MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is Shutterstock for real???  (Read 32160 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« on: October 09, 2015, 09:40 »
+17
WOWSER!!! I am an IS exclusive with well over 100,000 downloads and well over 3,000 images online. I have well over 1,000 images on GI as a house contributor. I have made my living full time from stock for 25+ years. I have worked for some top name magazines as a regular contributor. I have done several ad campaigns. I have won awards for my work. I have coffee table books to my credit etc. etc. etc. and blah blah blah...

I thought I would test the water's and consider the world of being non-exclusive and start with Shutterstock. What a joke that turned out to be. 10 submissions, and 9 rejected for reasons that baffle me. How is it even technically possible to have a shot "out of focus" when it is shot on one of the top end cameras locked down on a tripod at f/8? < 7 out of the 10 for that reason alone. The other reasons were totally bizarre as well. Three of the images for lack of composition???

Needless to say I won't be going with that agency. You lost me and you lost me fast baby.

Again all that comes to mind on this rejection is WOWSER.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 17:33 by Rose Tinted Glasses »


wds

« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2015, 09:53 »
0
The "sharpness" thing is definitely kind of wacky. Some reviewers seem to reject for "not in focus" on images that are clearly quite sharp. Just sharpen them more to the point of verging on being oversharpened.

« Reply #2 on: October 09, 2015, 10:01 »
+7
If you're an exclusive, how did you test the "water's" at SS?

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #3 on: October 09, 2015, 10:18 »
+7
If you're an exclusive, how did you test the "water's" at SS?

Pretty simple Sean, I uploaded 10 images as the starting process to "qualify" then I could make the next move if approved. But the next move from them was Check Mate so I will simply stay exclusive - seriously I won't sacrifice what I have for the incompetence of what I was just dealt. If I was a complete newbie I would have felt hurt and had all of my little bubbles popped, but I have been in this game longer than you and I can only say WOWSER. Unfuckingbelievable indeed.


Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #4 on: October 09, 2015, 10:20 »
+1
The "sharpness" thing is definitely kind of wacky. Some reviewers seem to reject for "not in focus" on images that are clearly quite sharp. Just sharpen them more to the point of verging on being oversharpened.

That is simply too quircky for me. The images were fine and totally in focus. Shutterstock has shown me they are not the  agency for me.

« Reply #5 on: October 09, 2015, 10:22 »
+20
I don't think making or breaking on an entrance exam will tell you much.

Want to post the 10?

« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2015, 10:25 »
+12
There is a reviewer at SS who rejects everything except 1 photo. You probably stumbled on him.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2015, 10:31 »
+7
I can understand the frustration. If you're a pro and 9 out of 10 of your images are rejected by a clueless reviewer, you have that to look forward to with every submission. The process is so capricious there I now double upload everything just in case. That way I can just click a button to resubmit. Unfortunately, that means their simple upload process is made more complicated and time-consuming. (Not as time-consuming or complicated as FT or iS, however.)

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2015, 10:38 »
+4
I don't think making or breaking on an entrance exam will tell you much.

Want to post the 10?

I passed the entrance exam 25+ years ago. Putting on training wheels at this point in my career is not really the direction I want to focus on. I am amused at the rejection.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #9 on: October 09, 2015, 10:40 »
0
I can understand the frustration. If you're a pro and 9 out of 10 of your images are rejected by a clueless reviewer, you have that to look forward to with every submission. The process is so capricious there I now double upload everything just in case. That way I can just click a button to resubmit. Unfortunately, that means their simple upload process is made more complicated and time-consuming. (Not as time-consuming or complicated as FT or iS, however.)

I don't know about FT, but the process at Istock is seamless, just use deepmeta and zing it's done.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2015, 10:45 »
+2
There is a reviewer at SS who rejects everything except 1 photo. You probably stumbled on him.

Rejection in general is part of daily life at Getty Images, you submit 10 images and they take 1-3 at best. Usually the rejection is based on an edit and accepting the best in the series. I only submit technically sound work, and to have my work rejected at Shutterstok on grounds of "out of focus" is laughable.

« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2015, 10:51 »
+11
SS brings in about 1/5 of my income.  If I threw a fit and didn't try to work into the system, I'd be missing out.

Even if you had the 10 approved though, that wouldn't tell you anything about whether to drop exclusivity.

« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2015, 10:58 »
+5
WOWSER!!! I am an IS exclusive with well over 100,000 downloads and well over 3,000 images online. I have well over 1,000 images on GI as a house contributor. I have made my living full time from stock for 25+ years. I have worked for some top name magazines as a regular contributor. I have done several ad campaigns. I have won awards for my work. I have coffee table books to my credit etc. etc. etc. and blah blah blah...

