Wow what a very creative port
This guys going to burn through a cameras shutter actuations just on this one subject lol

That's not all he's burning through. Probably makes it easier to shoot the same shots 1000 times.

Also keep in mind that this is probably almost 100% due to video sales. If you have lots of video - you really should get them up at P5. For stills - unfortunately it isn't going to make that much of a difference (at least in my case recently).

Same experience, photos didn't do anything and now my videos aren't up to the standards. P5 is a good site for many, mostly people who can produce good videos. And it's early in the month for the poll. I don't know how often it updates.

DT numbers were lower last week, being passed with an increase isn't bad.

I've noticed this large preview a few days ago...
I usually make my vector images very fast, so it's not a huge problem for me if somebody downloads a few of them without paying. But I know, there are many of contributors who put large amount of time into their works.
(The images I've put the most work into are never purchased...)

Am I right, that now previews are not as large as a few days ago?

Don't know about size, but I see a lattice, criss-crossing the photos, many watermarks on the crossings, writing on the lines. The color of the bottom doesn't make any difference.

Nobody seemed to like my theory - but I'm saying, these were never reviewed.  SS is having this stuff done internally, or commissioning someone, and loading it directly.  No one is spending time uploading 10s of thousands of things like this, and SS wouldn't pay reviewers to look at it.  Maybe they just want to pad their numbers and reach some new milestone of collection size. Or, maybe they want to show some subset of customers what a vast collection of icons and similar stuff they have.

Of course, I could be wrong.  One way to prove me wrong would be to find the same material on another microstock.

Can't accept this or similar theories. Why wouldn't they just accept our work if they need numbers. We have better quality and not spam repeats.

What started this is basic, new criteria for desired files and acceptance policies. Not something controversial. But Canva's way of dealing with a request for information is ignore and then remove the account. Canva has learned from Scientology and some other church groups that only the true followers are allowed, the rest get excommunicated or shunned.

We work, we aren't blind servants. Shame on you Canva.

Anybody know the answer? What are the new criteria for desired files and acceptance policies. I can understand if they are trying to only have best images, and keep the collection trimmed, but wouldn't it be nice to tell us what and how?

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 14, 2015, 18:39

So far this year, 13 toddlers in the U.S. have killed themselves with a gun. Someone is shot by a toddler here once a week on average.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/

Proof of bad parenting.
Far less incidents than other house dangers nobody asks to be banned.

Jail people when their guns are used in a crime or accidental shooting. Jail people who buy guns for criminals who aren't allowed to buy a gun. Stop people with metal health issues from legally getting a gun.

Don't complain that too many people of some group or class are in jail. They are the people who don't follow the laws and are repeat offenders.

But don't take away guns from people who are careful, don't use them for crime and are living within the law. Most criminals do not use legal or licensed guns.

I don't understand this. To make things worse, every single buyer of a Shutterstock image loads that image into an Adobe program at some point. Adobe basically has their straw straight down into Shutterstock�s customer list.

Does he hint that Adobe is watching every image that we edit in cloud software? Or watching the source of every image that we open in any Adobe software? Isn't that illegal?

What does it mean?

Sounds like you have a decent reviewer where you live.

I think we all have the same reviewers and they use software as a tool to review, not 100% eyes.

http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-ela.php#WhatToLookFor

When they keep devaluing our work, it certainly does not give me any incentive to give them my best images.

You mean we aren't happy getting paid .28c for partner program or subscription gross royalties, and no more then that ever for most non-exclusive with the RC levels up and the sales down? Is that devalued, insulting or both?

But it's OK, because Adobe pays only 33%, but iStock pays up to 7%.

Oh, wait...

I'll be kind. He's right about Adobe paying too much for mostly the same pictures that any buyer can find anywhere. Except the people who quit FT.

He's right about the marketing power that Adobe could push. But it would only squeeze out the bottom of the barrel that's already on life support.

He's right about mediocre image standards but forgets that IS has lower standards now.

His point that 33% is low is well made, but IS is 15% which is half the money and twice as bad for artists.

I think he makes many good points about what Adobe could do, the review of how he evaluated agencies before joining them, is interesting, we can learn from that. If he was on 50 agencies before going contract on Getty, I don't believe he followed his own evaluations for cost and investment vs returns. It blows holes in his whole science of finance claim, used to discredit Adobe Stock.

How does that translate into polite opinion? He is tainted and not at all credible because he contradicts his own words, history and claims, with his own real actions. His review is biased and only picks or chooses what fits. He neglects IS speed, search, pay, and information, while only including SS and Adobestock.

You of all people Mr. Wackerhausen should strive for honesty and accuracy. That's what got you to the top. Clear science and business foresight into the stock industry. If you want credibility and respect beyond your marketing and photography reputation, you need to have the same standards for your own reporting. 

This latest blogpost has missed the mark of anything close to fair, unbiased or scientific. Not like I would expect from you.

He is the top, that's not a personal claim, it's the truth, based on 2011 best selling microstock photographer in the world. I don't know about today.

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.

Really 18+ likes

How soon we forget that IS "used to" have the toughest reviews in micro.

I do think SS farms out its reviews by region and who you get is the luck of the draw. Take a good long look at the new images coming in to shutterstock. Many of those images would have never made the reviews at the former IS.

The review process is flawed.

I also liked the tougher reviews on IS. Maybe they will come back with the new CEO?

I think you are also right about SS, some reviewers are in NY the rest are farmed out to incompetent services.

The review process is horribly flawed and inconsistent.

The OP did miss some words in his rant about how wonderful he is and how SS is missing his work. SS accepts half a million images a week, they don't really care about any one of us. Those photos passed, didn't they?

This applies to all of us Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best. http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/why-images-get-rejected-for-focus it helps to understand what the rejection really means. It isn't just about sharpness.

Now we have the answer to what will the new CEO do for us.

I received a reply from SS.

We receive the percentage as for custom images for these subscription plans. As it's a test they didn't notify contributors, but they said they do put it in the blog if it becomes a new product.

Another swing for the fence and a strike out. Can't be any other way the earnings schedule doesn't allow for it.

Hard to see how it is any other way, the earnings schedule doesn't seem to allow for another interpretation.  Have they made any announcement or had any discussion on the forums about it?

Thanks for getting accurate information Jo Ann.