MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: scottbraut on January 18, 2013, 12:00
-
Hello,
We are receiving inquiries from exclusives who are interested in joining Shutterstock (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock).
We have created a direct email address, [email protected], to guide them through the signup and approval process.
When contributors create a Shutterstock account via submit.shutterstock.com, they are asked to submit 10 images for review. If a contributor is leaving exclusivity to submit to Shutterstock, we ask that they write a note to the reviewer mentioning their exclusive status with a link to their portfolio.
Lastly, please review the terms of your exclusivity to make sure that you are not breaching your agreement.
Please direct any questions to the above email address.
Thanks and Regards,
Scott Braut
VP Content
Shutterstock
-
Looks like Istock is sinking ... fast. Man the lifeboats, women and children first!
-
Looks like Istock is sinking ... fast. Man the lifeboats, women and children first!
Yep..the faster it is sinking...the better it is...time is coming to abandon ship
-
.
-
edit.delete.*
someone already said it and I missed it
-
I wonder what kind of exclusives they are. High enders, large volume of other, or a mix. Bad for Istock, good for SS, bad for existing SS contributors.
-
Does anyone know how many exclusives there are, in total?
-
At the Berlin Lypse in May 2012 an admin said there were 5500 exclusives.
-
....bad for existing SS contributors.
Not bad if istock buyers move to SS as well. Hopefully that will happen.
-
At the Berlin Lypse in May 2012 an admin said there were 5500 exclusives.
Thanks Cobalt :)
I wonder how many will make the shift...
-
Bear in mind that some of those in the 30 day wait or about to start the clock don't want that known just yet. Those of us who know some who are in this situation are not going to "out" them.
And, back on topic, thanks to SS for doing this. And I think that those of us who do well there needn't fear more files getting added. Making the SS library stronger just makes it more appealing for those business customers not already using it. That rising tide lifts all boats thing...
-
That rising tide lifts all boats thing...
I do hope you're right there, and I hope those exclusives who do make the shift will enjoy the fresh air.
-
I donīt think it will affect istock much even if 2/3 leave. getty can always bring over more wholly owned, unique content where they donīt need to pay royalties to anyone. And there will always be people who want to go exclusive.
If it wasnīt for the Microsoft/Googlegate drama I would have been happy in my combination of photo exclusivity/video independence. I was really looking forward to the year. My horoscope was good :)
Although the bad, often depressing communication or the complete arrogant silence, which is even worse, have made the forums an uncomfortable place to be for quite a while. I think this whole community thing, just doesnīt work for getty. neither does the public transparency with working openly on this thing called "the internet". But somehow, it just doesnīt go away...
-
I now have an image in my head of senior execs with ear trumpets shouting 'Inter....what???!'
-
FWIW I love the beautiful, simple, efficient Shutterstock Upload system. Iīm assuming itīs the same for photo and video. Really well done. Also the world map for downloads. Fantastic!
-
Sean, you are listening, aren't you? 8)
-
This must be the biggest slap in the face of iStock, ROFLMAO !! Classic move by SS. Ow boy, they must have had a field day at SS HQ. I really do hope buyers will move with them.
I hope it wont affect my sales too much, but here is a big welcome to the newbies ;D
-
FWIW I love the beautiful, simple, efficient Shutterstock Upload system. Iīm assuming itīs the same for photo and video. Really well done. Also the world map for downloads. Fantastic!
Yes it's a real breeze compared to iStock, and I love the world map too. :)
I often wonder what Yuri's world map looks like... the best I can conjure up is someone with a paint gun blasting away and the sound of someone blowing raspberries as it splatters images non-stop, all day. Blink and you'll miss many.
-
He should put something like that as a live feed animation or artwork on his website. Must be impressive, he has more downloads than many agencies with all their content.
-
Can the Istockers pass the SS focus test????
-
Hahaaaaa - that's a great idea Cobalt.
-
8)
....bad for existing SS contributors.
Not bad if istock buyers move to SS as well. Hopefully that will happen.
Excellent point, sharpshot. This is why I love forum discussions. Brain dead at work right now so thinking about too much at one time :o
-
When I went exclusive with iStock last July I deactivated, rather than closed, my SS account. Really glad now that I did as it will be easy to get up and running again.
-
If they don't have to go through the entry submission, you should at least put a symbol on their profile pages of a little crown falling off a head. :)
-
When you make that symbol, make another one for me - a walker perhaps? - I joined SS when there was no entrance test! Of course there was also no FTP and Jon was doing inspections himself in his spare time :)
-
If there is a massive inflood of former exclusives, many SS customers who don't shop around much will become very happy campers indeed. And then they will tell their friends/colleagues, who will tell theirs, etc.....
Brighter days look to be ahead, as long as Getty keep their stinkin' slimy hands off of Shutterstock.
-
Shutterstock was my first stock site (many years ago now, wow...) and I have always been happy with them. The upload system is easy to use, and payments are always on time. There's a forum where people new to the site can get critique from other photographers on their images before submitting their application, which is really useful.
-
As I posted over on the SS forum, this could easily turn out to be a win-win for all parties involved, except for IS/Getty. Buyers that have been following IS exclusives will take a look at SS to see their favorite photographers, only to find even greener pastures. And the biggest perk of all ... no more Lobo in the forums! ;D
-
FWIW I love the beautiful, simple, efficient Shutterstock Upload system.
I think that a lot of people that have only ever uploaded to IS will get a pleasant surprise when they realize how easy it is to upload to most other sites.
-
Be prepared for mass rejections and hard work submitting to top and middle tier sites . First you'll have to figure out what kind of images they want. It's quite different from Istock and it will take some time but forget landscapes people.... and be prepared for random rejections.
I still do believe that IS inspectors are the best unfortunately.....
Good luck everyone :)
-
I wonder how many iS exclusives will actually make the move if they leave principle aside and do the math. How much does an 'average' iS exclusive make per download and how much will they make per dl on SS? On SS, EL's, ODD's & SOD's are a nice bonus and happen perhaps more frequently than one might imagine but the majority of dl's in the first months will be @ $0.25/$0.33.
How much (%) does an iS exclusive lose by going independent and how biased does the iS search become against them as indie?
The iBorg make it difficult to leave once initiated, methinks.
-
Oh ho ho ho.
Smart move to post this message , shutterstock.
Strategic.
I like it.
And written exactly like it should be.
It is all in the timing and what is not written.
-
Be prepared for mass rejections and hard work submitting to top and middle tier sites . First you'll have to figure out what kind of images they want. It's quite different from Istock and it will take some time but forget landscapes people.... and be prepared for random rejections.
I still do believe that IS inspectors are the best unfortunately.....
Good luck everyone :)
I've been submitting to both IS and SS for over 8 years and would strongly disagree with your hypothesis. In my experience they are largely the same except that IS is a bit anal over certain issues (like isolations for example) and SS can be the same about the focal point. Other than that they are pretty much the same. My acceptance rate on IS is 87% and probably about 95% on SS in over 5000 submissions.
-
Be prepared for mass rejections and hard work submitting to top and middle tier sites . First you'll have to figure out what kind of images they want. It's quite different from Istock and it will take some time but forget landscapes people.... and be prepared for random rejections.
I still do believe that IS inspectors are the best unfortunately.....
Good luck everyone :)
Actually, I had more landscape downloads on SS than I have had on IS since going exclusive there. It's the 25 cents/per that makes me hesitant to leave IS altogether in favor of SS. If I decide to do nothing but drop my crown then the decision to begin uploading there will be an easy one.
-
Be prepared for mass rejections and hard work submitting to top and middle tier sites . First you'll have to figure out what kind of images they want. It's quite different from Istock and it will take some time but forget landscapes people.... and be prepared for random rejections.
I still do believe that IS inspectors are the best unfortunately.....
Good luck everyone :)
I have a sneaking suspicion that SS admins will allow complete blocks of ports to be transitioned without all the inspection, at least for some of the top dawgs.
-
..
-
We may need need 'D' Day at all with SS taking down iStock...
-
Be prepared for mass rejections and hard work submitting to top and middle tier sites . First you'll have to figure out what kind of images they want. It's quite different from Istock and it will take some time but forget landscapes people.... and be prepared for random rejections.
I still do believe that IS inspectors are the best unfortunately.....
Good luck everyone :)
I've been submitting to both IS and SS for over 8 years and would strongly disagree with your hypothesis. In my experience they are largely the same except that IS is a bit anal over certain issues (like isolations for example) and SS can be the same about the focal point. Other than that they are pretty much the same. My acceptance rate on IS is 87% and probably about 95% on SS in over 5000 submissions.
You don't have to agree at all. It's my opinion as contributor submitting to both sites.
-
The upload process may be simple at SS, but the inspections are far from it. I went indie this time last year and only managed to get about half my portfolio accepted with trademark issues and LCV being the biggest rejection issues. Anything with a mobile phone in it was rejected for trademark no matter how heavily I modified it. Given my best sellers on iStock were mobile phone images it was a real kick in the crotch. SS didn't work out for me so I returned to exclusivity later in the year. I have dropped the crown again, but in the interim took measures to get around the mobile phone issue and judging by my most recent uploads to SS they have been successful.
Basic message, you can't just dump your IS portfolio on SS and expect it to be approved. Each site has it's inspection inconsistencies (e.g. similars at Dreamstime). Even if you do get your images uploaded and accepted you can't just expect them to sell like they did on iStock either. Believe it or not your best selling images were probably lucky breaks that got a couple of early DLs and thn floated on a best match wave to success. At SS they will probably sink and be hidden.
The grass isn't greener on the other side, but if you're prepared to work at it, be flexible and adjust and leave your ego at the door, you can make it and quite frankly Getty deserves to be sunk. They have been exploiting shooters for year.
-
Be prepared for mass rejections and hard work submitting to top and middle tier sites . First you'll have to figure out what kind of images they want. It's quite different from Istock and it will take some time but forget landscapes people.... and be prepared for random rejections.
I still do believe that IS inspectors are the best unfortunately.....
Good luck everyone :)
Actually, I had more landscape downloads on SS than I have had on IS since going exclusive there. It's the 25 cents/per that makes me hesitant to leave IS altogether in favor of SS. If I decide to do nothing but drop my crown then the decision to begin uploading there will be an easy one.
You only need 500 dollar to jump 8 cents up p/dl
-
Top dawg or otherwise doesn't make a difference they all should be required to pass the 7 of 10 test like anyone else!
Just cause they are exclusive it doesn't make them any better then anyone else chit half their stuff wont even get past Attila!
-
The upload process may be simple at SS, but the inspections are far from it. I went indie this time last year and only managed to get about half my portfolio accepted with trademark issues and LCV being the biggest rejection issues. Anything with a mobile phone in it was rejected for trademark no matter how heavily I modified it. Given my best sellers on iStock were mobile phone images it was a real kick in the crotch. SS didn't work out for me so I returned to exclusivity later in the year. I have dropped the crown again, but in the interim took measures to get around the mobile phone issue and judging by my most recent uploads to SS they have been successful.
Basic message, you can't just dump your IS portfolio on SS and expect it to be approved. Each site has it's inspection inconsistencies (e.g. similars at Dreamstime). Even if you do get your images uploaded and accepted you can't just expect them to sell like they did on iStock either. Believe it or not your best selling images were probably lucky breaks that got a couple of early DLs and thn floated on a best match wave to success. At SS they will probably sink and be hidden.
The grass isn't greener on the other side, but if you're prepared to work at it, be flexible and adjust and leave your ego at the door, you can make it and quite frankly Getty deserves to be sunk. They have been exploiting shooters for year.
It's starting to sound like exclusives will get a free pass, so yeah, guess they will be approved.
-
The upload process may be simple at SS, but the inspections are far from it. I went indie this time last year and only managed to get about half my portfolio accepted with trademark issues and LCV being the biggest rejection issues. Anything with a mobile phone in it was rejected for trademark no matter how heavily I modified it. Given my best sellers on iStock were mobile phone images it was a real kick in the crotch. SS didn't work out for me so I returned to exclusivity later in the year. I have dropped the crown again, but in the interim took measures to get around the mobile phone issue and judging by my most recent uploads to SS they have been successful.
Basic message, you can't just dump your IS portfolio on SS and expect it to be approved. Each site has it's inspection inconsistencies (e.g. similars at Dreamstime). Even if you do get your images uploaded and accepted you can't just expect them to sell like they did on iStock either. Believe it or not your best selling images were probably lucky breaks that got a couple of early DLs and thn floated on a best match wave to success. At SS they will probably sink and be hidden.
The grass isn't greener on the other side, but if you're prepared to work at it, be flexible and adjust and leave your ego at the door, you can make it and quite frankly Getty deserves to be sunk. They have been exploiting shooters for year.
Mobile phones are done to death anyways... better shoot something 2013 ;). SS accepts almost anything in terms of subject. They dont have similars rejects, they dont have aesthetic rejects, they dont have overabundance rejects(well walls and backgrounds maybe), they dont have overfiltered rejects. The only thing is that reviews can be inconsistent at times and they are tight on copyrighted subjects. But basically you dont have to worry about all the stupid rejections from the other agencies. The forum is quite active, no forum moderators in your face, communications have improved, hands on bug fixing. Heck, I even got a handwritten xmas card with personal message. ;D
-
SS accepts almost anything in terms of subject. They dont have similars rejects, they dont have aesthetic rejects, they dont have overabundance rejects(well walls and backgrounds maybe), they dont have overfiltered rejects.
I thought it was SS which made rejections for 'lcv' - or is that Ft or Dt?
-
I applied to SS three years ago and was accepted on my first attempt. I have kept my account open and ready in case. I also opened accounts on all the major agency sites, obviously without ever adding files. I suggest any exclusives planning a move should do the same. I have tried to stay on top of the news in forums on all the major sites too, just so a transition isn't too painful should it be necessary at some point.
I won't be surprised to see some major contributors moving. personally I haven't made a final decision about exclusivity yet. for those of us heavily invested in E+ and mirroring on Getty, it remains to be seen if this will give a good boost to sales and I hoped to watch that play out. that was before the Google/MS kerfuffles.
I've been impressed by Shutterstock's moves over the last year. and I've always liked that Jon Oringer is a photographer first and foremost and that he continues to lead the business.
-
SS accepts almost anything in terms of subject. They dont have similars rejects, they dont have aesthetic rejects, they dont have overabundance rejects(well walls and backgrounds maybe), they dont have overfiltered rejects.
I thought it was SS which made rejections for 'lcv' - or is that Ft or Dt?
They are having all kinds of strange rejects being reported on the forums and yes they will even hit you with this Similar Submissions--Too many of the same subject. Please see Shutterbuzz for more info
even if other then a wall or BG!
-
SS accepts almost anything in terms of subject. They dont have similars rejects, they dont have aesthetic rejects, they dont have overabundance rejects(well walls and backgrounds maybe), they dont have overfiltered rejects.
I thought it was SS which made rejections for 'lcv' - or is that Ft or Dt?
SS does have LCV but I havent got one for at least 8 months. So I am not sure if they still use that on regular bases. I think if its done right they will accept it. LCV is still used a lot in the critique forum because newbies do not fully understand what stock is about so they come with photos of isolated fruit.
-
No, currently, Attilla is on a composition tear. Before that it was lighting. LCV will come back around
-
SS accepts almost anything in terms of subject. They dont have similars rejects, they dont have aesthetic rejects, they dont have overabundance rejects(well walls and backgrounds maybe), they dont have overfiltered rejects.
I thought it was SS which made rejections for 'lcv' - or is that Ft or Dt?
