Quote from: nobody on August 24, 2018, 00:13
Shutter will never be normal again...

Can't help but agree.


One good thing . . . The few that sell are there to remind me what I was shooting 12 years ago!

What I wonder is . . . What's the reasoning behind it? Why does SS's algorithm greatly favor our old stuff? How does SS benefit?

Thanks to all who replied. Everything is going smoothly now.

Quote from: noodle on April 25, 2018, 13:16
It can take up to 24 hours for the servers to update and have your images for sale
Be patient

For supertags, press on the '+' in the keywords box

But the screen still shows the three as Not For Sale. Shouldn't there be some indication that the images are going online?

It seems acceptance was the easy part. Each of my three images requires separate nomenclature, two editorial and one not. I've filled out the panel on the right for each of them and then clicked save at the bottom of the panel. But they do not go online for sale. I know I've obviously done something wrong and I'll keep looking but any help would be appreciated.

Also, after I fill in the keywords (cut and paste from notepad, words separated by commas) the words don't appear as separate blocks with stars and askerisks on each side.

The video was no help.

Just to update, first the uploader would only accept 2 or 3 images at a time, depending on the size. Then it only accepted one image at a time. Then it would accept no image and it's been that way for about six months for me. This holds true for Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome and Firefox.

I might try once a month just to test the waters.

Yep, for me, too.

The uploading hasn't worked for me except one at a time. This is typical of any of three browsers I use. The people who might answer your inquiry, if they do, are clueless. I have given up. The rewards are not worth the effort.

Today = 157,249,430. That's quite a few.

If you were just starting out, would you?

Quote from: MircoV on September 09, 2016, 07:12

Quote from: gyllens on September 09, 2016, 05:59

Quote from: trek on September 08, 2016, 22:40
Five years from now.... it will be half a billion images or more...

Five years from now the company won't even exist. All internal problems, staff this and that bean-counters at the steering wheel coupled with mounting competition plus all external problems.
Who knows maybe if SS folded we would be back to square one and a much healthier stock climate?

I am sorry but what a bull%$^ you are saying. I am always surprised how much many people pretend to know.......

The managing part SS will know far much better what to do then us. They are running the company for year..... we are the photographers. For sure we dont know better what to do. It is always easy to talk on the other side.

I dont say it is true but i dont belief that SS will close any time soon and for sure not in 5 years. Just because you dont like that there is so many competition (best would be to have all agency for your own) doesnt mean that it is going bad with the company.

Just to be short. SS is for everybody and everyone has right to submit their images. If you dont like that start your own website and sell them there. No competition on your site.

100 million is still far and far not much. There is so much to be covered in different ways and everything is needed. Especially in the editorial section is much work to do. The possibilities are endless.

And also no need to say again where is the quality. What is quality. Your image need to be technically correct along with a good composition. Then most is sold. I said it already but when someone needs a pear photo for an fruit article he just needs a pear on the photo. Done. A HDR colorwonder of a hybrid pear on a futuristic table is not needed. Useful images are needed and not wall decorations. My last 20 sales are of subjects that are the most common things photographed on most simple way.

To be short 100 million is nothing in this business. 100 million dollars in my pocket is a different thing.

Spoken like a true believer. I knew there must be one somewhere.

Quote from: BlueMoonPics on July 23, 2016, 21:46
Hi All.  I've been with iS since about 2008 and last week I deleted all my images and asked to drop exclusivity.  Sales dropping dramatically there for me and new rules prompted me to try some new places.
I'm thinking of joining SS but don't know anything about the company.
I know these answers can vary from person to person but...
Compared to iS, how are sales in SS?  Any advice like things to avoid or things to do at SS?
Thanks for reading.

BlueMoonPics . . . your honest inquiry deserves an honest answer. Forget about it. You're about ten (okay 8 years) years too late. When you were messing with IS that was the time you could also have been uploading to SS. Now? Just do yourself a favor and concentrate your energies elsewhere where some psychic or real income is possible.

Quote from: Rinderart on July 14, 2016, 08:11
OK. been in 11 Years .......newbies before march 12th 2012 need not Post Or who cares if ya do.... But, Sales after that date was the telling Point for me that something was amiss...........search went crazy. Most Popular disappeared and all hell broke loose. Some noticed nothing..... Probably due to small noncommercial work, BS or super small Ports. OR... the wooHoo crowd thinking Buyers love there work....?. And when i first took Notice Because Up until that date the slight variations were normal. Lots Of posts along the way since then. But Just for me and many swings that were quite large ...this july 2016 is a total Joke I mean serious Joke after uploading no less than 100/200  a month going On what I've told newbies you must do.. Im sorry I don't believe that crap anymore and Im tired and the Koolaid is getting distasteful and I apoligize to anyone I said that to.

This july has be a disaster. Less than My commissions from 10 Years ago.

Go Ahead Jon...Farm all the 25 cent folks you can. this is getting so Out of control. I Pray a new site comes in and  "SCARES THEM STRAIGHT" I doubt it. ego and Money has Changed My Old friend. the mistakes they are making. ?? they don't even know about.

Sorry About the Rant. Thats what a veteran does. I don't know. I leave the critique forum and after 11 years in one week Fools are critiquing Others that have no clue what there doing themselves. MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHOA. I guess I have to let this go and Move on. It's tough But I will. I see crap people are posting and it's Mind Blowing.   HEY LEAF.............Heads up ,here come your new forum Posters. they will be here real soon. I won't,  I'll be out making Money, these fools have no Idea about that part because we know How.........

I guess, given the model, we all knew this was coming. Last year was my best. This year, my tenth with SS, will be awful. I have no justification for complaining since, unlike some of you, I am not attempting to make a living with SS. The only surprise for me was the rapidity with which the situation changed.

I had three removed and, now that you mention it, they were of Harleys. It came on the heels of SS's scary mistaken email about spammy titles and keywords, since apologized for, so I assumed it was about that. The Harley situation makes more sense. The same thing happened several years ago regarding a certain B-29 whose owners raised a stink and so SS took them all down. It seems, regardless of the actual law, SS will acquiesce if they're pushed.

I had a D600 and got rid of it before Nikon made their offer to repair/replace. Oh well, I have a D610 now and it's a different beast in that the new shutter mechanism is no more prone to throw oil than any other. It stays as clean as my Df. I don't know what some of you expect. The sensor of all interchangeable lens cameras will get dirty sooner or later. If it's dirty, clean it!

A Df and a D610. I'm good. I'd like a "cheap" Leica Q but it's not cheap enough.

If it's not editorial, then you have to remove a lot more than the brand names or logos. You would have to remove the "N" numbers or aircraft ID numbers on wings, tail and fuselage. And, you never know, they might consider the actual design proprietary.

Quote from: U11 on May 05, 2016, 20:36

Quote from: Rinderart on May 05, 2016, 19:58
Top 100 on shutter stock. Vast majority of vector and Illustrator Folks.

http://www.microstock.top/index.phtml?p=1

looks like those on top with hundreds thousands vectors are running some automated scripts on some limited subset of vectors creating different color/background duplicates

Thanks for this URL. Interesting. I've been with SS for almost ten years, shooting what I like, editorial and documentary, targets of opportunity, definitely not in the mold of serious microstock submitters. But, I'm still number 2406 with a portfolio of almost 5800. Two questions:

I have a 75.5 % of sales. What exactly does that mean? Does it include duplicate sales of the same image?

The list only includes those with a portfolio of 1000 or more. How many total contributors does SS have?

Quote from: VladW on April 14, 2016, 05:30

Quote from: eyewave on April 12, 2016, 10:17
What I can see in your screenshots is a "Y" for "released", not sure if that means you set the images to "editorial". Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I did not apply dates to captions, only the location. Before they never claim that there should be the date as essential, too.

Not true, Vlad. They have always wanted the date on the dateline. Look at the examples they provide for you and follow them.

Quote from: CJH Photography on March 29, 2016, 18:37
Most of my SS port is editorial and I saw a real decline this month.   I wish they would also distribute SS images on AP.

Me, too, and me, too!

Quote from: Rinderart on March 10, 2016, 05:50
Funny that true editorial Means News worthy to some And a position of respect.Not just another person in a crowd with a camera. what microstock and wireimage has turned it into. In My town [Beverly Hills] anyone can shoot a premier or red carpet. . Hell in the alley behind my House every day are 50 Paparazzi waiting For Kim or Langoria to come out of Craigs restaurant. Thinking it's Important. I have to chase them away. These guys gave up doing stills 3 Years ago. all Video Now.

I'm so old school (or just old) that I think of editorial as photojournalism, telling stories through a picture or series of pictures, not always newsworthy but encompassing human interest as well. I think of Eddie Adams, Mary Ellen Mark, and Alfred Eisenstaedt (the list is long) as master story tellers whose work these days would be rejected by SS reviewers as not meeting their standard of quality before content.

Colons and dashes are no problem. Do not worry about them in editorial. I say this as one who specializes in editorial. You rejection reason makes about as much sense as the other more typical ones . . . lighting, focus, blah, blah. I would not waste much time these days obsessing and puzzling over the reviewer's comments. What they really need to add is one more canned response that makes sense:

I DON'T LIKE YOUR SUBMISSION!

"What would be your most important advice to somebody new in Stock Photography?"


Truthfully?  Don't do it.

Not long ago I was confronted with one of my images on a billboard. Looking into it further, I found it was on multiple billboards in several cities and on the sides of buses! Even stranger, the picture was a pretty old one from a D100, which is what? Six mp? And it had been cropped!

So much for the "lots of megapixels theory".

I first suspected what was happening when SS lowered the minimum payout rate. It seemed to me that they were anticipating a lot of contributors making small change. This latest news seems to confirm that they are opening up to everyone and anyone who might have even one image of interest to someone. Constant dilution for contributors seems to be the way to increased profits for SS!

Yeah, I got one this morning. Hoped it would be $122.00 but no, it was for $0.30. Downward and backward!