Quote from: Desintegrator on October 14, 2017, 11:57

Quote from: Lukeruk on October 14, 2017, 11:28

Overall quality on free sites is better than SS. SS have better quality images but you can't see them on the first pages, can't see them on the "new" search. Main problem with SS is - quantity defeated quality. Few of my clients already switched to free sites.
Very large design community on 99designs now downloads files from "free pik", year ago SS was their main source of images.

I just can't understand why SS gave up totally on quality control. Is it that important to have 150+ million images? Are buyers really looking at that number? Or is saving on the cost of proper reviewing that significant to them?

Yes unfortunately it is very important!  assets !  they have 150 miljon assets which of course is OUR assets but thats what they have. Very important to shareholders and when going to bank!

Maybe one day when SS misses its targets shareholders will begin to wonder how much these "assets" are actually worth. Till then they they seem to be intent in reporting this as a wonderful thing.

I sometime use SS keywords suggestions to prepare my uploads.But when i do that, i see dozens of similars of my picture and i wonder how is it possible that someone find mine in this ocean.

But we are all talking from the contributor side.

I would like to know how customers manage to find what they want.
Some people think that new contributors are favored, i don't think so ( or not as much as we pretend).
I think that there �s some human curation to favor some contributors or pictures after they are accepted, i think they try  to manage the flow of millions weekly available assets.

I have some suspicions: Shutterstock accept anything to get "the number" (150, 200, 500 million images).
In this way the average contributors are happy because their images are accepted and the shareholders are also as they see the number of images increase. Customers also feel like they have many more choices.

But who can tell us that internally Shutterstock does not tag as rejected the images that once would have been rejected, so that they do not appear in the search results, but they appear in the total images count?

Try doing a few searches and you have your answer ;-). In theory though this is close to what should happen....i.e the search engine should drive poor qualty/non-commercial images down the hierarchy.

What's surprising me is that i continue to have sales although this non sense growth collection.

SS pretend to be a tech company, we all know it's not ( images security, bugs and glitches...).
A search engine algorithm doesn't know yet what is a sellable photo. Human can.

Human's can but in my experience they often don't....particularly in the tiny amount of time they must get to review images.

  I've been in this game a long time now....over 10 years. About 6 years ago Shutterstock started going from a thing you can do for a living to why bother at all.

Quote from: Chichikov on October 15, 2017, 09:32

I have some suspicions: Shutterstock accept anything to get "the number" (150, 200, 500 million images).
In this way the average contributors are happy because their images are accepted and the shareholders are also as they see the number of images increase. Customers also feel like they have many more choices.

But who can tell us that internally Shutterstock does not tag as rejected the images that once would have been rejected, so that they do not appear in the search results, but they appear in the total images count?

Good points, maybe the answer is the target of 200 million, who cares if they are ever going to sell? Sure happy contributors with all kinds of good feelings and no sales. Shareholders are really that one dimensional. Profits mean more than assets or biggest collection claims. Customers might care about more choices, but if they are anything like the forum, we see that spam is of no value.

If they are hiding files, then we would see our own as missing, and we don't. Nice conspiracy theory, but it's a fail. Just like they hide better images, because SS makes more selling cheap new contributors work. Of course I'd say, they shouldn't accept anything that's not up to standards, which shows integrity and we'd all like better. Not happening is it? So your making a big number like 200 million, seems the best answer.

I see a logic in it. In 10 years a lot have changed. Cameras, softwares, dynamic range and how the 'look' of the photos. Some images are timeless but a new generation of buyers stepped in who likes more the 'shadow-highlight' exaggerated photos. Photos which would not eve think to go through QC are flying through. I sell more 'new style' photos than 'regular' ones. Buyers have also changed in a sense that there are more amateurs who want a ready made photo, than those who want a 'virgin' one and edit it him/herself. Times are changing continuously and agencies have to keep up. Also cloud storage space has become more affordable. If you shot your portfolio and sold well 8-10 years ago all you need to complain about is not keeping up with the times. Leaning back and watch those old files flying off the shelves is not going to work. Young kids are pouring in and they're not stupid at all, photography is easier to learn than ever and the sensors are just amazing, you can push photos in a new direction without too much noise. Remember when the old farts complained when the digital cameras came along? Film is the best, digital is bad. It's the same thing. New photos are better than the 6-7 years old ones. The world have opened up, contributors from East Europe, South America and Asia are getting on the train, and they are some * good ones. Go to Dreamstime and check who are the top producers. The privilege and advantage of Western Europe and North America in this business is gone, you have serious competition. Keep up or fall out.

Add to all this we are getting screwed!

@Quasarphoto: the contributors from Africa get also on the train... because it�s their only train they get. If you don�t have any alternative to make a living, your brain gets real sharp and creative!!! no time to cry.

Is anyone else still having trouble uploading, or is it only me? I can't get anything through since yesterday.

Yeah, they're having some issues (they've admitted on Twitter).

@Quasarphoto: the contributors from Africa get also on the train... because it�s their only train they get. If you don�t have any alternative to make a living, your brain gets real sharp and creative!!! no time to cry.

Sorry, my bad leaving out Africa from the picture, sorry for that. The world is full of creative people and finally times are changing to give everybody a chance, although still hard in some places to acquire proper equipment. What is on their side  though is travel images. The market is oversaturated with pictures taken in obvious places. As tourism grows there is need for photos of new places beside Rome, Paris, London, New York, Chichen Itza , Machu Picchu, so on. People want to see new places and many take a decision on photos/videos they see.

Sorry, my bad leaving out Africa from the picture, sorry for that. The world is full of creative people and finally times are changing to give everybody a chance, although still hard in some places to acquire proper equipment.

Speaking of Africa, this is an interesting African Agency.

https://snaphubr.com/

Honestly!  good and unusual travel shots are really wasted in micro nowadays. There are a few traditional agencies specializing in travel and they get far more then any micro agency. Uploading travel to a micro and they are old fashioned by tomorrow.

My sales at SS improved substantially since I added travel photos.

amazing thing is. throughout the History of stock Photography which BTW goes back to the 1920's and was predominate Travel,landscapes and flowers, the travel work Now is Not really true travel Photography....churches,Buildings and Mountains don't really qualify.. People in stock wasn't really introduced until searchable stock Pictures then became macro/Micro. People in commercial product work was done specifically By AD Agencies.Real ...serious Travel is editorial. showing the sights and smells of the people in there environment and the food and what they do there. Good Travel work tells stories. I see folks calling themselves travel shooters. There not. sorry.Most of the old pro Travel shooters quit when Micro happened and Most started working for News organizations. Thats what there training was. Capturing  Human Stories.

Look at Old nat geo magazines. Thats Pro Travel work. Not another shot of the London bridge or Machu Picchu  ....ETC,ETC,Etc, Good Travel shooters were required to be good writers also.

You got that pretty much right, humans are being part of the big picture. A well rounded travel photographer will include all of the above. People, their environment, food, nature, ruins etc. Unfortunately a short 3 years ago the stock agencies slapped back just about everything with people in it, no matter what I wrote into the editorial caption. After serious rejections I shot a bunch of bland pile of rocks on the way. Seems like something turned around and now the acceptance range is wider, they playing catch-up. Also let's not forget that societies has changed so much that tradition is vanishing by the minute, it takes lot more work for lot less money to go after real stuff on the road. People running around in cars with smartphones in their hand wearing jeans and baseball caps, drinking Coke and munching Lays, just about everywhere. The unfortunate thing is that the pay-level is so low in microstock and the magazines are publishing BS articles. That many people can work for NG and even they reduced their payment and timeframe for an article. Traditional stock is gone almost totally, unless you shoot front-line war photos.