pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - OM

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 32
1
but the classic worst recently was a guy with a GoPro, driving down the street in Saigon or someplace similar, shooting time lapse through the windscreen, and uploading each as an individual image. They are fuzzy and terrible, but also hundreds if not thousands of images. I doubt that he will get more sales than if he had taken 2 good shots and uploaded them.

do you have a link to that portfolio?


It's been linked many times under spamfolio and on SS too. I'm not sure if it's OK to post the link here, but it's not anyone on the forums.  :)

Some people call out spam for multiple images, similar images, but for example, here's what I'm calling as spam, not just picking on people for their personal choices and how many of something they upload. Yes I like singles and a few of any setup, while others do well uploading dozens of well thought out variations. The later is not spam... this is!  :(

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fiqahanugerah?page=2&section=1&sort=newest&search_source=base_gallery&language=en

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=10&section=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fernandocomet?page=1&section=1&searchterm=chinese%20dragon&measurement=px&sort=newest&safe=true&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&saveFiltersLink=true

for example.

A whole long thread for Spamfolios.  https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/94721-spamfolio%E2%80%A6-post-here-the-link-of-spammy-portfolios-you-find-on-shutterstock/?tab=comments#comment-1690960

Clearly Mr Fuzzy continues unperturbed by the similars policy.....P1 of recently uploaded:

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?search_source=base_gallery&language=en&page=1&sort=newest&measurement=px&safe=true

Don't really understand how they get unsharp pics of bird behind glass door approved either (bottom P1).

2
General Stock Discussion / Re: Canva owners to score BIG TIME!
« on: October 27, 2019, 10:30 »
It wouldn't surprise me if Canva went public soon, if tricks like reducing the payment to content contributors is anything to go by. Must be the Wall Street bean counters that come in and tell them to up the profit margins to maximise the take for the venture capitalists/stock holders at the IPO.

Surely, they must have thought after buying Pixabay that their reward to photographers was excessively generous....why pay when you can geddit free (or almost free via subscriptions)?  :(

3
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
« on: October 20, 2019, 19:30 »
Glad I stopped uploading to SS 6 months ago...have peace of mind now and no hassle every month for sales that used to be worthwhile but that are now just pocket/wine money! Hic  ;D

4
Well, I think that SS is happy that someone had the gumption to collate all these publicly available images in a coherent collection so that they all could make some moolah! All that free stuff in one place  to save everyone's time....it's almost a public service!

Remember...the rules do not necessarily apply to everyone!

And I remember that SS makes the rules, and runs the place, so they can do whatever they want.  :)

They have contracts with other suppliers, that essentially uploaded entire large collections to SS, reviewed lightly if at all, and they compete with us, with a favored status. We get restricted and they get to supply things that buyers actually want. Not fair, I don't like it, but back to SS runs the show.

As many have written before, nothing is about us or caring if we do better or make money, the only goal for SS is to make themselves more money. So if they favor someone else, change the search or do something else that lowers our earnings, no one should take it as a personal attack. SS only cares about the bottom line, making more money.

Absolutely.

5
Well, I think that SS is happy that someone had the gumption to collate all these publicly available images in a coherent collection so that they all could make some moolah! All that free stuff in one place  to save everyone's time....it's almost a public service!

Remember...the rules do not necessarily apply to everyone!

6
Mostly subs at Adobe but the amounts vary between 0.27 and 2.47. Most subs seem evenly split btween 0.74 and 0.27. I see the occasional 0.49 and I've had a few custom sales recently at around the 10 mark but the one tonight really takes the biscuit at 49.01! Yippee!

7
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS continues to deteriorate
« on: October 01, 2019, 10:05 »
subberstock...and adobe subs...20 % more download than last year combined 30 % less money.....it's clear that people who need credit or on demand photos are looking elsewhere.

My theory is that the big users still buy their subs every month but the smaller independent grahpic designers etc who used to buy an ODDs package as needed per job, now go first to Unsplash and Pixabay etc and only when they're unsuccessful do they return to SS/Adobe.

Probably explains why SS and Adobe advertise on those free sites...and help keep them in business ::) Eejits!

8
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS continues to deteriorate
« on: October 01, 2019, 05:54 »
Reviewing other posts here, I'm sure SS changed their algo in September. Good news for some but bad news for others like moi! Had a 4% increase in downloads but a 28% decrease in earnings compared to August; almost entirely due to lack of ODDs in September.

Due to lack of sales of new work, haven't uploaded anything since March/April. Seems pointless.

9
To my mind most changes in market conditions happen relatively slowly (except in the case of total market meltdown...not yet evident). My sales dropping over the last 3 years from an average of $300/month to $100 in August 2019 is entirely due to market forces and to be expected as I haven't added much of 'commercial value' in the last 2 years.

A drop from $100 last month to (maybe) $50 this month is not something I would expect to be caused by market forces and more likely to be due to 'algo/searchmessing'.

'Algo/searchmessing' at FT was the reason for my joining SS in 2012.....sales at FT were progressing nicely and one image in particular had sold 500X in a couple of years and was selling almost every day. Then suddenly within a period of 2 weeks all my sales dried up and my best-seller never sold again. It had been on the first page of search and suddenly it was gone (beyond page 20).
I deleted that best-seller there and went to SS where it also quickly became my best-seller and has now had 3,500 dls. It still sells regularly at SS which leads me to conclude that there was nothing wrong with the quality of the image or that it was just 'hot' for a short period of time. FT simply messed with their algo/search and ruined my sales. As everything in those days was onward and upward, I'll assume that FT replaced the sales I lost with more sales from someone else...which I assume to be the case now at SS.

"de een zijn dood is de ander zijn brood" ;D

10
Since the month has begun and seen my sales collapse in shutterstock (September), I have no sales on demand or invidviduales (which is rare because I always have sales of this type of licenses) I only have a subscription (0.33) my pace of Sales was already bordering 100 dollars a month, but this month to the feha alone and sold 28 dollars (not normal for me) and the sales of my referrals have not reached me (although my colleagues I referred to are selling )
My question is the following:
is this normal? Do I have to send an email for the sales earnings for my referrals that do not reach me?

thanks in advance and I hope someone can help


Been going down steadily for me in the past couple of years but September '19 is a drama for me too. Also +/- $100/month for the last 3-4 months but September so far is $40 with one week to go....they must have changed the algo....almost always the reason for dramatic changes in sales. Almost no ODDs only subs this month.

(Methinks the SS regulars still have their subs accounts which they buy and use every month. However, the ODDs buyers come more from smaller agencies/independents that go to SS now and again, find what they want and pay for an ODDs package. I reckon these people now search Pixabay and Unsplash first and only go to SS when they can't find what they want. Hence the dramatic drop in $$$ from lack of ODDs.)

11
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS continues to deteriorate
« on: September 18, 2019, 19:10 »
Perfect example of proof by using a terrible example. One word search for Landscape? Are you joking?
What buyer would do that? Landscape  ::)

Consider I did not want to test a buyer vision, I just wanted to observe recent submissions.
Try this :
https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search?sort=newest&image_type=photo

Better for you?
Your perspective may be different considering you entered here late 2017, I started microstock mid 2004. Maybe I'm not that stupid regarding query and search engine.

LOL another invalid conclusion. Because I joined here in what? That's my third time, I closed my account because of being frustrated with how the forum had gone down hill. Better now. Would you care that I started in Microstock in 2007 or so? I mean would that mean my opinion would be more valid to you?  :)

A one word search doesn't represent what any intelligent buyer is going to search and the word landscape is even worse because it's so vague. Just pointing out that one word search to prove something, does not prove anything.

I did click the link, what was I supposed to see? Recent submissions, I get that, what's your point? If you mean SS is accepting junk, yeah I'd agree. The whole review process seem to fall apart in about 2012 when they went for "we have the most photos". But just in case, can you be specific what I should be looking at in recent uploads?

Here's a good three word search that should make you wonder what SS is thinking...  https://www.shutterstock.com/search/sliced+vegetables+isolated?sort=newest&image_type=photo
446,334 sliced vegetables isolated stock photos - and it's most recent since you suggested that.

Seems that the limit is around four similar images, although we both know that reviewers are luck, chance and some are more vigilant about enforcing strict rules. (in other words, full of a false sense of power)  >:( Some will probably reject twp images as similar, because they are outsourced and many are just making money, without the concept of what their job is. To review and accept suitable images. Instead they see it as, finding things wrong and rejecting images.

So anyway, tell me what I'm supposed to be seeing in recent uploads, I'm unclear what your point was?

UFB!

Search SS 'Relevant' Landscape and that brings up far better stuff than the garbage on 'Fresh Content'.
Mind you, go to Unsplash and search 'Landscape'...pretty good for free!

12
Adobe Stock / Re: How much is 1 AdobeStock credit?
« on: September 18, 2019, 18:42 »
1 credit = $1.00 = 1.00 = GBP0.75

13
Thanks for the link. Interesting historical stuff. I downloaded a couple of shots in the lower res TIFF size (approx. 20Mp) but found that they were not particularly sharp at 100% screen. I don't know what the original transparency size was (guessing 35mm) because I've digitized 6x9cm format transparencies before and they can be very sharp. Wonder how they were digitized....almost certainly not on a drum scanner and maybe on some sort of flatbed?

14
By chance I came across this article on wine from June last year in the Smithsonian magazine:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/california-wine-shows-traces-fukushima-fallout-180969726/

I think that their use of a free photo from Pixabay (pity that the meniscus of the wine is not horizontal!) also tells us that decining sales of traditional microstock may also have to do with 'free'. Before 'free', reputable magazines relied on SS etc as their first port of call for images. Now they first go to 'free' and if they can't find what they want, they then go to the regular MS agencies.

I have no doubt that many other image users also do similar. (No doubt the reason that SS and Adobe see fit to sponsor Pixabay with ads...which suggest that if the client can't find what he wants at Pixabay they should go to SS or Adobe).

Who upload on Pixabay images and videos and gives them away for free?

Sufficient amateurs with (often) sufficient talent to make it worthwhile for traditional microstock buyers to go there first. The quality of 'free' has become considerably better than it used to be and there may be a site that actually reviews/curates your submission before allowing it. Now, that's a really great way to hook the amateurs.
But not only amateurs.... I once read an article about a pro? food photographer who put some good photos on Unsplash to attract potential buyers to her studio for commissioned work. How successful she was, I don't know but she used 'free' as a marketing instrument.

15
By chance I came across this article on wine from June last year in the Smithsonian magazine:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/california-wine-shows-traces-fukushima-fallout-180969726/

I think that their use of a free photo from Pixabay (pity that the meniscus of the wine is not horizontal!) also tells us that decining sales of traditional microstock may also have to do with 'free'. Before 'free', reputable magazines relied on SS etc as their first port of call for images. Now they first go to 'free' and if they can't find what they want, they then go to the regular MS agencies.

I have no doubt that many other image users also do similar. (No doubt the reason that SS and Adobe see fit to sponsor Pixabay with ads...which suggest that if the client can't find what he wants at Pixabay they should go to SS or Adobe).

16
General Stock Discussion / Re: Alamy - is it worth it?
« on: August 28, 2019, 03:27 »
I find it weird that 'good discoverability/poor discoverability' of an image seems to be determined by number of keywords above 40. I have less than 100 images (not editorial) there and have sold (not unsurprisingly) zero in 3 years!

17
Canukistan is a funny place......they have govt allowed cannabis but all their coinage and notes may not be photographed in any way. Years ago I had a shot of a Maple Leaf gold coin as a small part of an 'artistic' photo but SS were forced to delete it anyway by some Canuck ruling about currency which it wasn't (wel, not really)!

What are you talking about OM, do a SIMPLE research (https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search/canada+money?pl=PPC_GOO_CA_BD-351482062029&cr=ec&kw=shutterstock&gclid=CjwKCAjwm4rqBRBUEiwAwaWjjExJNOImgyETMtZIIUhUhnGaF5c3NBJanskdryZHc8Eumd9HlOaWGRoC1sUQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds before writing stupidities. Your comment, besides being condescending is racist and brings nothing to the discussion.
Thank you for your attack. When SS accepted my photo of a Maple Leaf  coin it was before the Canadian Govt ruled that all coins and notes could not be reproduced.

18
This thread is not about falling sales. Its about all sales suddenly coming to a complete halt. Im pretty sure they tweaked their system.

your evidence for such tweaking?

YMMV - but like many others, I still see sub sales every day, tho EL are rarer

sadly every time someone sees reduced sales they assume the search has changed - the simple fact is you're competing against millions of other images

And then today I get an EL and an OD.  :o None of this is as predictable as it was in the past. So I guess the tweak was a boost for Pete tweak?  ;D

I think it's the suddenness and longevity of the drought that is throwing some producers for a loop, I do video and it's been at least six days on SS since I had a sale as well but one came in today, could always be worse, could be pond5 and zero sales for longer than six days.
.

it's not sudden -- sales have been declining for more than a year
People have been reporting falling sales for the 7 years I've been on this site. The trend is accelerating and some will buck it but on average sales will decline.

Looking at all three, I'd say, I can agree. But the drought isn't just one place, it's pretty much everywhere. The drop has been more than a year and seven years is more than a year.

I'm not going to try to point to a cause when I don't know. While people that toss out, search change or a conspiracy, or some other theories about how the agencies manipulate the sales, are just guessing. Over the years, we've heard "a well informed inside source says..." but never any solid facts or proof, or who's that source. Anyone can make up an inside source that confirms what they are guessing.

Pretty hard to cover up the truth across an entire industry. That truth would be that it's all rigged.

I can not like the way sales are going and not like the income drop or not like the way the agencies have changed commissions or levels or ended programs and promises. I don't like those. But I also don't see some trick or game involved. It's just the way this industry has been sorting out and we are the ones who get cut out first. Everything is directed at making buyers happy so they come back. Everything is designed for making the company a profit.

If any agency says they are our friend, they care about us, or they are trying to help us make money, don't believe them. We are the last thought.
[/b][/b]

This is the truth.

19
I wouldn't know whether the new policy is having any impact on spamfolios already accepted but it does seem to have reduced the number of images being added which is now down from the regular 1.6 million/week to 950K this week.

20
Shutterstock knows their power and basically has a captive base of suppliers (us) which they keep in the dark about any deals they make with third party agencies (WIX, FB, FAA etc) because for SS any sale is a sale and adds to the bottom line whether or not the compensation for use to the contributor is reasonable /equitable for that licensing.
The corporate SS doesn't care. It's only duty is to that of the stockholders/investors and as we were never part of any negotiation to make deals, we have neither say in our commission nor in any possible conflict in interest in direct dealing with FAA.....take it or leave it.
To SS it's irrelevant; any sale is money in the bank. If you leave there's 10 others to take your place...so long and thanks for all the fish!

21
I thought it interesting that cpaulfell who first reported the thief math313 left it at that. I looked at their port (3200 pics) and found that hey had stolen 4 shots from an artist's duo based in London. Because the artists had recently been published in a national UK newspaper it was easy to find an email address and I mailed them pointing out the apparent 'inconsistency' with this guy at SS in Turkey claiming copyright of their work. I asked them to send DMCA notices (4X), gave 'em the link to Shutterstock infringement claims and they or their gallery people must have done so immediately because within 24 hours math313's port of 3200 images was gone completely.

This was the the tread that was taken down and for which Brasilnut had his forum account suspended. BTW thread is still there...they only deleted the link.

So, whether it was the number of DMCA notices or the fact that these guys were serious trouble, I dunno but SS shut down the entire account within 24 hours.

22
Shutterstock.com / Re: FAA and SS
« on: August 06, 2019, 20:10 »
I got it immediately especially helped by the linked photo......but that prolly cos I'm a Brit who's lived most of his life in NL! I'm soooo cynical especially about corporate business practices.  ;)


23
I see SS deleted the latest "stolen images" threads and if I read correctly before the thread was deleted it seems Alex (Brasilnut) has been banned from the forum (waits to be corrected)
What is this some kind of weird big brother mentality in that outfit?

I can confirm that my account has been suspended for 3 days followed by 28 days of moderation for posting this suggestion to the SS forum.

Their actions look pathetic and puerile. But today looks like a small success if the 3200 image account of math313 has been taken down and stays down. I hope that your sales account hasn't been suspended and only your forum account, otherwise that is shocking!

My account, which is what really matters, has been unaffected.

Glad to hear that.

On a slightly different subject.....I sent an email to Adobe last night because I noticed that a contributor in the toppers of the week had a few photos in their port which looked a bit sus. One had a trademark clearly visible with a description of something else entirely and the second shot was available as a Wikimedia commons and on Unsplash. I told them of my concerns and this morning (within 12 hours) the offending photo's plus a few more that I hadn't complained about were gone from his port. The majority of his small port is still up so I presume that Adobe does want his shots of desert, camels and what appear to be North African buildings!

At least they dealt with it quickly and without demanding a DMCA (which I couldn't give as the offending photos weren't mine).

Edit: One day later and his account is 'empty'. Pointer to SS....it can be done.

24
I see SS deleted the latest "stolen images" threads and if I read correctly before the thread was deleted it seems Alex (Brasilnut) has been banned from the forum (waits to be corrected)
What is this some kind of weird big brother mentality in that outfit?

I can confirm that my account has been suspended for 3 days followed by 28 days of moderation for posting this suggestion to the SS forum.

Their actions look pathetic and puerile. But today looks like a small success if the 3200 image account of math313 has been taken down and stays down. I hope that your sales account hasn't been suspended and only your forum account, otherwise that is shocking!

25
I was a commercial photographer in the 'good ole daze' from mid-80's through to end-90's. Had a bit of a barren 6 years until an old advertising client asked me to do their Easter and Christmas product brochures and got some work from other clients in the food industry as a result of the work for that client but never had any client work as a result of stock (at Adobe/FT since 2008 and SS since 2012.

I have been asked by the client to ferret out stock photos of backgrounds or subjects that would be too expensive to shoot but haven't had any new clients enquiring about commissions because of my stock work. I must say though that I have absolutely no social media presence and don't even have an Instagram account. I think I would hate being a 'starting' commercial/freelance photographer today. You probably have to find a really small niche for yourself and do it extremely well before clients will consider paying you proper photographer rates. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 32

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results