I thought things were picking up at beginning of  october but this week across the board has been awful....except Mostphotos weirdly. (though from a tiny base so not compensating)  Hope its just a blip but finding recently I get more of these blips.

Sometimes you just have to put in balance: anybody wanted the photos you have, I mean the theme.Or. Somebody else had better photos of the same theme and the buyer picked that. A limited number of a certain theme will sell in a month. Sometimes buyers look for fresh ideas, would they buy a  photo which is seen at every gas station or they want something new?

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 13, 2017, 03:24

I thought things were picking up at beginning of  october but this week across the board has been awful....except Mostphotos weirdly. (though from a tiny base so not compensating)  Hope its just a blip but finding recently I get more of these blips.

HAHA me too.  Sept was a 'back to normal' month and now Oct is back to bad.  These last 6-8 months on SS have essentially shown that there is a new norm for my port. Granted I am no longer really producing commercial work for micro, just uploading stuff I like to shoot.  The more I read about high-enders producing commercial work and not really seeing any tangible benefits makes me glad I haven't spend a lot of time in the studio. I've instead decided to get into motion time-lapse and while there is a learning curve with motion and holy grail it brings what I like to do: problem solve, learn, reapply and see results. I think 2018 will be a strong focus on improving my video as opposed to stills.  When I added over 1,000 videos (600 ish in a year) I saw ZERO increase in sales on SS.  I sell video, but less stills to balance out my monthly average.  It sure stinks of controlled revenue.  I have over 5,000 assets on SS with a mix of video and stills and my income is still the same as it was when I wasn't shooting video.

Mantis I have exactly the same situation as you, only opposite.
I was doing video only for a couple of years, but a few months ago I started uploading also photos and it was a very bad idea.
At SS I do sell some photos and the revenue is increasing month by month, but my total revenue stays the same. In other words photo sales are taking out income from video sales.
At FT/Adobe, even much worse: I always did quite well at FT with video sales, even though the revenue was constantly the same, in spite of increasing the portfolio. This month so far I have had the usual number of downloads, but zero video download: my allocated number of download has been totally taken by crappy sales of photos!!! Of course I will be deleting all the photos in my port.

All other agencies are not even worth mentioning: I stopped at all of them after a couple of months

Actually I find my sales are picking up since September (mostly because of video sales), after a lousy July and August.

Don't worry, be happy, we have Shutterstock Custom now�
We are saved!!

Acceptance of every image, no matter how redundant, so the site is flooded with similar crud. Pushing newer contributors up in the search and burying established contributors to maximize profits. And competition from free sites. I see more and more businesses using photos from free photo sites for their social media every day. That's killing our sub sales.

Not to mention loads of online cheat programs that steal your images.
I wish SS and others affected by this would get off their buns and fix this nonsense. 
In the mean time, no uploads for them.

5 days in a row without download, something like that had never happened !!! It is not normal.

And competition from free sites. I see more and more businesses using photos from free photo sites for their social media every day. That's killing our sub sales.

That.  And not just social media, I see lots of news feeds using images from flickr, etc., that used to get them from stock agencies.  Why anyone would go to the trouble to make, keyword and upload images to be used for free I can't imagine and yet there are millions of them.  Of course most are low quality but some are quite good and the end users don't seem to notice or care as long as they don't have to pay.  Very frustrating.

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.

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.

If 99designs use free photos and sell their services for $ they are ignorant pricks. If you are too cheap to spend 25c on a photo while you charge $299-$1299 on your packages, well again, pricks. Based on what you quoted, I never heard of them until now, I use Canva.

@Quasarphoto

Not 99design, it is a design contest based website/platform. Designers who participate there uses free images.

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!

But this way it's actually decreasing the value of their collection. The average quality really went down. Many years ago buyers could expect to find quality-checked images in return for paying for the service instead of looking for free files..

Having a firm quality control was that differentiated microstocks from free image sites the most

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.

^ I am far from a travel photography but I should imagine that Travel is one of the most competitive fields of them all. There must be hundreds of thousands of amateurs and whatnots with a dslr or a compact running around on hollidays taking pictures.
A friend of my son went to south-america Machu-pichu and all that and came back with thousands of shots. He pulled over some shots on a CD and sold the lot to a huge  PR agency!...must have been over 100 pics and sold it all for $100. He was only too pleased to get his name as a byeline.

Some wanabees are even getting into my own highly niched market which for many years I thought was totally impossible.

Quote from: derek on October 20, 2017, 12:06

^ I am far from a travel photography but I should imagine that Travel is one of the most competitive fields of them all. There must be hundreds of thousands of amateurs and whatnots with a dslr or a compact running around on hollidays taking pictures.
A friend of my son went to south-america Machu-pichu and all that and came back with thousands of shots. He pulled over some shots on a CD and sold the lot to a huge  PR agency!...must have been over 100 pics and sold it all for $100. He was only too pleased to get his name as a byeline.

Some wanabees are even getting into my own highly niched market which for many years I thought was totally impossible.

It's the least competitive field. I wouldn't call travel photographer who went to few obvious places or all-inclusive resorts. Even in USA there are plenty of uncharted places. Look : Machu Pichu 15,000 potos, Slab City: 100 photos.

And the demand is probably equally weighted.

Quote from: Mantis on October 20, 2017, 18:22

Quote from: Quasarphoto on October 20, 2017, 13:10

Quote from: derek on October 20, 2017, 12:06

^ I am far from a travel photography but I should imagine that Travel is one of the most competitive fields of them all. There must be hundreds of thousands of amateurs and whatnots with a dslr or a compact running around on hollidays taking pictures.
A friend of my son went to south-america Machu-pichu and all that and came back with thousands of shots. He pulled over some shots on a CD and sold the lot to a huge  PR agency!...must have been over 100 pics and sold it all for $100. He was only too pleased to get his name as a byeline.

Some wanabees are even getting into my own highly niched market which for many years I thought was totally impossible.

It's the least competitive field. I wouldn't call travel photographer who went to few obvious places or all-inclusive resorts. Even in USA there are plenty of uncharted places. Look : Machu Pichu 15,000 potos, Slab City: 100 photos.

And the demand is probably equally weighted.

Good point.

It is also not entirely clear if you need a property release for Slab City or not or who you could get to sign one if you tried.

Number of downloads is pretty low compared to the "good old times", but October is on the way for having record RPD.
Counting only photos it's $1.24 per download so far.
Together with the 17 video sales $1.66 per download.

Quote from: derek on October 20, 2017, 12:06

^ I am far from a travel photography but I should imagine that Travel is one of the most competitive fields of them all. There must be hundreds of thousands of amateurs and whatnots with a dslr or a compact running around on hollidays taking pictures.
A friend of my son went to south-america Machu-pichu and all that and came back with thousands of shots. He pulled over some shots on a CD and sold the lot to a huge  PR agency!...must have been over 100 pics and sold it all for $100. He was only too pleased to get his name as a byeline.

Some wanabees are even getting into my own highly niched market which for many years I thought was totally impossible.

It's the least competitive field. I wouldn't call travel photographer who went to few obvious places or all-inclusive resorts. Even in USA there are plenty of uncharted places. Look : Machu Pichu 15,000 potos, Slab City: 100 photos.

Galapagos Islands Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art (21,240)
Galapagos Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art (26,559)

Easter Island Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art (12,902)

Hebrides Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art (6,871)

Some pretty out of the way places, I wouldn't pay to go to any of them in hopes of making money, and the point about demand for lesser known is a good one. But if someone needs a shot and there are only 100, the chances are better to make a sale with a well produced work.

Skara Brae Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art (103)

Out of the way but huge number of visitors many of whom can afford very expensive equipment

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 30, 2017, 13:50

Out of the way but huge number of visitors many of whom can afford very expensive equipment

Right and how much demand is there for Easter Island photos? Over covered. 63 Sq Miles but over 800 statues? Galapagos, how much demand? Yet 26,000 images. Someplace really out of the way and obscure, may draw a better income, from far fewer files and can be found closer to home. I think that was the point? I just found one that has, zero returns for a search. I'm going to upload as soon as I find a suitable version.

Hmmmm. If you have somewhere unique, why would you send them to somewhere like SS where the few buyers would almost certainly pay subs prices for them?

Actually there are 'only' 7,400 photos of Easter Islands on SS and 500 on Dreamstime. I wouldn't call too many of them a great photo, mostly snapshots. I have not seen a nice HDR or a long lens compression, maybe a few. People travel with expensive equipment (maybe), but they use it like point and shoot. Never mind and off-camera flash or at least an eTTL. There is certainly room for new photos.