Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 31, 2017, 11:21

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=photo+[yournamehere]

This is a book search and shows credits.

Here's mine for example: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=photo+hodagmedia

Thanks for that link...found a bunch of my credited images in books!

Thank You, here's the UK version for residents from our former rulers.  I use it for my DACS search every year.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=photo+[yournamehere]

Reality is not the one you think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlFiHhN8aew

I bought the boxed DVD set, all time classic, one of my favorites.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=prisoner+i+am+not+a+number&view=detail&mid=91B5953DEAEA00E2EB4291B5953DEAEA00E2EB42&FORM=VIRE

With the often asked question about agencies...

Part one, I don't know if I'll keep this data, so I wanted to post it maybe a last time.

SS Members by registration year rounded
2004 - 2000
2005 - 4300
2006 - 3900 = 9000
2007 - 3800 = 13,000
2008 - 5500 = 19,000
2009 - 7200 = 27,000
2010 - 6000 = 33,000
2011 - 6000 = 39,000
2012 - 10000 = 49,000
2013 - 11000 = 60,000
2014 - 14000 = 74,000
2015 - 26000 = 100,000
2016 - 64000 = 165,000

-=-=-

Year   Cont YR   < 0 Img      Cont % < 0   Cont T      < 0      Cont % < 0

2004    1,950       1,030       52.82%    1,950       1,030       52.82%
2005    15,426       4,725       30.63%    17,376       5,755       33.12%
2006    26,349       3,676       13.95%    43,725       9,431       21.57%
2007    36,631       3,939       10.75%    80,356       13,370       16.64%
2008    48,267       5,767       11.95%    128,623    19,137       14.88%
2009    70,125       7,866       11.22%    198,748    27,003       13.59%
2010    58,454       6,324       10.82%    257,202    33,327       12.96%
2011    66,479       6,026       9.06%       323,681    39,353       12.16%
2012    154,082    9,661       6.27%       477,763    49,014       10.26%
2013    205,951    10,990       5.34%       683,714    60,004       8.78%
2014    228,906    14,050       6.14%       912,620    74,053       8.11%
2015    343,461    26,455       7.7%       1,256,081    100,508    8.00%
2016    422,950    64,440       15.24%    1,679,031    164,949    9.82%

I'm not sure the number of contributors makes a difference any longer. The number is so large, people come and go. I'll try to stick with images from now on.

His image =   579681535
mama_mia = 201844858 (in other words, original macaroons, was years before his) 378 million earlier

Copied it and flipped, did a minor color variation

Same with this one

thief version = 585173128 
KMNPhoto  =    307642556 (original Autumn leaves and vegetables on wood background) 278 million earlier

Didn't even bother to flip this one:

579133915
151077569   By Dani Vincek

I don't know these people, didn't go hunting for them, but easy proof that this Viktor OG didn't just steal a couple random files. Maybe the bags and people backs and sitting on a park bench are his. The ones that are studio and concepts aren't.

Can anyone explain this? The rejection reason is: Technical Error

Thanks for giving us the chance to consider your image. Unfortunately, during our review we found that it contains one or more technical issues, so we can't accept it into our collection.

Can I edit and re-submit? It's vague.

Found this after looking in the forum, link to a link to a link. 


Technical issues

When we reject a file based on technical issues, we have identified technical flaws other than focus, exposure, or artifacts, which we call out specifically.
Photography and video technical issues include but aren�t limited to

White balance: The white balance may be too warm or too cool.

Note:

When you shoot in raw formats, you have great flexibility to adjust the white balance in your post-processing workflows.

Contrast: There may be too much or not enough contrast.

Saturation: Oversaturation may give your file an unnatural look, but under-saturated or spot color can also result in technical decline.

Note:

You may want to try the Vibrance slider instead of Saturation in Lightroom.

Selections: Editing must be done inconspicuously. Selecting objects out of their backgrounds (or masking) to composite into new images requires time, patience, and care. Do not submit images that have been poorly selected or look like they are not a natural part of the scene.

Chromatic aberration: Refers to color fringing around objects in the image.

General composition: Is your horizon straight? Have you cropped the image too much? Consider leaving a designer room to add their own text or objects.

Best I can eliminate is: other than focus, exposure, or artifacts, which we call out specifically

But mostly I don't know the latest at AS/FT about resubmitting rejected images if I correct the flaw, which I'll need to guess at?

Something definitely changed with the criteria. They approved my images with the same MR the day before...

Two options, the new reviewer was wrong or the first review was wrong. My standard response is just upload the same again. PITA but it's better than trying to guess what's wrong, when maybe nothing is wrong? At the same time, write to support and ask what's wrong. But upload again while you are waiting for an answer.

"MR is not legible" Because some fool can't read.just amazing I just wish once they would hire ADMINS and others that Know what we do.

Had the same at IS, release is too small to read. I thought of going to the dollar store and buying some readers for them?  Instead I upsized, made it 8000 wide, and they accepted it. Just stupid. They used to find flaws at 200% but they can't read a release?

Quote from: ComfortEagle2095 on December 11, 2017, 23:38

Did Shutterstock change their criteria for accepting model releases?  Suddenly all new images I'm submitting with the release form I've used for years are getting rejected for not having a valid release.

I checked the contributor blog and saw this on the page where the listed the releases they would take (i.e., their release and releases from specific other agencies):

"All other model and property releases, English

We generally do not accept English releases that are not on this list; however, we may choose to accept these releases on a case-by-case basis."


I've never had any problem with my own release before and it has all the same information on it that the Shutterstock release has.  I don't really want to use one of the agency's releases -- I want to use the one I developed for my company -- and I don't want to make models fill out multiple releases.  Anybody know if this is a new restriction or maybe just an over-reactive and poorly trained reviewer?

I have the same problem. I used a release accepted by all agencies for about 8 years. Now I cannot sumbit model released images to shutterstock for months. I tried various releases, and they reject them all.
When I write an email to support they send a standard reply with all the criteria. I think my release form complies with that.
I also tried downloading the official shutterstock release form, removing the company name, and submitting that... rejected.

If anyone has success uploading model released shots to SS, what kind of release do you use?
If i'd try the SS realase without removing the company information would all other sites accept it?

A release where all the signatures are dated, AND THE SAME DATE. Also include a thumbnail of the model on the release. That's a start. Worked for me on a set from 2010 which would have been impossible to get the model to sign again.

Look at the release this way. This tells the agency that you have done your due diligence and provide (agency) with proof that they will not be legally responsible for handling your work. A release is to protect them and guide them in deciding if they should license your work or not. Without a release that meets their standards, they won't handle your work. It's that simple. CYA policy

Keep in mind that for every Editorial image that I upload from an event I have to have proof that I was allowed to shoot that event. Then I get a case number, if the information satisfies ShutterStock legal requirements.

A model release is in a way the same... proof that you were allowed to photograph the model and the model knew the work was going to be for sale.

I go to an image, copy the link, click the image box up in the upper left (below the B) and paste. Nothing...



I can manually add the IMG commands. And by the way, bold or Italic or all the rest of the Insert buttons don't work. I'm thinking it's something I have going on, like pop-up blocker, which I turned off, and still no go? I checked all the local settings.

Anyone have any idea?

I have these ideas, but I don't really use them, or share most, and they are of no real use or value. I thought I might as well share some. This is theatre of the absurd humor, sometimes, for those of you who are humor impaired or think sarcasm is a mean crevasse in some mountain of serious solid granite. OK I'm not, but sometimes it might reflect on the industry as a whole. It's not about "you" for people who seem to think, everything is somehow about them personally, and it's not even about me. It's just a loud guffaw at some of the silliness we create or are forced to endure working at this. As a hobby or a living, we're all in the same boat much of the time.

Quote from: Chichikov on November 27, 2017, 02:27

Blah�

Thank you, I feel the same about the news angle, I just wondered if one of us shot that pie?

Poor exposure, low commercial value, lighting, artifacts in background, cropped wrong...   



Wouldn't pass as a stock photo even with the new low standards. Nice pie, I would like some of that.

Quote from: Dumc on November 21, 2017, 12:01

What I've noticed is, unless you have some files on the first page for Popular and Best match for main keyword, you're pretty much doomed.

Not quite first page, but my top ten for popular or best match are on the couple pages, one search or the other. I use the top three keywords for each. Some didn't make top ten pages for best match but did for popular.

Question would be what's the cause? Is the rank making sales or sales making the rank? Are my sales causing the page rank, in which case the doom isn't from the rank and the rank actually shows the sales popularity for those keywords, and based on sales the correct rank. Nothing we wouldn't expect if the system is fair, right?

You are correct but I think for the wrong conclusion. Sales and popularity, means better rank for popularity and best match, not the other way around. Placement doesn't create sales, it's the result of them. Recent sales.

Looked at my top ten, either top performers from contributor landing page or image galley stats. Then I used the Downloads per Keyword: took the top three words and used that, as suggested. All of mine are on page one or two for popular. They didn't get there because SS loves me more than you or the search is broken, but because these are  among the top selling images for those three words.

Claim that a new file has no chance doesn't appear to hold true for my newest, consistent seller. Uploaded March 2016, 234 sales, #1 for the three word search that matches my most used three words for that image. Maybe 234 sales in 20 months isn't enough for what others here call a success? But SS tells me what words are best and what buyers used and then I take that and look, and there I am, #1. Others are first few lines.

Anyone who doesn't remember me from the past, many of my images are one of a kind, where I upload one from an entire shoot or idea. I've expanded some lately and one group I uploaded four variations. Whoo Hoo!  I also look for under covered subjects and concepts. Doesn't mean I'm right or they will strike downloads, but when they do, it pays back.

I posted on SS forums a year ago that I had one of the only triple cheeseburgers on the site. (ps it either has no sales or two, so don't get excited) the point was twofold. Niche ideas and forum copy cats. There were 68 then, one page, now there are 348 and some are very well done. Mine was weak and just a joke from the start. I made it from a couple Whopper Jrs or a Big Mac and a single, all stacked up? But the idea is still there. Find things that aren't well covered and might make sales. Part two: don't tell anyone, because your best buddy will copy your concepts and bust your sales.

None of this is about the Editorial that I shoot which is a different deal and not going to make me rich. But I like what I'm doing with that.

New photos do have a chance if you shoot something useful, that buyers want, that hasn't been shot 10,000 times already! If you are going to upload 50 shots of the SOS that's been feeding Microstock for years, no wonder that your sales will drop.

Success doesn't make you happy Yada, they aren't the same things.