I'm starting to see some evidence that the volume of new images being uploaded may actually be falling rather than relentlessly rising as it had been for the last 6 years.

Shutterstock's 'New images added this week' figure has dropped to about 70K per week for the last couple of months when previously it had been over 110K. Of course this may be due to vacations and/or a harsher review policy although I can't say I've noticed the latter.

Istock have increased upload limits too and not apparently on a temporary basis. Until the recent shenanigans reviews, even for independents, had been very swift so maybe the inspectors were somewhat under-employed.

Is the 'market' finally settling and finding it's own level? Are less successful contributors simply finding it not worth their effort?

Any thoughts?

Quote from: jsnover on September 22, 2010, 09:44

iStock's current pending images count is nearly 73,500 - pretty high considering levels over the last year.

I think you can rule out the last couple of weeks at Istockphoto. I have a feeling that the inspectors may be expressing their own disgust at having their commissions cut with a go-slow. Of course if they do it'll hit them even further in the pocket.

Interesting thread. My guess would be that it is indeed vacations. If sales slow down in the summer for that reason, it makes sense that submissions would also. But if it is not just seasonal, and the flood of new submitters has crested, that would be interesting news indeed.

Quote from: gostwyck on September 22, 2010, 09:21

Shutterstock's 'New images added this week' figure has dropped to about 70K per week for the last couple of months when previously it had been over 110K. Of course this may be due to vacations...

During the past 12-18+ months the percentage of newbie photo startups in the traditional portraiture field have been increasing steadily here in the US. I know quite a few of these shooters started out in microstock and are now trying to move into the higher paying non-stock fields. Most are not doing well at making the transition when it comes to style and technique but they are working on it and as a result it is taking their time away from messing with micro. The thing hardcore micro-shooters might be interested in knowing is that even if these shooters fail horribly at switching to non-stock portraiture, they can still produce an income from 1 weeks work equal to what they made in micro over the entire year. This gives them reason to keep trying. I can't say how many micro shooters are making the move here in the US but I have helped close to 100 photographers with their business plans in the past year or so who fell into this category. My guess is that if statistics were taking from all the pros here in the US who offered workshops, mentoring, etc.,  you would see a similar trend. If there has been a decrease in micro activity from previous contributors then this could be one of many reasons why. At the same time, I think there would be micro-newbies to take their place and fill up the slack.

The thing hardcore micro-shooters might be interested in knowing is that even if these shooters fail horribly at switching to non-stock portraiture, they can still produce an income from 1 weeks work equal to what they made in micro over the entire year.

You can be at the very top in micro and quickly fall to the very bottom in portraiture. If you are producing highly marketable micro images of people then chances are you're doing everything a normal client will look at and think .. those photos are so bad it's not even funny.

Quote from: lisafx on September 23, 2010, 18:17

Quote from: Randy McKown on September 23, 2010, 14:20

The thing hardcore micro-shooters might be interested in knowing is that even if these shooters fail horribly at switching to non-stock portraiture, they can still produce an income from 1 weeks work equal to what they made in micro over the entire year.

Quote from: Randy McKown on September 23, 2010, 15:54

You can be at the very top in micro and quickly fall to the very bottom in portraiture. If you are producing highly marketable micro images of people then chances are you're doing everything a normal client will look at and think .. those photos are so bad it's not even funny.

Randy, I don't doubt the trends you are talking about.  You are in a much better position than I am to know what's going on in portraiture. 

However the two statements above seem to be contradictory to me.  Someone who is able to make the same at portraiture or weddings in a week as they would have made in a year in microstock is a really unsuccessful microstocker.  Definitely not the "very top". 

Also, I really don't see how the lighting and people skills learned photographing people for micro would not translate to portraiture.  Certainly the flat, stereotypical "micro" lighting might not be ideal, but anyone who has become skilled enough to get to the top of the micro market shooting people should have also picked up the skills to light practically any location or create most studio lighting they need for portraits.  And surely the skills of directing models should translate to portraiture too. 

What am I missing?

It's because in the first post I wasn't referring to top micro shooters .. more like those who fall into the $2000-3000 a yr range .. which is probably still above the average micro contributors level. In the second post I was just emphasizing on the fact that the two types of consumers targeted are completely different. A top contributor would need to completely re-invent their personal style or else they would quickly drop to the bottom of the barrel. Not saying the top shooters couldn't do it .. just that they would need to take the time to develop the new style.

It's less technical and more the style/atmosphere of the compositions where a lot of people have said they had trouble. You get to where you have a personal style that just comes natural and then you have to suddenly change it.

The people skills required are also a lot different because in many cases you will be manipulating two different emotions in multiple people at the same time. Take grad portrait sessions for example. You need to be controlling the seniors+friends emotions and also the parents, specifically the mom. For the grad you are controlling an upbeat atmosphere .. keeping it fun, exciting, pre-selling product concepts you want them to buy to make all their friends jealous.

At the same time you need to be manipulating the mom in reverse. You want her to enjoy watching but at the same time you want her standing there a bit depressed .. making her realize that her child does not depend on her as much anymore and forcing her to think about things like soon she won't see her child as often .. they'll be off to college, etc.

Once you get in the sales room you kick this depression into overdrive. My goal with every mom is to make her cry because I know the harder she cries the more she is going to spend because it is her last attempt to hold onto memories of her child as a child.

Tackle a client with a micro session psychology and they will be a $400 client .. the other method will almost always double or triple that figure. This is where shooters really need to make adjustments when switching over. It's not about keeping things flowing and upbeat. It's about creating an emotional bombshell.