I thought I would test the water's and consider the world of being non-exclusive and start with Shutterstock. What a joke that turned out to be. 10 submissions, and 9 rejected for reasons that baffle me. How is it even technically possible to have a shot "out of focus" when it is shot on one of the top end cameras locked down on a tripod at f/8? < 7 out of the 10 for that reason alone. The other reasons were totally bizarre as well. Three of the images for lack of composition??? Tell that to over 5,000 downloads at Istock.

Needless to say I won't be going with that agency. You lost me and you lost me fast baby.

Again all that comes to mind on this rejection is WOWSER.

I feel your pain. Getting old GI photos accepted by SS is a huge pain in a@@.
I had to re-process them in order to pay attention to what I know SS is nowadays very strict about. I am half way through. I have to admit that some of those 4 years old photos really need a re-process :)
Nevertheless, the approval process is chaotic, indeed. Some photos require 2 or even 3 attempts to get them through.
So I can't imagine how long it could take to re-process 3k photos.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 11:18 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2015, 11:09 »
0
There is no way SS doesn't want you.  I remember when Istock lost it's exclusives enmasse a couple years ago they asked you to contact someone directly and I think it was a more or less direct pass once they saw the Istock port.

Anyone know if there is a name that Rose should contact?  Was it the Anthony guy who used to be in charge of editorial?

« Reply #14 on: October 09, 2015, 11:10 »
+2
RCG, You're experiencing a common problem. I just went through a similar situation at P5 with images. Drove me crazy.

« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2015, 11:11 »
0
I am not sure if you had a chance to look into this thread initiated by Scott Braut when he was at SS (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock/) which was about 2.5 years ago. It mentions a blog entry (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock) which is still there. There is an email id ([email protected]) that is mentioned. I don't know if it is still active.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2015, 11:50 »
+9
SS brings in about 1/5 of my income.  If I threw a fit and didn't try to work into the system, I'd be missing out.

Even if you had the 10 approved though, that wouldn't tell you anything about whether to drop exclusivity.


I am not throwing a fit. I was simply testing the water's, and I failed the test, or I should say Shutterstock failed the test. Either way, I still make very decent returns over at Istock and Getty Images and all this has proven to me is that I don't want to give up 5/10 of my income  from Istock for this travesty in hopes of making it back. I can't run the risk of having 90% of  my work rejected for silly reasons. Remove the logo I understand, but out of focus on a top end professional camera with top end professional prime lenses locked down?

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-reviewers-beating-me-up-anyone-else/ here is 37 pages of people throwing a fit, or so I thought. This seems to be the norm, and it's a dance that I don't want to do. Sure before I thought it was a laughable post, but now from personal experience I can say I want nothing to do with it.

Risking a reduction of several thousand dollars a month inicome is not worth the risk in hopes to maybe get my images accepted and recoup that income.

The experiment failed and that is hardly throwing a fit.


« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2015, 11:59 »
+3
Good to know that it's not only with us beginners. I am just starting and as a test to see how it goes, I selected 100 images to upload to DT, IS and SS. DT accepted 100, IS 80 and SS 18.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2015, 12:00 »
+5
WOWSER!!! I am an IS exclusive with well over 100,000 downloads and well over 3,000 images online. I have well over 1,000 images on GI as a house contributor. I have made my living full time from stock for 25+ years. I have worked for some top name magazines as a regular contributor. I have done several ad campaigns. I have won awards for my work. I have coffee table books to my credit etc. etc. etc. and blah blah blah...

I thought I would test the water's and consider the world of being non-exclusive and start with Shutterstock. What a joke that turned out to be. 10 submissions, and 9 rejected for reasons that baffle me. How is it even technically possible to have a shot "out of focus" when it is shot on one of the top end cameras locked down on a tripod at f/8? < 7 out of the 10 for that reason alone. The other reasons were totally bizarre as well. Three of the images for lack of composition??? Tell that to over 5,000 downloads at Istock.

Needless to say I won't be going with that agency. You lost me and you lost me fast baby.

Again all that comes to mind on this rejection is WOWSER.

I feel your pain. Getting old GI photos accepted by SS is a huge pain in a@@.
I had to re-process them in order to pay attention to what I know SS is nowadays very strict about. I am half way through. I have to admit that some of those 4 years old photos really need a re-process :)
Nevertheless, the approval process is chaotic, indeed. Some photos require 2 or even 3 attempts to get them through.
So I can't imagine how long it could take to re-process 3k photos.

I have success processing my images once so processing them 2-50 times in hopes of getting them accepted is too time consuming. I'd really rather be out shooting or doing other things than sitting on the computer processing the same image multiple times to please a bipolar reviewer at Shutterstock.

