.

    Thank you! That is very kind.

  2. 13 hours ago, KeremGogus said:

    Thank you so much, I panicked and raised my minimum payment to $500 to avoid transfer to my payoneer. And then I found this following article which things "suppose to" run smoothly - whatever that means.

    And I changed my minimum payment to $35 again. You think this can affect getting my payment from this month? I'll try to ask support too if I can reach anyone.

    I also hardly process English language because of anxiety, does this sounds like a good news? https://blog.payoneer.com/exclusive/wirecard-in-the-news-funds-on-your-payoneer-card-are-safe-and-secure/

    sounds like other people answered your question already

    That the assets are frozen is a normal procedure with bankruptcies. I am sure there is a court appointed forensic accounting firm that needs time to figure things out and come up with accurate and independent financial statements so the court can proceed with the bankruptcy procedure.  The bad news is, this might take a while and remember the government (taxes) and the court get paid before everybody else. 

  3. 52 minutes ago, KeremGogus said:

    On my account payment I get first show up on card balance and then I'm able to withdraw to my local bank account. In their Facebook page, many customers saying everything is frozen and they can't even withdraw to their bank accounts.

    I'm an old customer of Payoneer from Turkey. I had to switch because PayPal is banned. I had to get the card for receiving any payment and added my bank account later.

    I don't know what to do right now, its my only option. And this was a good month for me... I'm spending my earnings to my parents. :(

    Very sorry about all this Kerem. I wish I had a solution.

    I was confused I guess because it said that the card balance was frozen, but not the "virtual currency balance".

  4. 2 hours ago, Paulo Rocha said:

    He may be a talented professional and a successful business man, but it's becoming evident to anyone that he is showing arrogance, greed, and lack of consideration for the contributors that he should see as partners. Therefore he lost my respect.

    That's your prerogative

    I just wanted to remind the poster I replied to that without him, none of us would have been here in the first place, none of us would have had the opportunity to make a few dollars (while it lasted), and only a limited number would have had the chance to enter the image stock market that was in place before microstock to begin with.  

    Some of the comments on his twitter account were just uncalled for and he lost it for a moment. So what? I probably would have reacted the same way as he did. We probably all would have if people push you long and hard enough. Just read these forums up to about a few months ago. That should tell you something.  

    Regardless, calling somebody (bad) names is always uncalled for.

    That's all. Everybody else's opinion might differ. (wouldn't be the first time)

  5. 9 hours ago, Tony Dunn said:

    This boss on twitter sounds like an arrogant moron not fit to be a CEO of anything yet alone an art & photo agency. Does this idiot realise that these pitiful new rates just aren't viable for the majority of contributors. certainly not creating new content. I actualy graduated in graphic art & design in the 80's but in the pre digital era when it was worthwhile . One of the problems though is that the internet with its easy downloads has cheapened digital media & content in which the micro stock agencies are mainly to blame. BUT it gives this new CEO NO RIGHT to take it out on contributors. 

    He is the founder of SS. He alone introduced the subscription model that practically started the microstock industry that changed the image stock market forever (and then some). He created the microstock industry 

    He is originally a programmer that wrote, and successfully marketed, a computer security program. He was also a hobbyist photographer. He put 2 and 2 together and Shutterstock was born and in less than 15 years took it to a multi billion dollar company. Hardly a moron I would say. 

    And although I do not appreciate this latest move and how and why it was done by Shutterstock, I personally appreciate it even less if people start calling him names. (Or anybody for that matter). 


  6. 2 hours ago, Daniel Eskridge said:

    Is anyone else getting a huge number of 10 cent sales today?   I normally only have 20-30 downloads a day.  It's only 11am and I'm already approaching 200, but they are all 10 cent (at level 5) sales from India.

    Coming soon to a flea market near you (or somewhere in SE Asia).................

  7. I average this month $.54 per download at tier 3, which is about $.50 less than before.

    However, this is meaningless for me. I am interested in 3 things that we cannot know yet (it hasn't happened yet)

    a) Earnings January 2021 when we start over at tier 1

    b) How long it takes to get back to tier 3 (my guess is 6 months since I stopped uploading)

    and c) earnings over whole 2021

    in short, not before the end of December 2021 I would know what the effect is (so far It doesn't look good. It's heading in the wrong direction)


  8. I just repeat here what I posted in Steven Tritton's thread about the future


    The reason SS survived this long is because they knew and know how to sell better than anyone and diversity in their businesses. Especially not in the beginning, they were not a media company, there were a tech company. They still are. This thirst for new technology, ,marketing, and diversity kept kept them ahead of the competition 

  9. There never was a sustainable future. This industry was dying since the day the subscription model was introduced. 

    The reason SS survived this long is because they knew and know how to sell better than anyone and diversity in their businesses. Especially not in the beginning, they were not a media company, there were a tech company. They still are. This thirst for new technology, ,marketing, and diversity kept kept them ahead of the competition 

  10. 14 hours ago, Conny Skogberg said:

    We Contributors are reffered to as just Contibutors. We put up our content as a contribution to SS and get payed in return.

    I tough would argue that we are in fact consumers.

    SS provides a service they give us a platform to sell our media and in return we pay them a percentage of the sales sum.

    Perhaps if we would rethink this Contributor, stock site, buyer paradigm and start looking at stocksites as serviceproviders and our selfs as consumers it would be much clearer that as a consumer you really cant accept any deal the seller (service provider) gives.

    For all other services a consumer would just look for another service provider to turn to if we no longer find the deals acceptable.

    For eg you should use a contractor to renovate you hous you would typicaly use those who give good value service for the money you pay them. If a contractor raises the price to high you would go somewhere else.

    I think all consumers of the SS service would rethink if it arent better to find anohter provider of the service we consume. The price just got to high for this service.

    What do you think?

    We are the service providers, not SS, and sites like this one are nothing but an outlet for our services

    Like merchandizing in a grocery store.  A grocery store offers shelf space to a small local baker to sell their cookies. By doing so, the grocery store provides an opportunity for the baker to sell their cookies so the baker can concentrate on making the most delicious cookies and the grocery store takes care of the rest. The store does most of the advertising and makes a reasonable effort to bring in the customers to buy the baker's cookies. In exchange the grocery store wants 30% of the profit of every cookie that baker has put on the shelves, which the baker finds reasonable considering the profitable return.

    Now one morning the baker wakes up only to find out that the grocery store wants 80% of the profit of every cookie all of a sudden. What is this baker going to do................?

    We are that baker.

  11. 11 hours ago, Milleflore Images said:

    Oops, sorry, Rudy, I should have made 2 posts. A short one in reply to you, and the rest for general info for everyone else.

    Yes, I know you're very familiar with FAA - a lot more than me!

    it doesn't matter really who is more familiar with what.  We all know things and we are all here to help each other.

    One thing though, Pixels offers all the products, FAA does not. 

    I happen to like FAA and I don't mind talking about it, although I know very well they are not without problems and there are certain things there I really don't like, but I don't worry about those too much. Can't change them anyway.

    got to go now, my tablet is dying

  12. 2 hours ago, Milleflore Images said:

    I can kind of understand this Rudy and appreciate your advice. But from reading all of the comments above, I am starting to think that there are two ways to use FAA. One, is where you put up all your best artistic work and aim for wall art sales. Matt Gibson's stunning artwork is a great example of this.

    Or you can treat it as purely another POD site and go for all the product sales. I know people with both types of work (Very commercial vs highly artistic) who have done very well there. 

    My port definitely leans towards the commercial side, but I still make some wall art sales like this one yesterday. The artists there may think its criminal. lol



    These are my observations. It appears that the Pixels.com move (my link above on page 2 and below is from 2016) when they decided then to become more commercial. At first by separating the two, BUT that was 4 years ago and nowadays all products are available for purchase on both sites, from what I can see.

    Either way, I think people can profit from either the Pixels side of things or the traditional Fine Art America depending on their style.


    Here is the link:




    Congratulation on your sale. That is always nice.

    I understand and can appreciate your point of view. It is just that for me the two don't mix. I have mixed feelings about all those accessories. sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Overall I think that sites like Zazzle and Redbubble (that is Australian btw ) are more suitable for that kind of thing.  Many people I know on FAA love those products though.

    FAA is a mixed batch. Some of the work you find there is out of this world so good and some is entry level.  (not unlike Microstock)

    Thank you for all that Pixel info,  but I am very familiar with FAA/pixels. Been with FAA since 2011, know quite a  number of people there. Abbie and I are (internet) friends and I was a moderator on their forums for a short while (hated it). Now shutterstock is coming to an end for me, I probably spend even more time there than I already do right now, which is OK. 

    I sell on other art site too. One in Europe and a few in the US and I have an Amazon Handmade sellers account/store, but FAA is my main outlet and I sell more on FAA/Pixels than on all the other outlets combined.

  13. 25 minutes ago, HodagMedia said:

    I don't understand? Stock is photos, FAA is POD. Why would having the same images on SS and FAA create a credibility problem?


    Because you can't sell the same image for $0.10, or whatever, here and for a few hundred dollars elsewhere

    It might not matter in the MS world, but in the art world, and FAA is still part of the art world, consistency is key. (not just my opinion)

    Some people say, different buyers, different markets, but that is not always true

  14. 56 minutes ago, Blue Corner Studio said:

    Thanks for the reply Rudy. It was a bit "suspicious" that the quality of your monochromes were just out if this world (contrast, clean edges, etc.). It just didn't click in that you are shooting on film! Now it all makes sense. Last time I used Ilford was about 40 years ago when/if I could afford it : ). Some memories in the darkroom! Like realizing at 5 a.m. that I spent the night in there and "forgot" to sleep!

    Thanks Blue, but not all my monochromes are on film. Most are actually not at this point. As a matter of fact, some of my best b/w sellers were done with a little rx100 mk2.  (I get 60 inch prints out of that thing) I must say though that I haven't touched my DSLR in some time. Thinking about selling the damn thing for an M6, but If I do I think I will be sorry, so maybe not yet. lol. 


  15. 6 hours ago, Blue Corner Studio said:

    "My artsy pinhole and film stuff" : ). a good one. you have an excellent collection at FAA Rudy! really impressive. Lucky for you to have access to such "commercially attractive" architecture! Now, ignore me if you feel that I am prying. By no means am I trying to drag trade secrets out of you (!), but are you using Silver Efex for you B & Ws? they look sharp. and definitale "clean" as you put it. cool job! 

    Thank you and yes SIlverEfex and the paint brush in PS for the digital stuff. Film is B/W film, Mainly Ilford, with very little post processing. Some Dodging and burning what you would do in the darkroom

  16. Two more things, it is my personal opinion that you have to be careful uploading the same images on Microstock and FAA  (POD in general). If buyers find out, you  might lose your credibility.

    I am for 99% sure that most of my buyers there are commercial. In my case from horse racetracks to restaurants to offices

  17. 3 hours ago, Milleflore Images said:

    Here is mine (which is also attached to my contributor account here so it can drive sales both ways**) so you can see what the new front end looks like. https://milleflore-images.pixels.com/

    Fanclub or not Annie, you have a new follower there.

    FAA is my home away from home and my main outlet. I don't direct people to my FAA site directly, I direct them to my Rudy Umans imaging website, but the purchase page there directs to FAA and Amazon. (www.rudyumans.com. I know! Shameless plug, but what is SS gonna do? Kick me out?) 

    Like many other sites, FAA uses certain parameters to move you up in the search. I don't know all of those, but I do know some, and I know that sales moves you up faster and higher in the search than anything else. Sales triggers sales.  Other than that, also like everywhere else, keywords and good descriptions are key. 

    Buyers on FAA also like generally speaking, clean images. My artsy pinhole and film stuff rarely sells. (I wish I wish) My lighthouses, Everglades pictures, industrial, and architecture on the other hand are doing well.

  • Create New...