Author Topic: SS now at 60 million images! (Read 73136 times)

sgoodwin4813 · « **on:** August 20, 2015, 21:04 »

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 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 20, 2015, 22:02 »

Quote

Hard to keep up with the current flood.

Impossible is more fitting.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #2 on:** August 20, 2015, 22:15 »

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

Dumc · « **Reply #3 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:56 »

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.

madman · « **Reply #4 on:** August 21, 2015, 05:27 »

Quote from: Dumc on August 21, 2015, 01:56

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 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 21, 2015, 07:06 »

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 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 21, 2015, 07:38 »

Quote from: Dumc on August 21, 2015, 01:56

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.

topol · « **Reply #7 on:** August 21, 2015, 07:53 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on August 20, 2015, 22:02

Quote
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.

marthamarks · « **Reply #8 on:** August 21, 2015, 08:22 »

Quote from: topol on August 21, 2015, 07:53

Quote from: LesPalenik on August 20, 2015, 22:02
Quote
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 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 21, 2015, 10:26 »

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 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2015, 11:12 »

Quote from: fotoVoyager on August 21, 2015, 10:26

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 · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2015, 15:11 »

Quote from: madman on August 21, 2015, 05:27

Quote from: Dumc on August 21, 2015, 01:56
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 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2015, 15:19 »

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 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2015, 18:47 »

Quote from: Nikovsk on August 21, 2015, 07:06

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 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 22, 2015, 01:14 »

Quote from: Dumc on August 21, 2015, 01:56

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 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 22, 2015, 07:50 »

Quote from: Rinderart on August 21, 2015, 15:11

Quote from: madman on August 21, 2015, 05:27
Quote from: Dumc on August 21, 2015, 01:56
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 · « **Reply #16 on:** August 22, 2015, 12:29 »

Quote from: Rinderart on August 21, 2015, 15:11

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.

stockastic · « **Reply #17 on:** August 22, 2015, 13:48 »

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 and 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.

Rinderart · « **Reply #18 on:** August 22, 2015, 16:49 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on August 22, 2015, 07:50

Quote from: Rinderart on August 21, 2015, 15:11
Quote from: madman on August 21, 2015, 05:27
Quote from: Dumc on August 21, 2015, 01:56
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 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 22, 2015, 18:48 »

Quote from: Rinderart on August 22, 2015, 16:49

Quote from: Microstockphoto on August 22, 2015, 07:50
Quote from: Rinderart on August 21, 2015, 15:11
Quote from: madman on August 21, 2015, 05:27
Quote from: Dumc on August 21, 2015, 01:56
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 · « **Reply #20 on:** August 22, 2015, 23:24 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 22, 2015, 13:48

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 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 23, 2015, 09:32 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 22, 2015, 23:24

Quote from: stockastic on August 22, 2015, 13:48
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 · « **Reply #22 on:** August 23, 2015, 10:37 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 23, 2015, 09:32

.. 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 · « **Reply #23 on:** August 23, 2015, 12:00 »

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 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 23, 2015, 23:13 »

Quote from: VB inc on August 23, 2015, 12:00

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.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #25 on:** August 24, 2015, 08:42 »

Quote from: Rinderart on August 21, 2015, 15:11

Quote from: madman on August 21, 2015, 05:27
Quote from: Dumc on August 21, 2015, 01:56
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.

Is that what you teach at your microstock school? How to take 25c using models, a Nikon and in a expensive studio and equipment. Microstock opens the door to anybody who can take a marketable photo. Open and free for all to try. Some make a success some don't. But we are invited to try, instead of locked out.

stockastic · « **Reply #26 on:** August 24, 2015, 09:38 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 24, 2015, 08:42

Open and free for all to try. Some make a success some don't. But we are invited to try, instead of locked out.

But photography has always been "open and free for all to try". Who has ever been "locked out"? No degree, no license, no certification, no insurance required.

What's been changed by microstock is the perceived value of the work.

Rinderart · « **Reply #27 on:** August 24, 2015, 11:32 »

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #28 on:** August 24, 2015, 12:36 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 24, 2015, 09:38

What's been changed by microstock is the perceived value of the work.

Yes, exactly. Unfortunately, once the price has been lowered then that becomes what something is worth and nobody will want to pay more. That is the biggest problem with the subscription model - individual images no longer have value, their value is only as part of some larger package like phone minutes.

