MicrostockGroup

Holy $#?#$#@!! I knew they had a lot of images but... 53 and 67k images... Hell. They must have other photographers working for them full time. Corbis on Fotolia only links 27k image ;p http://www.fotolia.com/p/200993946

I'm impressed by those numbers Theirs is not only quantity, but hell, great quality! KaChing $!

That is epic. 67k vectors in 2.5 years. Unbelievable. Either the guy has figured out a way to crank out vectors at a ridiculous pace, or he's a team.

Either way, it's an impressive production.

Edited to add: In looking at his portfolio, he does also upload the raster version of each vector, so his true "portfolio" is more like half of what is reported. Still quite impressive, as it's rare to see a 100% vector portfolio with even 1,000 images. 33k is still incredible.

Yep. Vectors always sell better, but I'd say the raster versions of my vector work sell once for every 6 or 7 vector sales.

That's just based on comparison to my stats, so it's certainly not scientific. But I know other folks see fairly comparable raster images sales stats.

And speaking of numbers and operations, these two are celebrity shooters, red carpet types.

1   Helga Esteb   67228   573   1054   98% photo, 2% illustration   09.03.2010
7   Featureflash   39058   6740   15042   80% photo, 20% illustration   11.08.2011

So how's that for one year, 67,000 photos and #7 one month 39,000! I think we can assume they are agency accounts. 

Actually this is Shutterstock's official method of handling vector and JPG versions. They don't allow the buyer to choose between a vector or JPG file to download from one page, and encourage vector artists to upload the corresponding JPG version as a separate file, getting it's own file number and page in the system.

In searches, buyers can filter out which type of file they're looking for, so I guess that's helpful. But I think it would be ideal to have both options in the same place, giving buyers the choice right there on the spot.

That and it would make for a much more accurate depiction of the true size of the SS collection. That 17 million image count is surely inflated due to JPG versions of the exact same vector images.