Author Topic: Shutterstock gets it right in everything! (Read 26215 times)

lagereek · « **Reply #25 on:** May 03, 2011, 00:04 »

Sure Lisa! DT and also in a sense FT, as well are doing things right, although I wish FT would stop following in the steps of IS, with their search-changes, as we see right now, its suicide.

Pure speculation! but what would happen if SS, DT, FT and some others would join forces? at present with all the GettyIS shambles, would they blast hem off the map? in the Micro world, that is?

cthoman · « **Reply #26 on:** May 03, 2011, 00:28 »

Quote from: grp_photo on May 02, 2011, 14:56

mmh Shutterstock is okay but I think they are responsible to same extend for the state of the industry (oversupply and too low prices). Their referral-program did a lot too the oversupply and wouldn't they have been so successful with their subscription-program no other microsite (i.e. Fotolia, Dreamstime etc.) would have ever introduced subscription. I have nothing against Shutterstock but I really think without them the overall market would be better.

I tend to agree. I think there are all these successful models that propagated that aren't exactly in everyone's best interest. Hopefully, the industry can course correct at some point. I think people's disdain for Thinkstock says a lot about how they feel about subs in the back of their mind.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #27 on:** May 03, 2011, 16:30 »

but I am under the impression that with subs people are downloading more pictures than they actually need

which means that real RPD is actually higher than it seems, and cannot be directly compared with credits

gostwyck · « **Reply #28 on:** May 03, 2011, 16:50 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on May 03, 2011, 16:30

but I am under the impression that with subs people are downloading more pictures than they actually need

which means that real RPD is actually higher than it seems, and cannot be directly compared with credits

Of course they do. Long-term subscribers just use SS as if it was their own server. If they store the images themselves it just creates work to find them again without an index as effective as using the keywords. For a significant business with a continual need for images, especially fresh ones, the cost of a subscription is peanuts. I wouldn't mind betting that up to 80% of sub downloads are never actually used.

Sadstock · « **Reply #29 on:** May 03, 2011, 20:41 »

The one thing Shutterstock is not getting right is their new acceptance policy (seemingly not applied to everyone the same way so your mileage may vary). My acceptance rate is something like 35%. My stuff sells well on Istock and has been accepted at FT and DS, but not on SS.

I'm seriously considering participation at Thinkstock since its clear that I will never get the vast majority of my 4K plus existing images onto SS. I never thought I'd say that as I hate the role that TS seems to be set up for in terms of gutting Istock.

I don't understand how it helps SS to encourage former IS exclusives to feed TS?

lagereek · « **Reply #30 on:** May 03, 2011, 23:52 »

Quote from: Sadstock on May 03, 2011, 20:41

The one thing Shutterstock is not getting right is their new acceptance policy (seemingly not applied to everyone the same way so your mileage may vary). My acceptance rate is something like 35%. My stuff sells well on Istock and has been accepted at Fotolia and DS, but not on Shutterstock.

I'm seriously considering participation at Thinkstock since its clear that I will never get the vast majority of my 4K plus existing images onto Shutterstock. I never thought I'd say that as I hate the role that TS seems to be set up for in terms of gutting Istock.

I don't understand how it helps Shutterstock to encourage former IS exclusives to feed TS?

I agree with you on that point, I have a pretty high acceptance rate at SS but sometimes I can tell the reviewer in question dont know what he is doing, example: mistaken toning for wrong WB, etc. No good.
Also with this TS business, SS should really open the doors a bit more and think ahead.

Skip TS ! its a downhill ride.

tomasfoto · « **Reply #31 on:** May 04, 2011, 00:12 »

Shutterstock is fabulous, I agree. Exclusivity with any agency is suicide. I have been shooting stock professionally for 30 years. I have seen the changes (I wish I had seen them sooner). I have seen exclusivity put photographers out of business. Even with RM it is insane. With RF and micro it is catastrophic. The agents are in no way exclusive to you. With 50,000+ photographers they do not care about you. They don't need to. Someone else can shoot what you shoot, and they do not care whose picture sells.

I have only been in Microstock since November 2009, and I wish I had done it sooner. I started when my best RM agent said "We're getting killed by microstock." We? No way. I started submitting and shooting for the micros as well as the RM's. The income is well below what I earned a decade ago, but the micro income is very important and covers the drop in income from the RM's. I have no idea where stock is going. I'd like to think it couldn't possibly get any cheaper, but I do not know. Do you?

Please, fellow stock shooters, do not even consider exclusivity with any agent. If you do please research and study the possible outcomes. I have always wished I could have just one agent. It would be so much easier. It doesn't work. We cannot be lazy if we wish to succeed. Take the time it takes to upload to ten agents. All your eggs in one basket is an exit visa. Don't do it.

In the two and a half years I have been shooting for micro I have accumulated ten agencies. I have never spoken with a single human being at any of those agencies. Ever. That tells me something.

Aloha,

Tomás

lagereek · « **Reply #32 on:** May 04, 2011, 01:24 »

Tomas! same here been shooting stock for 25 years! Im sure if IS started all over they would have dropped this exclusivity business like a hot potatoe, in this digital era with tens of thousands of photographers its madness and look where its landed them? nothing but trouble. Oh they will still have their exclusive generic cats and dogs people and their isolations on white but any serious, nieched portfolio, will stay well out of it.

borg · « **Reply #33 on:** May 04, 2011, 03:42 »

Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!

Morphart · « **Reply #34 on:** May 04, 2011, 10:10 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on May 03, 2011, 16:30

but I am under the impression that with subs people are downloading more pictures than they actually need

which means that real RPD is actually higher than it seems, and cannot be directly compared with credits

Yes having a quota of 25 images per day to fill, most buyers if they care about their money will simply make lists of images they THINK they might need, ths more download for us. Some images they would download where in other in pay per download they might hesitate before buying. Cuts the hesitation in half ;p.

Since it's all numeric, there is no environnemental cost at this encouraged consumerism

Morphart · « **Reply #35 on:** May 04, 2011, 10:13 »

Quote from: borg on May 04, 2011, 03:42

Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!

Still at 99% approval at Shutterstock for the 3 years that I have been there, I don't find they are too harsh, maybe it depends on the topic or content you submit.

stockastic · « **Reply #36 on:** May 04, 2011, 10:21 »

Quote from: borg on May 02, 2011, 14:21

Shutterstock is OK!
But I can't forget their reaction on our comments when taxation started...

+1

This isn't a 'stable' company, it's run by a guy who's shown he can totally lose his cool.

disorderly · « **Reply #37 on:** May 04, 2011, 10:44 »

Quote from: borg on May 04, 2011, 03:42

Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!

That suggests to me that there's something about your images that the reviewers don't like. When I get mass rejections, I can generally find some common quality to explain it. I've been able to get my acceptance rate back up by concentrating on those characteristics SS reviewers find objectionable. If you can't, I'm guessing you aren't trying very hard.

Sadstock · « **Reply #38 on:** May 04, 2011, 20:38 »

Quote from: disorderly on May 04, 2011, 10:44

Quote from: borg on May 04, 2011, 03:42
Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!

That suggests to me that there's something about your images that the reviewers don't like. When I get mass rejections, I can generally find some common quality to explain it. I've been able to get my acceptance rate back up by concentrating on those characteristics Shutterstock reviewers find objectionable. If you can't, I'm guessing you aren't trying very hard.

------------------------------------
Seems a little harsh don't you think? Do you really know how hard anyone else here tries? Are you that sure that you know what SS is doing that you can say its the contributor's fault? There are a number of threads here and on the SS forums suggesting that there is a significant change in SS acceptance policies for some but seemingly not all contributors.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #39 on:** May 04, 2011, 21:20 »

I see reasons for some of my rejects but mainly almost everything enter these days there, I do shoot average stuff and average quality, as long as they are happy I am too

disorderly · « **Reply #40 on:** May 04, 2011, 21:24 »

Quote from: Sadstock on May 04, 2011, 20:38

Quote from: disorderly on May 04, 2011, 10:44
Quote from: borg on May 04, 2011, 03:42
Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!

That suggests to me that there's something about your images that the reviewers don't like. When I get mass rejections, I can generally find some common quality to explain it. I've been able to get my acceptance rate back up by concentrating on those characteristics Shutterstock reviewers find objectionable. If you can't, I'm guessing you aren't trying very hard.

------------------------------------
Seems a little harsh don't you think? Do you really know how hard anyone else here tries? Are you that sure that you know what Shutterstock is doing that you can say its the contributor's fault? There are a number of threads here and on the Shutterstock forums suggesting that there is a significant change in Shutterstock acceptance policies for some but seemingly not all contributors.

If it comes off as harsh, it's just in a "truth hurts" kind of way. I've been submitting to Shutterstock for six years now and have accumulated a portfolio of over 12,000 images. I've experienced periods of high rejection and have adjusted my subjects and my workflow to bring my acceptance rate back. And although I've disagreed with some of the rejections, I've generally been able to see what they didn't like and then to stop doing it. In any event, I'm not suggesting that borg or anyone else isn't working hard. But if someone is getting high rejections ("Shutterstock now rejects everything!"), I can only conclude that he or she isn't working effectively. And my advice stands: go back to your rejections, figure out what they saw that they didn't like, change your shooting or your processing to reduce the problem, submit better images and repeat until your rejections drop to a more reasonable level. I am confident that assuming that the reviewers all have it wrong and continuing to submit the same kind and quality of work isn't likely to help. Unless you really don't want to get more images accepted. In that case, carry on.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #41 on:** May 04, 2011, 21:56 »

sorry but I disagree with you disorderly.. perhaps you should open borg portfolios and look into them, all his pictures have a clear concept and are well executed, so I think that SS is now only interested in isolated objects and people pictures even if they aren´t on spot and I am obviously not talking about your work, I am just saying that agencies keep on wanting same pictures they have online and not excited about some conceptual work like borg does so well IMHO

gostwyck · « **Reply #42 on:** May 04, 2011, 22:02 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 04, 2011, 21:56

sorry but I disagree with you disorderly.. perhaps you should open borg portfolios and look into them, all his pictures have a clear concept and are well executed, so I think that Shutterstock is now only interested in isolated objects and people pictures even if they aren´t on spot and I am obviously not talking about your work, I am just saying that agencies keep on wanting same pictures they have online and not excited about some conceptual work like borg does so well IMHO

Sorry Mate but you're wrong and Disorderly is right. Do a search on SS, sort by Newest First and you'll scratch your head wondering why they did accept so much utter crap. If that's what they are accepting then I've no idea how bad they stuff they are rejecting must be.

lagereek · « **Reply #43 on:** May 04, 2011, 23:27 »

Nah! Gostwyck is getting to old in the hat for this but im a youngster so I know, right.

In all fairness, I have yet to find or see good and great reviewing and it doesnt matter what agency it is, perfect reviewing just doesnt exist, plus the fact, its a human process, youy know, has the guy just had a beef with his wife? screaming kids in the background or has a hang-over? personal tase or distate, there is no end to it.

sharpshot · « **Reply #44 on:** May 05, 2011, 01:05 »

I'm having a big problem getting anything accepted with SS now but I have been sending my best to alamy and I'm building an RM portfolio. Most of what I have been uploading to the micros would of been accepted by SS a year ago but they have definitely raised the bar. It's a bit annoying because I sell lots there and I know most of my rejects would make money. I just have to decide if it's worth me working harder with microstock or should I try something else? I get really bored doing the sort of concept photos that sell well with microstock but they do make money. I'm probably going to do microstock 2 days a week and focus on other things the rest of the time.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #45 on:** May 05, 2011, 03:04 »

I haven´t said that is fair or unfair, mainly I said that they keep on approving the same old stuff, when someone try something different (not talking about crappy pics with cats and dogs in the middle of them) those will be rejected once they keep on looking for the usual pictures that they know it will sell at least once or a little more, I do think they should be strict (as they are somedays) but perhaps looking into old pictures badly executed, not well isolated and so on

some are just trying to hard and pulling up new stuff, there´s no need of it (and the more certain is getting it rejected unless it is on WHITE), again as we know stock is like having a "factory" and upload and upload without even thinking and sometimes enjoying it, again do average stuff it will get in

gbalex · « **Reply #46 on:** May 06, 2011, 20:18 »

Quote from: disorderly on May 04, 2011, 21:24

Quote from: Sadstock on May 04, 2011, 20:38
Quote from: disorderly on May 04, 2011, 10:44
Quote from: borg on May 04, 2011, 03:42
Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!

That suggests to me that there's something about your images that the reviewers don't like. When I get mass rejections, I can generally find some common quality to explain it. I've been able to get my acceptance rate back up by concentrating on those characteristics Shutterstock reviewers find objectionable. If you can't, I'm guessing you aren't trying very hard.

------------------------------------
Seems a little harsh don't you think? Do you really know how hard anyone else here tries? Are you that sure that you know what Shutterstock is doing that you can say its the contributor's fault? There are a number of threads here and on the Shutterstock forums suggesting that there is a significant change in Shutterstock acceptance policies for some but seemingly not all contributors.

If it comes off as harsh, it's just in a "truth hurts" kind of way. I've been submitting to Shutterstock for six years now and have accumulated a portfolio of over 12,000 images. I've experienced periods of high rejection and have adjusted my subjects and my workflow to bring my acceptance rate back. And although I've disagreed with some of the rejections, I've generally been able to see what they didn't like and then to stop doing it. In any event, I'm not suggesting that borg or anyone else isn't working hard. But if someone is getting high rejections ("Shutterstock now rejects everything!"), I can only conclude that he or she isn't working effectively. And my advice stands: go back to your rejections, figure out what they saw that they didn't like, change your shooting or your processing to reduce the problem, submit better images and repeat until your rejections drop to a more reasonable level. I am confident that assuming that the reviewers all have it wrong and continuing to submit the same kind and quality of work isn't likely to help. Unless you really don't want to get more images accepted. In that case, carry on.

Quote from: gostwyck on May 04, 2011, 22:02

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 04, 2011, 21:56
sorry but I disagree with you disorderly.. perhaps you should open borg portfolios and look into them, all his pictures have a clear concept and are well executed, so I think that Shutterstock is now only interested in isolated objects and people pictures even if they aren´t on spot and I am obviously not talking about your work, I am just saying that agencies keep on wanting same pictures they have online and not excited about some conceptual work like borg does so well IMHO

Sorry Mate but you're wrong and Disorderly is right. Do a search on Shutterstock, sort by Newest First and you'll scratch your head wondering why they did accept so much utter crap. If that's what they are accepting then I've no idea how bad they stuff they are rejecting must be.

It is easy to judge people by your own limited experience, make surface snap judgements and then say that those who are complaining should raise the bar, but the fact remains that numberous long term submitters who are very good photographers with excellent ports as well as very high acceptance and sales numbers are recently getting images rejected that are much better than most of those which ARE being accepted.

These rejected images have very little or no room for improvement and while the review process has always been subjective this inequity in the review process IS a problem that is costing Shutterstock credibility in more than a few submitters eyes.

If you have not been receiving these type of rejections you should count your blessings and consider that not everyone is gifted with reasonable reviewers who would accept anything close to 12,000 average images.

mike ledray · « **Reply #47 on:** May 07, 2011, 09:36 »

I LOVE Shutterstock.

But you all know that already
Heck with 10,324 (and growing) images in my gallery's as apposed to a few hundred at Istock, Dreamstime, Canstock, Fotolia, 123 royalty free, bigstock, and what ever other sites I'm on I forgot about I am basically already exclusive with SS (by choice)
They make uploading easy, no limits, Sales a AMAZING DAILY, The forums are awesome, the submission process even though can be time consuming is easy and works like clock work, I get my monthly pay outs with no issues ever.
Life is good on Shutterstock if you ask me

gbalex · « **Reply #48 on:** May 07, 2011, 10:35 »

Quote from: mike ledray on May 07, 2011, 09:36

I LOVE Shutterstock.

But you all know that already
Heck with 10,324 (and growing) images in my gallery's as apposed to a few hundred at Istock, Dreamstime, Canstock, Fotolia, 123 royalty free, bigstock, and what ever other sites I'm on I forgot about I am basically already exclusive with Shutterstock (by choice)

They make uploading easy, no limits, Sales a AMAZING DAILY, The forums are awesome, the submission process even though can be time consuming is easy and works like clock work, I get my monthly pay outs with no issues ever.

Life is good on Shutterstock if you ask me

Well said Mike

helix7 · « **Reply #49 on:** May 07, 2011, 10:52 »

Quote from: borg on May 04, 2011, 03:42

Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!

They're rejecting everything that is common and over-done, and I'm all for it. I'd have a hard time getting an icon set approved these days, but for good reason. How many of the same thing does any one agency need?

Besides, we've been getting away with murder at SS for years. They had the most lenient approvals, and the overall quality of the collection suffered because of it. I say this new, stricter policy is overdue.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock gets it right in everything! (Read 26215 times)

lagereek

cthoman

microstockphoto.co.uk

gostwyck

Sadstock

lagereek

tomasfoto

lagereek

borg

Morphart

Morphart

stockastic

disorderly

Sadstock

luissantos84

disorderly

luissantos84

gostwyck

lagereek

sharpshot

luissantos84

gbalex

mike ledray

gbalex

helix7

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors