Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by balajisrinivasan

  1. Again, you're confusing independent buyers like yourself with the big corporates who make the most money for these agencies. I hate to put it this way but you're just an insignificant drop in the ocean compared to the money coming from these big accounts. You're never going to spend 250 dollars every month buying images. As for quality, despite the fact that some (or maybe even many) high quality pictures will disappear of a mountain or beach or millenials laughing at a table, there will still be many more in the database. And even if the quality goes way down, as long as the images serve the purpose, none of the big buyers are going to be unhappy. And like I said before, SS is the only site that makes money for many contributors, so many are unlikely to stop contributing, so ultimately the result of so many images disappearing off the database will be non existent.
  2. They won't. That's the biggest misconception of them all. Buyers go where they get relevant images at the most inexpensive price. I know this because I worked for years at a number of production houses who regularly bought images for their work. They always chose the cheapest option available. And quality of the image was always secondary to the price they paid. That's why SS and iS make the bulk of volume sales. Now, yes, some buyers will move because they care for contributors but most of them won't as long as SS provides them inexpensive image packs. The large volume packs are primarily bought by news websites and big corporates, neither of whom are going anywhere as long as they get images at the current low rates. To make them move, someone like Adobe will have to provide them a more attractive package and this is something they can't afford to do without hurting contributors.
  3. June scorecard - Alamy : 0 Adobe : 0 Dreamstime: 0 Deposit : 0 iStock : 6 Shutterstock : 17 And that's the sad truth. I don't like the "new earnings structure" and hate to see images go at 10 cents but for some of us, SS and iS are the only sites that make sales. Of course, this is different for different people. For me, Adobe has been a dud from the beginning despite having the same images there as SS. The smaller sites have sold almost nothing. So the brutal truth is, while it makes sense for a lot of contributors to disable ports here when they're selling elsewhere, some of us who only make sales majorly on SS have no choice but to stay put. Now feel free to hit the dislike button.
  4. Do you sell on the free version or the paid version?
  5. The rush of contributors to DT is only going to make the already terrible sales worse. Too much competition for too little pie.
  6. Shutterstock already has point 2 covered with Offset. That's where high quality content and content providers get selected and get to charge large sums of money for their work. The honest truth is, microstock is bargain basement work that doesn't quality for the premium quality sites. That's why images sell for dirt cheap (and by cheap I mean anything less than 50$ because that's what good quality images are worth). Even now, SS is the only site which has any quality standards in place. You can upload pretty anything anywhere else and it would be accepted because buyers mostly don't care about quality. They care about relevance. If they want pristine image quality, they'll never come to Shutterstock or other microstock sites because there are far better avenues for that. Which is why restricting smartphone pictures isn't a bright idea. Because they sell, an awful lot. Many of my mobile photos have fetched me more money than those taken with expensive DSLRs.
  7. Rejoining IS because getting 2 cents is better than 10 cents?
  8. Plenty of people. I'm guessing you aren't aware of the beautiful world of "free stock".
  9. I understand everyone is very angry but people need to stop knocking those who continue to upload. It's an independent choice just like the choice many people made not to upload images or delete their ports.
  10. Because even on a site like Shutterstock, you're getting images for cheap only if you're buying a pack of 350 or 750 images for which you pay 200-250 dollars a month. So if you need just one or two images, it isn't really very cheap. And sometimes, sites like Alamy offer better/similar deals for a single image than many of the microstock sites do. There's also the fact that once people are used to buying images from a site, they keep doing it and may not be aware of better deals available on other sites.
  11. Or click on "Monthly Earnings" and check "Past 6 months" and see how many downloads you have. Then check how many downloads you have in December. Then subtract.
  12. I spent over 10 years shooting pictures just because I love the process. I only began uploading images to stock websites last year. So my motivation is never going to change. I do it because I love it regardless of the money I make from it. But I guess I'm fortunate not to depend on it for income. For the people who do, I can understand why they might feel disheartened.
  13. I guess how much you earn is entirely dependent on the subscription package a customer buys. Looking at this table, there seems to be an opportunity to earn more from ODDs and the smaller sub packages. And I'm kinda OK with that. I guess we'll know tomorrow onwards what proportion of subs come from the large contracts. Fingers crossed.
  14. By the way, DT just increased royalties. That's how you win love in the middle of a pandemic. https://www.dreamstime.com/blog/dreamstime-love-54073
  15. What hurts particularly is, SS had made their review process a lot more stringent over the past few months, which meant contributors had to work extra hard and meticulously to get their work accepted. So they expected high quality work from the photographers who submit images BUT they're now going to be paying much less than they were paying them when they were accepting mediocre content. So SS wants to have their cake, eat it and kick you in the butt while they're at it. At least on IS, when they screwed contributors over, they accepted everything, regardless of image quality. They were at least being more honest. They paid us 2 cents but you could also upload any shitty picture you had without a problem.
  16. Didn't think it would happen so soon when I said this yesterday!
  17. This is how I see the interview for "Head of Pricing & Licensing" going. "How do you plan to make us more money?" "You're paying your contributors too much. Stop paying them so much." "BAM! You're hired!"
  18. It takes a while but like I said, I make sure I upload only images that I want to keep. So usually I leave the upload on for a night and they get done. I also shoot only images, so files are smaller. I find online back up a lot more reliable than a hard disk, having lost many of my images twice on external hard drives before. I also don't make enough money from this to invest in some of the fancier storage options being talked about. If I was doing video, online back up would be very cumbersome.
  19. Cloud storage, mostly OneDrive. I also save space by meticulously editing the images (usually two to three 64 gb cards full a day) down to just 10 to 20 percent of the images I shoot. Sometimes I regret deleting some of the images when I think about them but I find it better and more efficient than spending money on external drives all the time.
  20. Can you please post a watermarked version? You just need to copy the link image and paste it here.
  • Create New...