I like to cut my morning orange juice with diet soda as a way to reduce calories. For years the price was officially around $1.99 for a 2-liter bottle of brand-name diet soda but there are always sales or discounts making them usually $1.25 or less. The other day I went to the store and there were no discounts, but there is no way I was going to pay $1.99 a bottle when for me the real value is much less. I looked at alternative brands and finally found one that is cheaper. It still was more than I wanted so I only bought one bottle and will check for a lower price next time. The price really makes no difference to me economically, I am just resistant to paying more now that my notion of the value has been reduced. It is the same with microstock. How you raise the price after that I don't know if somebody always sells the product cheaper.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #29 on:** August 24, 2015, 13:02 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on August 24, 2015, 12:36

Quote from: stockastic on August 24, 2015, 09:38
What's been changed by microstock is the perceived value of the work.

Yes, exactly. Unfortunately, once the price has been lowered then that becomes what something is worth and nobody will want to pay more. That is the biggest problem with the subscription model - individual images no longer have value, their value is only as part of some larger package like phone minutes.

I like to cut my morning orange juice with diet soda as a way to reduce calories. For years the price was officially around $1.99 for a 2-liter bottle of brand-name diet soda but there are always sales or discounts making them usually $1.25 or less. The other day I went to the store and there were no discounts, but there is no way I was going to pay $1.99 a bottle when for me the real value is much less. I looked at alternative brands and finally found one that is cheaper. It still was more than I wanted so I only bought one bottle and will check for a lower price next time. The price really makes no difference to me economically, I am just resistant to paying more now that my notion of the value has been reduced. It is the same with microstock. How you raise the price after that I don't know if somebody always sells the product cheaper.

both very right +10 each.
take cigarettes for example. when i was addicted to nico, trying to be like eric claption with my cigarette dangling from my mouth while playing blues guitar

a carton of peter styv was like what??? something like $22 ... yes , a carton of luxury size.
that was when i quit smoking. it was too expensive i said.

last year or was it the year before, i asked a kid how much he paid for a packet of cheap smoke,
i almost died when he told me how much. i said, how much??? i mean for a packet, not a carton.
he said, "what century are you living in, dude???"

yes, once you drop the price, you can never recapture that. even the arabic man or the jewish tailorshop owner say the same thing, "you want cheap, we got no cheap here!!! go..go to the other side of town, you get cheap, very cheap!!!" and they laugh , they don't cry because you complain they cost too much. they know, the real cost of their products.

same thing for haircuts. i see a wide margin of haircuts everywhere i go...
from $8 to $22. same haircut, no golden scissors for the $22 haircut,
but the lady tells you, "take it or leave it".

Shelma1 · « **Reply #30 on:** August 24, 2015, 13:25 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 13:02

even the arabic man or the jewish tailorshop owner say the same thing,

Wow, even Arabs and Jews, huh? Minus 1,000.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #31 on:** August 24, 2015, 14:22 »

does anyone know anything else other than photography, that has fallen in "perceptive" value

i am googling to see, but as far as i know, even postage has increased. the only place where the penny is usable is in microstock.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #32 on:** August 24, 2015, 14:51 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 14:22

does anyone know anything else other than photography, that has fallen in "perceptive" value

i am googling to see, but as far as i know, even postage has increased. the only place where the penny is usable is in microstock.

Off the top of my head...

Real human interaction face to face... Now you have the social media, forums where you belong in a community, and smart phones to "communicate".

Political Correctness... use to be a time when you could have an opinion and not be charged with offending someone.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #33 on:** August 24, 2015, 16:18 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 13:02

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on August 24, 2015, 12:36
Quote from: stockastic on August 24, 2015, 09:38
What's been changed by microstock is the perceived value of the work.

Yes, exactly. Unfortunately, once the price has been lowered then that becomes what something is worth and nobody will want to pay more. That is the biggest problem with the subscription model - individual images no longer have value, their value is only as part of some larger package like phone minutes.

I like to cut my morning orange juice with diet soda as a way to reduce calories. For years the price was officially around $1.99 for a 2-liter bottle of brand-name diet soda but there are always sales or discounts making them usually $1.25 or less. The other day I went to the store and there were no discounts, but there is no way I was going to pay $1.99 a bottle when for me the real value is much less. I looked at alternative brands and finally found one that is cheaper. It still was more than I wanted so I only bought one bottle and will check for a lower price next time. The price really makes no difference to me economically, I am just resistant to paying more now that my notion of the value has been reduced. It is the same with microstock. How you raise the price after that I don't know if somebody always sells the product cheaper.

both very right +10 each.
take cigarettes for example. when i was addicted to nico, trying to be like eric claption with my cigarette dangling from my mouth while playing blues guitar
a carton of peter styv was like what??? something like $22 ... yes , a carton of luxury size.
that was when i quit smoking. it was too expensive i said.

last year or was it the year before, i asked a kid how much he paid for a packet of cheap smoke,
i almost died when he told me how much. i said, how much??? i mean for a packet, not a carton.
he said, "what century are you living in, dude???"

yes, once you drop the price, you can never recapture that. even the arabic man or the jewish tailorshop owner say the same thing, "you want cheap, we got no cheap here!!! go..go to the other side of town, you get cheap, very cheap!!!" and they laugh , they don't cry because you complain they cost too much. they know, the real cost of their products.

same thing for haircuts. i see a wide margin of haircuts everywhere i go...
from $8 to $22. same haircut, no golden scissors for the $22 haircut,
but the lady tells you, "take it or leave it".

It looks to me that you discover what inflation means and how it errodes your standard of life: a hidden taxation most of people happily vote for.

Inflation is what happens when you allow the government to intervene in the economy through "money printing", as the only way to "pay for" unjustifiable expenses. When you vote for such economical policies, don't be surprised to see your orange juice and cigarettes prices going up, under your nose.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #34 on:** August 24, 2015, 21:49 »

The current inflation rate in the US is 0.2% so not exactly a big problem. In fact, over the past 100 years in the US there have only been a few years when inflation was really high (e.g., over 10%). In other countries it has been a major problem and still is in some right now, e.g., Brazil where it is close to 10%. However, I don't think inflation has been a factor in the price of stock images either way.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #35 on:** August 24, 2015, 23:11 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 24, 2015, 13:25

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 13:02
even the arabic man or the jewish tailorshop owner say the same thing,

Wow, even Arabs and Jews, huh? Minus 1,000.

Wow. Where these examples come from? The Big Book of Mid 20th Century Stereotypes?!

stockastic · « **Reply #36 on:** August 25, 2015, 09:32 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on August 24, 2015, 23:11

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 24, 2015, 13:25
Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 13:02
even the arabic man or the jewish tailorshop owner say the same thing,

Wow, even Arabs and Jews, huh? Minus 1,000.

Wow. Where these examples come from? The Big Book of Mid 20th Century Stereotypes?!

I think the poster's point was that in this case both an Arab and an Jew, on the opposite sides of town - who normally agree on very little - would say the same thing. I hope it's still possible to use the words "Arab" and "Jew" without being accused of some sort of implied disrespect.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #37 on:** August 25, 2015, 09:57 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 25, 2015, 09:32

Quote from: PixelBytes on August 24, 2015, 23:11
Quote from: Shelma1 on August 24, 2015, 13:25
Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 13:02
even the arabic man or the jewish tailorshop owner say the same thing,

Wow, even Arabs and Jews, huh? Minus 1,000.

Wow. Where these examples come from? The Big Book of Mid 20th Century Stereotypes?!

I think the poster's point was that in this case both an Arab and an Jew, on the opposite sides of town - who normally agree on very little - would say the same thing. I hope it's still possible to use the words "Arab" and "Jew" without being accused of some sort of implied disrespect.

A big No No to even mention Arabs or Jews you would be racist or anti semitism. Untouchable. Sort of like Gay. Now if they were Gay Arabs or Gay Jews that would be politically correct and we could all support it and share our warm fuzzy feelings about it and add a rainbow and sing Christian songs like Kumbaya My Lord. But if we all sang those Christian songs, we'd be back to square one and offend the Arabs and Jews.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #38 on:** August 25, 2015, 13:17 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on August 24, 2015, 21:49

The current inflation rate in the US is 0.2% so not exactly a big problem. In fact, over the past 100 years in the US there have only been a few years when inflation was really high (e.g., over 10%). In other countries it has been a major problem and still is in some right now, e.g., Brazil where it is close to 10%. However, I don't think inflation has been a factor in the price of stock images either way.

Actually, the US inflation was 1.6% in 2014. This means that, if you had $100k after taxes, you paid an additional $1,600 tax through inflation.
This is roughly 5% extra taxes on top of what you already paid for 2014.
That's a very nice lens you don't have.

Moreover, if you had $100k 10 years ago after taxes, you would only be left with $77,856 by today's standards. 23% of your stash is wiped away!

But again, as you said, for most people inflation is "not exactly a big problem" and accept it as a given, when they shouldn't.

Rest assured, the income from stock images will never be indexed with the inflation, because that's not how inflation is designed to work.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #39 on:** August 25, 2015, 13:35 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 25, 2015, 09:57

Quote from: stockastic on August 25, 2015, 09:32
Quote from: PixelBytes on August 24, 2015, 23:11
Quote from: Shelma1 on August 24, 2015, 13:25
Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 13:02
even the arabic man or the jewish tailorshop owner say the same thing,

Wow, even Arabs and Jews, huh? Minus 1,000.

Wow. Where these examples come from? The Big Book of Mid 20th Century Stereotypes?!

I think the poster's point was that in this case both an Arab and an Jew, on the opposite sides of town - who normally agree on very little - would say the same thing. I hope it's still possible to use the words "Arab" and "Jew" without being accused of some sort of implied disrespect.

A big No No to even mention Arabs or Jews you would be racist or anti semitism. Untouchable. Sort of like Gay. Now if they were Gay Arabs or Gay Jews that would be politically correct and we could all support it and share our warm fuzzy feelings about it and add a rainbow and sing Christian songs like Kumbaya My Lord. But if we all sang those Christian songs, we'd be back to square one and offend the Arabs and Jews.

RTG, stockastic,...
thx to those who still believe arabs and jews, there i said it again... (bite me!!!)
even gay ones too... LOL... can agree on the same thing. in my travels i see lots of arabs and jews fighting with words, not guns... and they don't crucify christians either. neither do they throw holy books at each other quoting phrases but forgeting that the same "god" is the same one they all pray to.
it's as someone (athiest) else say, religion is the greatest opiate of the self-righteous.
we can't call a handicap handicap, yet the mute tells us in sign, "that's ok, you can us dumb and deaf, because that is exactly what we are. we are not whatver challenged... we are fine as it is.. deaf and dumb".

or as shakepeare once said, what, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

i did not answer the -100 because i did not want to qualify the absurdity.
but thx for being able to read exactly what i intended.

mojaric · « **Reply #40 on:** August 25, 2015, 14:30 »

As what i know Photography is art . Microstock is business.

Hence for some easy mathematical rule Microstock is not Photography
Hence the crisis of Microstock is not the crisis of Photography

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #41 on:** August 25, 2015, 15:59 »

Quote from: mojaric on August 25, 2015, 14:30

As what i know Photography is art . Microstock is business.

Hence for some easy mathematical rule Microstock is not Photography
Hence the crisis of Microstock is not the crisis of Photography

+100
after all the veering and political incorrectness OT, i am glad someone is smart enough to let us know this.
yes, it has nothing to do with the myth of making "useful" pictures of pretty girl with headsets, or men in suits shaking hands. it is definitely not art, and definitely nothing to do with knowledge in photography.
it has everything to do with being lucky enough to be found in the search
while no doubt a million other better shots are buried in page 100, 1001, etc
whatever, it definitely will not have a Time-Life chapter printed in 2200 under Photography.
but it could be found in a museam in 2200 under Cat Litter and toilet paper

FlowerPower · « **Reply #42 on:** August 26, 2015, 19:39 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 24, 2015, 09:38

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 24, 2015, 08:42
Open and free for all to try. Some make a success some don't. But we are invited to try, instead of locked out.

But photography has always been "open and free for all to try". Who has ever been "locked out"? No degree, no license, no certification, no insurance required.

What's been changed by microstock is the perceived value of the work.

Traditional agencies in the days of film, were not open for all, based on what we shot. You couldn't get a interview without a big book of slides. Microstock is open door for anybody.

Your perceived value is down with to many students and new people using DLSRs, expensive lights and paid models. If somebody is teaching hundreds of new people how to beat us by out spending us, I don't see that as a friend.

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #43 on:** August 27, 2015, 14:44 »

6 million of good stuff would be much better option (for everyone in business), than 60 million with most of it being crap.
but things are as they are, and not as it would be good to be...

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #44 on:** August 27, 2015, 22:01 »

Quote from: Dr Bouz on August 27, 2015, 14:44

6 million of good stuff would be much better option (for everyone in business), than 60 million with most of it being crap.
but things are as they are, and not as it would be good to be...

i think you are right. if for those months of bickering by mass-rejection complainers were due to a message sent as "thanks but this is same old same old and you already have too much in your port", supported by good new approved pictures, it would be justified that ss is looking for new and better ideas.
but no, the new stuff that went through were even less impressive and mostly boring work by both new and old . which goes to show they are just stockpiling for the sake of trying to impress shareholders like , as i said before, something that the owner of a dump rental bldg would try to sell off his problem riddled apartments by filling every apt with full vacancy sign.
and looking at the short selling + the 85% earning rating on the right of this page,
ss sure looks like an apartment bldg waiting to be sold to some unsuspecting buyer who will be stuck with lots of hidden repairs like leaking pipes waiting for a ceiling to cave in,
and old plumbing long overdue to be replaced.

OTOH going over to getty or fotolia with adobe is even worse or no better respectively, so really there is no alternative in sight.
sure, some are saying, good... stop giving ss your new stuff so i get the sales and bigger piece of the pie. the only problem is there is not much pie left. does anyone actually report a large increase in sales compared to the past years???

robhainer · « **Reply #45 on:** August 28, 2015, 08:17 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 14:22

does anyone know anything else other than photography, that has fallen in "perceptive" value

i am googling to see, but as far as i know, even postage has increased. the only place where the penny is usable is in microstock.

Books, music and movies (digital downloads).

Used to be a record store and video rental in every shopping center. It would cost $5 to rent a video for one day ($15 in today's money), and then they'd really jack you up if you took it back late. If you lost the movie, it would cost you $80.

If you wanted that new song, you'd have to spend $15 on a whole album, which had maybe three good songs and 8 bad ones. Now you can just buy the song you want for a buck or stream it via a Spotify sub.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #46 on:** August 28, 2015, 09:16 »

Here in the UK streaming a newer film (through my sky box or my xbox) is pretty comparable with the cost of renting a DVD, more if you want it in HD, and that's without them having to pay for actual physical media or shops.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #47 on:** August 28, 2015, 09:29 »

Quote from: robhainer on August 28, 2015, 08:17

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 14:22
does anyone know anything else other than photography, that has fallen in "perceptive" value

i am googling to see, but as far as i know, even postage has increased. the only place where the penny is usable is in microstock.

Books, music and movies (digital downloads).

Used to be a record store and video rental in every shopping center. It would cost $5 to rent a video for one day ($15 in today's money), and then they'd really jack you up if you took it back late. If you lost the movie, it would cost you $80.

If you wanted that new song, you'd have to spend $15 on a whole album, which had maybe three good songs and 8 bad ones. Now you can just buy the song you want for a buck or stream it via a Spotify sub.

which all comes down to that today, anybody can make movies, write books, take photos...
whereas before, not everyone can make a record without an audition or get a movie part without going for a test shoot, or even write a book without finding a publisher.

you would think it's because there's more of it around the supply and demand that decides whether we get paid less ... but then again, there's just as many suppliers to coffee and nicotine and alcohol
even illegal drugs are supposed to be easier to get, (ie you can smell stench of marijuana and cigarettes and beer ..everywhere you go these days, so of course i assume it's easier to get)...
... but those things are much more expensive today.

so the problem has to be the marketer / pusher / seller /...
our agencies are the ones who f****d it up.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #48 on:** August 28, 2015, 09:56 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 28, 2015, 09:29

Quote from: robhainer on August 28, 2015, 08:17
Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 14:22
does anyone know anything else other than photography, that has fallen in "perceptive" value

i am googling to see, but as far as i know, even postage has increased. the only place where the penny is usable is in microstock.

Books, music and movies (digital downloads).

Used to be a record store and video rental in every shopping center. It would cost $5 to rent a video for one day ($15 in today's money), and then they'd really jack you up if you took it back late. If you lost the movie, it would cost you $80.

If you wanted that new song, you'd have to spend $15 on a whole album, which had maybe three good songs and 8 bad ones. Now you can just buy the song you want for a buck or stream it via a Spotify sub.

which all comes down to that today, anybody can make movies, write books, take photos...
whereas before, not everyone can make a record without an audition or get a movie part without going for a test shoot, or even write a book without finding a publisher.

you would think it's because there's more of it around the supply and demand that decides whether we get paid less ... but then again, there's just as many suppliers to coffee and nicotine and alcohol
even illegal drugs are supposed to be easier to get, (ie you can smell stench of marijuana and cigarettes and beer ..everywhere you go these days, so of course i assume it's easier to get)...
... but those things are much more expensive today.

so the problem has to be the marketer / pusher / seller /...
our agencies are the ones who f****d it up.

No, you have to dig deeper to find the explanation.
The products you have mentioned are forbidden by law or heavily regulated and taxed. Leaving the inflation aside, this is why prices are not dropping: competition weakened by too many regulations.
Let the free market operate on drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and you will be amazed how fast the prices will drop, across the board, followed by a plethora of counter-intuitive positive side effects (less drug related crimes, less drunk teenagers, etc). This has been proven over and over again.

On the other hand, fortunately, there are no regulations specific to microstock (e.g. we don't need a government license to be micro-stockers, etc) The reasons you mentioned in your intro apply very well to our industry: technology advancements made photography accessible to masses and, while the market is let to operate freely in this domain, the prices will continue to drop to the customer's benefit. (Unfortunately for them) Old contributors must face the competition of an ever growing number of talented newcomers (good for them).
Some of the unsatisfied contributors will probably have to quit. But again, this is the market giving them a signal to re-direct their skills and resources in areas where they can be more efficient.

weymouth · « **Reply #49 on:** August 28, 2015, 10:34 »

Quote from: Rinderart on August 21, 2015, 15:11

Quote from: madman on August 21, 2015, 05:27
Quote from: Dumc on August 21, 2015, 01:56
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.

There is still lots of money to be made in the traditional markets but the photographers there keep quiet about it and for obvious reasons.

There are a couple of non public forums housing many of these photographers. Reading what some of these people are earning! oh boy, makes us all look poor.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #50 on:** August 28, 2015, 12:30 »

Quote from: weymouth on August 28, 2015, 10:34

There is still lots of money to be made in the traditional markets but the photographers there keep quiet about it and for obvious reasons. There are a couple of non public forums housing many of these photographers. Reading what some of these people are earning! oh boy, makes us all look poor.

yes, i have to agree with this . i just came out of a old boys photo club, where this fella just sold several of his 8 by 10 framed picture of rusty door and derelict like you find in the Bronz . price paid $450 per frame image. and you should see the size of the noise... golfballs compared to what ss would reject for noise. no, correct that, watermelons in noise.
i casually asked the wife of the fella who bought those pictures, she said, it goes well with the mantel piece , and colour of our other rooms. not one word re the picture itself

i think we are missing a market for sure. oh, i asked several of the members if they knew of shutterstock. they said they tried but they think they're stupid because they failed in their approval many times. i too was ashamed to say i am one of those who got approved first time round LMAO

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #51 on:** December 15, 2015, 21:27 »

SHUTTERSTOCK STATS: 70,158,324 royalty-free stock images / 712,500 new stock images added this week

Just for the log. Don't know what day. Dec 15th 2015.

Rinderart · « **Reply #52 on:** December 16, 2015, 17:08 »

And 1,016,200 are tomatoes. dont reviewers have a To many on site rejection reasons. When I reviewed they did.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #53 on:** December 16, 2015, 20:16 »

Quote from: Rinderart on December 16, 2015, 17:08

And 1,016,200 are tomatoes. dont reviewers have a To many on site rejection reasons. When I reviewed they did.

old post, ..but i guess it applies.
and marijuana i check Marijuana 49,163
i wonder in how many months it took to 49.1k vs tomato 1M

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #54 on:** December 30, 2015, 11:44 »

If SS is now at 70 million images, why does Alamy say front page, largest collection in the world 65 million. Should somebody tell them.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #55 on:** December 31, 2015, 03:28 »

getty has always been bigger than alamy, its just marketing spin, agencies are not exactly known for their honesty anyway

LesPalenik · « **Reply #56 on:** December 31, 2015, 05:00 »

Quote from: Rinderart on December 16, 2015, 17:08

And 1,016,200 are tomatoes. dont reviewers have a To many on site rejection reasons. When I reviewed they did.

I'm quite confident that with the recruitment of new contributors and rewarding the image factories for their output we can get that count in a few years to 2 million.

Looking at it from a different perspective, 1 million images are equal to 10,000 pages, each with 100 thumbnails. And some of them are actually quite nice. A cinch to go through.

If you have 10 of your own tomato images there, you'll have a 0.1% chance that someone after perusing 10,000 pages will see your image. Of course, if you add another 90 tomatoes tomorrow, you'd raise your chances to full 1%. However, when the collection reaches 2 million, your chances to be found would go back to 0.5% (unless you add another 100 plump tomatoes). Never ending circle!

Rinderart · « **Reply #57 on:** December 31, 2015, 16:38 »

Agree Les. Probably the reason I uploaded a rotten tomato in 2006. No one else had one and It flew off the shelf. then I did a apple. same thing. Then I got copied Big time. LOL

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #58 on:** December 31, 2015, 19:27 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on December 31, 2015, 05:00

Quote from: Rinderart on December 16, 2015, 17:08
And 1,016,200 are tomatoes. dont reviewers have a To many on site rejection reasons. When I reviewed they did.
when the collection reaches 2 million, your chances to be found would go back to 0.5% (unless you add another 100 plump tomatoes). Never ending circle!

good, serves them right. it's what they call tomato karma, heh heh
happy new year 2 all... may your tomatoes never rot

LesPalenik · « **Reply #59 on:** January 01, 2016, 11:22 »

Just checked the competition. FT is a close second with 827 thousand tomatoes, followed by IS with 491 thousands, and DT showing 431 thousands. Alamy has paltry 271,550 and GI doesn't even show the count.

However, that's nothing compared with Google archive. On this January 1, 2016, Google search engine returned in 0.39 seconds over 67 million tomato pictures. Seems like a big and vibrant market.

marthamarks · « **Reply #60 on:** January 01, 2016, 12:14 »

Makes me soooooooo happy I don't shoot tomatoes, or apples either.

Happy 2016, everybody!

Dumc · « **Reply #61 on:** January 01, 2016, 13:28 »

My second alamy sale was actually tomato. That was 4 months ago.

CJH Photography · « **Reply #62 on:** January 01, 2016, 14:06 »

Quote

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.

I think for the big users this has to happen eventually. Can you imagine sifting through these stock libraries to get quality stuff for an ad campaign? The only thing that worries me is the need to get my skills up to snuff before it happens. I have a lot to learn, but I am willing to learn, willing to work, and willing to keep an eye on where the market is headed.

Rinderart · « **Reply #63 on:** January 03, 2016, 13:56 »

Where do you think that is?? Im doing this forever and Have no clue whatsoever.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #64 on:** January 03, 2016, 14:57 »

Quote from: CJH Photography on January 01, 2016, 14:06

Quote
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.
I think for the big users this has to happen eventually. Can you imagine sifting through these stock libraries to get quality stuff for an ad campaign? The only thing that worries me is the need to get my skills up to snuff before it happens. I have a lot to learn, but I am willing to learn, willing to work, and willing to keep an eye on where the market is headed.

I don't see it going that way. We complain about more stock competition, and custom photographers and illustrators complain about the growth of stock, which is killing their business. Old fogies like me still push for custom work, but the kids coming up now were raised on stock images. That's the first place they look for ideas. Then they try to marry a clever headline to an existing image. Coming up with a fresh idea, one that's never been shot or illustrated and can't be photoshopped from existing images, is a skill they don't have and probably never will, because they never do it.

Clients expect to see concepts that look finished, with stock images already in place.

With the rise of stock video I also think commercials will go the stock route, rather than having a shoot to create custom footage. And there go all our trips to L.A. and Miami.

CJH Photography · « **Reply #65 on:** January 03, 2016, 19:07 »

Quote from: Rinderart on January 03, 2016, 13:56

Where do you think that is?? Im doing this forever and Have no clue whatsoever.

Still looking...but working and watching. Unfortunately, there is a difference between willing and able. Hoping to close the gap some day.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #66 on:** January 03, 2016, 19:22 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on January 01, 2016, 11:22

Just checked the competition. FT is a close second with 827 thousand tomatoes, followed by IS with 491 thousands, and DT showing 431 thousands. Alamy has paltry 271,550 and GI doesn't even show the count.

However, that's nothing compared with Google archive. On this January 1, 2016, Google search engine returned in 0.39 seconds over 67 million tomato pictures. Seems like a big and vibrant market.

that's mighty lots of tomatoes there circulating the Earth

but maybe we are the silly ones because if no one buys tomatoes and marijuana
pictures there won't be so many out there and still growing.
imagine, i would think that pharmaceuticals (pills and birth control ) would be the most wanted
images considering man is breeding faster than rabbits

but guess what, pills and birth control still got me zero in dls after xxx years in my portfolio.
as for "we already have too many of this one" button for reviewers to push,
i don't think there are any human reviewers left in ss.

just my thoughts for 2016. just try it... super sharp image side to side,
no OOF in the foreground, blue sky in the background.
approved 100% all the time.

creative focus or creative lighting , blur in background or foreground, rejection 100%
or poor composition.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #67 on:** April 05, 2016, 10:09 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 15, 2015, 21:27

SHUTTERSTOCK STATS: 70,158,324 royalty-free stock images / 712,500 new stock images added this week

Just for the log. Don't know what day. Dec 15th 2015.

Didn't notice, wasn't watching. Sometime in March. 3 months for 10 million new. Sept. 2016 SS will pass 100 million.

SHUTTERSTOCK STATS: 81,448,788 royalty-free stock images / 791,064 new stock images added this week

dpimborough · « **Reply #68 on:** April 05, 2016, 13:42 »

81, 91, 101, million grillion gazillion who cares

50% of the turds on SS can't be polished enough to make even a single sale.

The search is completely junked due to all the spamming.

Boy am I in a filthy mood today

Nikovsk · « **Reply #69 on:** April 05, 2016, 15:17 »

Popular search is still ok but "new" is a complete disaster.

Buyers are surely getting fed up with so much low quality spam content.

theendup · « **Reply #70 on:** April 05, 2016, 15:22 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 30, 2015, 11:44

If SS is now at 70 million images, why does Alamy say front page, largest collection in the world 65 million. Should somebody tell them.

Alamy claims they have the largest stock photo collection. Not images..

Rinderart · « **Reply #71 on:** April 05, 2016, 16:41 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on April 05, 2016, 13:42

81, 91, 101, million grillion gazillion who cares

50% of the turds on SS can't be polished enough to make even a single sale.

The search is completely junked due to all the spamming.

Boy am I in a filthy mood today

agree.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #72 on:** April 05, 2016, 16:51 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 25, 2015, 15:59

Quote from: mojaric on August 25, 2015, 14:30
As what i know Photography is art . Microstock is business.

Hence for some easy mathematical rule Microstock is not Photography
Hence the crisis of Microstock is not the crisis of Photography

+100
after all the veering and political incorrectness OT, i am glad someone is smart enough to let us know this.
yes, it has nothing to do with the myth of making "useful" pictures of pretty girl with headsets, or men in suits shaking hands. it is definitely not art, and definitely nothing to do with knowledge in photography.
it has everything to do with being lucky enough to be found in the search
while no doubt a million other better shots are buried in page 100, 1001, etc
whatever, it definitely will not have a Time-Life chapter printed in 2200 under Photography.
but it could be found in a museam in 2200 under Cat Litter and toilet paper

Or as Gary Player said ...".the harder I work the luckier I get"

fotografer · « **Reply #73 on:** April 06, 2016, 02:15 »

The only way for your images to be found these days is if you upload thousands and thousands. Or if you have been in the business a long time and you have a lot of images with hundreds or thousands of downloads. I think that the only way my new images get found on SS and many of the other sites is because the buyer first goes to one of my bestsellers and then from there clicks through to my newer images. If I started out nowadays I would have given up ages ago as I would probably have sold very litle as I don't upload enough to get seen.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #74 on:** June 16, 2016, 21:10 »

Quote from: fotografer on April 06, 2016, 02:15

The only way for your images to be found these days is if you upload thousands and thousands. Or if you have been in the business a long time and you have a lot of images with hundreds or thousands of downloads. I think that the only way my new images get found on SS and many of the other sites is because the buyer first goes to one of my bestsellers and then from there clicks through to my newer images. If I started out nowadays I would have given up ages ago as I would probably have sold very litle as I don't upload enough to get seen.

Good thinking newer images get better placing and featured, competiton is 90 times what it was.

SHUTTERSTOCK STATS: 90,205,984 royalty-free stock images / 950,592 new stock images added this week

Artist · « **Reply #75 on:** June 16, 2016, 23:28 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on June 16, 2016, 21:10

Quote from: fotografer on April 06, 2016, 02:15
The only way for your images to be found these days is if you upload thousands and thousands. Or if you have been in the business a long time and you have a lot of images with hundreds or thousands of downloads. I think that the only way my new images get found on SS and many of the other sites is because the buyer first goes to one of my bestsellers and then from there clicks through to my newer images. If I started out nowadays I would have given up ages ago as I would probably have sold very litle as I don't upload enough to get seen.

Good thinking newer images get better placing and featured, competiton is 90 times what it was.

SHUTTERSTOCK STATS: 90,205,984 royalty-free stock images / 950,592 new stock images added this week

And if you get one image lucky, then see the potential of shutterstock. Nothing to quote here.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #76 on:** June 17, 2016, 02:31 »

Actually my earnings "new" content from the last six months is about 15% and the last 12 about 33% so not the apocalypse just yet........(after about 6 years of submissions)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: SS now at 60 million images! (Read 73136 times)

Justanotherphotographer

marthamarks

Rinderart

stock-will-eat-itself

Rinderart

Rinderart

Rose Tinted Glasses

Rose Tinted Glasses

FlowerPower

Justanotherphotographer

Rinderart

Rinderart

marthamarks

Rinderart

dpimborough

Rinderart

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors