Author Topic: Is Shutterstock for real??? (Read 32460 times)

Pauws99 · « **Reply #25 on:** October 09, 2015, 16:36 »

Proof if any were needed that the SS inspection process is seriously flawed. Whatever the merits of the pictures surely it can't make any sense if pictures that already commercially successful are rejected can it?

Mrblues101 · « **Reply #26 on:** October 09, 2015, 17:02 »

I think that SS always reject your first submition... i dont know... maybe to check your constancy or something...

Im vector illustrator (im not on photography) anyway my first submition was also rejected because of bizarre reasons, my acceptance rate is about 99% after i was accepted up to today.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #27 on:** October 09, 2015, 17:06 »

Quote from: Mrblues101 on October 09, 2015, 17:02

I think that SS always reject your first submition... i dont know... maybe to check your constancy or something...

Im vector illustrator (im not on photography) anyway my first submition was also rejected because of bizarre reasons, my acceptance rate is about 99% after i was accepted up to today.

Which would be ridiculous in itself but the weight of evidence is overwhelming that the process is broken.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #28 on:** October 09, 2015, 17:15 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 09, 2015, 16:36

Proof if any were needed that the SS inspection process is seriously flawed. Whatever the merits of the pictures surely it can't make any sense if pictures that already commercially successful are rejected can it?

It wouldn't really matter if it was successful somewhere else. My 10K seller on IS has sold maybe a handful of times on the others.

dbvirago · « **Reply #29 on:** October 09, 2015, 17:38 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 09, 2015, 17:15

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 09, 2015, 16:36
Proof if any were needed that the SS inspection process is seriously flawed. Whatever the merits of the pictures surely it can't make any sense if pictures that already commercially successful are rejected can it?

It wouldn't really matter if it was successful somewhere else. My 10K seller on IS has sold maybe a handful of times on the others.

Reminds me of a rainy day project I've been meaning to get to. Track my top 10 at each agency to see how much they have in common, and which ones aren't.

marthamarks · « **Reply #30 on:** October 09, 2015, 17:42 »

Quote from: Mrblues101 on October 09, 2015, 17:02

I think that SS always reject your first submition...

SS didn't reject my first submission. They accepted all 10 images. Your statement is much too broad to be credible.

Mrblues101 · « **Reply #31 on:** October 09, 2015, 20:14 »

Quote from: marthamarks on October 09, 2015, 17:42

Quote from: Mrblues101 on October 09, 2015, 17:02
I think that SS always reject your first submition...

SS didn't reject my first submission. They accepted all 10 images. Your statement is much too broad to be credible.

I'm just speculating based on the evidence of my own experience and what i heard in the forum... too may first submissions with perfect images rejected... there must be an explanation ... maybe the explanation is not what i say before but there must be an explanation...

ArturoDV96 · « **Reply #32 on:** October 09, 2015, 20:47 »

It took me several tries to get accepted at Shutterstock. But once I was it ended up being my biggest earner - and with the least amount of pictures (compared to what I have at other sites).

robhainer · « **Reply #33 on:** October 09, 2015, 22:08 »

Quote from: dbvirago on October 09, 2015, 16:22

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

Yep. Most of my images are shot handheld at f4 and I don't have any trouble with rejections. Very rare.

basti · « **Reply #34 on:** October 10, 2015, 00:33 »

It is funny how many people excuse obviously inconsistent and sometimes obviously absolutely stupid way how SS deals with rejections. Im in this business long enough to recognize bad and good picture. If it gots rejected by 5 of 7 agencies, it is probably really bad. If it gets accepted by 5-6 of 7 best agencies, then the reviewer is probably idiot. The latter is the case with SS mostly... I dont bother with uploading bad pictures and Im with them since 2007. These "killing sprees" really bother me...

Dumc · « **Reply #35 on:** October 10, 2015, 00:52 »

Quote from: marthamarks on October 09, 2015, 17:42

Quote from: Mrblues101 on October 09, 2015, 17:02
I think that SS always reject your first submition...

SS didn't reject my first submission. They accepted all 10 images. Your statement is much too broad to be credible.

Yeah. Me too was accepted first time.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #36 on:** October 10, 2015, 00:54 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 09, 2015, 17:15

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 09, 2015, 16:36
Proof if any were needed that the SS inspection process is seriously flawed. Whatever the merits of the pictures surely it can't make any sense if pictures that already commercially successful are rejected can it?

It wouldn't really matter if it was successful somewhere else. My 10K seller on IS has sold maybe a handful of times on the others.

It will only really "matter" when it starts to impact on SS's bottom line - which it doesn't seem to (yet?) given their last set of figures.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #37 on:** October 10, 2015, 01:52 »

Could be worse. They could be like DT.

JPSDK · « **Reply #38 on:** October 10, 2015, 01:59 »

I have met many old school photographers, professionals in the trade during 1990 and up to 2010, doing stock or "police and accidents".
They often failed to adapt to global crowdsourcing. Where people from Ucraine and Uri from Denmark simply produced a better product, because they produced a more precise, more striking content without distractions, that could be used globally and not only in the local media..
They could not compete or adapt. Their artistic development was halted because of greenhouse effects and lack of competition and it was characteristic that they said: " I like to shoot photos" and " I dont like to photoshop too much".
Which is exactly what you say.
So I think you should ask yourself if the istock greehouse has limited you and if you are competitive in a global crowdsourcing environment.

And I dare you: show us some of your photos.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #39 on:** October 10, 2015, 02:37 »

Quote from: JPSDK on October 10, 2015, 01:59

I have met many old school photographers, professionals in the trade during 1990 and up to 2010, doing stock or "police and accidents".
They often failed to adapt to global crowdsourcing. Where people from Ucraine and Uri from Denmark simply produced a better product, because they produced a more precise, more striking content without distractions, that could be used globally and not only in the local media..
They could not compete or adapt. Their artistic development was halted because of greenhouse effects and lack of competition and it was characteristic that they said: " I like to shoot photos" and " I dont like to photoshop too much".
Which is exactly what you say.
So I think you should ask yourself if the istock greehouse has limited you and if you are competitive in a global crowdsourcing environment.

And I dare you: show us some of your photos.

If this were one exception......but its not

Shelma1 · « **Reply #40 on:** October 10, 2015, 05:01 »

There could be two issues. Number one could be that this old school photographer has had images accepted by Tony Stone (I remember Tony Stone) 30 years ago that would be unacceptable by today's standards.

The second could be that the reviewing at SS is capricious and has been for about a year now. There's no doubt some reviewers just reject things to make whatever quota they've set for themselves.

But wasn't the OP the guy who lectured all the rest of us about editing and scoffed at our complaints about the reviews at SS? Or was that someone else?

ShadySue · « **Reply #41 on:** October 10, 2015, 12:03 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 10, 2015, 05:01

But wasn't the OP the guy who lectured all the rest of us about editing and scoffed at our complaints about the reviews at SS? Or was that someone else?

"As per upload limits, Getty Images has none, but they edit, so if you get 10% in you are doing well, and it can also take weeks to get in image accepted, not the usual 5 minutes on every micro site.
It's actually very funny and sad at the same time, I remember reading on this very MSG about a photographer that bought a new camera and because of his camera his approval ratings soared. Did his/her skills suddenly get better? I very much doubt it.
My bet is on the for future of success is agencies that edit. I honestly think the micros have far too much crap to quality ratio."
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/fifty-million-stock-images-on-shutterstock-50-million!/msg428841/#msg428841

But like the rest of us, he's learned that rose-coloured glasses can only save us from what iS is doing for a short time:
"I could never afford to sell my work for 0.25c on up to 0.38c"
"http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/a-monday-like-sunday#/msg427253/#msg427253"

In fact, from that and other posts on that thread in particular, rtg implied that he did not submit to any micros, including iStock. Or at least, that was a reasonable inference.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #42 on:** October 10, 2015, 12:22 »

Oh, then this thread is about comeuppance.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #43 on:** October 10, 2015, 13:12 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 09, 2015, 12:32

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on October 09, 2015, 11:50
Either way, I still make very decent returns over at Istock and Getty Images and all this has proven to me is that I don't want to give up 5/10 of my income from Istock for this travesty in hopes of making it back.

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

Hate to be picky, but we do all know 5/10 =1/2 from basic maths, right?

JPSDK · « **Reply #44 on:** October 10, 2015, 14:27 »

what does "comeuppance" mean, its a new word for me?

ShadySue · « **Reply #45 on:** October 10, 2015, 14:32 »

Quote from: JPSDK on October 10, 2015, 14:27

what does "comeuppance" mean, its a new word for me?

Google is our friend:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define:+come+uppance&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=o2cZVr0mzLRRque_iAI

marthamarks · « **Reply #46 on:** October 10, 2015, 14:34 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on October 10, 2015, 13:12

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 09, 2015, 12:32
Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on October 09, 2015, 11:50
Either way, I still make very decent returns over at Istock and Getty Images and all this has proven to me is that I don't want to give up 5/10 of my income from Istock for this travesty in hopes of making it back.

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

Hate to be picky, but we do all know 5/10 =1/2 from basic maths, right?

PB, that was certainly true when I was in grade school six decades ago. Haven't looked at grade-school arithmetic books since then, but I assume the basic math-facts are still the same.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #47 on:** October 10, 2015, 16:52 »

Quote from: marthamarks on October 10, 2015, 14:34

Quote from: PixelBytes on October 10, 2015, 13:12
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 09, 2015, 12:32
Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on October 09, 2015, 11:50
Either way, I still make very decent returns over at Istock and Getty Images and all this has proven to me is that I don't want to give up 5/10 of my income from Istock for this travesty in hopes of making it back.

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

Hate to be picky, but we do all know 5/10 =1/2 from basic maths, right?

PB, that was certainly true when I was in grade school six decades ago. Haven't looked at grade-school arithmetic books since then, but I assume the basic math-facts are still the same.

Was just teasing Sean about his 1/5 of his income and thinking hmmmm.... that's 20%, so to play with his figure of this I was suggesting I would potentially lose 50% of my at the beginning if I finally chose to drop being exclusive. I was only having a bit of fun.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #48 on:** October 10, 2015, 16:59 »

Quote from: JPSDK on October 10, 2015, 01:59

I have met many old school photographers, professionals in the trade during 1990 and up to 2010, doing stock or "police and accidents".
They often failed to adapt to global crowdsourcing. Where people from Ucraine and Uri from Denmark simply produced a better product, because they produced a more precise, more striking content without distractions, that could be used globally and not only in the local media..
They could not compete or adapt. Their artistic development was halted because of greenhouse effects and lack of competition and it was characteristic that they said: " I like to shoot photos" and " I dont like to photoshop too much".
Which is exactly what you say.
So I think you should ask yourself if the istock greehouse has limited you and if you are competitive in a global crowdsourcing environment.

And I dare you: show us some of your photos.

I think you have missed the point and drifted on to a new topic in your condescending reply.

This is not about new school or old school etc or willingness to adapt, or crowdsourcing, or being better than anyone, or comeuppance etc. Yawn.

It was about being totally surprised at this bizarre rejection and the reasoning behind it.

There is another thread close by with 37 pages of loyal contributors saying the same thing. Are they the same type of people as you have portrayed in your reply?

Konstantin Sutyagin · « **Reply #49 on:** October 10, 2015, 17:11 »

I can totally understand Rose Tinted Glasses. That was one of the reasons I have stopped uploading photos and switched to videos instead.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is Shutterstock for real??? (Read 32460 times)

Pauws99

Mrblues101

Pauws99

Sean Locke Photography

dbvirago

marthamarks

Mrblues101

ArturoDV96

robhainer

basti

Dumc

Pauws99

Justanotherphotographer

JPSDK

Pauws99

Shelma1

ShadySue

Shelma1

PixelBytes

JPSDK

ShadySue

marthamarks

Rose Tinted Glasses

Rose Tinted Glasses

Konstantin Sutyagin

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors