0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
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 miraclehttps://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.
ashamed to collaborate to a company who accept this stuff.
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.
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.
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...
Quote from: jonbull on July 13, 2019, 07:11we 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!
Quote from: Brasilnut on July 14, 2019, 18:41Quote from: jonbull on July 13, 2019, 07:11we 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.
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.
Snapshots of the family, snaps of pets looking cute
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.
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...
Quote from: jonbull on July 13, 2019, 07:11can 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.
QuoteMaybe 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:QuoteSnapshots of the family, snaps of pets looking cuteGuess I should change my avatar then. Not to speak from the first few clips I'm currently uploading
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.