MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock - Where are we going?  (Read 9018 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 07, 2018, 11:38 »
+8
When these things happenning I think that it is really the end

I never use my mobile phone to take pictures, but last week I have decided to make a little experiment.
So I took three picture with an old Moto G2 with a very bad 8 Mpixels camera, and after a little post production I have uploaded them on Shutterstock, just to see what will happen.

Well, all three have been accepted.
I am speechless!

I attach some crop @100% of the images.

Really, today they accept even this $hit (noise, artifact, blurred/out of focus, etc.)?


« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2018, 11:44 »
+7
it's so frustrating....i spent time doing food photography these days...i cook create style,. buy props, i use medium format camera and full frame. nothing sell....i see tons of snapshot shot in dim light with food accepted....since they have killed best match my earning are noisedinving.

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2018, 11:49 »
+12
I'm not even surprised. I'm actually embarrassed to say I contribute there now. There is so much garbage flooding the search. It's impossible to earn money from new images when those types of images are being submitted by the thousands.

I'm still shooting though. They can destroy my earnings but not my passion!

« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2018, 11:55 »
+10
it's so frustrating....i spent time doing food photography these days...i cook create style,. buy props, i use medium format camera and full frame. nothing sell....i see tons of snapshot shot in dim light with food accepted....since they have killed best match my earning are noisedinving.

Yes. I must say that I am really very angry.
We spend time and money to take good pictures and, as now they accept anything, the good pictures are lost among tons of garbage!
This is not only a lack of respect towards photographers; it is also a lack of respect towards the customers because they buy photos just seeing a thumbnail or a reduced image of bad quality when they search for what to buy, and they cannot appreciate the real (missing) quality of the images

« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2018, 11:57 »
+3
When these things happenning I think that it is really the end

I never use my mobile phone to take pictures, but last week I have decided to make a little experiment.
So I took three picture with an old Moto G2 with a very bad 8 Mpixels camera, and after a little post production I have uploaded them on Shutterstock, just to see what will happen.

Well, all three have been accepted.
I am speechless!

I attach some crop @100% of the images.

Really, today they accept even this $hit (noise, artifact, blurred/out of focus, etc.)?

It is likely that SS is damaging its global reputation, by accepting crap.

However, I wonder if you can actually damage your personal reputation (with some buyers at least), when you lower standards.
Hard to tell.
But I can imagine that some buyers can stop coming back to look for fresh stuff from a specific author (validated through previous purchases), when the "fresh stuff" is, in fact, just "fresh crap".


« Last Edit: March 07, 2018, 12:04 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2018, 12:17 »
+7
Believe it or not - in some ways the new "crap" is becoming the new "quality" - simply because *so* many amateur photographers "take pictures" and consider themselves a "photographer" - these are the people going into the work force, being hired - and the ones making the decisions on what images to buy.

They are more "familiar" with crap-style images, because it "feels" comfortable/what they are used to when they take pictures -therefore they judge it to be more "natural" and "accepted"...

So........ that's why it is being accepted, and that is why people are buying them.

Shelma1

« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2018, 12:17 »
+5
Last week I checked one of my decent-selling niches, and found that out of the 100 images on page 1 of most popular, 80EIGHTYwere simple vectors from one new contributor. They were all slight variations of the same drawing. All 80 pushing the high-quality best-selling images right off the front page.

But now someone will tell me I must have been wearing a tinfoil hat at the time, or that these EIGHTY nearly identical drawings were popular because customers really needed 80 almost identical vectors, not because SS is purposely pushing lower-royalty images to the front and killing higher-royalty sales.

« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2018, 12:22 »
0
Not exactly news.

Whatever happened to the guy with 30,000 photos of a bag of pot?  Is he still there?


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2018, 12:34 »
+3
Believe it or not - in some ways the new "crap" is becoming the new "quality" - simply because *so* many amateur photographers "take pictures" and consider themselves a "photographer" - these are the people going into the work force, being hired - and the ones making the decisions on what images to buy.

They are more "familiar" with crap-style images, because it "feels" comfortable/what they are used to when they take pictures -therefore they judge it to be more "natural" and "accepted"...

So........ that's why it is being accepted, and that is why people are buying them.

First it was accepting fuzzy small cell phone photos from a tiny plastic lens. Realistic / authentic my ass. Then retro Polaroid and film flare, filters from Hell. If this crap is actually selling better, that's even worse news?

My mocking, in calling this kind of junk Crapstock was just a joke, now it's real.  :-\

« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2018, 14:02 »
+1
I cannot disagree with anyone. But. Just a question. Chichikov why did you submit these? just curious. and are you gonna delete them? And as a side Note some of my current "last year or so" Best sellers are cellphone Pics and Trust I NEVER thought I would say that.. Theres a lot of very good tricks and also some amazing apps for cellphones.if you use a off camera shutter release. DA Voice 5 Bucks. and a hand held monopod. Don't touch it and you would be surprised.tapping On the darn thing is what kills it.

« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2018, 14:05 »
+4
I cannot disagree with anyone. But. Just a question. Chichikov why did you submit these? just curious. and are you gonna delete them? And as a side Note some of my current "last year or so" Best sellers are cellphone Pics and Trust I NEVER thought I would say that.. Theres a lot of very good tricks and also some amazing apps for cellphones.if you use a off camera shutter release. DA Voice 5 Bucks. and a hand held monopod. Don't touch it and you would be surprised.tapping On the darn thing is what kills it.

The answer is at end of the second line of my first post ;)
I was just curious to understand with my own experience, and my own bad photo, how bad it has became today.

I know that some smartphones have a good camera and can give good results. But her we are speaking of photos shot with a really bad (and old) one.

Now I will wait some time (one month?) to see if one of these images will sell (I hope not - lol)
Then I will delete them.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2018, 14:30 by Chichikov »

« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2018, 14:19 »
0
when we tried uploading some stock photos, we uploaded some from our 5-year-old smartphone (lgg2) and photos were accepted with no problem. It was funny they were even accepted.

« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2018, 14:35 »
+1
Vote Adobe.

« Reply #13 on: March 07, 2018, 15:15 »
+7
I seem to recall iStock went from being the toughest agency to get images accepted in, to just accepting any old rubbish before they pulled the old you can no longer delete your images to here's some 1 cent royalties take it or leave it.

Just my tin foil hat theory but I suspect Shutterstock are going down the same road  :'(

Stand by for some exciting news
« Last Edit: March 07, 2018, 15:28 by Sammy the Cat »

« Reply #14 on: March 07, 2018, 22:44 »
+3
Whatever happened to the guy with 30,000 photos of a bag of pot?  Is he still there?

I think he moved to Colorado and is now eating his props.

« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2018, 22:47 »
+1
Now I will wait some time (one month?) to see if one of these images will sell (I hope not - lol)
Then I will delete them.

They will probably become best sellers.  Let us know what happens - travel photography will be much easier if we don't have to lug a bunch of gear around.

« Reply #16 on: March 07, 2018, 22:53 »
+5
It's interesting with SS.  For many years their standards were way higher than what buyers care about based on images I see in ads or hanging on the walls of businesses.  Now they have gone too far the other way.  I assume their thinking is that with their amazing search algorithms the buyers will decide so that the cream rises to the top and the dreck sinks into oblivion.  Either that or they just got tired of hearing contributors whine about rejections.  Be careful what you wish for.


« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2018, 01:32 »
0
It's interesting with SS.  For many years their standards were way higher than what buyers care about based on images I see in ads or hanging on the walls of businesses.  Now they have gone too far the other way.  I assume their thinking is that with their amazing search algorithms the buyers will decide so that the cream rises to the top and the dreck sinks into oblivion.  Either that or they just got tired of hearing contributors whine about rejections.  Be careful what you wish for.
I agree I think the don't want the cost of "proper" inspections. However, their algorithms aren't up to the task. For buyers I imagine they are now doing more checks themselves its possible this might drive them to Premium sites or using SS's premium services.

« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2018, 01:55 »
+3
Chichikov!!     god help you mate if you start a thread like this! BEWARE! soon you have the entire amateur ghostbusting brigade telling you, you are lying, scheaming and   imagining things!

You are right though they accept anything and I mean anything since they are surviving and relying on these sort of members and images. Pictures means assets and the more assets the better, especially in the eyes of the share-holders.

Its common knowledge but I recon 70% of their entire library could go into the dustbin. Same with all agencies actually.

« Reply #19 on: March 08, 2018, 02:32 »
+1
It's interesting with SS.  For many years their standards were way higher than what buyers care about based on images I see in ads or hanging on the walls of businesses.  Now they have gone too far the other way.  I assume their thinking is that with their amazing search algorithms the buyers will decide so that the cream rises to the top and the dreck sinks into oblivion.  Either that or they just got tired of hearing contributors whine about rejections.  Be careful what you wish for.

I agree with this, it is my impression too

Chichikov!!     god help you mate if you start a thread like this! BEWARE! soon you have the entire amateur ghostbusting brigade telling you, you are lying, scheaming and   imagining things!

You are right though they accept anything and I mean anything since they are surviving and relying on these sort of members and images. Pictures means assets and the more assets the better, especially in the eyes of the share-holders.

Its common knowledge but I recon 70% of their entire library could go into the dustbin. Same with all agencies actually.

You will always find people (generally always the same) to negate the reality ;)

« Reply #20 on: March 08, 2018, 06:20 »
+9
Shutterstock is selling every year more and more to customers. For sure nothing going wrong. Nobody destroys his own company.

This is just a typical thread that people assume that own images are the best by saying other new ones are crap. Also they want shutterstock for themselves. You can always submit on Stocksy or similar sites if you think.your images are so amazing.


« Reply #21 on: March 08, 2018, 07:02 »
+3
Shutterstock is selling every year more and more to customers. For sure nothing going wrong. Nobody destroys his own company.

This is just a typical thread that people assume that own images are the best by saying other new ones are crap. Also they want shutterstock for themselves. You can always submit on Stocksy or similar sites if you think.your images are so amazing.
There is no doubt in my mind though the acceptance standards are lower..I know because I submitted my previously rejected work 90% was accepted. This might be a good business decision by SS IS did the same.

« Reply #22 on: March 08, 2018, 07:15 »
+4
Shutterstock is selling every year more and more to customers. For sure nothing going wrong. Nobody destroys his own company.

This is just a typical thread that people assume that own images are the best by saying other new ones are crap. Also they want shutterstock for themselves. You can always submit on Stocksy or similar sites if you think.your images are so amazing.

Why you think Stocksy or Offset are any different in the core?? haha man you want to take some business classes!..." destrying ones own company"  ones own??  its not its thousands of share-holders which puts a completely different angle on every single thing! and as Paws say! it might just suit them and for various reasons to accept any old image, god knows its paying off!

« Reply #23 on: March 08, 2018, 07:45 »
+11
Shutterstock is selling every year more and more to customers. For sure nothing going wrong. Nobody destroys his own company.

This is just a typical thread that people assume that own images are the best by saying other new ones are crap. Also they want shutterstock for themselves. You can always submit on Stocksy or similar sites if you think.your images are so amazing.



Don't put words in other people mouth and thoughts in other people mind please.

I have never said that my images are so amazing (they are but it is not to me to say it  8)).
I just wanted to show that today such crap is accepted by Shutterstock, when two years ago such images would have been rejected for at least 5 different reasons.

I did not say anything else, mine is only an ascertainment.
Then everybody can draw the own conclusions about it.


PS Derek, you were right in #18 ;)
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 07:51 by Chichikov »

« Reply #24 on: March 08, 2018, 08:05 »
+3
Shutterstock is selling every year more and more to customers. For sure nothing going wrong. Nobody destroys his own company.

This is just a typical thread that people assume that own images are the best by saying other new ones are crap. Also they want shutterstock for themselves. You can always submit on Stocksy or similar sites if you think.your images are so amazing.

https://www.dreamstime.com/poznan-poland-february-cover-humana-organic-baby-food-jar-wooden-table-humana-organic-baby-food-image110969228

not even white balance and exposure correct...and you talk about quality? portfolio like yours show the level reached by microstock.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
55 Replies
13516 Views
Last post May 07, 2011, 21:17
by michaeldb
13 Replies
4336 Views
Last post September 27, 2011, 00:33
by RacePhoto
10 Replies
5948 Views
Last post September 28, 2011, 11:28
by RacePhoto
126 Replies
24378 Views
Last post January 14, 2015, 15:09
by tickstock
14 Replies
2924 Views
Last post July 23, 2016, 09:28
by etudiante_rapide

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors