MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How is this possible?  (Read 2700 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 13, 2019, 07:11 »
+4
we have reached this level of poor image quality in ss?
why?
how?

can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

then i read this indian miracle

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97689-are-people-really-earning-from-the-shutter-stock/

one dollar and he cannot believe why only one dollar?

can somebody explain why ss is accepting this stufff if not they want only sell images paying 0,25 cent instead 0,38?
personally i m getting ashamed to collaborate to a company who accept this stuff.


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2019, 08:20 »
+1
we have reached this level of poor image quality in ss?
why?
how?

can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

then i read this indian miracle

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97689-are-people-really-earning-from-the-shutter-stock/

one dollar and he cannot believe why only one dollar?

can somebody explain why ss is accepting this stufff if not they want only sell images paying 0,25 cent instead 0,38?
personally i m getting ashamed to collaborate to a company who accept this stuff.

The Indian guy, just over 700 photos, most look to be of little interest to any buyer. Four downloads. Maybe some people will finally see this and realize, they can't just upload pages and pages of snapshots and make money. We need to have content that has some use or attractions to buyers. The rest think it's some game or  easy money, and will never make anything. Then they will leave.  8)

We've seen the same on the forum here, over and over. Someone new, who claims to know photography, but they can't make money from stock. Easy enough, they are not making what buyers want or need. I started that way, watched and listened, and changed my attitude. This isn't about taking pictures or photography skills as much as content, subjects and meeting buyers needs.

Why is SS accepting just about everything and anything? I don't know. We've been through this for years, I can't come up with a reasonable answer. Well maybe. "We have more photos than anyone else", which is hardly a way to sell quality or useful images? Why did IS drop their standards? Of the top and middle listed with numbers, it seems that only AS has held up their head and demanded better quality.

Grossinger has set a personal goal and a mission, which is far better than someone shooting family gatherings, pets, flowers or whatever, and wondering why they only made a dollar in six months.  :) I stand behind him and his personal project. Let me be clear, I don't think that 10,000 images means he will make any sizable income, but I like his effort much better than people who have no clue, upload snapshots and expect to make money.

I also predict that he's going to see what sells, and start taking more of that kind of content. Unlike others who are close minded and stubborn, someone who goes out and works and learns, will become better a Microstock. That's the big difference.

« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2019, 08:34 »
+3
The only explanation as far as I can see is they want to boast the largest portfolio and number of contributors. I think their strategy is wrong but I don't own shares and am a mere supplier and supply other agencies.

I actually feel sorry for those people desperate to earn money who are lured into submitting under the impression they will earn big money for their snaps.

« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2019, 14:48 »
+2
ashamed to collaborate to a company who accept this stuff.

sounds like what i said circa 2007 about IS and microstock in general. i have to keep reminding myself that the generation of having your work edited by an editor and rejected because it was not good enough is totally different from work inspected by an inspector generation and having nothing rejected is night and day.

the stock industry is a complete shame these days.

« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2019, 15:39 »
+1
Having done a pass from Youtube madness and forums, I can justify the "easy money fever" and hordes of people with a camera in hand waiting to be the next Casey or something and only say this "lucky that there is the age and legal limitations in stock agencies and the whole stock forums and world is not flooded by 12 yrs old asking everyday the same and same crap on how to bypass by any means everything and everyone and be the next Stock Master.

:/

« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2019, 16:12 »
+5
Why is Shutterstock accepting everything?

My first guess is that boasting the largest library is a good way to acquire new customers and keep existing ones. It seems to work for them, we just have to look at the monthly Microstock Poll to see that Shutterstock is the biggest earner for most contributors here, unless you are iStock exclusive.

My second guess is that even the crappiest photos will 'sometimes' find a buyer, not many buyers, but since the cost of photo storage is close to zero, why not accept the photo and get that sale. If we each look into our own portfolios, my guess is that we all have some crap photos from our early days that have sold a few times. Some people call this 'the long tail'.

My third guess is that the ultimate way to determine if an image will sell is by doing A/B testing. The search engine will constantly rotate new images into the front page of search results to see if attracts clicks and sales. If it does, it stays for a while. If it doesn't, it gets pushed down the rankings. This method removes the subjectivity and error prone opinions of human inspectors.

My fourth guess might be that it might actually be cheaper for Shutterstock to accept almost everything. Taking the time to analyze million of new submissions and decided if they fit some pre-determined standards can be costly on human time, thus labor costs. To accept almost everything, sort of cost almost nothing in human labor. Also Shutterstock no doubt knows that in the past some contributors will resubmit rejected images, because likely a different inspector will look at it and approve it second time around. So the net effect is that those files have cost Shutterstock twice as much labor cost to review.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2019, 16:18 by charged »

« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2019, 00:28 »
0
Why is Shutterstock accepting everything?

My first guess is that boasting the largest library is a good way to acquire new customers and keep existing ones. It seems to work for them, we just have to look at the monthly Microstock Poll to see that Shutterstock is the biggest earner for most contributors here, unless you are iStock exclusive.

My second guess is that even the crappiest photos will 'sometimes' find a buyer, not many buyers, but since the cost of photo storage is close to zero, why not accept the photo and get that sale. If we each look into our own portfolios, my guess is that we all have some crap photos from our early days that have sold a few times. Some people call this 'the long tail'.

My third guess is that the ultimate way to determine if an image will sell is by doing A/B testing. The search engine will constantly rotate new images into the front page of search results to see if attracts clicks and sales. If it does, it stays for a while. If it doesn't, it gets pushed down the rankings. This method removes the subjectivity and error prone opinions of human inspectors.

My fourth guess might be that it might actually be cheaper for Shutterstock to accept almost everything. Taking the time to analyze million of new submissions and decided if they fit some pre-determined standards can be costly on human time, thus labor costs. To accept almost everything, sort of cost almost nothing in human labor. Also Shutterstock no doubt knows that in the past some contributors will resubmit rejected images, because likely a different inspector will look at it and approve it second time around. So the net effect is that those files have cost Shutterstock twice as much labor cost to review.
I think that a good analysis of Shutterstock's thinking. The reasons. I think they are wrong is the cost of providing support to a huge number of contributors who generate little or no sales is huge which is why the are forced into outsourcing the service and crucially the belief that AI/search technology will ensure the buyers will have a good experience and not have to wade through the poor quality irrelevant images is mistaken.

I also believe that Shutterstock don't see their "bottom end" microstock business as where the growth is coming from. They see this in the large corporates who often pay a big premium not to have to wade through the site. Things like "offset" have a rigorous inspection/membership regime and a price to match.

Oringer is considerably richer than me...perhaps they are right but a few years back I thought SS had a great business now I see one full of holes and failing to deliver its growth targets.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2019, 08:47 »
+2
It's probably something to fall back on at the shareholders meeting if other metrics aren't looking as rosy... "sure, we didn't quite hit our financial growth figures, but hey... we have 42 billion more images than we did last year!"

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2019, 09:51 »
+6
The only explanation as far as I can see is they want to boast the largest portfolio and number of contributors. I think their strategy is wrong but I don't own shares and am a mere supplier and supply other agencies.

I actually feel sorry for those people desperate to earn money who are lured into submitting under the impression they will earn big money for their snaps.

Yes to both.

I will say though, most people were and are lured in, not by SS or other agencies, but by other artists and people seeking to earn from referrals. That's the way it started. Now maybe social media, where people find "make money selling your photos" sound like it's going to be easy.

Years ago, some customer said, "why don't you start a blog, those people make good money?" Ha Ha, no different than a YouTube channel now. Many try only a small number succeed, yet the news and forums make it all look so easy. In the early years of Internet, you could actually make money on clicks, just having people look at your page or click an ad.

Times change, Microstock is not what it was. It is still difficult and content needs to be suitable and interesting. Yes as pretty much everyone here will have seen, week after week, there's someone new on this forum or some agency forum asking the same questions. (probably the same as I did in some form?)

How many photos do I need to make money? What should I shoot, what's best selling? What camera do I need. What agency is best... On and on. We can and do give basic answers, but in the end, each one of us, had to find our particular special interest or area that we found best. None of us can be everything.

If new people refuse to listen or study, that's where the agency should have monitored and limited access or at least poor quality Crapstock. That would have discouraged the wasted time and space for junk that will never make money. As a result support has been cut back, limited, inefficient because it's inundated with questions or complaints, from new people, who never took the time to see past "make money with your photos"!

New on SS, I think everyone here personally understand this.

All Images Must Meet Shutterstock Standards

Lets get straight to the point- we are not looking for the selfies on your phone. Were looking for content that customers around the world want to download and use for a wide variety of purposes. Before you upload an image, ask yourself Can I see this being used by a company? and Where would this image be most likely to be used? Every image that you submit should have a clear purpose and obvious use-case.
  My Bold

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/earning-money-stock-photography

Snapshots of the family, snaps of pets looking cute, most flower shots, or a goat in a field, are not something that has a clear purpose or obvious use. Staged or informative, documentary images of nature or animals, do meet the standards.

Something that there are already hundreds of thousands of that subject or concept, have little chance of breaking through and making money. Unless they stand out, are different, or exceptional. Same as the other 200 million images, the good ones = what makes money, needs to be above and beyond the usual and common.

SS must know this, I don't know why they accept filler. I don't think the scraps and terrible shots compete with mine. (even my own filler, doesn't compete with my own better images?) Every good image has a buyer, every trash Crapstock image, is destined to sit pages back in the search, wither and earn nothing.  :)

Lets stop saying stockholders, do this or that, I own plenty of stock and have, I never once had a company ask me anything. Yes there are stockholder reports, but that's just numbers, earnings, projections. Stockholders didn't do any of this! Someone up top at SS did it. Just like someone or group at IS makes decisions, that aren't in our best interest, and sometimes seem like they are totally clueless.

They are a business, about making money and yes about stock value. They want to please customers and the last on the list after that and other factors is the artists. We are now down to producing a common commodity, and competition for the best images has gone to special agencies or premium collections. Not the general subscription portfolios.

Video has followed photos, which were followed by illustrations and vectors being good, but eventually dropping. Devalued, and over supplied, yet people around the world are still trying to make money, as the values and returns drop, year after year.

Next year will not be better than this year for most of us. Next June could be the worst June ever for many more people. The market is not growing for artists and earnings.

How is this possible? Photography, art, vectors, audio, video, many more parts have become a volume business, not a quality business for the agencies that distribute the same. They keep paying us less and still get supplied with too much content.

This is not a growth business for artists, it's is not something with long term return on our investment as many of us thought. It's not going to get better!

I'd say stop worrying about how the agencies do their business, or why. Forget figuring out how the search is biased, what other people upload, or who's entering the market with hopeless collections. Don't be distracted by imaginary caps, maps, placement, or other conspiracy leaning claims, which may or may not exist!

Maybe start thinking about how to deal with falling value and income and what we as individuals can do for ourselves. I'm no longer concerned or interested in areas and conditions that I can't alter or control. My job is work on what's best for myself and what might improve returns.

Or a least keep sales from falling off to absolutely unsustainable nothing.  ???

« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2019, 17:38 »
0
we have reached this level of poor image quality in ss?
why?
how?

can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

then i read this indian miracle

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97689-are-people-really-earning-from-the-shutter-stock/

one dollar and he cannot believe why only one dollar?

can somebody explain why ss is accepting this stufff if not they want only sell images paying 0,25 cent instead 0,38?
personally i m getting ashamed to collaborate to a company who accept this stuff.

People believe to earn money from microstock is easy.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2019, 18:41 »
+1
we have reached this level of poor image quality in ss?
why?
how?

can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

Grossinger's port is improving and have to admire his work-ethic. He'll realise soon that quality beats quantity any-day...but he's on a mission so there's no stopping this guy! 

« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2019, 20:10 »
+5
we have reached this level of poor image quality in ss?
why?
how?

can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

Grossinger's port is improving and have to admire his work-ethic. He'll realise soon that quality beats quantity any-day...but he's on a mission so there's no stopping this guy!

Who is Grossinger ? i saw the link above, and that man is not humble, he believes he is a rock star. Ten thousands of image like he has, that an easy task for everyone, just snapshots.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2019, 20:38 by alexandersr »

« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2019, 03:40 »
+2
we have reached this level of poor image quality in ss?
why?
how?

can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

Grossinger's port is improving and have to admire his work-ethic. He'll realise soon that quality beats quantity any-day...but he's on a mission so there's no stopping this guy!
I doubt he will realise anything as hes made his mind up already.

« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2019, 05:55 »
+4
we have reached this level of poor image quality in ss?
why?
how?

can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

Grossinger's port is improving and have to admire his work-ethic. He'll realise soon that quality beats quantity any-day...but he's on a mission so there's no stopping this guy!
I doubt he will realise anything as hes made his mind up already.

I don't know. I think I see a chink in the armour in his latest thread. He mentions he's going to assess things in December to see if it's worthwhile to continue. Could it be that 6 months into his marathon of futility sales are not exactly what he was hoping for? I think we all know the answer to that.

Alexadersr is right. This guy is not humble. Downright arrogant actually. He thinks he's a rockstar because people treat him like one. He even has groupies who act as surrogates defending his right to post whatever rubbish he wants to about others while not accepting any valid criticism of him or his approach. Most are newbies of course who don't know any better, but there are a handful of old timers claiming to admire his tenacity and maverick devil be damned attitude. Personally I think deep down most of them just want the very entertaining show to continue.

Amelie

  • Part of a family producer association
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2019, 07:05 »
0
Quote
Maybe start thinking about how to deal with falling value and income and what we as individuals can do for ourselves. I'm no longer concerned or interested in areas and conditions that I can't alter or control. My job is work on what's best for myself and what might improve returns.

I don't wanna hijack this thread, but what Uncle Pete said opens up this whole discussion as it seems so valid for many other sectors and professions. It's actually super ironic in this context but the massive decline of income in my family's sector (they are farmers) is what brought me to stock footage. (We wanna produce some good and not so used up farm footage together and split the income.)

I agree very much on what Uncle Pete says about the necessity to think about ways to handle valing value and income (outside the box of usual "coping mechanism", obviously). However, I don't know if it's wise to stop being concerned about the professional, "market" or company made conditions influencing one's respective work environment and income situation.

Also:

Quote
Snapshots of the family, snaps of pets looking cute

Guess I should change my avatar then. Not to speak from the first few clips I'm currently uploading ;)
 

« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2019, 07:38 »
0
I think you can be concerned. But in the end you need to decide if you can change, it accept it or look at other ways of earning a crust. To bang on about the injustice for years doesn't really help.

In the UK the successful farmers have diversified into direct retail (farm shops), using their land for fishing, shooting etc. If a were a professional doing this for a living I would be looking elsewhere. For example, in the UK and I guess many other wealthy countries people are prepared to pay what I consider silly amounts to be taught how to use a simple camera. Stock photography started as a back up for the lean times when more valuable commissioned work couldn't be found. The last 15 years were the anomaly.

« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2019, 09:07 »
+1
Stock photography started as a back up for the lean times when more valuable commissioned work couldn't be found. The last 15 years were the anomaly.

My recollection is quiet different... I have been shooting stock pre Getty Images for what were once really great agencies. Back in the days of photography when you actually had usage fees based on print runs, space rate, and rights granted. Oh hang on here, that even preceeds Royalty Free... Not to get nostalgic but if my memory serves me correct if you actually had a honed craft and were techincally proficient in photography there were hardly days without commissioned work, it was really all based on your skill level... unlike today. Stock was also very much the same, you could make extra income from an image that you still retained the rights for and/or commissioned yourself, and the buyers would pay a very handsome fee for usage in lieu of paying for a commissioned shoot, and again it was all based on rights granted etc. If you were seriously good at what you did, you could make a very good living at shooting stock, and if you were not quite  that good yet, and editor would reject you. The standard back then were rigid as can be in a generation that rejection was normal.

I look at what stock has become and the rates paid for usage of images is not sustainable at all. These days it is not even worth to upload anything to any agency unless it is an incidental photograph, and even then that is barely worth it. Even Getty Images in nothing more than a microstock agency with the crap rates paid from Premium Access.



« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2019, 10:17 »
+2
can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

Grossinger once admitted on the SS forum that when he had over 3000 photos in his port, he had made less than $100. I wouldn't exactly call that impressive for a port of that size.

« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2019, 10:28 »
0
can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

Grossinger once admitted on the SS forum that when he had over 3000 photos in his port, he had made less than $100. I wouldn't exactly call that impressive for a port of that size.

this guy is a joke of nature...and those who admire hm have portfolio even more mediocre and probably not even manage to reach 10 dollar a months. those people probably suffer off solitude...they need those joke forum to fill their day because really i cannot understand spending time to earn a bunch of dollar and complaint that their 400 hundreds terrible photos don't sell everyday...another to follow is the desperate marbury king of doom and gloom thread,

sometimes i ask myself if they troll or really are surprised not to sell andy photos.
but the problem i m feeling ashamed to contribute to the same agency of those people. it's really depressing.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2019, 10:54 »
+1
Quote
Maybe start thinking about how to deal with falling value and income and what we as individuals can do for ourselves. I'm no longer concerned or interested in areas and conditions that I can't alter or control. My job is work on what's best for myself and what might improve returns.

I don't wanna hijack this thread, but what Uncle Pete said opens up this whole discussion as it seems so valid for many other sectors and professions. It's actually super ironic in this context but the massive decline of income in my family's sector (they are farmers) is what brought me to stock footage. (We wanna produce some good and not so used up farm footage together and split the income.)

I agree very much on what Uncle Pete says about the necessity to think about ways to handle valing value and income (outside the box of usual "coping mechanism", obviously). However, I don't know if it's wise to stop being concerned about the professional, "market" or company made conditions influencing one's respective work environment and income situation.

Also:

Quote
Snapshots of the family, snaps of pets looking cute

Guess I should change my avatar then. Not to speak from the first few clips I'm currently uploading ;)

You can do anything you want, for whatever reasons you think are best, I'm just observing and rambling.  :) Mostly answering the reasons why I think, SS and the rest have lost their minds, and are accepting  anything.

I'm not doing this for the income, although what I make, I do use for equipment. I also have found the challenge and getting my images out, for profit, to be rewarding. Lucky me I have multiple other sources of income. I'd hate to depend on Microstock, it's just so unreliable and always changing and returns are lower every year.

I also had my own business. Like farm producers, the market is tougher with competition growing and expanding. Some are just cutting prices which also hurts. My former business, which I keep alive, but is hardly producing income, relied on manufacturing plants as customers. They left the sate, moved South, some left the country, wen't offshore, and others went out of business. Overall, my problem is, almost no customer left in my territory.

To Others:

Yes I defended Grossinger for having a commitment and working towards his personal goal. I've already written back and forth to him and he understands the views of others who have said (roughly) number of images won't make you money. He's decided what he's going to do, and how and, that long freight train has left the station and is full steam ahead. Don't stand in the way?  ;)

Also just because one of us experts says, "you're wrong" doesn't mean he can't decide he wants to find out for himself. For that reason, I now support him, instead of trying to beat him down, like some others  can't seem to get over their way or no way?

A person can take advice, even when they aren't asking for it, or ignore that advice. All any of us can do is be honest and give a person the facts as we see them and let them decide on their own. I don't tell other people how to run their business or life, I have  enough to do, working on my own. But I will speak out and give my opinions. Take em or leave them, I don't care.




Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2019, 11:18 »
+4

this guy is a joke of nature...and those who admire hm have portfolio even more mediocre and probably not even manage to reach 10 dollar a months. those people probably suffer off solitude...they need those joke forum to fill their day because really i cannot understand spending time to earn a bunch of dollar and complaint that their 400 hundreds terrible photos don't sell everyday...another to follow is the desperate marbury king of doom and gloom thread,

sometimes i ask myself if they troll or really are surprised not to sell andy photos.
but the problem i m feeling ashamed to contribute to the same agency of those people. it's really depressing.

I think you would be surprised at how wrong you are with you personal insult and attacks. on some people who support and are friends with Grossinger. You might want to look again at who his friends are and what they shoot and sell.

Yeah, to the last part I wasn't ever going to mention him by name. (he's got a different name here) There are so many others like him, who just suffer and can't see what buyers want is not what they shoot. Like the guy with 700 photos and $1 in DLs. WOW! I thought I was terrible.  ::) ;D

I think the problem is, new people come and think this is easy money, or upload and someone will buy them, or buyers want "art". All are wrong. I'm repeating this, not for you, but the legion of Doom and gloom. If an image doesn't have a clear use, message or is of something that a buyer wants or can use to illustrate... it's probably never going to make any sales. EVER!

If someone shoots what sells best, same as the other 10 thousand of the same subject, it's probably going to get buried and never make a sale. The subject is covered.

If you are shooting natural light with a cell phone or walking around with a P&S or pocket camera, snapping whatever, you probably aren't going to make much at all, because the competition is planning, thinking and using better equipment to make bigger, better, sharper and smarter images.

That and the market is still falling, for us the contributors and artists.

Grossinger once admitted on the SS forum that when he had over 3000 photos in his port, he had made less than $100. I wouldn't exactly call that impressive for a port of that size.

Old old, he's over 6,000 now, photos and video, as in 1,000 new images a month. I have no information on earnings, not my business. I want to see what happens after a year, so until then...  ;)

Oh hang on here, that even preceeds Royalty Free... Not to get nostalgic but if my memory serves me correct if you actually had a honed craft and were techincally proficient in photography there were hardly days without commissioned work, it was really all based on your skill level... unlike today.

I look at what stock has become and the rates paid for usage of images is not sustainable at all. These days it is not even worth to upload anything to any agency unless it is an incidental photograph, and even then that is barely worth it.


So true and was a closed shop. But more than subscriptions, Royality Free killed the market for us. Also global market, Internet and computers.

Now anyone with a camera can sell what they shoot and get piss poor licensing, which cuts into more professional photographers, paid income from their hard work and skills. Photos are no longer a skilled production or art, they are a commodity.

« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2019, 11:43 »
0
^^^^^^

Uncle Pete... It was never a closed shop, ever. You either passed a jury of editors or you did not, but closed it never was. You either had the goods or you did not. And if you did not have the goods, they rejected you - simple as that. I got rejected a few times and finally got my quality up and got accepted. All it took was a lot of hard work, skill, ability in ones craft etc. Simply put, they did not just take anybody unless you had game. Is the NHL or NFL or PGA a closed shop? Nope.

Amelie

  • Part of a family producer association
« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2019, 12:27 »
0
Quote
I think you can be concerned. But in the end you need to decide if you can change, it accept it or look at other ways of earning a crust. To bang on about the injustice for years doesn't really help.

@Pauws99: So true. I guess I was implying to be / get active when talking about being concerned. In whatever way.

You either had the goods or you did not. And if you did not have the goods, they rejected you - simple as that. I got rejected a few times and finally got my quality up and got accepted. All it took was a lot of hard work, skill, ability in ones craft etc. Simply put, they did not just take anybody unless you had game.

@Clair Voyant: But in a way, this is still valid today, no? Though it's not the platforms anymore who reject producers with low quality products but the customers themselves. By just not buying the products. Unless they (the products) are good and relevant and as Uncle Pete put it, have a clear message. The problem I see (as a Newbie with hardly no experience, whoopsie) seems rather to become visible with good stuff in this flood of images and footage. So even if one puts hard work into it, it doesn't mean (anymore?) that it pays off. Cause it won't be seen, literally.

EDIT: Ah, just understood sth... the reason for good work having hard times becoming visible is cause platforms are accepting everything. Yes yes yes, here we are again at the beginning of this thread.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2019, 12:33 by Amelie »

« Reply #23 on: July 15, 2019, 13:47 »
0
Quote
@Clair Voyant: But in a way, this is still valid today, no? Though it's not the platforms anymore who reject producers with low quality products but the customers themselves. By just not buying the products. Unless they (the products) are good and relevant and as Uncle Pete put it, have a clear message. The problem I see (as a Newbie with hardly no experience, whoopsie) seems rather to become visible with good stuff in this flood of images and footage. So even if one puts hard work into it, it doesn't mean (anymore?) that it pays off. Cause it won't be seen, literally.


To make money at Microstock now you still have to be very good...the difference being the skills needed are in marketing and business being an excellent photographer not so much.

csm

« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2019, 15:36 »
+2
Makes me laugh, what most people submit, and what agents put on their front page or social media pages are two different things.

I think a prerequisite of whether an image being accepted would be whether it could be shown on an agents social media page.

How different would an agents Instagram feed look like if it was filled with images like the ones from this contributor or ones like it?


 

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results