... who are you again?

I am not sure what you are talking about. I open my mouth when something seems out of place. I didn't realise that it's a bad thing.

Actually, I have been a big defender of Shutterstock's decissions in the past, and promote them at almost every step, so your statement baffles me. The only times I have gone against SS policies was when it was clearly wrong (for instance, converting TIFF files from the JPEGs and selling them as a high quality option) but even in my last posts I kept on repeating that Shutterstock has a right to choose what they want to sell and who they want to represent. What you are suggesting is that I have or had the power to "force" a decission previously upon Shutterstock management? A submitter with a few thousand images against a company with close on 6 million images and 150,000 submitters and signing up a few thousand more a month?!

I am honoured, but you give me a little bit too much credit...

My issue here is with consisency in review, something you clearly have never had a problem with, or do you just continue on when it happens? To me, it's a waste of time and resources, and that is what I have said on the SS forum, and here.

Sorry but when I joined this forum I made the decision to become anonymous for a number of reasons but mainly because I don't want to keep flagging up my best-selling images for others to copy. I know that in the long-term it is likely to cost me money and, because this is how I make my living, it is best avoided. If folk disregard my posts because of my anonymity then that's fine with me. Most LT-ers know me anyway.

I was referring to your recent very public squabble with SS when you complained long and hard about having images rejected for having excessively long titles, in direct contravention to the uploading instructions. Why can't you just follow instructions and do what they ask __ it is their agency after all.

I really don't know what your problem is. I've got 3000-odd images online with SS and have had an acceptance rate of well over 95% for the entire 4 years I've been doing this. Sure, you get the occasional 'rogue rejection', but then I just look at it again, make any corrections necessary and re-upload. Job done.

In my view and from what can be seen from the thumbnails you posted I'd say the reviewer made the right decisions. The lighting on several images is generally poor with excessively dark shadows and/or bright highlights. On others the composition is poor, etc, etc.

The last shot of the coins for example looks like a 'first attempt at photography' by some newbie with a point-and-shoot. I can see what you were trying to achieve but if you'd placed a reflector to the left and actually exposed for the subject instead of that ridiculously distracting background then there might have been a stock-worthy shot to be had.

You got some great images in your port so you obviously know what you are doing with a camera. It is completely beyond me why, with your experience, you would upload some of those images and even more mystifying why you would create such a public outcry when they were rejected. Even if the reviewer had accepted the images it is unlikely in my view that they would have sold in sufficient quantity to have made it worthwhile anyway __ but you know that surely?

Can you name the sites "with a level playing field?" ... and I will start uploading to them.

-Larry

Largely all of them __ you are as good as you are and your sales reflect your skills, your investment and your endeavour. Don't blame anyone else but yourself for any lack of success.

If some sites give certain privileges or exposure to particular contributors it it because those contributors have earned them, either through the saleability of their work or through the commitment of exclusivity to that agency. Agencies like contributors who make them lots of money more than those who don't __ hardly surprising in a commercial enterprise.

You can now "start uploading to them".

It was obviously insensitively written but I presume the reviewer did not consider that the image adequately illustrated the symptons __ now that you've posted it I can see that is does.

Honestly, this is such a niche subject that microstock is really the wrong place for such an image. It's never going to sell in the volumes to make it worthwhile so really it needs to be on Alamy or somewhere similar.

Interesting.

I've thought for some time that this could the next natural development for microstock __ allowing contributors to price their images according to their production costs or the uniqueness of the images. That would then be a true marketplace.

Thanks Stephen __ enjoy the referral

Add me to this list.  I opted out of StockXpert subs recently when they had the (latest) reporting issue from Photos.com/JUI, but I am still getting sales on those sites due to the 90 day delay in removing images. 

My StockXpert sales have trickled to a small number.  I had wondered if it was because I am opted out of subs and maybe got a worse search position, but if others are experiencing the same maybe it is more likely to be a migration of customers away from StockXpert. 

I'm fully opted-in but even so my StockXpert per-image sales are running at something like half their level from their peak in June 08.

Also the average royalty paid on those per-image sales has dropped from about $1.50 to about $1.25 in the same time-scale.

Makes me wonder if they've deliberately cut the marketing budget of StockXpert and redirected the money towards Jupiter and Photos.com? That's pretty much when the slide started.

I don't think I would share my income if I wasn't anonymous (in fact I know I wouldn't as I haven't done it in on any other forums!).

If you're not anonymous then it's fairly easy to work out someone's approximate income anyway.

if you shoot for stock, there isn't any magic.  You know what you will shoot and how it will look like even before you start shooting.  It are not your own idea's because you need to see what sells and shoot those subjects.

I can see the magic in your eyes when, what you thought will be your best image, is rejected for whatever reason OR when your good selling subject is being copied by others whom are much higher in the search ranks.

Being paid for your images is not bad, changing your workflow to meet standards isn't either.  Only shooting good selling subjects in mass IS imho.  Depending on the money you earn is an other one imho.

Ouch! You have a painfully depressing attitude, clearly your glass will always be 'half-empty'.

Oh dear; how sad; never mind. Another potential competitor bites the dust.

Thanks for taking a look. Do you have any specific reason you think it won't generate high volume for artists? One thing to keep in mind -- we limit the number of images that appear on the site to a much greater degree than most microstock sites, so accepted artists don't face the same degree of same-site competition.

Microstock is driven by commerce __ everyday businesses need new images for their websites, campaigns, etc. Framed images on the other hand are a luxury rather than a need.

Also, in my view, you're not actually solving the customers' entire problem as they still have to get the picture framed. They would probably be happy to pay much more for a fully finished product that they can stick straight on their wall. That could be a poster or a block print or whatever but it has to be 'finished' to sell in significant volumes to the public. They can already download and print microstock images if they want to.

Of course the other issue is that 99% of images from 'stock' portfolios are not suitable for wall art anyway as they were not created for that purpose.  I've got a portfolio of about 3000 images working for me but if, as is probably the case, only 30 or so of those are hang-on-the-wall material then that itself is going to be a hugely limiting factor in earnings potential in comparison to microstock.

I was not aware of those keywords, and if I did it, it was an honest oversight on my part. I try not to spam with my keywords. Could you point to the image in question?

This was the image;

http://www.dreamstime.com/happiness-image6493742

I only looked at a couple of others but clearly this image of mushrooms should not have words such as 'isolated, red, orange, happy, kitchen, restaurant, diet, flower, etc

http://www.dreamstime.com/two-white-mushrooms-image6180525

The more data, the more accurate statistics. Then the question comes up, what is enough data?

Surely it is perfectly obvious that 6 & 9 sales is not 'enough data' on which to pass judgement?

Looking back on my own graph I would say that the data didn't settle down into meaningful patterns, without wild fluctuations, until I'd been doing microstock for about 18 months and had clocked up about 30K-odd sales.

However, I generally adopt a rule that if an image sells really well at Fotolia I delete it from other sites and have it exclusive on Fotolia (perhaps at 2 credits but sometimes just at 1).  For images with more sales on Fotolia than all other sites put together it makes business sense to make them exclusive.

Most images I now put up as non-exclusive initially, then  see how they go.

I do this too except that I always price them at 3 or 4 credits. For the most part they continue to sell at the same rate but make far more money. I suspect that some buyers don't even look at the price or at least don't care.

Sean's got plenty of form when it comes to public whining when he doesn't get his own way. The trouble is SS have caved in before to similar demands so it is only to be expected that he's going to try it on again.

I don't know what his problem is with regard to rejections as there are plenty of us long-term, high-volume uploaders that are either not experiencing the same or are keeping very quiet about it if they are. Personally, in 50 months of submitting to SS, I've never felt the need to contact Support. I get the impression that Sean struggles to do 50 hours without doing so.

Sure, standards are slowly increasing, but then so should your own skills and awareness of the industry's needs. The reviewers get paid a pittance for their efforts and quite frankly, if they were half-decent stock photographers themselves, they'd make far more money submitting their own content. That's the harsh reality of it.