I am a shoot, process, upload kind of guy. I don't fret about rejection and rarely if ever resubmit any rejections as I generally have faith in the process. But this rejection was simply over the top in my opinion.

Again, if I was a newbie I'd be in tears, but this is amusing.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2015, 12:01 »
0
Good to know that it's not only with us beginners. I am just starting and as a test to see how it goes, I selected 100 images to upload to DT, IS and SS. DT accepted 100, IS 80 and SS 18.

Based on your 100 as a beginner you are doing better than me, they would have only taken 10 of mine. :)


« Reply #20 on: October 09, 2015, 12:32 »
+4
Either way, I still make very decent returns over at Istock and Getty Images and all this has proven to me is that I don't want to give up 5/10 of my income  from Istock for this travesty in hopes of making it back.

I believe you'd give up a lot more than 5/10ths.  If it's working, stick with it.

« Reply #21 on: October 09, 2015, 13:06 »
+5
The rejections on SS are beyond weird. they have threads of complaints a mile long in their forums, but there doesnt seem to be any improvement.

If I do bother to upload photos to SS these days, I downsize 36 MP files to 6 MP and increase contrast very much. They like eye popping images that just jump at you from the screen.

However, i really like them for video, fast inspections, hardly any rejections, good sales, sometimes better than pond5. Its like working with a different agency.

Maybe this is one way for you to try the many different agencies - do video first and get to know the different players. You will lessen your exposure to istock/getty but keep the steady returns from your photo income.

Also rebuilding your positions on any new agency with millions of files takes a lot of time. I have some bestsellers on SS and could probably expand that niche significantly, but I find that supplying high end photo agencies gives me better returns and is a lot less work.

But for video I fully recommend them.

If you do want to consider leaving istock, I would contact Blendimages, offset, stocksy etc...or any other macrostock house. Also increase your getty house portfolio. content that is expensive to produce is not getting enough downloads on the micros to make it worthwhile IMO. If you are an established pro and keep feeding into your port, it maybe different, but if you are coming in new and have experience, then macrostock is more interesting right now.

At least this has been my experience.

Here is Michaels experience, basically low cost mass produced for the micros, high end for macro. He has overtaken his old istock income, although he already did that in 6 month. But he is the only one I know who achieved that so quickly:

http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/the-state-of-the-microstock-world-and-me-in-it/
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 13:16 by cobalt »

MScontributor

« Reply #22 on: October 09, 2015, 13:13 »
+7
Nowadays going indy doesn't make much difference anymore.
Stick with it like Sean suggested! Unless you like to babysit all these agencies and give them a slap when they misbehave, which is 99% of the time.
As for reviewers, these are just people trying to make a quick extra buck in this business by spinning the wheel of fortune. More then half of them don't have a clue what they are doing. You can't take this business serious anymore.
Good luck with whatever you decide!


« Reply #23 on: October 09, 2015, 14:51 »
+5
You can't take this business serious anymore.

Agree 100%. It's a circus.
Where to go though? I wasn't happy with Getty either - actually closed my account there. Returns weren't impressive, and them giving away my work was even less impressive.

dbvirago

« Reply #24 on: October 09, 2015, 16:22 »
+16
Not saying the reviewer was right or wrong, or whether your images were in or out of focus since I haven't seen them, but stating that they were in focus because, " it is shot on one of the top end cameras locked down on a tripod at f/8," is confusing coming from an experienced photographer. We hear that a lot in these forums from beginners, but you know better. The type of camera has nothing to do with focus. A tripod can eliminate camera shake, but has nothing to do with focus. The aperture determines depth of field, but doesn't mean that the subject, or any part of the image for that matter is in focus.  SS doesn't like narrow depth of field or selective focus, so that is something we have learned to live with or rant against, but we can't change it.

Having said that,
Currently, iStock is bringing in about 1% of my micro income and SS is bringing in about 47% (or 5/10) if you prefer. If it increased my income, I would gladly go exclusive at SS and wouldn't consider other sources for micro-stock. As you said, I'd rather be out shooting than doing repetitive work for minor increases in income.

In other words, if it ain't broke, why are you trying to fix it?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3997 Views
Last post September 10, 2008, 01:03
by leaf
17 Replies
7561 Views
Last post February 26, 2009, 16:41
by Ssuper
24 Replies
16624 Views
Last post January 09, 2012, 16:10
by leaf
10 Replies
6244 Views
Last post November 26, 2013, 20:00
by Ed
8 Replies
3645 Views
Last post July 13, 2016, 03:46
by Noedelhap

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors