SS now at 60 million images!

[sgoodwin4813]

It was only March that Uncle Pete started a thread when SS was approaching 50 million, and now only five months later it is over 60 million and adding over 500,000 per week.  At that rate they will add over 26 million per year and the SS database will reach 100 million in only another 1.5 years.  Incredible. 

When I started in 2009 they had around 4 million I think and they were adding 80,000-100,000 per week which seemed like a lot.  Hard to keep up with the current flood.

[LesPalenik]

Hard to keep up with the current flood.

Impossible is more fitting.

[etudiante_rapide]

yes, and to the right of leaf's page here ...   86.5%
that has to be an all time low, right???

i wonder how many new stuff since say a year back is even getting 5 downloads cumulative.
ss is like a rental-home before the wrecking ball , first needing full tenancy to sell the building to some fool with money to burn, i say... what do you think

[madman]

I think this is because lots of contributors shoot the same object in countless different positions and angles. And then you have 5 different subjects, each having 50 different photo variations and there you have 250 images that look almost identical. Add thousands of contributors that are doing the same and here you go, hundreds of thousand of photos each week.

thats so true but sadly all selling sites still accept this kinda images because of their only think is to rise their own stock images amount, sadly including istock too anymore, what a blind sight, I wonder what will happen much much later, when the number of junk pictures so much increase in a unpredictable manner, customers will need to make hours of search.

[Nikovsk]

Yes spam is great nowadays, just compare the quality between "New" vs "Popular".

New search is a disaster, you can go through pages and pages with the same (poor) content.

Therefore our new images have very limited exposure.

[Justanotherphotographer]

I think this is because lots of contributors shoot the same object in countless different positions and angles. And then you have 5 different subjects, each having 50 different photo variations and there you have 250 images that look almost identical. Add thousands of contributors that are doing the same and here you go, hundreds of thousand of photos each week.

+1 yes it's an arms race, the libraries are getting so big people have to upload loads of similar images to get the same amount of database exposure, the next person does the same and the cycle continues.

[marthamarks]

Hard to keep up with the current flood.

Impossible is more fitting.

You don't have to keep up with the 'flood'. You have to produce better quality than most of it... and most of it is crap quality to be honest.

Exactly right.

It has taken a while, but I'm finding now that the images I made and uploaded to SS this summer are starting to sell. It took a little longer than usual, that's all.

[fotoVoyager]

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/a-is-for-the-artist-celebrating-60-million-images-with-visuals-and-sound-from-a-to-z?pl=45259-43068&irgwc=1

[tickstock]

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/a-is-for-the-artist-celebrating-60-million-images-with-visuals-and-sound-from-a-to-z?pl=45259-43068&irgwc=1

Is the word they erased "curated"?

[Rinderart]

I think this is because lots of contributors shoot the same object in countless different positions and angles. And then you have 5 different subjects, each having 50 different photo variations and there you have 250 images that look almost identical. Add thousands of contributors that are doing the same and here you go, hundreds of thousand of photos each week.

thats so true but sadly all selling sites still accept this kinda images because of their only think is to rise their own stock images amount, sadly including istock too anymore, what a blind sight, I wonder what will happen much much later, when the number of junk pictures so much increase in a unpredictable manner, customers will need to make hours of search.

OR....Hopefully we'll go back to the days when companies actually Hired Photographers to shoot for them.  digital came along, then Micro and everyone is a Photographer. Ya right. Digital made it to where everyone can enjoy Photography, It also killed traditional Stock work Done By a select few that made a living at it.

The minute companies discovered that we'll take 20 cents. we were done and I blame the original Microsites for going so Low especially Istock, then the rest. And I also Blame us for letting this happen. We went from a $400 average commission to 20 Cents in a week.

Biggest problem we face is to many are happy with 25/38 cents still , 12 years later. Thats the vast majority of submitters guys and there joining at a alarming Rate.

[stock-will-eat-itself]

It's not that anyone is happy with 38c, it's that subs have sucked the life out of macro and there isn't much choice anymore. It'll play out until the business model breaks for suppliers and then customers. Only then will there be a rebalance.

[Zero Talent]

Yes spam is great nowadays, just compare the quality between "New" vs "Popular".

New search is a disaster, you can go through pages and pages with the same (poor) content.

Therefore our new images have very limited exposure.

I agree: when your new images are weak, they have limited exposure.
However, when you shoot quality stuff, you get sales almost immediately from the new tab. This guarantees you a place up on the popular tab. Then, if your stuff is really good, it becomes "relevant".
I also agree that shooting 1000 times the same subject, from 1000 angles, doesn't bring you anything but the frustration of having a huge port with poor sales and a stream of BMW posts on MS.

[etudiante_rapide]

I think this is because lots of contributors shoot the same object in countless different positions and angles. And then you have 5 different subjects, each having 50 different photo variations and there you have 250 images that look almost identical. Add thousands of contributors that are doing the same and here you go, hundreds of thousand of photos each week.

true, i agree with you on this. maybe what we should see with the curating is that instead of having robots mass reject for unjustified wb, focus,etc...
get the more justified "you already have too many of these in your portfolio, thank you !!!... rejected!"

maybe then the forum will have less ppl screaming foul with their mass rejections.
but i don't think that would please shareholders waiting to sell their shares knowing that the stocks have run its day . the main shareholders will want to boost share prices so more likely to see another 30 million new images soon.

[Microstockphoto]

I think this is because lots of contributors shoot the same object in countless different positions and angles. And then you have 5 different subjects, each having 50 different photo variations and there you have 250 images that look almost identical. Add thousands of contributors that are doing the same and here you go, hundreds of thousand of photos each week.

thats so true but sadly all selling sites still accept this kinda images because of their only think is to rise their own stock images amount, sadly including istock too anymore, what a blind sight, I wonder what will happen much much later, when the number of junk pictures so much increase in a unpredictable manner, customers will need to make hours of search.

OR....Hopefully we'll go back to the days when companies actually Hired Photographers to shoot for them.  digital came along, then Micro and everyone is a Photographer. Ya right. Digital made it to where everyone can enjoy Photography, It also killed traditional Stock work Done By a select few that made a living at it.

The minute companies discovered that we'll take 20 cents. we were done and I blame the original Microsites for going so Low especially Istock, then the rest. And I also Blame us for letting this happen. We went from a $400 average commission to 20 Cents in a week.

Biggest problem we face is to many are happy with 25/38 cents still , 12 years later. Thats the vast majority of submitters guys and there joining at a alarming Rate.

why did you give the micros your work then? You didn't have to. And why would a company hire a photographer when they can buy stock?

[etudiante_rapide]

Hopefully we'll go back to the days when companies actually Hired Photographers to shoot for them.  digital came along, then Micro and everyone is a Photographer. Ya right. Digital made it to where everyone can enjoy Photography, It also killed traditional Stock work Done By a select few that made a living at it.

The minute companies discovered that we'll take 20 cents. we were done and I blame the original Microsites for going so Low especially Istock, then the rest. And I also Blame us for letting this happen. We went from a $400 average commission to 20 Cents in a week.

it won't happen , mein freund, these days instead of hiring a photographer , they pull out their mobile and say "we take our own pictures". even the newspapers send some dude with his notebook to record a concert,etc.  never mind about composition , etc. noise??? what noise??? the only noise you hear is microstock contributors grinding their teeth and coming on forum 

just as that song says video kill the radio star, ... disco kills live music...  digital cameras killed the working photographer... mobile kills whatever is left of pro photography.

time to move on...   i just read on yahoo or is it youtube, a guy paints himself white and stands still in downtown
makes over a thousand bucks a day. . then again, squeegie kids still makes more than a microstock photographer... and all they need is a squeegie from the dollar mart.

[Rinderart]

I think this is because lots of contributors shoot the same object in countless different positions and angles. And then you have 5 different subjects, each having 50 different photo variations and there you have 250 images that look almost identical. Add thousands of contributors that are doing the same and here you go, hundreds of thousand of photos each week.

thats so true but sadly all selling sites still accept this kinda images because of their only think is to rise their own stock images amount, sadly including istock too anymore, what a blind sight, I wonder what will happen much much later, when the number of junk pictures so much increase in a unpredictable manner, customers will need to make hours of search.

OR....Hopefully we'll go back to the days when companies actually Hired Photographers to shoot for them.  digital came along, then Micro and everyone is a Photographer. Ya right. Digital made it to where everyone can enjoy Photography, It also killed traditional Stock work Done By a select few that made a living at it.

The minute companies discovered that we'll take 20 cents. we were done and I blame the original Microsites for going so Low especially Istock, then the rest. And I also Blame us for letting this happen. We went from a $400 average commission to 20 Cents in a week.

Biggest problem we face is to many are happy with 25/38 cents still , 12 years later. Thats the vast majority of submitters guys and there joining at a alarming Rate.

why did you give the micros your work then? You didn't have to. And why would a company hire a photographer when they can buy stock?


really??...Ya know theres a lot of  products, probably Billions that companies can't find on a stock site. They hire Photographers. hate to break the news. thats who i work for.and they want something a lot more specific than a can of beer or Bottle of mustard isolated. LOL

[Microstockphoto]

I think this is because lots of contributors shoot the same object in countless different positions and angles. And then you have 5 different subjects, each having 50 different photo variations and there you have 250 images that look almost identical. Add thousands of contributors that are doing the same and here you go, hundreds of thousand of photos each week.

thats so true but sadly all selling sites still accept this kinda images because of their only think is to rise their own stock images amount, sadly including istock too anymore, what a blind sight, I wonder what will happen much much later, when the number of junk pictures so much increase in a unpredictable manner, customers will need to make hours of search.

OR....Hopefully we'll go back to the days when companies actually Hired Photographers to shoot for them.  digital came along, then Micro and everyone is a Photographer. Ya right. Digital made it to where everyone can enjoy Photography, It also killed traditional Stock work Done By a select few that made a living at it.

The minute companies discovered that we'll take 20 cents. we were done and I blame the original Microsites for going so Low especially Istock, then the rest. And I also Blame us for letting this happen. We went from a $400 average commission to 20 Cents in a week.

Biggest problem we face is to many are happy with 25/38 cents still , 12 years later. Thats the vast majority of submitters guys and there joining at a alarming Rate.

why did you give the micros your work then? You didn't have to. And why would a company hire a photographer when they can buy stock?

really??...Ya know theres a lot of  products, probably Billions that companies can't find on a stock site. They hire Photographers. hate to break the news. thats who i work for.and they want something a lot more specific than a can of beer or Bottle of mustard isolated. LOL

Which one is it, they dont hire photographers or they do? And if you work for those companies that hire photographers, you dont need to be on the micros, I gather from your comments. You are contradicting yourself now.

[etudiante_rapide]

Look at photos of people on the streets of a big city in the 40s.  Everyone is dressed to the 9s by today's standards. Every guy has a tie and a hat.  Then look at Times Square today - people look like idiots, wearing oversize logo t-shirts and baggy shorts with too many pockets.  What happened was, over time the preferred 'style' became no style at all.  I've read some interesting theories on what drove this change, but that's another subject.

The same thing has happened to 'stock' photography; people seem to want photos that look like they were taken without a moment's thought about composition or lighting. If it looks like it was taken by A Photographer, it's not cool.  That big black DSLR, fat lens with a hood, well that's now Dad's Camera you don't want to be seen with it.   

The same trend gave us reality TV and entire movies featuring jerky hand-held camera work.   

wa, many thx to you, i thought this opinion you just wrote was me alone and that i was only one person living in the wrong time, wrong planet even.
every day i listen with disgust to the ads on youtube. the guy can't even speak properly; the girl says like .. ah like ... like... in one sentence, she said more "like" my 5 years old says in one day.
the same for movies, or music, ... eg. that beiber guy who is a shameless reject by his own country (Canada), is making millions with what?  talent?
ritchie blackmore shakes his head and makes fun of lady gaga. but lady gaga makes more money in one show than blackmore's knight make in one season of concerts.
awhile back, i had a talk with another photographer who was disgusted with all the photos he sees in the photo magazines. he said, "give a chimp the Nikon and it takes better photos than these photo journalists". that was in 1990's that he said that. i was just fresh out of school and had just started to freelance and make $250 for my first photo essay. I was going to be the new W E Smith.
LMAO, 25 years later I never thought I would need to get 650 dls to earn as much as what I got paid for my first photo assignment as a new graduate from photo-school.

but as a consolation to all of us, I remember at a jazz seminar ,the great jazz guitarist Joe Pass making fun of the new "musicians" when he asked some famous group if they like to take some time to tune-up. the guys told Joe Pass, "no need, our guitars were tuned at the factory". that was in the late 70s too. LMAO

[stockastic]

Look at photos of people on the streets of a big city in the 40s.  Everyone is dressed to the 9s by today's standards. Every guy has a tie and a hat.  Then look at Times Square today - people look like idiots, wearing oversize logo t-shirts and baggy shorts with too many pockets.  What happened was, over time the preferred 'style' became no style at all.  I've read some interesting theories on what drove this change, but that's another subject.

The same thing has happened to 'stock' photography; people seem to want photos that look like they were taken without a moment's thought about composition or lighting. If it looks like it was taken by A Photographer, it's not cool.  That big black DSLR, fat lens with a hood, well that's now Dad's Camera you don't want to be seen with it. 

The same trend gave us reality TV and entire movies featuring jerky hand-held camera work.   

wa, many thx to you, i thought this opinion you just wrote was me alone and that i was only one person living in the wrong time, wrong planet even.

I also feel like an anachronism.  I like to dress neatly when I go out, and speak in complete sentences.   But I suppose we should always try to observe and understand, rather than just be judgemental and angry.

Today's 'style' requires showing your disdain for 'style'. But clothing is still used to show wealth and status.  Your jeans and leather jacket may look worn and faded, but they have the names of celebrity designers prominently displayed, so other people know what they cost and that you're tuned in to trends.  That shapeless white XXL t-shirt is printed with some statement about your values, or the logo of a cool place you've been to.  It's all communicating something.

I heard a talk by a linguist who tried to make the case that inflections and contextual nuances give actual meaning to those multiple uses of the word 'like' in a single sentence (although I didn't quite buy it). 

The 'cell phone photo' aesthetic gives you the feeling of not just being at, but actually participating in, the event and being so involved in your exciting life that you could barely hold the camera still. 

Yeah it all bores me too.  But it's a pendulum, and it will swing back some day.

[etudiante_rapide]

.. Your jeans and leather jacket may look worn and faded, but they have the names of celebrity designers prominently displayed, so other people know what they cost and that you're tuned in to trends.  That shapeless white XL t-shirt is printed with some statement about your values, or the logo of a cool place you've been to.  It's all communicating something.

I heard a talk by a linguist who tried to make the case that inflections and contextual nuances gave actual meaning to multiple uses of the word 'like' in a single sentence (although I didn't quite buy it). 

The 'cell phone photo' aesthetic aims to give you the feeling of not just being at, but actually participating in, the event and being so involved in your exciting life that you could barely hold the camera still. 

Yeah it all bores me too.  But it's a pendulum, and it will swing back some day.

Interesting. Once, we were all taking off our clothes f*cking around every bird and sm*oking dopes to show our status and how civilized we are by not going to Vietnam.
Now, we buy expensive clothes that are deliberately torn and faded, when in fact , we could get the same torn and faded clothes had we exchanged our suits with a ruggamuffin or that poor old sod who sleeps in the back alley after his only bottle has put him to think he is sleeping comfortably in a nice bed.

I remember too of the 90s, when recently-arrived refugee asked me why there are so many poor ppl walking around downtown and at the shopping center, who strangely are able to be buying expensive toys and eating junk food. "Why don't they use the money to buy new clothes", she asked .

She also wondered aloud why there are so many lovely gardens in her neighbourhood, yet no one ever comes out to enjoy sitting or playing in their gardens. (In her country, everyone wears fresh clothes and spends hours outside their garden, no matter how poor they are). She too was confused
and perharps wondered if she is going to be living in a strange new world .

I wonder how she is today , some 30 years later??? No doubt, her children born here are walking around in those tatty clothes using her credit card to buy status . Like the mother I overheard, just the other day, complaining that her children are too ashamed to be seen drinking coffee costing 50 cents at the greasy spoon. But,(quote) not too shameful to show how stupid they are preferring to pay $4.50  for a $tarf*cks status coffee.

This is the true definition of naive and being handicapped...deaf ...dumb or blind;
When I say retard, I do no longer refer to the normal ones who are born without limbs, can't speak, can't see, can't hear,etc...  I refer to the ones with implants of giant headphones, cell-phones,
who seem to be always more excited at singing out of tune in a bus , or constanly waiting for text messages, even when they are with a living breathing person who could be more fun .

 No wonder ET has decided not to invade Earth!!! They could be infected by this Earth social-disease ... and I don't mean syphillis

[VB inc]

This is a very good documentary on netflix that deals with fast fashion and its global impact. Movie is called "True Cost". Companies like H&M and others are selling dirt cheap priced clothing that people really like but at what cost to us? It sort of reminded me of the microstock market which has brought prices so low that I feel it devalues digital imagery in minds of many.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaGp5_Sfbss

[etudiante_rapide]

This is a very good documentary on netflix that deals with fast fashion and its global impact. Movie is called "True Cost". Companies like H&M and others are selling dirt cheap priced clothing that people really like but at what cost to us? It sort of reminded me of the microstock market which has brought prices so low that I feel it devalues digital imagery in minds of many.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaGp5_Sfbss

My apologies to the OP for going a bit OT.
so back to topic, in a sort of relation to what we have been discussing.

on one hand we have advertisers using absolute obvious amateurs for their totally ridiculous ads.
on the other hand, we have coffee that cost more than or as much as a bottle of beer.
..not to forget plain water that is said to be healthier with added salt or whatever.

obviously there are some section of society willing to pay what??? (4.50 for what cost 50cts)
so the secret to resurrection of microstock could be to have shutterstock bought over by the genius owners of those coffee shops . our earnings could jump from 38 cts to at least $3 per dl.
.. or maybe even more, since our photos cost more to produce than a cup of coffee.
better still, get those ppl who market those torn clothes to take over shutterstock
and we might get a return to real money . or  even best, get the high fashion masterminds,
the ones who make ppl believe it's worth paying $1000+ for those  shoes
that break apart on the runaway in milan, etc.. 

i think they prove that ppl will pay more if you get them to believe it's worth the money,
in the same way that ss and is made ppl believe our work is not worth paying for anything other than 38 cts.