Author Topic: Shutterstock - The 2015 Creative Trend Report (Read 5850 times)

Semmick Photo · « **on:** January 27, 2015, 03:24 »

The 2015 Creative Trend Report

I never find anything shocking or surprising in such reports but this one definitely has some interesting stuff. The selfie of course was inevitable, but blurred backgrounds has me baffled

It also looks a bit Stocksy to me, maybe Steve Bruce had it right after all.

Edited: to change miffed to baffled, as I wasnt miffed of course, lol

Rinderart · « **Reply #1 on:** January 28, 2015, 16:55 »

And double exposures? Really?

No Free Lunch · « **Reply #2 on:** January 28, 2015, 17:40 »

Quote from: Rinderart on January 28, 2015, 16:55

And double exposures? Really?

That might explain why our sales are down

pancaketom · « **Reply #3 on:** January 28, 2015, 17:46 »

I wish their tool that showed the relative numbers of searches still worked, going from 1 search to 5 searches is a big increase, but not worth submitting a pic for.

"time lapse" - 26,890 searches

search for "time lapse" - 145,518 results

That isn't exactly inspiring either, Fashion had 27K searches and 68K results...

They even suggest I should be taking selfie's (I actually did submit 2 last year, I think one was accepted and sold once) and pics of flowers... How useful is this info anyway?

Mantis · « **Reply #4 on:** January 28, 2015, 20:12 »

Everyone of those "blurred" images will get rejected for sharpness. Simply stupid.

Rinderart · « **Reply #5 on:** January 28, 2015, 20:52 »

Amazing actually.As soon as I saw that. I went back to the archives and blurred a flower shot that sold well 10 years ago and Im gonna submit....LOL

OM · « **Reply #6 on:** January 28, 2015, 21:10 »

Quote from: Rinderart on January 28, 2015, 20:52

Amazing actually.As soon as I saw that. I went back to the archives and blurred a flower shot that sold well 10 years ago and Im gonna submit....LOL

Make it a double exposure and tint it 'marsala' (Pantone couleur d'annee)...guaranteed success, as long as the reviewers have been briefed beforehand.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #7 on:** January 29, 2015, 01:26 »

Quote from: OM on January 28, 2015, 21:10

Quote from: Rinderart on January 28, 2015, 20:52
Amazing actually.As soon as I saw that. I went back to the archives and blurred a flower shot that sold well 10 years ago and Im gonna submit....LOL

Make it a double exposure and tint it 'marsala' (Pantone couleur d'annee)...guaranteed success, as long as the reviewers have been briefed beforehand.

Thats a good point actually. It happened on several occasions reviewers were behind on the times. Not their fault. But when the instagram trend started many images were rejected for lighting at first, until at some point the reviewers copped on. Same happened with Valentine images being submitted as holiday shots, they were being rejected for wrong category until they got informed they should accept them. I can see double exposure shots and blurred backgrounds being rejected before the reviewers get their workflow update.

Also, we are now entering a phase in stock where work gets more arty, double exposure, filtered, blurry, etc. Art and beauty are in the eye of the beholder. It is way to subjective to be reviewed solely on technical merits. A photo can be discussed endlessly on composition alone, can you imagine the discussion on double exposure. What are the regulations for a double exposure shot to be rejected or accepted? Art is art, and basically should never be rejected.

Anyway, I am off, doing some double exposure blurring, guaranteed success.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #8 on:** January 29, 2015, 12:59 »

And filters? Last I tried, maybe five years ago, I got rejection for use of filters?

Oh but now crappy selfies and instagram, "vintage" looking is in vogue, so we're supposed to make fuzzy, washed out, faded images again, that look like old film or Polaroids.

I'm going to do a blurred background, and see what happens. I did blurred foreground and I thought it showed speed. It was rejected. I appealed, saying the photo was sharp, intended to have the subject blurred... rejected. "Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution."

Yeah, I know, it was supposed to be that way?

Maybe I should crop out the focused background. I mean they want blurred backgrounds, not clear ones? LOL

Quote from: Rinderart on January 28, 2015, 16:55