Murdered Shutterstock Forum Refugee Thread

[Myphotobase]

Just upload some files, you will feel better in the morning.

and in the morning they will be rejected

Yep, and you will feel even worse than yesterday... 

[mossback]

Very late to the party here but please count me in as another refugee. SS is a shell of what it once was. Long, long ago I was actually proud to be associated with them. I haven't felt that way in years. They foist more and more nonsense on us and continuously insult our intelligence. The forum announcement is just one prime example.

In any case, stay strong and best wishes to all.

[marthamarks]

Very late to the party here but please count me in as another refugee. SS is a shell of what it once was. Long, long ago I was actually proud to be associated with them. I haven't felt that way in years. They foist more and more nonsense on us and continuously insult our intelligence. The forum announcement is just one prime example.

In any case, stay strong and best wishes to all.

You are welcome here too!

[Suspect]

Very late to the party here but please count me in as another refugee. SS is a shell of what it once was. Long, long ago I was actually proud to be associated with them. I haven't felt that way in years. They foist more and more nonsense on us and continuously insult our intelligence. The forum announcement is just one prime example.

In any case, stay strong and best wishes to all.

Yep.  Sstock could run a master class in how to alienate your suppliers.

[thijsdegraaf]

Very late to the party here but please count me in as another refugee. SS is a shell of what it once was. Long, long ago I was actually proud to be associated with them. I haven't felt that way in years. They foist more and more nonsense on us and continuously insult our intelligence. The forum announcement is just one prime example.

In any case, stay strong and best wishes to all.

Welcome (said the newbe to the even newer newbe    )
Getting used to missing the Shutterstock forum. I notice that I am no longer mindlessly looking for the link to the forum, as in the beginning.

[marthamarks]

Very late to the party here but please count me in as another refugee. SS is a shell of what it once was. Long, long ago I was actually proud to be associated with them. I haven't felt that way in years. They foist more and more nonsense on us and continuously insult our intelligence. The forum announcement is just one prime example.

In any case, stay strong and best wishes to all.

Yep.  Sstock could run a master class in how to alienate your suppliers.

They've managed to alienate a great many participants on this forum, some of us a lot earlier than others.

Inevitably, it seems to happen� except perhaps to the factory-production outfits who get most-favored-contributor treatment.

[marthamarks]

Getting used to missing the Shutterstock forum. I notice that I am no longer mindlessly looking for the link to the forum, as in the beginning.

Hey, celebrate that measurable progress.

[Suspect]

Very late to the party here but please count me in as another refugee. SS is a shell of what it once was. Long, long ago I was actually proud to be associated with them. I haven't felt that way in years. They foist more and more nonsense on us and continuously insult our intelligence. The forum announcement is just one prime example.

In any case, stay strong and best wishes to all.

Yep.  Sstock could run a master class in how to alienate your suppliers.

They've managed to alienate a great many participants on this forum, some of us a lot earlier than others.

Inevitably, it seems to happen� except perhaps to the factory-production outfits who get most-favored-contributor treatment.

Yes, I was reading this forum all through the 'boycott Shutterstock' campaign, including on Twitter.
I did/do really admire everyone here who 'voted with their feet'...

[CSImages]

Very late to the party here but please count me in as another refugee. SS is a shell of what it once was. Long, long ago I was actually proud to be associated with them. I haven't felt that way in years. They foist more and more nonsense on us and continuously insult our intelligence. The forum announcement is just one prime example.

In any case, stay strong and best wishes to all.

Yep.  Sstock could run a master class in how to alienate your suppliers.

They've managed to alienate a great many participants on this forum, some of us a lot earlier than others.

Inevitably, it seems to happen� except perhaps to the factory-production outfits who get most-favored-contributor treatment.

They will also get hit, factories need more money to run than most of people... Revenues are going down for them too.

[marthamarks]

Very late to the party here but please count me in as another refugee. SS is a shell of what it once was. Long, long ago I was actually proud to be associated with them. I haven't felt that way in years. They foist more and more nonsense on us and continuously insult our intelligence. The forum announcement is just one prime example.

In any case, stay strong and best wishes to all.

Yep.  Sstock could run a master class in how to alienate your suppliers.

They've managed to alienate a great many participants on this forum, some of us a lot earlier than others.

Inevitably, it seems to happen� except perhaps to the factory-production outfits who get most-favored-contributor treatment.

They will also get hit, factories need more money to run than most of people... Revenues are going down for them too.

Hard to know whether to laugh or cry!   

[Wilm]

shutterstock no longer has the capacity to maintain the forum. It's all the more amazing how often they ask me to participate in the contributor survey. I get it at least once a week.

After months I uploaded an image again. It was rejected because of noise. With all other agencies the problem did not exist. But I don't care. If they don't want it, they don't want it. I do not make a second attempt.

[Wilm]

shutterstock no longer has the capacity to maintain the forum. It's all the more amazing how often they ask me to participate in the contributor survey. I get it at least once a week.

After months I uploaded an image again. It was rejected because of noise. With all other agencies the problem did not exist. But I don't care. If they don't want it, they don't want it. I do not make a second attempt.

The image has just sold at Adobe Stock. Fine!

[OM]

I noticed that SS's last '5 Tips for creating stock photography that sells' showed (exclusively) examples from 'Image Source' on Offset.

Is this some re-branding of Offset because I've not seen them use 'Image Source' on Offset before? I have to say that I don't usually pay attention to these 'How to create' messages from SS. I wonder how many contributors they can fool into submitting 'Offset-type' photos including model/property releases for 10 cent dls in (non-Offset)SS?

[marthamarks]

The image has just sold at Adobe Stock. Fine!

Congratulations! I'm not at all surprised that your image sold on AS. It happens!

To me, iStock seemed "essential," until it wasn't. I left there in 2011 and never regretted it.

Then SS seemed "essential," but I left there in 2020. No regrets to this day.

Right now, AS seems like my "essential" agency � the one that regularly sells my work and treats its contributors well � and I hope that situation never changes. But if the time ever comes when it starts screwing contributors the way iS and SS have done, I will leave there too.

[thenatureguy]

Wow!  I had not been on the SS forum for a while, but still had it bookmarked.  I just tried to follow that bookmark and found it was gone.  I am not really surprised it is gone. There was really nothing left to be said.  Everyone knew that SS had decided to screw its contributors, so it was just a pitty party of people sitting around and talking about how bad it was to be screwed.  I was right in the with the rest.  I have not uploaded to SS since the day they implemented the new stair step policy level base commission ratios.  I have been uploading exclusively to AS. But, due to SS undercutting the prices, I only sell very little on AS.

Oh well.  Happy selling everyone.

[Suspect]

Wow!  I had not been on the SS forum for a while, but still had it bookmarked.  I just tried to follow that bookmark and found it was gone.  I am not really surprised it is gone. There was really nothing left to be said.  Everyone knew that SS had decided to screw its contributors, so it was just a pitty party of people sitting around and talking about how bad it was to be screwed.  I was right in the with the rest.  I have not uploaded to SS since the day they implemented the new stair step policy level base commission ratios.  I have been uploading exclusively to AS. But, due to SS undercutting the prices, I only sell very little on AS.

Oh well.  Happy selling everyone.

As you missed it, here's a screenshot of the apparent 'reason' why they deleted the forum.
Happy reading 

[Rage]

Just in time since the cliff dive at the year end is almost here

[TonyD]

shutterstock no longer has the capacity to maintain the forum. It's all the more amazing how often they ask me to participate in the contributor survey. I get it at least once a week.

After months I uploaded an image again. It was rejected because of noise. With all other agencies the problem did not exist. But I don't care. If they don't want it, they don't want it. I do not make a second attempt.

I saw an ss blog and an example for noise they gave in a photo was the factory ceiling at 100% but I can't see it. https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/how-to-avoid-a-visual-noise-rejection
There may be color noise but I'm not sure. The other examples are easy to see though. I had to start shooting in RAW to get rid of this color noise but SS still rejected some of my pics for another type of noise or grain especially ones with trees or foliage. The same pics were accepted on adobe and they are pretty strict in what they accept.

[Mimi the Cat]

shutterstock no longer has the capacity to maintain the forum. It's all the more amazing how often they ask me to participate in the contributor survey. I get it at least once a week.

After months I uploaded an image again. It was rejected because of noise. With all other agencies the problem did not exist. But I don't care. If they don't want it, they don't want it. I do not make a second attempt.

I saw an ss blog and an example for noise they gave in a photo was the factory ceiling at 100% but I can't see it. https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/how-to-avoid-a-visual-noise-rejection
There may be color noise but I'm not sure. The other examples are easy to see though. I had to start shooting in RAW to get rid of this color noise but SS still rejected some of my pics for another type of noise or grain especially ones with trees or foliage. The same pics were accepted on adobe and they are pretty strict in what they accept.

They should be so fussy for 10 cents  what a joke.

Their quality rules are really all over the place judging by most of the poorly lit and poorly framed junk they take these days.

[Uncle Pete]

I saw an ss blog and an example for noise they gave in a photo was the factory ceiling at 100% but I can't see it. https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/how-to-avoid-a-visual-noise-rejection
There may be color noise but I'm not sure. The other examples are easy to see though. I had to start shooting in RAW to get rid of this color noise but SS still rejected some of my pics for another type of noise or grain especially ones with trees or foliage. The same pics were accepted on adobe and they are pretty strict in what they accept.

They should be so fussy for 10 cents  what a joke.

Their quality rules are really all over the place judging by most of the poorly lit and poorly framed junk they take these days.

+ + + + + + + + + +

I don't care much when they reject an image, that Adobe and DT both accepted. For a dime? And I couldn't understand the blurred random backgrounds that get through for years, which are just random noise? But then they do reject a blurred background that has composition and a subject and copy space! 

I couldn't care less, or is it I could care less?  (for those who care more about which way someone says it) Merriam-Webster treats the phrases couldn't care less and could care less as synonymous Like when I make toast that has sugar and synonymous sprinkled on it.

[cascoly]

....
I couldn't care less, or is it I could care less?  (for those who care more about which way someone says it) Merriam-Webster treats the phrases couldn't care less and could care less as synonymous Like when I make toast that has sugar and synonymous sprinkled on it.

flammable vs inflammable
regardless vs Irregardless

[Wilm]

shutterstock no longer has the capacity to maintain the forum. It's all the more amazing how often they ask me to participate in the contributor survey. I get it at least once a week.

After months I uploaded an image again. It was rejected because of noise. With all other agencies the problem did not exist. But I don't care. If they don't want it, they don't want it. I do not make a second attempt.

I saw an ss blog and an example for noise they gave in a photo was the factory ceiling at 100% but I can't see it. https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/how-to-avoid-a-visual-noise-rejection
There may be color noise but I'm not sure. The other examples are easy to see though. I had to start shooting in RAW to get rid of this color noise but SS still rejected some of my pics for another type of noise or grain especially ones with trees or foliage. The same pics were accepted on adobe and they are pretty strict in what they accept.

I shoot RAW exclusively.

And again, I don't care if shutterstock wants the image or not. I don't invest More time for 10 cents. Not even the minute I need for a new upload.

In the short term, that may be wrong. In the medium term, shutterstock only harms itself with its new revenue structure and great AI for selection. My motivation regarding shutterstock is meanwhile - unfortunately - at zero. Just a few years ago I would never have written this.

[Uncle Pete]

....
I couldn't care less, or is it I could care less?  (for those who care more about which way someone says it) Merriam-Webster treats the phrases couldn't care less and could care less as synonymous Like when I make toast that has sugar and synonymous sprinkled on it.

flammable vs inflammable
regardless vs Irregardless

As aggravating as it can be, the dictionary doesn't act as  authority to define words, and correct spellings, it only reflects the usage and accepted spellings that are common.

Since some people are extremely limited (I'm trying to be nice?) so definitions change and words acquire lateral, limited or new meanings. Take for example the word NICE?

"From the Anglo-Norman language to classical Latin to English, the word �nice� used to refer to someone �ignorant� from the Latin word �nescius.� Starting from the 1300s up to the 1600s the meaning was the same � ignorant, foolish or silly. But during the same period, nice took on different meanings, from being dissolute, wanton, cowardly, effeminate, lazy, intricate, sluggish, refined to elegant.

In the 16th century the meanings changed to sharp, attentive, meticulous. When the 18th century arrived, the meanings lost much of its prestige; it gained the meaning we use today, such as pleasant or agreeable."

Which nice and I trying to be?

[cascoly]

....
I couldn't care less, or is it I could care less?  (for those who care more about which way someone says it) Merriam-Webster treats the phrases couldn't care less and could care less as synonymous Like when I make toast that has sugar and synonymous sprinkled on it.

flammable vs inflammable
regardless vs Irregardless

As aggravating as it can be, the dictionary doesn't act as  authority to define words, and correct spellings, it only reflects the usage and accepted spellings that are common.

Since some people are extremely limited (I'm trying to be nice?) so definitions change and words acquire lateral, limited or new meanings. Take for example the word NICE?

"From the Anglo-Norman language to classical Latin to English, the word �nice� used to refer to someone �ignorant� from the Latin word �nescius.� Starting from the 1300s up to the 1600s the meaning was the same � ignorant, foolish or silly. But during the same period, nice took on different meanings, from being dissolute, wanton, cowardly, effeminate, lazy, intricate, sluggish, refined to elegant.

In the 16th century the meanings changed to sharp, attentive, meticulous. When the 18th century arrived, the meanings lost much of its prestige; it gained the meaning we use today, such as pleasant or agreeable."

Which nice and I trying to be?

i've been reading books by John McWhorter & his NYTimes column and he often delves into origins - some fascinating journeys - esp'ly 'words on the move', '9 nasty words' & 'talking back / talking black'

[Zero Talent]

....
I couldn't care less, or is it I could care less?  (for those who care more about which way someone says it) Merriam-Webster treats the phrases couldn't care less and could care less as synonymous Like when I make toast that has sugar and synonymous sprinkled on it.

flammable vs inflammable
regardless vs Irregardless

As aggravating as it can be, the dictionary doesn't act as  authority to define words, and correct spellings, it only reflects the usage and accepted spellings that are common.

Since some people are extremely limited (I'm trying to be nice?) so definitions change and words acquire lateral, limited or new meanings. Take for example the word NICE?

"From the Anglo-Norman language to classical Latin to English, the word �nice� used to refer to someone �ignorant� from the Latin word �nescius.� Starting from the 1300s up to the 1600s the meaning was the same � ignorant, foolish or silly. But during the same period, nice took on different meanings, from being dissolute, wanton, cowardly, effeminate, lazy, intricate, sluggish, refined to elegant.

In the 16th century the meanings changed to sharp, attentive, meticulous. When the 18th century arrived, the meanings lost much of its prestige; it gained the meaning we use today, such as pleasant or agreeable."

Which nice and I trying to be?

Don't be "silly", Pete. 

"Silly" meant "holly" or "blessed", in old germanic.

Then silly became synonym with happy (meaning preserved by its equivalent in today's German and Dutch)
Then silly became a synonym for innocent or harmless.
Then silly became an adjective for something or someone worthy of sympathy.
But something we feel sympathy for is something that�s weak.
From weak it became naive.

Then finally, from naive it went on to become ignorant and lacking sense.

So "silly" had a different meaning, when "nice" had a different meaning.