They are having all kinds of strange rejects being reported on the forums and yes they will even hit you with this Similar Submissions--Too many of the same subject. Please see Shutterbuzz for more info
even if other then a wall or BG!
I am sorry but the last time I got LCV or similars on SS was 8 months ago. The most rejections reported at SS are copyright, composition, focus and uneven lighting.
-
Rejections are not important, sales are.
Lack of sales is a rejection in it self. The picture will be burried and forgotten.
The customer decides, and that has to do with the search machine.
and if the contributor can keyword his images.
And shutterstocks new keyword tool is the most efficient on the market.
-
All approved at SS, now I just have to get my portfolio in order and give notice... interesting times!
-
SS accepts almost anything in terms of subject. They dont have similars rejects, they dont have aesthetic rejects, they dont have overabundance rejects(well walls and backgrounds maybe), they dont have overfiltered rejects.
I thought it was SS which made rejections for 'lcv' - or is that Ft or Dt?
They are having all kinds of strange rejects being reported on the forums and yes they will even hit you with this Similar Submissions--Too many of the same subject. Please see Shutterbuzz for more info
even if other then a wall or BG!
I am sorry but the last time I got LCV or similars on SS was 8 months ago. The most rejections reported at SS are copyright, composition, focus and uneven lighting.
Sure but they have also added the similars now!
-
All approved at SS, now I just have to get my portfolio in order and give notice... interesting times!
So did you take the initial 10 test?
-
SS accepts almost anything in terms of subject. They dont have similars rejects, they dont have aesthetic rejects, they dont have overabundance rejects(well walls and backgrounds maybe), they dont have overfiltered rejects.
I thought it was SS which made rejections for 'lcv' - or is that Ft or Dt?
They are having all kinds of strange rejects being reported on the forums and yes they will even hit you with this Similar Submissions--Too many of the same subject. Please see Shutterbuzz for more info
even if other then a wall or BG!
I am sorry but the last time I got LCV or similars on SS was 8 months ago. The most rejections reported at SS are copyright, composition, focus and uneven lighting.
Sure but they have also added the similars now!
Similar been there for at least a year.
-
Never had a similar rejection at SS, even on sets that DT has culled for similars.
-
Be prepared for mass rejections and hard work submitting to top and middle tier sites . First you'll have to figure out what kind of images they want. It's quite different from Istock and it will take some time but forget landscapes people.... and be prepared for random rejections.
I still do believe that IS inspectors are the best unfortunately.....
Good luck everyone :)
I've been submitting to both IS and SS for over 8 years and would strongly disagree with your hypothesis. In my experience they are largely the same except that IS is a bit anal over certain issues (like isolations for example) and SS can be the same about the focal point. Other than that they are pretty much the same. My acceptance rate on IS is 87% and probably about 95% on SS in over 5000 submissions.
Just submitted my first few to SS and I know what you mean - 3 rejected for focus focal point, and they are all crisp as from a 21MP camera with "L" lens... I could begin to get a little annoyed if its the rule rather than the exception... I haven't had rejections from iS for years...
-
Submission guidelines on SS
When you first register you need to choose if you want to send us jpegs, vectors, or footage.
If you choose jpegs you must send us exactly 10 images.
If you choose to submit vector files you must upload 10 eps files and 10 small jpeg versions of those files.
It's very interesting if you choose the footage you can submit as many or few as you wish after your ID has been approved. As I understand that means no test for footage.
Found this on SS forum.
-
All approved at SS, now I just have to get my portfolio in order and give notice... interesting times!
So did you take the initial 10 test?
Yes I did - it was before that message went out.
-
All approved at SS, now I just have to get my portfolio in order and give notice... interesting times!
So did you take the initial 10 test?
Yes I did - it was before that message went out.
Welcome.
-
Be prepared for mass rejections and hard work submitting to top and middle tier sites . First you'll have to figure out what kind of images they want. It's quite different from Istock and it will take some time but forget landscapes people.... and be prepared for random rejections.
I still do believe that IS inspectors are the best unfortunately.....
Good luck everyone :)
I've been submitting to both IS and SS for over 8 years and would strongly disagree with your hypothesis. In my experience they are largely the same except that IS is a bit anal over certain issues (like isolations for example) and SS can be the same about the focal point. Other than that they are pretty much the same. My acceptance rate on IS is 87% and probably about 95% on SS in over 5000 submissions.
Just submitted my first few to SS and I know what you mean - 3 rejected for focus focal point, and they are all crisp as from a 21MP camera with "L" lens... I could begin to get a little annoyed if its the rule rather than the exception... I haven't had rejections from iS for years...
Basically SS wants front to back focus, if the foreground is outside the DOF you might get rejections
-
Be prepared for mass rejections and hard work submitting to top and middle tier sites . First you'll have to figure out what kind of images they want. It's quite different from Istock and it will take some time but forget landscapes people.... and be prepared for random rejections.
I still do believe that IS inspectors are the best unfortunately.....
Good luck everyone :)
I've been submitting to both IS and SS for over 8 years and would strongly disagree with your hypothesis. In my experience they are largely the same except that IS is a bit anal over certain issues (like isolations for example) and SS can be the same about the focal point. Other than that they are pretty much the same. My acceptance rate on IS is 87% and probably about 95% on SS in over 5000 submissions.
Just submitted my first few to SS and I know what you mean - 3 rejected for focus focal point, and they are all crisp as from a 21MP camera with "L" lens... I could begin to get a little annoyed if its the rule rather than the exception... I haven't had rejections from iS for years...
Basically SS wants front to back focus, if the foreground is outside the DOF you might get rejections
Or you just got hit by Attila! ;D
-
Be prepared for mass rejections and hard work submitting to top and middle tier sites . First you'll have to figure out what kind of images they want. It's quite different from Istock and it will take some time but forget landscapes people.... and be prepared for random rejections.
I still do believe that IS inspectors are the best unfortunately.....
Good luck everyone :)
I've been submitting to both IS and SS for over 8 years and would strongly disagree with your hypothesis. In my experience they are largely the same except that IS is a bit anal over certain issues (like isolations for example) and SS can be the same about the focal point. Other than that they are pretty much the same. My acceptance rate on IS is 87% and probably about 95% on SS in over 5000 submissions.
Just submitted my first few to SS and I know what you mean - 3 rejected for focus focal point, and they are all crisp as from a 21MP camera with "L" lens... I could begin to get a little annoyed if its the rule rather than the exception... I haven't had rejections from iS for years...
Basically SS wants front to back focus, if the foreground is outside the DOF you might get rejections
Or you just got hit by Attila! ;D
One was a tropical sunset, there was a minute bit of motion blur on a couple of palm trees, but at 21MP you'd have to use it hella big and be standing up close to notice it, and the other was a product type shot, also crips as - so I think maybe they were still rubbing their eyes from waking up or something - there's no appeal process at SS is there?
-
Be prepared for mass rejections and hard work submitting to top and middle tier sites . First you'll have to figure out what kind of images they want. It's quite different from Istock and it will take some time but forget landscapes people.... and be prepared for random rejections.
I still do believe that IS inspectors are the best unfortunately.....
Good luck everyone :)
I've been submitting to both IS and SS for over 8 years and would strongly disagree with your hypothesis. In my experience they are largely the same except that IS is a bit anal over certain issues (like isolations for example) and SS can be the same about the focal point. Other than that they are pretty much the same. My acceptance rate on IS is 87% and probably about 95% on SS in over 5000 submissions.
Just submitted my first few to SS and I know what you mean - 3 rejected for focus focal point, and they are all crisp as from a 21MP camera with "L" lens... I could begin to get a little annoyed if its the rule rather than the exception... I haven't had rejections from iS for years...
Basically SS wants front to back focus, if the foreground is outside the DOF you might get rejections
Or you just got hit by Attila! ;D
One was a tropical sunset, there was a minute bit of motion blur on a couple of palm trees, but at 21MP you'd have to use it hella big and be standing up close to notice it, and the other was a product type shot, also crips as - so I think maybe they were still rubbing their eyes from waking up or something - there's no appeal process at SS is there?
downsize the image to 10mp and resubmit with a note that you have addressed the issues
-
The customer decides if they are allowed to see the image. Reviews should judge technical merit. Subjective decisions such as composition and LCV should be left up to the customer. As with many here, SS is my biggest earner by a large margin, but 3 of my top 10 images were rejected by SS. For them to get into my top 10 after 7 years at SS, they have to judged to have LCV as well as decent composition by the customer on other sites. All people are asking for is consistency.
Rejections are important. They effect my income.
-
The customer decides if they are allowed to see the image. Reviews should judge technical merit. Subjective decisions such as composition and LCV should be left up to the customer. As with many here, SS is my biggest earner by a large margin, but 3 of my top 10 images were rejected by SS. For them to get into my top 10 after 7 years at SS, they have to judged to have LCV as well as decent composition by the customer on other sites. All people are asking for is consistency.
Rejections are important. They effect my income.
how about sending them again? (the 3 that were left out)
-
I donīt think it will affect istock much even if 2/3 leave. getty can always bring over more wholly owned, unique content where they donīt need to pay royalties to anyone. And there will always be people who want to go exclusive.
If it wasnīt for the Microsoft/Googlegate drama I would have been happy in my combination of photo exclusivity/video independence. I was really looking forward to the year. My horoscope was good :)
Although the bad, often depressing communication or the complete arrogant silence, which is even worse, have made the forums an uncomfortable place to be for quite a while. I think this whole community thing, just doesnīt work for getty. neither does the public transparency with working openly on this thing called "the internet". But somehow, it just doesnīt go away...
Agreeing! it wont even make a dent. The micro model is engineered to just find replacements in a few minutes or they bring in from Getty. No problem.
Perhaps it would be harder to find some nieched ports.
On another note. Many photographers at SS will have to shape up in order to stay on top. Good for competition!
-
Hello,
We are receiving inquiries from exclusives who are interested in joining Shutterstock ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock[/url]).
We have created a direct email address, [email protected], to guide them through the signup and approval process.
When contributors create a Shutterstock account via submit.shutterstock.com, they are asked to submit 10 images for review. If a contributor is leaving exclusivity to submit to Shutterstock, we ask that they write a note to the reviewer mentioning their exclusive status with a link to their portfolio.
Lastly, please review the terms of your exclusivity to make sure that you are not breaching your agreement.
Please direct any questions to the above email address.
Thanks and Regards,
Scott Braut
VP Content
Shutterstock
Another hard blow for istock ;D ;D ;D
The ripping of the contributors must stop eventually. Like in nature... adapt or die. Seems like IS choose to die.
R.I.P. - istock... You were a good friend in the past
-
I donīt think it will affect istock much even if 2/3 leave. getty can always bring over more wholly owned, unique content where they donīt need to pay royalties to anyone. And there will always be people who want to go exclusive.
If it wasnīt for the Microsoft/Googlegate drama I would have been happy in my combination of photo exclusivity/video independence. I was really looking forward to the year. My horoscope was good :)
Although the bad, often depressing communication or the complete arrogant silence, which is even worse, have made the forums an uncomfortable place to be for quite a while. I think this whole community thing, just doesnīt work for getty. neither does the public transparency with working openly on this thing called "the internet". But somehow, it just doesnīt go away...
Agreeing! it wont even make a dent. The micro model is engineered to just find replacements in a few minutes or they bring in from Getty. No problem.
Perhaps it would be harder to find some nieched ports.
On another note. Many photographers at SS will have to shape up in order to stay on top. Good for competition!
Don't forget, istock grew so much because of the the crowd raving to anyone and everyone how great it was, that crowd has now turned against them on the whole. The crowd will spread the word just as fast and while there will always be people signing up I think istock might just find the traffic they get will diminish even further, I remember when their Alexa ranking was 225, what is it now? about 550, I think we can expect to see that fall further in the next 3 months. They really have done a number on themselves.
-
I agree with that. They can replce lost content with their own, but that does translate into "pull" with the design or advertising community of the world. The micro stock buyers are usually also the producers and together they are modern online media.
which means if we upload to ss and other agencies, many customers are automatically moving as well.
-
Never had a similar rejection at SS, even on sets that DT has culled for similars.
Ive had exactly one - i uploaded 3 photos of turtles ( underneath, head on and silhouette) in a batch of 50. Never seen another one and i suspect that one was just the usual random reviewing rejections when they cant be bothered to check properly.
-
As of today, I am an independent stock photographer and a contributor on Shutterstock.
In my application test, 9 of the 10 images I submitted were accepted - the one rejected was a building (for IP reasons). I have to admit, though, I have downsized all my images to the minimum requirement as I had heard about their "focus on focus". I had applied a few weeks ago - actually before the recent developments -, so I was ready to upload images and have them live when my exclusivity terms ran out.
I am not a brillant photographer and haven't been a star at iStock ever. Though I felt home at a place where I could learn and earn at the same time. I just found that there is not much more I can learn at the place, and the "earn" part wasn't quite nice to look at anymore as well.
My expectation is that my royalties at iStock will drop by anywhere between 60 and 80% immediately. Exclusive members not only get a higher royalty but also exclusive files are priced higher plus the option of choosing images for E+ plus Vetta & Agency (which never amounted to much for me). In exchange, my images will be forced into the partner program, I have no idea how much additional money that will make.
My income from stock was never high enough to make a living (and didn't have to) and it has taken a steep dive since fall of 2011, so I can take the risk now. I am living with a black diamond iStock exclusive, and we can't afford her going non-exclusive right now. But my independence will be a good test what to expect. I am looking forward to it. Anxious but excited. 8)
-
Good Luck Michael Jay
-
Good Luck Michael Jay
Likewise ;)
-
As of today, I am an independent stock photographer and a contributor on Shutterstock.
In my application test, 9 of the 10 images I submitted were accepted - the one rejected was a building (for IP reasons). I have to admit, though, I have downsized all my images to the minimum requirement as I had heard about their focus on focus. I had applied a few weeks ago, so I was ready to upload images and have them live when my exclusivity terms ran out.
I am not a brillant photographer and haven't been a star at iStock ever. Though I felt home at a place where I could learn and earn at the same time. I just found that there is not much more I can learn at the place, and the "earn" part wasn't quite nice to look at anymore as well.
My expectation is that my royalties at iStock will drop by anywhere between 60 and 80% immediately. Exclusive members not only get a higher royalty but also exclusive files are priced higher plus the option of choosing images for E+ plus Vetta & Agency (which never amounted to much for me). In exchange, my images will be forced into the partner program, I have no idea how much additional money that will make.
My income from stock was never high enough to make a living (and didn't have to) and it has taken a steep dive since fall of 2011, so I can take the risk now. I am living with a black diamond iStock exclusive, and we can't afford her going non-exclusive right now. But my independence will be a good test what to expect. I am looking forward to it. Anxious but excited. 8)
Good luck Michael.
And thanks to everyone posting their experiences. Like a lot of other exclusives I'm reviewing my options.
-
As of today, I am an independent stock photographer and a contributor on Shutterstock.
In my application test, 9 of the 10 images I submitted were accepted - the one rejected was a building (for IP reasons). I have to admit, though, I have downsized all my images to the minimum requirement as I had heard about their "focus on focus". I had applied a few weeks ago - actually before the recent developments -, so I was ready to upload images and have them live when my exclusivity terms ran out.
I am not a brillant photographer and haven't been a star at iStock ever. Though I felt home at a place where I could learn and earn at the same time. I just found that there is not much more I can learn at the place, and the "earn" part wasn't quite nice to look at anymore as well.
My expectation is that my royalties at iStock will drop by anywhere between 60 and 80% immediately. Exclusive members not only get a higher royalty but also exclusive files are priced higher plus the option of choosing images for E+ plus Vetta & Agency (which never amounted to much for me). In exchange, my images will be forced into the partner program, I have no idea how much additional money that will make.
My income from stock was never high enough to make a living (and didn't have to) and it has taken a steep dive since fall of 2011, so I can take the risk now. I am living with a black diamond iStock exclusive, and we can't afford her going non-exclusive right now. But my independence will be a good test what to expect. I am looking forward to it. Anxious but excited. 8)
Congrats. And for whatever it's worth I have always found your posts (as an admin) on the IS forums over the years to be very fair. I thank you for that.
-
As of today, I am an independent stock photographer and a contributor on Shutterstock.
In my application test, 9 of the 10 images I submitted were accepted - the one rejected was a building (for IP reasons). I have to admit, though, I have downsized all my images to the minimum requirement as I had heard about their "focus on focus". I had applied a few weeks ago - actually before the recent developments -, so I was ready to upload images and have them live when my exclusivity terms ran out.
I am not a brillant photographer and haven't been a star at iStock ever. Though I felt home at a place where I could learn and earn at the same time. I just found that there is not much more I can learn at the place, and the "earn" part wasn't quite nice to look at anymore as well.
My expectation is that my royalties at iStock will drop by anywhere between 60 and 80% immediately. Exclusive members not only get a higher royalty but also exclusive files are priced higher plus the option of choosing images for E+ plus Vetta & Agency (which never amounted to much for me). In exchange, my images will be forced into the partner program, I have no idea how much additional money that will make.
My income from stock was never high enough to make a living (and didn't have to) and it has taken a steep dive since fall of 2011, so I can take the risk now. I am living with a black diamond iStock exclusive, and we can't afford her going non-exclusive right now. But my independence will be a good test what to expect. I am looking forward to it. Anxious but excited. 8)
Good luck ... after a few months I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. You know you're still wearing a crown at IS?
-
If they don't have to go through the entry submission, you should at least put a symbol on their profile pages of a little crown falling off a head. :)
haha:)
-
Good luck ... after a few months I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. You know you're still wearing a crown at IS?
Yes. Just like canister changes it takes 2-3 days until the system is updating stuff. I could also still upload 120 images today if I had them. ::)
Not really my problem. Everyone has to wait a few days when they are trying to become exclusive and get higher royalties, now I will earn a few undeserved cents at the end.
-
Congrats. And for whatever it's worth I have always found your posts (as an admin) on the IS forums over the years to be very fair. I thank you for that.
Thanks, though I am sure I made some enemies as well. But I also have found lots of friends. ;)
-
Good luck MichaelJay! I hope it all works out wonderfully well for you.
-
As of today, I am an independent stock photographer and a contributor on Shutterstock.
In my application test, 9 of the 10 images I submitted were accepted - the one rejected was a building (for IP reasons). I have to admit, though, I have downsized all my images to the minimum requirement as I had heard about their "focus on focus". I had applied a few weeks ago - actually before the recent developments -, so I was ready to upload images and have them live when my exclusivity terms ran out.
I am not a brillant photographer and haven't been a star at iStock ever. Though I felt home at a place where I could learn and earn at the same time. I just found that there is not much more I can learn at the place, and the "earn" part wasn't quite nice to look at anymore as well.
My expectation is that my royalties at iStock will drop by anywhere between 60 and 80% immediately. Exclusive members not only get a higher royalty but also exclusive files are priced higher plus the option of choosing images for E+ plus Vetta & Agency (which never amounted to much for me). In exchange, my images will be forced into the partner program, I have no idea how much additional money that will make.
My income from stock was never high enough to make a living (and didn't have to) and it has taken a steep dive since fall of 2011, so I can take the risk now. I am living with a black diamond iStock exclusive, and we can't afford her going non-exclusive right now. But my independence will be a good test what to expect. I am looking forward to it. Anxious but excited. 8)
Good luck Michael! you were one of the most pleasant pple at IS and for a long time. Wishing you the best.
I am Lagereek, btw
-
Hope all goes well for you Michael.
Just remember to keep taking the long view - I know you have a very level head about all of this. There will be unjust rejections, bad days at one agency or another and at some point you'll wonder if you really did the right thing. I found it helpful to remember some of the key messages of a book I read once called "The Way We Never Were" - it was all about how the fond nostalgia for the past often glosses over the actual past and is more a blend of fantasy and the actual past.
I already posted that my November-December last year beat my Nov-Dec 2010 (my last full exclusive year), so the earnings will come back.
-
As of today, I am an independent stock photographer and a contributor on Shutterstock.
In my application test, 9 of the 10 images I submitted were accepted - the one rejected was a building (for IP reasons). I have to admit, though, I have downsized all my images to the minimum requirement as I had heard about their "focus on focus". I had applied a few weeks ago - actually before the recent developments -, so I was ready to upload images and have them live when my exclusivity terms ran out.
I am not a brillant photographer and haven't been a star at iStock ever. Though I felt home at a place where I could learn and earn at the same time. I just found that there is not much more I can learn at the place, and the "earn" part wasn't quite nice to look at anymore as well.
My expectation is that my royalties at iStock will drop by anywhere between 60 and 80% immediately. Exclusive members not only get a higher royalty but also exclusive files are priced higher plus the option of choosing images for E+ plus Vetta & Agency (which never amounted to much for me). In exchange, my images will be forced into the partner program, I have no idea how much additional money that will make.
My income from stock was never high enough to make a living (and didn't have to) and it has taken a steep dive since fall of 2011, so I can take the risk now. I am living with a black diamond iStock exclusive, and we can't afford her going non-exclusive right now. But my independence will be a good test what to expect. I am looking forward to it. Anxious but excited. 8)
Congratulations Michael! A very bold move, and one that I am sure will pay off for you in the long run. Wishing you all the best. :)
-
Yeah, for the 2nd time in less than a year eyestuck increased upload limits for non-exclusives. I thought that was another sign of their ongoing demise.
Looks like Istock is sinking ... fast. Man the lifeboats, women and children first!
-
is it possible to opt out of subscriptions with photos?
I know you can with video.
From what I hear this is what many people would like to do- send images to ss only for regular single sales.
-
Thanks all. I am well aware of what I am doing. And to me, there is no way back. The only way to "test" this is to see a whole year including seasonal stuff at the end of the year. And at that time I will be too invested & commited in too many things to turn back. ;)
PS: Thanks, Christian, I know who you are. I will continue to profit from your experiences in the future.
-
At the Berlin Lypse in May 2012 an admin said there were 5500 exclusives.
June 2012 the stats said 6106 Photo Exclusives but there are a couple of old dormant unused accounts in that number.
Edit Exclusive count:
Sept. 13th 2010 5534 (18%)
Jan. 3rd 2011 5874 (16%)
Jan. 1st 2012 5773 (15%)
Would be nice to track from Today or Jan 2013 and look at March 2013. (insert diabolical laugh here...)
(http://s5.postimage.org/72gi3iwrn/spam99sq.jpg)SPAM Alert (http://postimage.org/) Use this referral link when you check out of the IS Hotel Canada. http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=111418 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=111418)
I just want one! I mean someone has to do it, I'd like to watch...
-
Some "exclusives" will quit Istock, or at least go to Shutterstock, because it is in their best long term business interests. Lots of others, perhaps more, especially hobbyists and part timers (typical microstockers) will probably go because that is where the community and most of the business seems to be relocating.
Lots of people are probably going to feel a great sense of relief. It will take a while to adjust but will also be like a fresh start for them. Istock and especially their forum had really turned into quite a nasty place in recent years - but also very much a reflection of what the company is now like. Nastily moderated by people who are uncommunicative, arbitrary and sneery. But then Getty have always been very sneery about microstock. When they end a dismissive post with "thanks", what they they mean is something quite different.
Good luck to everyone whatever they decide is best for them.
-
is it possible to opt out of subscriptions with photos?
I know you can with video.
From what I hear this is what many people would like to do- send images to ss only for regular single sales.
Yes, is this possible?
-
All the best, Michael. I hope you do well. Congratulations on making the hard decision that many of us are still agonising about.
-
Good luck Michael! you were one of the most pleasant pple at IS and for a long time. Wishing you the best.
I am Lagereek, btw
You are Lagereek and how many other names. You come back here and we're all supposed to forget Anyway what am I doing here? trying to chat with what? bunch of total morons? end of conversation
or [url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=13889&p=3[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=13889&p=3[/url])
"Well for starters, no way are you going to make a living here alone, this is not the sort of place for that ( with respects). I know a heck of a lot of people making a living in micro and Im not talking about the, MSG bunch, thats all mouth and no money ( yeah I also used to be there but it gave a bad rep ). I also know lots of people, including myself making a solid living in the Getty RM house collection."
Dont matter how many. FT has turned bad and sour. The agency changed the search some time back and its just terrible. Im leaving this place and slowly take my port with me.
and your leaving SS to I read.
Maybe you should apologize to everyone on MSG instead of just changing you account name again?
-
It's the quality of the booze which is a direct statistical correlation of the post. Just sayin!
-
Holy snapshots Batman, I think that jokers just playin' with ya! :)
-
is it possible to opt out of subscriptions with photos?
I know you can with video.
From what I hear this is what many people would like to do- send images to ss only for regular single sales.
Yes, is this possible?
Are you asking about Shutterstock? No you can't opt out.
-
It's the quality of the booze which is a direct statistical correlation of the post. Just sayin!
Good taste McAllens and lagavulin! cant be better hey. ;D ;D
-
is it possible to opt out of subscriptions with photos?
I know you can with video.
From what I hear this is what many people would like to do- send images to ss only for regular single sales.
Yes, is this possible?
I would really like to know if this is possible too. This option would be key in a lot of exclusives dropping their crowns imo.
-
Thanks all. I am well aware of what I am doing. And to me, there is no way back. The only way to "test" this is to see a whole year including seasonal stuff at the end of the year. And at that time I will be too invested & commited in too many things to turn back. ;)
PS: Thanks, Christian, I know who you are. I will continue to profit from your experiences in the future.
Anytime Mike! either here, PM or whatever, anytime. :)
best.
-
is it possible to opt out of subscriptions with photos?
I know you can with video.
From what I hear this is what many people would like to do- send images to ss only for regular single sales.
Yes, is this possible?
I would really like to know if this is possible too. This option would be key in a lot of exclusives dropping their crowns imo.
No, there's no opt out with SS. When you drop the crown, all your portfolio is sent to Thinkstock, so unless you leave istock, you'll be using a cheap subscriptions site. If you do leave istock, I think it's going to be very hard to get your earnings back without using SS.
-
We know that, which is why many will delete a lot of good work if they drop the crown. for those opposed in principle to subscriptions, they will just have to place that content on other sites.
-
We know that, which is why many will delete a lot of good work if they drop the crown. for those opposed in principle to subscriptions, they will just have to place that content on other sites.
I know what you mean. Though I think there is no point in submitting images to Shutterstock if you don't want to sell them through subscription sales. Without personal experience and only from other people's reports I would assume that only allowing single image sales, Shutterstock would be much lower in the income scale, probably below iStock even for independents. So you would not only give up the 70 or 80% you lose at iStock, at the same you would give up a huge percentage of the rest.
One possibility would be to only send downscaled images to Shutterstock to their acceptable minimum (4 mp). At least you wouldn't sell your 22 or 36 megapixel images for $0.25 then. And only sell larger images on sites that reward it based on credit levels.
-
We know that, which is why many will delete a lot of good work if they drop the crown. for those opposed in principle to subscriptions, they will just have to place that content on other sites.
I know what you mean. Though I think there is no point in submitting images to Shutterstock if you don't want to sell them through subscription sales. Without personal experience and only from other people's reports I would assume that only allowing single image sales, Shutterstock would be much lower in the income scale, probably below iStock even for independents. So you would not only give up the 70 or 80% you lose at iStock, at the same you would give up a huge percentage of the rest.
One possibility would be to only send downscaled images to Shutterstock to their acceptable minimum (4 mp). At least you wouldn't sell your 22 or 36 megapixel images for $0.25 then. And only sell larger images on sites that reward it based on credit levels.
You can't, in all practicality, avoid subscription sales as an independent microstock content provider. If you leave images on IS then they'll be transferred to TS. There is no opt-out either at SS, DT or FT. Those 4 agencies probably represent 90%+ of your potential earnings.
If you downsize your images to the minimum size then you will make them less attractive for single image sales and EL's on all sites as well as missing out on Large+ sales on DT & FT. Essentially you'll be doing a lot of extra work ... in order to earn less money in the future.
You either have to give up your disdain for subscription sales or give up being a microstocker completely. Either that or you stay as an IS exclusive ... in which case Getty may give away your images for almost nothing. If you think your stuff is too good or too valuable for subscription sales then send it to the macros instead.
Personally I don't mind subscription sales. They certainly help hugely in advancing your images up the sort-order as well as accounting for something like 40-50% of total earnings. I'm convinced that the vast majority of images downloaded on subscription are never actually used. From what I've heard the typical subscription buyer actually uses their agency of choice as their 'image server'. Whenever they need images for a project they just download lots of them and see which fits best.
-
We know that, which is why many will delete a lot of good work if they drop the crown. for those opposed in principle to subscriptions, they will just have to place that content on other sites.
Is there a microstock, non-mickey mouse option where subs are optional?
-
We know that, which is why many will delete a lot of good work if they drop the crown. for those opposed in principle to subscriptions, they will just have to place that content on other sites.
Is there a microstock, non-mickey mouse option where subs are optional?
No
-
If you downsize your images to the minimum size then you will make them less attractive for single image sales and EL's on all sites as well as missing out on Large+ sales on DT & FT. Essentially you'll be doing a lot of extra work ... in order to earn less money in the future.
Well, I have Lightroom and can export 1,000 files to any size I wish with 5 seconds of work. This wouldn't be an issue. And I would upload the reduzed version only to sites favoring subscriptions heavily - can't say anything about the relation between subs and single images sales on other site.
I'm not saying I'd recommend this and I'm not doing it myself for the reasons you mention. But it would be something to consider an option for those who don't like subs in general.
-
is it possible to opt out of subscriptions with photos?
I know you can with video.
From what I hear this is what many people would like to do- send images to ss only for regular single sales.
At SS? No, it is still primarily a subscription site. On demand sales are growing, but not the bulk of the income. If you don't want to sell subscriptions Istock is still the only site of the Big 4 that lets you opt out of that as an exclusive. SS, FT, and DT you have to sell subs if you want to be on the site.
I wholeheartedly welcome all former exclusives who want to join SS, but I suggest that, rather than trying to remake it in Istock's (former) image, you give yourselves time to become acclimated and enjoy the site for what it is and what it offers. :)
If you downsize your images to the minimum size then you will make them less attractive for single image sales and EL's on all sites as well as missing out on Large+ sales on DT & FT. Essentially you'll be doing a lot of extra work ... in order to earn less money in the future.
... I would upload the reduced version only to sites favoring subscriptions heavily - can't say anything about the relation between subs and single images sales on other site.
I'm not saying I'd recommend this and I'm not doing it myself for the reasons you mention. But it would be something to consider an option for those who don't like subs in general.
It would effectively cut your legs out from under your portfolio on all the other sites. All the top 4 sell more subs than OD sales. At least that is what most people report. If you make it so your images can only be downloaded via OD in small sizes, you aren't even giving yourself a chance.
Gostwyck's absolutely right:
You can't, in all practicality, avoid subscription sales as an independent microstock content provider.
(snip)
You either have to give up your disdain for subscription sales or give up being a microstocker completely. Either that or you stay as an IS exclusive
I am sure it is quite an adjustment from Istock exclusive to indie. I'm sorry that folks who really didn't want to have to make that transition are being put in this position by Istock. Still don't understand how it could have all gone to He11 so quickly ... ???
-
I suggest that, rather than trying to remake it in Istock's image, you give yourselves time to become acclimated and enjoy the site for what it is and what it offers. :)
VERY well said there Lisa.
-
If you don't want to sell subscriptions Istock is still the only site of the Big 4 that lets you opt out of that.
Strictly speaking, even iStock does not allow you to opt out of the on-site subscription sales. Though it is a totally different subscription system, not the "all size, one price", that's probably also the reason why it totally failed. ;D
-
If you downsize your images to the minimum size then you will make them less attractive for single image sales and EL's on all sites as well as missing out on Large+ sales on DT & FT. Essentially you'll be doing a lot of extra work ... in order to earn less money in the future.
Well, I have Lightroom and can export 1,000 files to any size I wish with 5 seconds of work. This wouldn't be an issue. And I would upload the reduzed version only to sites favoring subscriptions heavily - can't say anything about the relation between subs and single images sales on other site.
I'm not saying I'd recommend this and I'm not doing it myself for the reasons you mention. But it would be something to consider an option for those who don't like subs in general.
Lots of us have considered (or actually done) downsizing in the past, particularly as we have upgraded our cameras from 6MP to 8, 12 and 20+, but I don't think many continue to do so. Yuri doesn't bother for example. You can download his full-size Hassy images on subscription from everywhere that sells subs.
SS 'favours subs' more than any other site only because they are more successful than the others. Subscription packages are priced the same virtually everywhere (and have mostly the same images) so buyers are making their choice based on the service they receive. Even so subs only account for about 50% of earnings at SS nowadays and that's reducing month-on-month as they sell ever more single images. In November, which was a BME for me, subs were only 42% of my total earnings there with an average return of 80c per download. SS also pay us higher royalties than any of their competitors.
-
Hi everyone,
Just to chime in on this one point: downsizing will only hurt your sales and the overall community. I'll explain why.
Shutterstock has over 550,000 customers, ranging from freelance graphic designers working with a variety of clients to high-end advertising agencies and publishers who buy images in volume. Some of those customers buy individual images, some buy image packs and others buy images via the subscription model.
The point of uploading large (or your original) file sizes is to make sure that your images are suitable for the widest variety of customers and widest variety of uses, irrespective of how the image was purchased.
For example, some advertising agencies will buy images under agreements that allow for a royalty of up to $120 per download. If you upload smaller images that fail to meet an advertising agency's requirements, you'll either leave them frustrated or turn them off to your portfolio.
As others have pointed out, it's in your interest to try to capture the widest variety of sales from customers already transacting at Shutterstock, which means providing high quality files suitable for the widest variety of end uses.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
-
adapt or die.
The glasshouse has broke.
-
Although I'm not one of the people your post is addressed to Scott, I just want to say thanks for once again being available on a weekend and posting helpful information here. I'm sure everyone appreciates it.
-
Hi everyone,
Just to chime in on this one point: downsizing will only hurt your sales and the overall community. I'll explain why.
Shutterstock has over 550,000 customers, ranging from freelance graphic designers working with a variety of clients to high-end advertising agencies and publishers who buy images in volume. Some of those customers buy individual images, some buy image packs and others buy images via the subscription model.
The point of uploading large (or your original) file sizes is to make sure that your images are suitable for the widest variety of customers and widest variety of uses, irrespective of how the image was purchased.
For example, some advertising agencies will buy images under agreements that allow for a royalty of up to $120 per download. If you upload smaller images that fail to meet an advertising agency's requirements, you'll either leave them frustrated or turn them off to your portfolio.
As others have pointed out, it's in your interest to try to capture the widest variety of sales from customers already transacting at Shutterstock, which means providing high quality files suitable for the widest variety of end uses.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Thanks for chiming in Scott and also for the background info on how those chunky royalties arrive ... and all on a Sunday too!
I'll just check to see if any of the Istock/Getty management have been helping contributors on the forums today ... ok, I'm back ... no, they haven't. Quelle surprise. Must be because everything's going so well at Istock.
-
iStock/GI is still talking with Google, I wonder when they will be ready to talk, next month? not on a Sunday that's for sure...
-
Thank you Scott. personally, i would probably opt my files in, like Michael says, even as an istock exclusive my files are available to the daily istock subscription scheme, even if my files are not on thinkstock.
I really wasnīt planning to go independent. i just wanted an opt out from these re-distribution deals. but I am now looking more into it, might be inevitable. The lack of communication from istock is depressing, especially if here on msg we get admins from ss who donīt mind working on a sunday. and in germany Iīve heard that fotolia recommends to just give them a call if we have any questions.
i think it is mostly the fear that I cannot make a proper living being independent, but it looks like many in the community do.
-
Hi everyone,
Just to chime in on this one point: downsizing will only hurt your sales and the overall community. I'll explain why.
Shutterstock has over 550,000 customers, ranging from freelance graphic designers working with a variety of clients to high-end advertising agencies and publishers who buy images in volume. Some of those customers buy individual images, some buy image packs and others buy images via the subscription model.
The point of uploading large (or your original) file sizes is to make sure that your images are suitable for the widest variety of customers and widest variety of uses, irrespective of how the image was purchased.
For example, some advertising agencies will buy images under agreements that allow for a royalty of up to $120 per download. If you upload smaller images that fail to meet an advertising agency's requirements, you'll either leave them frustrated or turn them off to your portfolio.
As others have pointed out, it's in your interest to try to capture the widest variety of sales from customers already transacting at Shutterstock, which means providing high quality files suitable for the widest variety of end uses.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Hi Scott and many thanks for coming in here. Its extremely nice to have a personal contact like this. Reminds me of how it was back in the trad-agencies.
best.
-
I'm a small port hobby photographer (173 images) with Istock. I think I will be ending exclusivity with them as I certainly have nothing to lose, what with how they're treating us over there. I registered with SS, Fotolia, and Dreamstime today. others will follow. Now to figure out what's what with each agency..a bit daunting.
-
I figured, I'm investing money in an image-based stock portfolio. Why in the world am I not following the "diversify, diversify, diversify" advice for investing money in a financial stock portfolio? It has become foolish to stick with one company.
-
I meant to type "I'm investing time in an image-based stock portfolio"...but then again, time is money.
-
Hi everyone,
Just to chime in on this one point: downsizing will only hurt your sales and the overall community. I'll explain why.
Shutterstock has over 550,000 customers, ranging from freelance graphic designers working with a variety of clients to high-end advertising agencies and publishers who buy images in volume. Some of those customers buy individual images, some buy image packs and others buy images via the subscription model.
The point of uploading large (or your original) file sizes is to make sure that your images are suitable for the widest variety of customers and widest variety of uses, irrespective of how the image was purchased.
For example, some advertising agencies will buy images under agreements that allow for a royalty of up to $120 per download. If you upload smaller images that fail to meet an advertising agency's requirements, you'll either leave them frustrated or turn them off to your portfolio.
As others have pointed out, it's in your interest to try to capture the widest variety of sales from customers already transacting at Shutterstock, which means providing high quality files suitable for the widest variety of end uses.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Still not fully understood on this issue.
The thing is, is that there is a discussion about this on SS and it seems and appears to be that most of the large SOD sales are not from "Larger Files" as you have stated but most of the $93-$120 sales are in the 4-6MP size range and from images that were downsized?
And as we know that a 4MP can and will be upsized by 4x by SS making it a 16MP size there is nowhere that shows a 18MP that will be upsized 4x making it 72MP.
Can we get a little more clarification please?
The way you have stated it, it would appear that people submitting large full size files would be the ones getting the large SOD's when in all actuality it is the ones who are downsizing their files that are getting the large SOD sales?
