A person living in the caribbean doesnt have any significant overhead, all he needs to do is wake up and go to the beach and shoot whatever the day brings. If you are going to fly to the caribbean for a shoot, then you shouldnt be involved with micro RF.

Neither microstock or SS was ever about flying models off to the Caribbean and staying in 5* hotels. Never was and never will be. It's about producing images cheaply for our market segment. Wal-Mart is never going to try and compete against Harrods. They operate in completely different market sectors and therefore they also have different suppliers.

The success and floatation of the company was not built on apples on white backgrounds with zero production budget, it is largely due to the high production work in the collection. The problem with SS is that its a Walmart that desperately wants to become Harrods, unfortunately for them their top supplier just moved to Harrods.

Wal-Mart is never going to try and compete against Harrods. They operate in completely different market sectors and therefore they also have different suppliers.

To some extent, but there's a local company which makes exactly the same product for supermarket own-brands and Harrods; they're just packaged - and priced - differently.

Interesting to note that MS contributors appear to have been trained by their distributors (not true in all cases but valid for many).

Where 'trained' = 'indoctrinated'.

There is a difference between being trained by the sites and simply understanding that SS accepts and promotes images which frequently have color channels completely blown because the saturation has been ramped up to ghastly levels. Case in point look at the color channels in a few of the red rock images from monument valley.  The red channels are completely blown.

There are plenty of us who do not buy into those who endorse or train newbies to shoot at extremely warm jpeg color temps touted at certain workshops, nor do we do we endorse doing it in post.  But SS seems to accept and promote those type of images more than some sites do. Based on what they rejected and accepted, it is their own fault that they ended up with piles of that type of content.

Offset is interesting, and has a more editorial feel than what is being discussed. I don't see it being high end or even stock photography primarily. Shutterstock is an intriguing company. It's the one agency I'm really on the fence about. I have argued myself onto both sides. The price per download is so little that it really does feel like an insult when you've been 'raised' in another agency. But, there are a lot of really good shooters out there who make great money on Shutterstock. They have good contributor relations, reaching out by phone and email. I also like what I know of Jon Oringer. But it's not like that matters, except that he is a photographer first and still runs the company. Right now my 500 or so images are all opted out. I'm reluctant to completely close my account at SS though until I've made a concrete decision about whether it's worth it or not. If I do continue to contribute to SS, it will probably be the only sub site I contribute to (other than iStock).

anyways, I heard from someone with more experience with SS. they have me rethinking the decision to stay on SS.

Am I correct that Shutterstock doesn't farm images out like istock does to programs and subsidiary sites? Or do they?

Offset is interesting, and has a more editorial feel than what is being discussed. I don't see it being high end or even stock photography primarily. Shutterstock is an intriguing company. It's the one agency I'm really on the fence about. I have argued myself onto both sides. The price per download is so little that it really does feel like an insult when you've been 'raised' in another agency. But, there are a lot of really good shooters out there who make great money on Shutterstock. They have good contributor relations, reaching out by phone and email. I also like what I know of Jon Oringer. But it's not like that matters, except that he is a photographer first and still runs the company. Right now my 500 or so images are all opted out. I'm reluctant to completely close my account at SS though until I've made a concrete decision about whether it's worth it or not. If I do continue to contribute to SS, it will probably be the only sub site I contribute to (other than iStock).

anyways, I heard from someone with more experience with SS. they have me rethinking the decision to stay on SS.

Am I correct that Shutterstock doesn't farm images out like istock does to programs and subsidiary sites? Or do they?

You don't have to put everything on all the sites.
As Gostwyck has said many times, Micro is all about quick and easy files that can sell in large quantities, and this is especially true for sub sites.
Anything that's been time consuming or expensive to produce can go elsewhere.

Micro is all about quick and easy files that can sell in large quantities, and this is especially true for sub sites.
Anything that's been time consuming or expensive to produce can go elsewhere.

fully agree.
the future of micro is ALL about subs and SS is the living proof of that.

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 20, 2013, 23:17

Micro is all about quick and easy files that can sell in large quantities, and this is especially true for sub sites.
Anything that's been time consuming or expensive to produce can go elsewhere.

fully agree.
the future of micro is ALL about subs and SS is the living proof of that.

How many times do you need to be told that SS isn't a subs site?  It was almost all subs 5 years ago but things have changed.  Shame your opinions are still so outdated.

Quote from: Xanox on May 21, 2013, 00:19

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 20, 2013, 23:17

Micro is all about quick and easy files that can sell in large quantities, and this is especially true for sub sites.
Anything that's been time consuming or expensive to produce can go elsewhere.

fully agree.
the future of micro is ALL about subs and SS is the living proof of that.

How many times do you need to be told that SS isn't a subs site?  It was almost all subs 5 years ago but things have changed.  Shame your opinions are still so outdated.

It is, in my view. Subs sites are the sites that offer cheap subs, no matter if they also offer single downloads or other options. DT, Fotolia, SS etc

Allow me to pontificate on what Yuri is doing based on very little real information. If he's feeling the pinch like the rest of us who have been fulltime for the past 8 years, he's consolidating, retiring and getting his income into real assets because he senses that the end is near. I bet he has a deal with Getty that allows him to sell on his own site and exclusive with Getty. Oversupply is killing everyone no matter how good they are. Good for him. You Getty do what ya getty do.

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 20, 2013, 23:17

Quote from: SNP on May 20, 2013, 20:22

Offset is interesting, and has a more editorial feel than what is being discussed. I don't see it being high end or even stock photography primarily. Shutterstock is an intriguing company. It's the one agency I'm really on the fence about. I have argued myself onto both sides. The price per download is so little that it really does feel like an insult when you've been 'raised' in another agency. But, there are a lot of really good shooters out there who make great money on Shutterstock. They have good contributor relations, reaching out by phone and email. I also like what I know of Jon Oringer. But it's not like that matters, except that he is a photographer first and still runs the company. Right now my 500 or so images are all opted out. I'm reluctant to completely close my account at SS though until I've made a concrete decision about whether it's worth it or not. If I do continue to contribute to SS, it will probably be the only sub site I contribute to (other than iStock).

anyways, I heard from someone with more experience with SS. they have me rethinking the decision to stay on SS.

Am I correct that Shutterstock doesn't farm images out like istock does to programs and subsidiary sites? Or do they?

You don't have to put everything on all the sites.
As Gostwyck has said many times, Micro is all about quick and easy files that can sell in large quantities, and this is especially true for sub sites.
Anything that's been time consuming or expensive to produce can go elsewhere.

Sometimes I find conversations a bit funny. Seems to me many consider it weird and strange almost Bizarre to spend time and money on a shoot. Why is that? "micro is all about quick and easy files selling in large quantities". Sure it is but its also a sad fact that its come to that. Scraping the bottom of the barrel that is.

If thats all we can produce no wonder we get crappy buyers for crappy pics. Thats really what we are saying or thinking is it not.

You can spend $500 on one photo, if it makes $700, that's a nice profit.  It's not that difficult to do with microstock but its much easier to spend $1 and make $200.  And I don't agree that low budget images have to be "crappy".  People can produce crap at any price point.