Author Topic: Shutterstock - Where are we going? (Read 40641 times)

MircoV · « **Reply #25 on:** March 08, 2018, 09:24 »

Quote from: jonbull on March 08, 2018, 08:05

Quote from: MircoV on March 08, 2018, 06:20
Shutterstock is selling every year more and more to customers. For sure nothing going wrong. Nobody destroys his own company.

This is just a typical thread that people assume that own images are the best by saying other new ones are crap. Also they want shutterstock for themselves. You can always submit on Stocksy or similar sites if you think.your images are so amazing.

https://www.dreamstime.com/poznan-poland-february-cover-humana-organic-baby-food-jar-wooden-table-humana-organic-baby-food-image110969228

not even white balance and exposure correct...and you talk about quality? portfolio like yours show the level reached by microstock.

First of all I am not the one that is complaining and wining. Second I could pick 100 from your port that look worse then the so called "crap". But that childish I will not get.

You are just the best example of those braggers without being an example.

Then other slimer giving those bigmouths points.

No comments.

niktol · « **Reply #26 on:** March 08, 2018, 10:09 »

Same reasons I can buy in Walmart a coffeemaker which costs a few bucks and will break in a few months.

dpimborough · « **Reply #27 on:** March 08, 2018, 10:49 »

Quote from: derek on March 08, 2018, 07:15

Quote from: MircoV on March 08, 2018, 06:20
Shutterstock is selling every year more and more to customers. For sure nothing going wrong. Nobody destroys his own company.

This is just a typical thread that people assume that own images are the best by saying other new ones are crap. Also they want shutterstock for themselves. You can always submit on Stocksy or similar sites if you think.your images are so amazing.

Why you think Stocksy or Offset are any different in the core?? haha man you want to take some business classes!..." destrying ones own company" ones own?? its not its thousands of share-holders which puts a completely different angle on every single thing! and as Paws say! it might just suit them and for various reasons to accept any old image, god knows its paying off!

"Nobody destroys his own company" sorry but that is pretty naive

I've seen plenty of asshats supposedly running companies and driving them straight in to the ground.

Both little companies and multi-nationals afterall anyone remember TWA, Pan-AM, General Motors, Enron, Lehman Brothers?

In the UK Carillion is the latest to fold with debts in the billions

There are plenty of large outfits under chapter 11 in the USA.

Shutterstock et al are no different and like all companies they are just a whisper away from bankruptcy and closure if you have the wrong person in charge.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #28 on:** March 08, 2018, 11:06 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 08, 2018, 10:49

Quote from: derek on March 08, 2018, 07:15
Quote from: MircoV on March 08, 2018, 06:20
Shutterstock is selling every year more and more to customers. For sure nothing going wrong. Nobody destroys his own company.

This is just a typical thread that people assume that own images are the best by saying other new ones are crap. Also they want shutterstock for themselves. You can always submit on Stocksy or similar sites if you think.your images are so amazing.

Why you think Stocksy or Offset are any different in the core?? haha man you want to take some business classes!..." destrying ones own company" ones own?? its not its thousands of share-holders which puts a completely different angle on every single thing! and as Paws say! it might just suit them and for various reasons to accept any old image, god knows its paying off!

"Nobody destroys his own company" sorry but that is pretty naive

I've seen plenty of asshats supposedly running companies and driving them straight in to the ground.

Both little companies and multi-nationals afterall anyone remember TWA, Pan-AM, General Motors, Enron, Lehman Brothers?

In the UK Carillion is the latest to fold with debts in the billions

There are plenty of large outfits under chapter 11 in the USA.

Shutterstock et al are no different and like all companies they are just a whisper away from bankruptcy and closure if you have the wrong person in charge.

Let's not forget to add to your list other "important" bankruptcies like Trump's Taj Mahal and two other Atlantic City Casinos, Trump's Plaza Hotel in NYC ...

And guess who else has the same "wrong person in charge" these days?

dpimborough · « **Reply #29 on:** March 08, 2018, 11:11 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on March 08, 2018, 11:06

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 08, 2018, 10:49
Quote from: derek on March 08, 2018, 07:15
Quote from: MircoV on March 08, 2018, 06:20
Shutterstock is selling every year more and more to customers. For sure nothing going wrong. Nobody destroys his own company.

This is just a typical thread that people assume that own images are the best by saying other new ones are crap. Also they want shutterstock for themselves. You can always submit on Stocksy or similar sites if you think.your images are so amazing.

Why you think Stocksy or Offset are any different in the core?? haha man you want to take some business classes!..." destrying ones own company" ones own?? its not its thousands of share-holders which puts a completely different angle on every single thing! and as Paws say! it might just suit them and for various reasons to accept any old image, god knows its paying off!

"Nobody destroys his own company" sorry but that is pretty naive

I've seen plenty of asshats supposedly running companies and driving them straight in to the ground.

Both little companies and multi-nationals afterall anyone remember TWA, Pan-AM, General Motors, Enron, Lehman Brothers?

In the UK Carillion is the latest to fold with debts in the billions

There are plenty of large outfits under chapter 11 in the USA.

Shutterstock et al are no different and like all companies they are just a whisper away from bankruptcy and closure if you have the wrong person in charge.

Let's not forget to add to your list other "important" bankruptcies like Trump's Taj Mahal and two other Atlantic City Casinos, Trump's Plaza Hotel in NYC ...

And guess who else has the same "wrong person in charge" these days?

Not to mention Jon Oringers multiple failed businesses before he came up with Shutterstock

But Zero Talent lets not turn this into another Trump bashing thread

Zero Talent · « **Reply #30 on:** March 08, 2018, 11:18 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 08, 2018, 11:11

Quote from: Zero Talent on March 08, 2018, 11:06
Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 08, 2018, 10:49
Quote from: derek on March 08, 2018, 07:15
Quote from: MircoV on March 08, 2018, 06:20
Shutterstock is selling every year more and more to customers. For sure nothing going wrong. Nobody destroys his own company.

This is just a typical thread that people assume that own images are the best by saying other new ones are crap. Also they want shutterstock for themselves. You can always submit on Stocksy or similar sites if you think.your images are so amazing.

Why you think Stocksy or Offset are any different in the core?? haha man you want to take some business classes!..." destrying ones own company" ones own?? its not its thousands of share-holders which puts a completely different angle on every single thing! and as Paws say! it might just suit them and for various reasons to accept any old image, god knows its paying off!

"Nobody destroys his own company" sorry but that is pretty naive

I've seen plenty of asshats supposedly running companies and driving them straight in to the ground.

Both little companies and multi-nationals afterall anyone remember TWA, Pan-AM, General Motors, Enron, Lehman Brothers?

In the UK Carillion is the latest to fold with debts in the billions

There are plenty of large outfits under chapter 11 in the USA.

Shutterstock et al are no different and like all companies they are just a whisper away from bankruptcy and closure if you have the wrong person in charge.

Let's not forget to add to your list other "important" bankruptcies like Trump's Taj Mahal and two other Atlantic City Casinos, Trump's Plaza Hotel in NYC ...

And guess who else has the same "wrong person in charge" these days?

Not to mention Jon Oringers multiple failed businesses before he came up with Shutterstock

But Zero Talent lets not turn this into another Trump bashing thread

This is why I ended my reply with

I merely added more arguments to yours

derek · « **Reply #31 on:** March 08, 2018, 12:49 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 08, 2018, 10:49

Quote from: derek on March 08, 2018, 07:15
Quote from: MircoV on March 08, 2018, 06:20
Shutterstock is selling every year more and more to customers. For sure nothing going wrong. Nobody destroys his own company.

This is just a typical thread that people assume that own images are the best by saying other new ones are crap. Also they want shutterstock for themselves. You can always submit on Stocksy or similar sites if you think.your images are so amazing.