-
Downsizing is something you do when your image does not hold water, and you hope to have sales from the smaller file.
Else. Of course you upload the biggest file you can.
-
A number of posts from a squabble were removed and 2 members given a 'break' from posting due to insults.
-
Downsizing is something you do when your image does not hold water, and you hope to have sales from the smaller file.
Else. Of course you upload the biggest file you can.
Exactly, I only downsize when I'm concerned that focus is not 100%.
-
Downsizing is something you do when your image does not hold water, and you hope to have sales from the smaller file.
Or you live somewhere with very slow internet uploads and fairly severe monthly data caps. Or even a connection where you pay for all bandwidth.
Cutting a file size down in those circumstances is very useful.
-
Of course.
-
Hello,
In response to the question about downsizing:
A large share of the downloads at our higher royalty amounts come from larger file sizes. My original recommendation remains the same.
As a general comment - individuals in the forums often talk about their anecdotal personal experience on a given day or month. That's great and there's certainly nothing wrong with that -- but for perspective -- Shutterstock has 550,000 customers and has delivered over 250 million downloads. We're great supporters and believers in communities and forums (and peer feedback), but to get the best information - I will always suggest that contributors follow our guidelines and recommendations and contact Support directly when there are questions.
Thanks for the questions - happy licensing. :)
Best Regards,
Scott
VP Content
Shutterstock
-
Some technical specifics as to why full size downloads help sales would be nice.
I've got files on there ranging from 6MP up to 18MP and logged in as a buyer every single one of those offers me the same choice of sizes and licences to download. Going by that i really cant see how a full size image is in any way "better".
-
Some technical specifics as to why full size downloads help sales would be nice.
I've got files on there ranging from 6MP up to 18MP and logged in as a buyer every single one of those offers me the same choice of sizes and licences to download. Going by that i really cant see how a full size image is in any way "better".
If you were a customer swithering between two images and one was 6Mp and one was 18Mp, and you could choose either under your sub deal, which would you probably choose, if there really wasn't anything else in it?
-
Some technical specifics as to why full size downloads help sales would be nice.
I've got files on there ranging from 6MP up to 18MP and logged in as a buyer every single one of those offers me the same choice of sizes and licences to download. Going by that i really cant see how a full size image is in any way "better".
If you were a customer swithering between two images and one was 6Mp and one was 18Mp, and you could choose either under your sub deal, which would you probably choose, if there really wasn't anything else in it?
ranging from 6MP up to 18MP and logged in as a buyer every single one of those offers me the same choice of sizes
-
Some technical specifics as to why full size downloads help sales would be nice.
I've got files on there ranging from 6MP up to 18MP and logged in as a buyer every single one of those offers me the same choice of sizes and licences to download. Going by that i really cant see how a full size image is in any way "better".
If you were a customer swithering between two images and one was 6Mp and one was 18Mp, and you could choose either under your sub deal, which would you probably choose, if there really wasn't anything else in it?
ranging from 6MP up to 18MP and logged in as a buyer every single one of those offers me the same choice of sizes
Ooops, sorry - they upsize?
-
Some technical specifics as to why full size downloads help sales would be nice.
I've got files on there ranging from 6MP up to 18MP and logged in as a buyer every single one of those offers me the same choice of sizes and licences to download. Going by that i really cant see how a full size image is in any way "better".
I don't know that this qualifies as a "technical specific", but if you are uploading small files and they are being uprezzed to meet the larger file sizes, then that would degrade quality somewhat. So a buyer who downloads one of your files which has been considerably blown up would most likely notice it as inferior quality to one which had been uploaded at full size. Offering lower quality to buyers is a good way to avoid repeat business to your portfolio IMO.
-
Some technical specifics as to why full size downloads help sales would be nice.
I've got files on there ranging from 6MP up to 18MP and logged in as a buyer every single one of those offers me the same choice of sizes and licences to download. Going by that i really cant see how a full size image is in any way "better".
If you were a customer swithering between two images and one was 6Mp and one was 18Mp, and you could choose either under your sub deal, which would you probably choose, if there really wasn't anything else in it?
ranging from 6MP up to 18MP and logged in as a buyer every single one of those offers me the same choice of sizes
It is not true that every image offers the same choice of sizes. If your original is large enough, they skip the upsized "Super" and offer s-m-l plus a large TIFF (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=81634720). With smaller images you get s-m-l-super plus large and super TIFF (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=1847695)
-
What's with the TIFF? It looks a tad misleading, considering the original upload is a lossy JPG.
-
It's a daft idea - SS, DT, 123rf do it. They don't even offer contributors the option to upload a TIFF. The insanity is that 123rf charges an arm and a leg to get the upsizing "professionally" done - I can't imagine why customers would pay for this, but a few do.
The argument the agencies made when they introduced it was that customers expected it so rather than arguing they gave them what they expected. I would guess that was largely customers used to the old world of drum scanned slides who viewed output from digital cameras as "less" even though in many cases they got bucket loads more and sharper detail from Yuri's Hasselblad or everyone else's 5D Mk II :)
-
Looks like Istock is sinking ... fast. Man the lifeboats, women and children first!
yes and get the boats, women and children from the Titanic over to Lucitania, much safer place. ;D
-
Does SS still take off a chunk of earnings in withholding tax? As my expenses exceed my income I don't actually make a profit (yet) and don't want to jump through hoops to keep what income I do make.
-
Does SS still take off a chunk of earnings in withholding tax? As my expenses exceed my income I don't actually make a profit (yet) and don't want to jump through hoops to keep what income I do make.
I don't know if this thread might help:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/tax-thing-for-non-us-contributors (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/tax-thing-for-non-us-contributors)
-
Some technical specifics as to why full size downloads help sales would be nice.
I've got files on there ranging from 6MP up to 18MP and logged in as a buyer every single one of those offers me the same choice of sizes and licences to download. Going by that i really cant see how a full size image is in any way "better".
I don't know that this qualifies as a "technical specific", but if you are uploading small files and they are being uprezzed to meet the larger file sizes, then that would degrade quality somewhat. So a buyer who downloads one of your files which has been considerably blown up would most likely notice it as inferior quality to one which had been uploaded at full size. Offering lower quality to buyers is a good way to avoid repeat business to your portfolio IMO.
Understood, but I don't like that practice.
If I've uploaded a photo on iS at M it's either because a 400mm lens often isn't long enough or the photo was taken at a high ISO, or both. I wouldn't expect or want them to be upsized.
I'm perfectly aware that many low ISO photos can be upsized considerably with little visible effect, esp from the 5D2, but upsizing as a matter of course doesn't work for me.
I'm also wondering if this could be the reason for some apparently strange 'focus' rejections. Maybe SS inspectors upsize to their max size and judge the images on that?
-
Some technical specifics as to why full size downloads help sales would be nice.
I've got files on there ranging from 6MP up to 18MP and logged in as a buyer every single one of those offers me the same choice of sizes and licences to download. Going by that i really cant see how a full size image is in any way "better".
I don't know that this qualifies as a "technical specific", but if you are uploading small files and they are being uprezzed to meet the larger file sizes, then that would degrade quality somewhat. So a buyer who downloads one of your files which has been considerably blown up would most likely notice it as inferior quality to one which had been uploaded at full size. Offering lower quality to buyers is a good way to avoid repeat business to your portfolio IMO.
Understood, but I don't like that practice.
If I've uploaded a photo on iS at M it's either because a 400mm lens often isn't long enough or the photo was taken at a high ISO, or both. I wouldn't expect or want them to be upsized.
I'm perfectly aware that many low ISO photos can be upsized considerably with little visible effect, esp from the 5D2, but upsizing as a matter of course doesn't work for me.
I'm also wondering if this could be the reason for some apparently strange 'focus' rejections. Maybe SS inspectors upsize to their max size and judge the images on that?
I thought that 100% was what they looked at anything more would be bad.