What kind of a * mess is this now from Shutterstock? 

I am not a newbie, have over 12,000 images online there. This is the first time I get this message.

What the h*** is the submission limit now 

What kind of a * mess is this now from Shutterstock? 

I am not a newbie, have over 12,000 images online there. This is the first time I get this message.

What the h*** is the submission limit now 

This is not new. I don't know whether it has always been there as it never affected me, but I heard people mentioning it in the old SS forum the first time around 3 years ago.
Contributors can submit up to 500 images and up to 100 video clips during a 7 day period.

Quote from: mr_coffee on December 07, 2022, 16:04

With 11335 Photos - 31,91 $ in November.
Meanwhile the others: https://www.anadolustok.com/konu-kas%C4%B1m-2022-sat%C4%B1%C5%9Flar%C4%B1

Hello friends.

I stopped uploading images for 2 years because I protested Shutterstock, but I still had a monthly income of over $50. Since I stopped uploading photos and winter came, my sales also dropped.
In general, sales decrease in winter.

I've earned a little, but I'll still share it to give friends an idea.

My November 2022 sales:

Adobe Stock = 7071 photos = $33.16
Shutterstock = 11335 photos = $31.91
Istock / Getty = 3305 photos = $12.44 (October sales actually)
Depositphotos = 12873 photos = $3.69
Dreamstime = 12873 = $1.05

I'll start uploading photos again. Will sales increase?
What is the situation with you?

Helpful English Translation.

The only thing that uploading more photos helps is, new photo and the new photo boost, and maybe (a distant maybe?) if someone looks at your portfolio because of the new photo, they might see an old photo.

You might consider the complaints that old photos sell better than new? And there have been people who left, much like you, and came back to find they are still selling images, like they did twp years ago. There are also people who keep uploading new and work, and their sales are dropping.

Uploading or not, seems to have the same effect as posting messages on this forum. What I mean is, neither one is connected to more or less sales. I don't think there are any tricks that will make a difference.

My situation? I think I make better images now and upload at a steady pace and I make less now than in 2012. But one thing is for sure, those are my images and yours are yours, so what happens to mine is only relevant to mine.

Shutterstock = 11335 photos = $31.91 Your RPI = .28 cents While mine for 5282 images is 1 cent, $53.56 in Nov, which is not that great. I don't mean this to be snooty or mean, but maybe you should try to create more images that sell instead of just, more images? Too many of mine are just filler or, I made it, so I'll upload it, and they will never get a download in their lifetime. (math corrected = thanks)

Only 1400 of my images have ever made a sale. Just over 25%. You can look at  https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings/top-performers?page=1&date_range=0&sort_direction=desc&per_page=100 that's 100 per page, and just count the pages times 100. That's your sold images.

What's your percentage? That will tell you if the problem isn't how many images, but what are they?

Good Luck finding what you are looking for and Happy Sales

RPI and RPD doesn't make much sense.
Microstock is a more of about the same image game nowadays.
You can upload 2 top images of an shooting or 200 average images.
Maybe RPI of the shooting will be the same, but not for the image.
So is RDP. At macrostock RPD is probably higher than at microstock.
But all that counts is income per hour. So lets assume that you spend X hours a month for stockphotography.
If your income per hour at stockphostography is higher than at your day job - its OK.
If not - it makes more sense to work overtime at your day job to increase your income.

RPI and RPD doesn't make much sense.
Microstock is a more of about the same image game nowadays.
You can upload 2 top images of an shooting or 200 average images.
Maybe RPI of the shooting will be the same, but not for the image.
So is RDP. At macrostock RPD is probably higher than at microstock.
But all that counts is income per hour. So lets assume that you spend X hours a month for stockphotography.
If your income per hour at stockphostography is higher than at your day job - its OK.
If not - it makes more sense to work overtime at your day job to increase your income.

Neither one of those ever made any sense to me. I was just pointing out that for people who do watch that, having 17,000 images isn't going to make them very happy and if they only had their best 1,700 images, the return income, could very possibly be the same. That's many hours of work for volume, but not much payback per hour or per image.

Last line is even more true than any of my hypothetical philosophy. If someone makes more at their regular line of work, they should do more of that and be less concerned about the state of Microstock. I doubt that a minimum wage job, for myself, could pay less than the peanuts and spare change I get from Microstock. And if I take my expenses just for time missing work and travel, and figure the camera, all my equipment, software, editing and time are all free, I'm still losing money.

Best part of my stock photo business is the tax deductions and depreciation.

Bottom line? You're right.

If microstock continues to pay peanuts, it will eventually cease to exist with fewer and fewer people wanting to replace their worn-out cameras and instead use smartphones. The agencies will have to lower their standards, especially adobe & SS

If microstock continues to pay peanuts, it will eventually cease to exist with fewer and fewer people wanting to replace their worn-out cameras and instead use smartphones. The agencies will have to lower their standards, especially adobe & SS

HA Ha, how could SS lower their standards? Actually Adobe has been the only one to uphold image requirements and standards. I mean of the Microstock majors, like IS, DT, DP, 123, Alamy and even P5, which have all become easier reviews and seem to take almost anything. There are other places that upheld their standards and quality.

It also depends on how long you've had the images in your port. The percentage of photos sold should in theary go up over the years

Not really, my Crapstock and old images are just that, and most of them will probably never have a download because there are new and better images being made and uploaded. The problem isn't how many images, but what are they?

Just for reference, as you mentioned time, I started in 2008. Some pretty nasty snapshots. I mean I tried, but they aren't what buyers want and need. Then I started to get the idea and added more of what I thought might be better STOCK images, not just things I found around the office or taking a walk in park, making pretty photos.

In 2012 I decided it was time to make a push and add 1,000 new images, different from what I already had. That also improved things. Then I had new ideas and worked on various sets of different areas, planned on being more useful stock, and less creative "art".

Dates for the top 12 earning images. I picked 12 because they are so close in value for the last few.

2/29/12
2/13/12
3/7/16
4/11/14
10/10/11
11/12/11
9/20/18
11/12/11
1/21/10
5/21/11
2/20/12
1/18/08

I think that means, I make about one good photo a year?    To be fair, newer images take longer to climb up as the old ones have the advantage of being sold for longer.

But the point is, I don't really think that images age well and I do think that things that haven't sold are more likely to never sell, the older they get. Looking at last years sales, first time downloads are about 3% from 2011 or before, the rest are mostly 2015 and newer.

Maybe it's just me, but old images that have no downloads are just filler in my portfolio. New images seem to have a chance at growth and more downloads in the future.

Quote from: TonyD on January 15, 2023, 12:38

If microstock continues to pay peanuts, it will eventually cease to exist with fewer and fewer people wanting to replace their worn-out cameras and instead use smartphones. The agencies will have to lower their standards, especially adobe & SS

HA Ha, how could SS lower their standards? Actually Adobe has been the only one to uphold image requirements and standards. I mean of the Microstock majors, like IS, DT, DP, 123, Alamy and even P5, which have all become easier reviews and seem to take almost anything. There are other places that upheld their standards and quality.

Quote from: TonyD on January 15, 2023, 12:55

It also depends on how long you've had the images in your port. The percentage of photos sold should in theary go up over the years

Not really, my Crapstock and old images are just that, and most of them will probably never have a download because there are new and better images being made and uploaded. The problem isn't how many images, but what are they?

Just for reference, as you mentioned time, I started in 2008. Some pretty nasty snapshots. I mean I tried, but they aren't what buyers want and need. Then I started to get the idea and added more of what I thought might be better STOCK images, not just things I found around the office or taking a walk in park, making pretty photos.

In 2012 I decided it was time to make a push and add 1,000 new images, different from what I already had. That also improved things. Then I had new ideas and worked on various sets of different areas, planned on being more useful stock, and less creative "art".

Dates for the top 12 earning images. I picked 12 because they are so close in value for the last few.

2/29/12
2/13/12
3/7/16
4/11/14
10/10/11
11/12/11
9/20/18
11/12/11
1/21/10
5/21/11
2/20/12
1/18/08

I think that means, I make about one good photo a year?    To be fair, newer images take longer to climb up as the old ones have the advantage of being sold for longer.

But the point is, I don't really think that images age well and I do think that things that haven't sold are more likely to never sell, the older they get. Looking at last years sales, first time downloads are about 3% from 2011 or before, the rest are mostly 2015 and newer.

Maybe it's just me, but old images that have no downloads are just filler in my portfolio. New images seem to have a chance at growth and more downloads in the future.

its not easy to replace best sellers with new uploads.
But there is one important parameter to be considered. Downloads per month/images online.
Downloads per images are decreasing with time. In my experience this number will halve in about 4 years.
This is an exponential factor against income of microstock contributors.
For some time you can compensate this factor with better images, more uploads.
At some time you will reach an level of getting better, more uploads, etc,.. then its going downwards.

Quote from: t�tar�t� on January 19, 2023, 13:41

its not easy to replace best sellers with new uploads.
But there is one important parameter to be considered. Downloads per month/images online.
Downloads per images are decreasing with time. In my experience this number will halve in about 4 years.
This is an exponential factor against income of microstock contributors.
For some time you can compensate this factor with better images, more uploads.
At some time you will reach an level of getting better, more uploads, etc,.. then its going downwards.

I was addressing this, (below) from my personal point of view. Yes, to you and anyone else, more images should make more money.  RPI, RPD and all that stat stuff, is personal for our own review of our own images.

Quote from: TonyD on January 15, 2023, 12:55

It also depends on how long you've had the images in your port. The percentage of photos sold should in theary go up over the years

I don't think the percentage of images licensed goes up with age, I think even someone like myself with minimal new images, I've found that the percentage of photos sold has gone down each year.

Old photos are old, they don't age well and they tend to become filler and if no downloads in each additional year, less chance that they will have a download ever.

If I uploaded better new images, then the percentage could go up, but the percentage of old images that have sold, doesn't really improve much with age.

I understand what TonyD is saying, that if I have 5 more images that have never sold, get one sale, and they are online for 10 years, then logically, the percentage of old images sold should go up. But I'm adding new images, so more unsold images are added every year, which offsets the gains from old images that finally got their single first download.

If I hypothetically have only 25% of my images that got a sale (and that's about right) and I add 100 new in 2023, I'll have 75 new images, that have never sold and probably will not.

I expect that for what I do and what I upload, I should hover around 25% = forever, unless I get some amazing event or series that gives a big boost to change the average. Good news is that for people who have 50%, they will probably stay around that 50% for a long time.

It's easier to do down in average than it is to go up.

What i wanted to say is that that there is an exponential declining trend.
If you start microstock photography you will see an increase in DL. On average for about the first 40 +/- months.
The next 40 +/- months you probably will see your DL stagnate. Even if you still uploading the same amount of images every month. After another 40 +/- months you will see a decrease of DL with a much larger portfolio.
So there is an exponential function against you.
Your uploads are linear, your DL per image / month are declining exponential.
After your first 40 months at microstock your DL per image / Month  are X, after 80 months your DL per image/month are X/2, after 120 months your DL per image/month are X/4 - on average.
You can't win against an exponential declining trend.

How is it possible that UNPAID EARNINGS show one amount and YEAR TO DATE EARNINGS show different one  

How is it possible that UNPAID EARNINGS show one amount and YEAR TO DATE EARNINGS show different one  

Perhaps because some of the unpaid earnings are from 2022?

What i wanted to say is that that there is an exponential declining trend.
If you start microstock photography you will see an increase in DL. On average for about the first 40 +/- months.
The next 40 +/- months you probably will see your DL stagnate. Even if you still uploading the same amount of images every month. After another 40 +/- months you will see a decrease of DL with a much larger portfolio.
So there is an exponential function against you.
Your uploads are linear, your DL per image / month are declining exponential.
After your first 40 months at microstock your DL per image / Month  are X, after 80 months your DL per image/month are X/2, after 120 months your DL per image/month are X/4 - on average.
You can't win against an exponential declining trend.

Yes that's right. That and competition adding new images, at a much higher rate than we ever can. Plus the agencies cutting the reward for work licensed.

And back to the part I was commenting on, percentage of sold images from anyone's portfolio, will also go down the harder we work and the longer we add new images.

77 images with 1 sale that's under 25c. Because everything else was before the cut. None from 2008, 2009, 2010, 3 are from 2011 (stale illustrations), none 2012, 2013, or 2014. Yes there's a possibility that something from those years, might have magically sold three times in 2022 or a first time sale for more than 25 cents.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 20, 2023, 11:25

And back to the part I was commenting on, percentage of sold images from anyone's portfolio, will also go down the harder we work and the longer we add new images.

That too, for me, is going up, not down. But I think that's mainly because my old photos were crap and I did not have a good understanding what sells well when I started out. But the more data from my own port I had, the more conclusion on what sells and what doesn't I could draw and the better I got at photography, the more I could produce content that sells and therefore the percentage of sold images is going up and not down.

There has been a pretty long history of discussion of "the wall" or whatever you want to call the point where downloads no longer go up or even start to fall despite continuous uploading. Unless you can continue to create more images than before or better sellers or the agencies sell more images it will catch up to everyone eventually. The question is how long before it catches up to you and if your income at that point is satisfactory compared to the amount of work you are putting in. 

I think that if you are making images that are more timeless then the falloff of sales will be slower and more driven by the whims of the algorithms than the buyers. Some who have stopped uploading have reported that sales fell for a while and then hit some sort of steady state. Depending on how timeless and popular your works are, that steady state level might be pretty good.

Of course if the agencies decide to pay us 50% less, our income will go down 50%.

What i wanted to say is that that there is an exponential declining trend.
If you start microstock photography you will see an increase in DL. On average for about the first 40 +/- months.
The next 40 +/- months you probably will see your DL stagnate. Even if you still uploading the same amount of images every month. After another 40 +/- months you will see a decrease of DL with a much larger portfolio.
So there is an exponential function against you.
Your uploads are linear, your DL per image / month are declining exponential.
After your first 40 months at microstock your DL per image / Month  are X, after 80 months your DL per image/month are X/2, after 120 months your DL per image/month are X/4 - on average.
You can't win against an exponential declining trend.

first, $/image is useless - what's important is $ earned. some strategies emphaszie volume, others  'quality', others different metrics so they can't be compared.

your data for an exponential decline? do you understand the meaning of exponential? the numbers you cite are linear - a 50% drop in each case (50% of 1/2 is 1/4!)   For such a long period, where have you observed such results?
. declines may be steep, linear or minimal, exponential is unwarranted.  if fact, in my case I had a 30% INCREASE in income during the second period, followed by a 20% decline from second to third trances.