Why you think Stocksy or Offset are any different in the core?? haha man you want to take some business classes!..." destrying ones own company" ones own?? its not its thousands of share-holders which puts a completely different angle on every single thing! and as Paws say! it might just suit them and for various reasons to accept any old image, god knows its paying off!

"Nobody destroys his own company" sorry but that is pretty naive

I've seen plenty of asshats supposedly running companies and driving them straight in to the ground.

Both little companies and multi-nationals afterall anyone remember TWA, Pan-AM, General Motors, Enron, Lehman Brothers?

In the UK Carillion is the latest to fold with debts in the billions

There are plenty of large outfits under chapter 11 in the USA.

Shutterstock et al are no different and like all companies they are just a whisper away from bankruptcy and closure if you have the wrong person in charge.

Butits not Jons company anymore, boing!!! its a public company with shareholders, thousands of them. I was one of them but sold my stuff way back! and as that there are a whole string of reasons why as some say its either going up or down, good or bad!....very often internal politics, differences are reasons why a share-holding comp is going bad, etc, etc!...........not saying it is but thats a very common cause!

Pauws99 · « **Reply #32 on:** March 08, 2018, 13:03 »

Well he does own 46.6% of the Company and is CEO. So pretty much his still.

derek · « **Reply #33 on:** March 08, 2018, 13:17 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 08, 2018, 13:03

Well he does own 46.6% of the Company and is CEO. So pretty much his still.

got to have 51% majority in order to decide for the comp, make major decisions etc, etc. Thats the way it is. Not even 50% would put him in the driving seat, its gort to be a majority!.. and CEO nowadays can get a cold or warm handshake anywhere, anytime!...look what happened with Muller in the Saab scania business!

Pauws99 · « **Reply #34 on:** March 08, 2018, 14:00 »

Quote from: derek on March 08, 2018, 13:17

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 08, 2018, 13:03
Well he does own 46.6% of the Company and is CEO. So pretty much his still.

got to have 51% majority in order to decide for the comp, make major decisions etc, etc. Thats the way it is. Not even 50% would put him in the driving seat, its gort to be a majority!.. and CEO nowadays can get a cold or warm handshake anywhere, anytime!...look what happened with Muller in the Saab scania business!

Yeah right easy for the other 53.4 % of shareholders to band together and out vote him ;-). Just like Microstockers to form a union.

ShadySue · « **Reply #35 on:** March 08, 2018, 14:14 »

Quote from: MircoV on March 08, 2018, 06:20

Nobody destroys his own company.

Have you never heard of iStock?

Or indeed, many other companies within and furth of our own industry.

dpimborough · « **Reply #36 on:** March 08, 2018, 15:14 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 08, 2018, 14:14

Quote from: MircoV on March 08, 2018, 06:20
Nobody destroys his own company.
Have you never heard of iStock?

Or indeed, many other companies within and furth of our own industry.

and of course Corbis (though technically they sold themselves before falling apart

)

DallasP · « **Reply #37 on:** March 08, 2018, 21:10 »

I think that your all kinda forgetting that for the most part these images just get used for some social media thing or websites ... They don't really need to be publication quality if they're just going to be forgotten in 3 days ... and consumers don't really care if it's grainy or a bit soft. Especially if at the intended resolution it's not going to be noticed. We might as well just jump on the bandwagon and upload everything we see.

Ipek Morel · « **Reply #38 on:** March 09, 2018, 01:48 »

SS accept mobile photos but you have a very low chance to sell these photos as rights managed. Nobody pay 100$ for these photos. Mostly bloggers will buy these so you get very little income.

So keep shooting with pro equipment

derek · « **Reply #39 on:** March 09, 2018, 02:05 »

Quote from: Ipek Morel on March 09, 2018, 01:48

SS accept mobile photos but you have a very low chance to sell these photos as rights managed. Nobody pay 100$ for these photos. Mostly bloggers will buy these so you get very little income.

So keep shooting with pro equipment

Yes! only no micro sell RM content! thats for the trad agencies.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #40 on:** March 09, 2018, 02:20 »

Quote from: DallasP on March 08, 2018, 21:10

I think that your all kinda forgetting that for the most part these images just get used for some social media thing or websites ... They don't really need to be publication quality if they're just going to be forgotten in 3 days ... and consumers don't really care if it's grainy or a bit soft. Especially if at the intended resolution it's not going to be noticed. We might as well just jump on the bandwagon and upload everything we see.

Which is why Agencies have lowered standards...whats good for them isn't always good for us.

Chichikov · « **Reply #41 on:** March 09, 2018, 02:59 »

Quote from: Ipek Morel on March 09, 2018, 01:48

SS accept mobile photos but you have a very low chance to sell these photos as rights managed. Nobody pay 100$ for these photos. Mostly bloggers will buy these so you get very little income.

So keep shooting with pro equipment

When a customer see the thumbnails and the blurred previews on the Shutterstock site, tell me how he can understand if the photo has been shot with a $100 smartphone or with a $50.000 Sinar P3 camera with a 100 Megapixels medium format back?

diplikaya · « **Reply #42 on:** March 09, 2018, 06:04 »

Quote from: Chichikov on March 09, 2018, 02:59

Quote from: Ipek Morel on March 09, 2018, 01:48
SS accept mobile photos but you have a very low chance to sell these photos as rights managed. Nobody pay 100$ for these photos. Mostly bloggers will buy these so you get very little income.

So keep shooting with pro equipment

When a customer see the thumbnails and the blurred previews on the Shutterstock site, tell me how he can understand if the photo has been shot with a $100 smartphone or with a $50.000 Sinar P3 camera with a 100 Megapixels medium format back?

Customers can see the image resolution also they have right to decline the photo for low quality.

Also, it's not the only camera that makes the difference. You need to use good lighting too. That's make the real difference even in low resolution.

Chichikov · « **Reply #43 on:** March 09, 2018, 08:15 »

Quote from: diplikaya on March 09, 2018, 06:04

Quote from: Chichikov on March 09, 2018, 02:59
Quote from: Ipek Morel on March 09, 2018, 01:48
SS accept mobile photos but you have a very low chance to sell these photos as rights managed. Nobody pay 100$ for these photos. Mostly bloggers will buy these so you get very little income.

So keep shooting with pro equipment

When a customer see the thumbnails and the blurred previews on the Shutterstock site, tell me how he can understand if the photo has been shot with a $100 smartphone or with a $50.000 Sinar P3 camera with a 100 Megapixels medium format back?

Customers can see the image resolution also they have right to decline the photo for low quality.

Also, it's not the only camera that makes the difference. You need to use good lighting too. That's make the real difference even in low resolution.

The resolution has nothing to do with the quality of the image, it is only a number of pixels; I can produce 12 Mpixels with a smartphone and I can also produce a 12 Mpixels photo with my Hasselblad or my Sinar.

The story that it is not the equipment that make the photo is true, but a good equipment helps a lot, and it is also true that it is not the amateur photographer who can afford a studio equipped with Hasselblad, Sinar, Profoto and Broncolor…
If a photographer has this kind of equipment, believe me, it is not a so bad one…

Paul Ushion · « **Reply #44 on:** March 09, 2018, 08:17 »

I agree with that

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #45 on:** March 16, 2018, 04:15 »

If an image taken by anything (smartphone for example), in any form (heavily edited, or not edited at all) fits buyers need i can't see exact problem there?
buyer does not look onto exif. when i go to photographic or art exhibit for example, i never ask which tool was used for creation - i just look the final work.
for example, i write article for my blog, and need pic 1000pix/longer side just to illustrate something. let's say... i'm writing something related with fishing. fishing lure impression. and my options are: hundreds of images taken by medium format, showing fishing, or fish, or fishing gear, and just one taken by smartphone, showing exact model i need. - which one will i use? do i really need the very same image taken by medium format?
it's the content that we sell, not background story.

jonbull · « **Reply #46 on:** March 16, 2018, 08:33 »

Quote from: Dr Bouz on March 16, 2018, 04:15

If an image taken by anything (smartphone for example), in any form (heavily edited, or not edited at all) fits buyers need i can't see exact problem there?
buyer does not look onto exif. when i go to photographic or art exhibit for example, i never ask which tool was used for creation - i just look the final work.
for example, i write article for my blog, and need pic 1000pix/longer side just to illustrate something. let's say... i'm writing something related with fishing. fishing lure impression. and my options are: hundreds of images taken by medium format, showing fishing, or fish, or fishing gear, and just one taken by smartphone, showing exact model i need. - which one will i use? do i really need the very same image taken by medium format?
it's the content that we sell, not background story.

in my opinion the problem is not about gear use, megapixel...the problem is that shuterstock is literally flooded of photos who doesn0't have any clues in terms of aesthetic, composition, technique, using of lights, post processing, white balance totally crap....the photo i linked to before show exactly this...the op who clearly have very low respect of its works, not even took time to pp the photo so it looks like at least correct....he uploaded an underexposed, poor lighted, poor composed, boring photo, with totally incorrect wb and that crap was accepted., while not less than 2 years ago thy would have thrown in the garbage...the problem is that this flow of craps hide every good photo uploaded, and with the new scheme popular or new, do you think a user will lose time browsing 100 page of images before finding at least a good photo of fishing or he will go straight to popular bar and buy one of the most pop image who in every respect are much better than any 999% new image uploaded?
that's why popularr image sell and new images struggle, and why it's impossible to increase sales no matter of content.

tätarätä · « **Reply #47 on:** March 16, 2018, 08:44 »

Are you uploading enough?
An interesting article at stock performer blog
https://www.stockperformer.com/blog/are-you-uploading-enough-files-to-make-money-from-microstock/
The market is flooded with uploads. I guess there will only survive Team who can produce large amount every month. Individual photographers just uploading a few hundred files a year will get buried in the flood or uploads.

jonbull · « **Reply #48 on:** March 16, 2018, 10:01 »

i agree ...i am uploading a enough that's why probably i'm still in line and growth a bit...but there are in ukraine and russia house of production who can flood the market with 10000 file month if not more.
they are from city where cost of life compared to europe is ridiculous cheap and salary are 5 6 times less than europe.
in kiev and secondary city in russia salary in office i ridiculous cheap, most people wearing 300 400 dollar month with micro could earn more than friend working in shops or office.
this is the competition we face. they buy 2 flash from china, one dslr and everyday upload thousand still life copying each other. same theme repeated zillions of time.

derek · « **Reply #49 on:** March 16, 2018, 10:29 »

Quote from: jonbull on March 16, 2018, 10:01

i agree ...i am uploading a enough that's why probably i'm still in line and growth a bit...but there are in ukraine and russia house of production who can flood the market with 10000 file month if not more.
they are from city where cost of life compared to europe is ridiculous cheap and salary are 5 6 times less than europe.
in kiev and secondary city in russia salary in office i ridiculous cheap, most people wearing 300 400 dollar month with micro could earn more than friend working in shops or office.
this is the competition we face. they buy 2 flash from china, one dslr and everyday upload thousand still life copying each other. same theme repeated zillions of time.

Thats it flood the market thats what they care about. For everyone of us quitting or stop uploading there are ten newbies uploading! its purely a quantity factor nowadays.
Quantity and screw the quality until the day comes when all there is left is gazillions of just fill-out quantity. However that will take about 5-10 years more and by then I recon most of us have left!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock - Where are we going? (Read 40641 times)

MircoV

niktol

dpimborough

Zero Talent

dpimborough

Zero Talent

derek

Pauws99

derek

Pauws99

ShadySue

dpimborough

DallasP

Ipek Morel

derek

Pauws99

Chichikov

diplikaya

Chichikov

Paul Ushion

Dr Bouz

jonbull

tätarätä

jonbull

derek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors