| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/13/2005 07:17:41 PM · #1 |
| I love success and it appears that SS is succeeding. I was just zapped from their photographers. My imagines didn't meet their new higher standards, what did they expect for 23 cents a shot. I made over $200 from them, so I was able to buy extension tubes for my D70, but was never going to send them anything I'd make more money on or any model shots. My Coolpix 990 was great then, but I guess not now. Hey, SS members, you'll be zapped too if you haven't up graded cameras to at least 6MP. Do what ya feel, I will not bad mouth them, because we knew when we signed up, but as others said, they maybe taking advantage of you for anything of high quality. So low pixel users on SS, beware of you going to be next. Van |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 07:20:43 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 07:46:09 PM · #3 |
yeah lately i havent been as pleased with ss as i was in the past... images are starting to take longer and longer to get approved and their quality control is tighter than ever!
b4 istockphoto was the one who rejected more images but now ss is more selective. Last week i got a whole batch of photos taken with my kit lens rejected for various quality related reasons. Ah well i'll should be getting my 50mm lens sometime this week and life will be good again.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 07:51:47 PM · #4 |
I submitted 9 shots to bigstock photo and the same to Shutterstock, 5 were rejected from BigStockPhoto and all 9 were accepted from Shutterstock.. Go Figure.. I usually get atleast 2 or 3 in a batch like that, come up rejected, generally do to poor framing/cropping or too many already on site. hmm..
I was going through a long dry spell on SS... Seems to have picked up.. $0.76 2 days ago.. Most Ever for me on a single day.
Only have like 47 images on their site though.. Up to $13.00 after 3 months..
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 07:58:52 PM · #5 |
I used to love them, when I started up with them, they did approved about 90% of my pics. One weekend I uploaded a dozen pics that were, in my opinion, some of the best I ever took.
All of them, but one, were rejected, and I also got an agressive email saying that I was enlarging my pics ( I was not ) and that if it happened again they would suspend the account.
First thing I did was to removed everything I had on this site and never went back there. |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 08:04:30 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
I love success and it appears that SS is succeeding. I was just zapped from their photographers. My imagines didn't meet their new higher standards, what did they expect for 23 cents a shot. I made over $200 from them, so I was able to buy extension tubes for my D70, but was never going to send them anything I'd make more money on or any model shots. My Coolpix 990 was great then, but I guess not now. Hey, SS members, you'll be zapped too if you haven't up graded cameras to at least 6MP. Do what ya feel, I will not bad mouth them, because we knew when we signed up, but as others said, they maybe taking advantage of you for anything of high quality. So low pixel users on SS, beware of you going to be next. Van |
If the photographers are being asked to upgrade their cameras wouldn't it be only right for them to expect an upgrade from SS in the payment for images? Takes an awful lot of 23 cent sales to buy a 6mp digicam.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 08:08:15 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by vtruan:
I love success and it appears that SS is succeeding. I was just zapped from their photographers. My imagines didn't meet their new higher standards, what did they expect for 23 cents a shot. I made over $200 from them, so I was able to buy extension tubes for my D70, but was never going to send them anything I'd make more money on or any model shots. My Coolpix 990 was great then, but I guess not now. Hey, SS members, you'll be zapped too if you haven't up graded cameras to at least 6MP. Do what ya feel, I will not bad mouth them, because we knew when we signed up, but as others said, they maybe taking advantage of you for anything of high quality. So low pixel users on SS, beware of you going to be next. Van |
If the photographers are being asked to upgrade their cameras wouldn't it be only right for them to expect an upgrade from SS in the payment for images? Takes an awful lot of 23 cent sales to buy a 6mp digicam. |
The idea that someone is expecting to make enough money at SS to fund a new camera is one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 08:10:10 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The idea that someone is expecting to make enough money at SS to fund a new camera is one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. |
Melking has made about $2500 on Microstock sites and Theodor makes about $300 a month on Shutterstock. That's 5 months to a 20D. :)
M
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 08:13:41 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
I love success and it appears that SS is succeeding. I was just zapped from their photographers. My imagines didn't meet their new higher standards, what did they expect for 23 cents a shot. I made over $200 from them, so I was able to buy extension tubes for my D70, but was never going to send them anything I'd make more money on or any model shots. My Coolpix 990 was great then, but I guess not now. Hey, SS members, you'll be zapped too if you haven't up graded cameras to at least 6MP. Do what ya feel, I will not bad mouth them, because we knew when we signed up, but as others said, they maybe taking advantage of you for anything of high quality. So low pixel users on SS, beware of you going to be next. Van |
This is the first I've heard of this and it's a bit worrying, though my pictures don't seem to be selling there lately. It's strange really, I used to do better there than anywhere else, but recently Shutterstock has been the worst for me.
Just curious about one thing - if they don't want your pictures, are they going to pay out what they owe you? I'd hate to see all my time and effort come to nothing.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 08:19:39 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by nico_blue:
yeah lately i havent been as pleased with ss as i was in the past... images are starting to take longer and longer to get approved and their quality control is tighter than ever!
b4 istockphoto was the one who rejected more images but now ss is more selective. Last week i got a whole batch of photos taken with my kit lens rejected for various quality related reasons. Ah well i'll should be getting my 50mm lens sometime this week and life will be good again. |
That Canon 50mm 1.8 is a bit tasty at 2.8 and higher.. At F4 its pin sharp, lovely little lens that one. |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 08:21:40 PM · #11 |
What reasons do they reject for? Do they accept high ISO shots at all? Sometimes that's the only way to get the shot!
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 08:30:33 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The idea that someone is expecting to make enough money at SS to fund a new camera is one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. |
Melking has made about $2500 on Microstock sites and Theodor makes about $300 a month on Shutterstock. That's 5 months to a 20D. :)
M |
A shame to think how much they could have made elsewhere. |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 08:50:52 PM · #13 |
Damn...shutterstock is 'bumping' photog's and no longer letting them submit? That's beat. I'm glad I got out of that place right when I realized my images were worth more than $.20 cents per photo. Heck...I've made more selling prints locally in one day than I did there for a whole two months.
There's always a market for your photos...you just have to find it.
edit: in any case, shutterstock would not be the best solution (in my opinion).
Message edited by author 2005-06-13 20:51:21.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 09:58:42 PM · #14 |
| My shots from my Coolpix were no up to their par at 100% blow-up. What did they expect from a 3.4 MP camera in the first place. Also, I didn't send them my top shots, for .23 cents, no way. I was sending mostly stuff that I though was off the wall and would sell for stock. I also did like that you had to send a model release for every shot, even though it was the same person. To me not worth my time. I have no problem with them, its their business, and I knew .23 was much, but thought there might be a market for us "snap shooteres" :) |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 10:28:00 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I'm glad I got out of that place right when I realized my images were worth more than $.20 cents per photo. Heck...I've made more selling prints locally in one day than I did there for a whole two months.
There's always a market for your photos...you just have to find it. |
I'd never put artistic, in anyway saleble images on a stock site. You are asking to get screwed over on profits that way. You should look for images that do nothing and will probably do nothing sitting on your Harddrive. Not something you'd plan to have hanging on someone's wall.
I make more per month selling 1 image locally than I do on Shutterstock after a month of downloads. However, the images I sell locally or via the web aren't the same as the ones in my gallery. Atleast I'm making $0.23 of of wasted HDD space.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 04:59:24 AM · #16 |
I'm a bit bemused by this - so shutterstock are trying to improve their standards, tightening up the QC and getting rid of lower quality shots.
How is this possibly a BAD thing?
Put your designer hat on for just a second; if you have to wade through 1000 crappy snapshots to find the picture you want, you're going to go and look elsewhere with higher standards. Shutterstock seem to be responding to the fact that they're in an increasingly competitive market, and addressing the fact that they've always been one of the more "accepting" sites.
I'm sorry to hear that some people here are getting bumped entirely, but I can't quite believe that people genuinely think that raising their standards is anything but a GOOD thing, both for the sites and ultimately those who submit images to them.
At the moment it seems to be iStockPhoto that will accept any old crap (by far the highest acceptance rate I have) and I'm not exactly surprised to find that sales there are the most sluggish. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 06:57:32 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by ganders:
I'm a bit bemused by this - so shutterstock are trying to improve their standards, tightening up the QC and getting rid of lower quality shots.
How is this possibly a BAD thing?
Put your designer hat on for just a second; if you have to wade through 1000 crappy snapshots to find the picture you want, you're going to go and look elsewhere with higher standards. Shutterstock seem to be responding to the fact that they're in an increasingly competitive market, and addressing the fact that they've always been one of the more "accepting" sites.
I'm sorry to hear that some people here are getting bumped entirely, but I can't quite believe that people genuinely think that raising their standards is anything but a GOOD thing, both for the sites and ultimately those who submit images to them.
At the moment it seems to be iStockPhoto that will accept any old crap (by far the highest acceptance rate I have) and I'm not exactly surprised to find that sales there are the most sluggish. |
I don't think it is a bad thing per se. But I think if they are going to demand higher quality from the photogs they ought to be willing to pay more for that increased quality. You get what you pay for.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 07:07:47 AM · #18 |
It's a buyers market at the moment; every man and his dog with a digital camera is wanting to send every snapshot they ever took into these sites in the hope of making their fortunes.
If Shutterstock wants to put its foot down and demand higher quality then good luck to them - I don't see them running out of photographs any time soon, and it can only possibly be good for the photographs that survive any culling.
The other side is that increased quality brings higher income automatically. A great picture might sell 100 times as much as a snapshot, so they do actually pay you 100 times more out - this is something I think people lose sight of a bit when they go off on the "you're selling your soul for $0.20" rants; it's not a one-off payment and a good image has the potential to sell many, many times and get you a whole lot more than $0.20. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 07:16:14 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Damn...shutterstock is 'bumping' photog's and no longer letting them submit? That's beat. I'm glad I got out of that place right when I realized my images were worth more than $.20 cents per photo. Heck...I've made more selling prints locally in one day than I did there for a whole two months.
There's always a market for your photos...you just have to find it.
edit: in any case, shutterstock would not be the best solution (in my opinion). |
I would never sell my work for $.20!! That's pathetic! |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 08:48:08 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
I love success and it appears that SS is succeeding. I was just zapped from their photographers. My imagines didn't meet their new higher standards, what did they expect for 23 cents a shot. I made over $200 from them, so I was able to buy extension tubes for my D70, but was never going to send them anything I'd make more money on or any model shots. My Coolpix 990 was great then, but I guess not now. Hey, SS members, you'll be zapped too if you haven't up graded cameras to at least 6MP. Do what ya feel, I will not bad mouth them, because we knew when we signed up, but as others said, they maybe taking advantage of you for anything of high quality. So low pixel users on SS, beware of you going to be next. Van |
Where on SS does it say this?
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 08:52:03 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by fotoshootme:
I would never sell my work for $.20!! That's pathetic! |
As Mavrik mentioned further up this post. A number of people have made hundreds of dollars, and melking has made a couple of thousand.
It's all economics; the lower the price, the higher the volume.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 09:01:09 AM · #22 |
Yep.
Pete and I were talking about this earlier.
Let's say I'm an author, I write a book that takes me over a year to complete. And then it sells for $10 a pop? And I don't even get all of that $10 - some goes to the shop, some to distribution services, some to the publisher and printer and so on. Oh my god, I probably get less than a dollar - isn't that pathetic?
No, of course it's not! Because I'm banking on the book selling in high enough numbers that my little percentage will add up to something nice and chunky in my bank account, just like Melking's high-volume sales add up to a pretty hefty income.
It's a slightly different model in the bookworld because the author generally gets paid in a different way - they either negotiate a fixed payment upfront (which means they are guaranteed that amount but may potentially be losing out if their book sells through the roof) or they opt for an advance on royalties which are a tiny percentage of the overall gross earnings.
Digital images are a very different commodity from books so there are various different models used for selling them. But we could look at postcards, newspapers and a whole heap of other low-value items where it's the high-volume of sales that generates profits rather than a high cost-per-item.
To the idea that Melking might have earned untold riches by selling the same images through a different channel - I think this goes only to show incredible naiveness or lack of understanding of the sales model we're talking about here. The images that sell on low-cost-per-item high-volume-sales sites are often NOT the kind of images that would sell well as high-cost-per-item low-volume-sales commodities.
Going back to the postcard idea - there are definitely postcards I've bought because I like the image and want to pin it up on a noticeboard but that I would not pay a high price for as high-cost artwork.
In terms of earning potential, we've already discussed the math of time spent versus potential earnings on a number of threads and, amusingly enough, those who rant about selling one's soul for 20 cents seldom come back and discuss it again!
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 09:21:43 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
I love success and it appears that SS is succeeding. I was just zapped from their photographers. My imagines didn't meet their new higher standards, what did they expect for 23 cents a shot. I made over $200 from them, so I was able to buy extension tubes for my D70, but was never going to send them anything I'd make more money on or any model shots. My Coolpix 990 was great then, but I guess not now. Hey, SS members, you'll be zapped too if you haven't up graded cameras to at least 6MP. Do what ya feel, I will not bad mouth them, because we knew when we signed up, but as others said, they maybe taking advantage of you for anything of high quality. So low pixel users on SS, beware of you going to be next. Van |
Are they requiring that the source camera be at least 6 MP, or the submitted image be at least 6 MP? The two are very different.
Bear in mind, DPC Prints requires a 7.2MP image if you plan to sell the image at 16x20 -- you get there by upsampling.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 09:31:31 AM · #24 |
There's a biiiiig difference, Kavey!
A book is meant to be mass-produced and sold to many people...Images used in marketing are not.
There have already been examples of two cell phone companies (I think it was cell phone companies) using the same set of photos with the same female model to advertise competing companies.
Once a few companies get embarassed in that fashion, companies will realize it's not worth it.
Edit: Sorry, it was Gateway and Dell... Link
2nd edit: another example
3rd edit: And again
I'm pretty sure this won't last forever...
Message edited by author 2005-06-14 09:40:00.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 09:41:05 AM · #25 |
This is still in the FAQ:
Photos must be at least 2.5MP (2.5 Million Pixels). To determine the amount of pixels in a photo, multiply the width by the length. For example: a photo which is 1700x1500 adds up to a total of 2.55 million pixels - a photo of this size is valid - however, a photo which is 1200x1000 adds up to a total of 1.2 million pixels which is smaller than our minimum size requirement.
So what did I miss about 6 MP cams?
|
|
