I think "greatest number" sounds more elegant "most" would be the most economical. "single" is also redundant. "Who has the most files at an Agency?" I would suggest is optimal.

Very efficient indeed, but I wouldn't capitalize "agency".

Quote from: NorthwestDreams on October 31, 2018, 22:01

I'm a contributor who works with Shutterstock's new contributor support team. I wanted to let you know that Shutterstock is experiencing a major hacking incident that's been going on since at least Monday. Please check your accounts. If you can still login, immediately change your password to one that is secure. Spread the word. Hopefully we can nip this in the bud before it gets any worse.

I'm dubious hearing it like this. Where is an announcement from SS, and where is any evidence, such as just one forum member reporting it's happened to them.

It's pretty easy to go in and change your password. 

It happened on BigStock, so no doubt it can happen on Shutterstock.

Hi, have just started attempting stock video with some files getting sold. I've currently been a heavy user of warp stabilizer and am planning to get something to help me get more stable shots of walking etc. The contenders are

1. Gimbal like the crane plus ($500), expensive but one of the best in getting smooth shots from my mobile and sony NEX6

2. A small roxant type stabilizer ($30), marginally better than handheld. Need a lot more time to stabilize and can get only level horizon shots. This is mainly to bide time if at all.

What would you all advise? Is the $500 investment worth it?

If you want stable shots, get a motorized gimbal. Don't get caught up in the "is it worth it for microstock" nonsense way of thinking.

Also, if you get a roxant type stabilizer, you will use it for about 10 minutes, and then go straight to your computer to buy a real gimbal anyway. It's a waste of time and money if you're looking for professional looking shots. 

I can tell you as someone who has been 'buyer' working next to many others like me (graphic artist / art director) that the title / description is near meaningless.

They're not made for your reading pleasure. They are made to optimize the images for search. 

The more relevant and spot on they are, the better. And the more unique they are, the better.

In my opinion this is what matters:

� Return Per Trip
� Return Per Photoshoot
� Total Portfolio Income.

After two or three years, I can take a look at a certain trip and see if the material produced from that trip outweighed the costs enough. If they generally do, it makes sense to go on more photography trips.

Big picture stuff is the only information that is really useful.

Of course it's FUN to know the other stuff too, but maybe not really useful.

One.

Maybe revisit in 1-2 years and upload a second version if (and only if) it makes sense for the scene.

You will make much more money with a diversified portfolio (different scenes and subjects) than 3-5 variations of each clip.

Some people even upload versions of every clip with cheesy "night vision" effects or similar, which I believe to be a complete waste of time (and space).

Hi! I have been uploading my photos for three months now. I want to try to upload a footage about a wasp. It's short, but it's 4K (I think, I don't know a lot a about videos). I have some questions: how do I know if my video has the codecs (?) that some sites such as SS and Pond5 accept? Also, the video was recorder with sound (I mean, natural sound). Do the videos need to be muted, like without sound? If so, what software do you recommend to delete sound without affecting quaility? Thanks a lot.

VLC (free on all platforms) will tell you what codec, framerate, resolution etc. your clip has, and you can easily export a version without audio without encoding the video again.

But if you are going to take this seriously you need a real editing program like Final Cut Pro X, Adobe Premiere, Adobe After Effects, DaVinci Resolve, or any other competitor. The ones I listed are probably the best choices though.

29.85p will be a big question mark for customers even if they are accepted (which they probably won't be) so why not just change them to 29.97p in basically any software? FCP X, Premiere, After Effects etc.

Quote from: Pablito on September 08, 2018, 06:24

Any editor who thinks the clip needs more colour can do it in an instant. You are much better shooting more clips than tinkering with ones you've already submitted - remember content (and quantity) is king, not a bit of saturation here and there.

That would be my thinking too. However, I recall someone on this forum stating that the clips that sell the most have been colour graded.

The first one is much better. It has a natural look. Perfect for nature.

You would rarely want a nature/wildlife clip to be graded, just color corrected.

On the other hand, a cinematic sequence of a fashion model in slow motion might benefit from a graded look.

A natural fade out can be accomplished easily by setting the camera to a fixed exposure setting for sunsets.

What I meant was that this is not actually natural. Natural as in what we, as humans, perceive. A camera cannot capture big "natural" light changes with a fixed exposure.

but with photography, our exposure settings determine how dark or how light a captured scene will look which can be very different to what we saw with our own eyes initially.

Exactly, so NOT natural then. 

I understand what you're trying to say, but it's also important to consider that a fixed exposure on an environment that changes a lot in terms of light does NOT produce a natural result. It just shows the limitation of a camera. That's why a post-production exposure ramp can produce a more natural result.

To sum up: A fixed exposure on a sunset or sunrise does not produce natural results - it will get too dark or light to look natural. A holy grail with ETTR settings does not necessarily produce natural results either. The answer is somewhere in between.

Your clip does not look natural because it's too dark. That is not how a human present on that location would experience the scene, which is what I would define as "natural".

Thanks, yeah it looks perfectly stable, so I would assume it's an auto rejection because it gets so dark. I would make it a lot brighter if the RAW material allows for it.

This could be the sweet spot that ISTOCK missed if they stick to this, if they put in what they say..., I would much rather get %50 with a real partner, than %100 of being invisible like having your own site or a passive partner set up.

Exactly.

Visibility is everything. My sales are up several hundred percent in August now that they started marketing my clips again. $49, $79, 100%, 50%... None of that matters without marketing and lots of customers. If they need a 50% cut to market (common sense that they do really), I will gladly give them 50%. If you don't like it, market your own stuff. You will find that it's extremely expensive.

Whatever they're doing now, it can continue as far as I'm concerned. 

Can I reffer a client to download from my portfolio or this is viewed by agencies as artificially inflating downloads?

Thanks

What do you think all those referral links they give out are for? 

Of course you can, and should, refer clients to your portfolio. You just can't refer yourself.