| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/22/2005 06:13:00 PM · #1 |
I submitted a batch of four photos just 45 minutes ago, and i just got the approval message from all four of them! I'm impressed, but is that a bad sign? is no one submitting photos anymore?
BTW, here's the four photos accepted (top four)
accepted photos
Mark
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 06:15:50 PM · #2 |
Maybe shutterstock is gettign less and less photos submitted to them, its quite possible people are realizing they are worth more. The more I think about it, the more I want to get out of shutterstock and Istockphoto. When I build up some good photos to submit to Alamy, im out of there, its just not worth the pennies. A huge turn around from when I started out photography and thought that 20 cents was amazing.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 06:33:40 PM · #3 |
I been to the john hancok building its spoky on top never been the sears tower though
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 06:43:22 PM · #4 |
| What kind of money are you guys bringing in from these sites? |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 06:56:40 PM · #5 |
So far about $250 combined from both.
Its money, but with the effort, I find its not worth it, especially at Istock, which is VERY picky about little details.
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 18:57:00.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 06:57:34 PM · #6 |
I don't think it's a bad sign. I think they're just working really hard at it. I've had times when mine have been accepted really quickly too; then there are times when it takes a few days. And if you watch the image numbers, you'll see that they're moving up pretty quickly.
What I do know is that I've been selling more there lately than at iStock, and some of the pictures that are selling there are ones that iStock rejected!
As for Dreamstime, I've given up submitting there at all. Maybe if they start selling some of my pictures again, I'll reconsider, but for now I'm finding them a total waste of time.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 06:59:23 PM · #7 |
| yeah, it would seem you'd have to submit a hell of a lot of photos in order to get a check monthly. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 07:14:27 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by phreakon:
yeah, it would seem you'd have to submit a hell of a lot of photos in order to get a check monthly. |
Yes and no. It all depends what kind of photos you submit. Some of the top photographers at iStock sell hundred of pictures every week. Their portfolios are pretty large but they don't add to them as much as you would think. I do get the impression that if you want to do really well there, photos of people are the way to go. That's not going to help me though because I don't have anyone suitable to model for me.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 07:21:50 PM · #9 |
----------------------DISCLAIMER----------------------
The opinions expressed here are for entertainment purposes only and are not shared with the hopes of damaging any business, persons, or their well-being. Some of my statements may hold little or no factual value and are represented here solely as my opinion on said matter. Before continuing, you must accept this disclaimer. I cannot be held responsible for any actions, hurt feelings or any other damages concurred from my shared opinions albeit deriving from factual origin or otherwise.
----------------------DISCLAIMER----------------------
I don't think it's necesarilly shutterstock that's the problem. isSock seems to be doing fine. The problem is probably with the folks who run the site. iStock seems to be run very professionally -- shutterstock, on the other hand, seems to be run...well, rather immaturely, to put it best.
How can a business be successful when the 'owner' spouts his mouth off at every opportunity. I know I've gotten a few emails directly from him from suggesting that people join places like alamy or getty instead -- and calling them 'real stock agencies' as opposed to what shutterstock is.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- there's one person at shutterstock making any significant amount of money, and that's the owner. He just doesn't realize that the people he mouths off to and disregards are the ones putting the bread on his table.
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 23:39:52.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 07:42:01 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... |
Yes, you seem to have appointed yourself the "loyal opposition."
If you are no longer an active member of Shutterstock, I think your information will quickly become dated, and any subsequent proclamations on your part should probably be be considered opinion based on speculation.
I think it's also fair that your posts be accompanied by the disclaimer that you personally had a negative experience with SS, and that you are no longer a participant there. Unless you can prove fraud or misrepresentation on Jon's part, I think it is improper for you to use these forums for the purpose of undermining someone else's business.
You are welcome to express your opinions, but I think you need to be more clear/up front about their bases, and recognize that there are many others here who do not share them, either about the RF model or the administrators of that site in particular. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 09:03:05 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by deapee:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... |
Yes, you seem to have appointed yourself the "loyal opposition."
If you are no longer an active member of Shutterstock, I think your information will quickly become dated, and any subsequent proclamations on your part should probably be be considered opinion based on speculation.
I think it's also fair that your posts be accompanied by the disclaimer that you personally had a negative experience with SS, and that you are no longer a participant there. Unless you can prove fraud or misrepresentation on Jon's part, I think it is improper for you to use these forums for the purpose of undermining someone else's business.
You are welcome to express your opinions, but I think you need to be more clear/up front about their bases, and recognize that there are many others here who do not share them, either about the RF model or the administrators of that site in particular. |
I think you have made a good point GeneralE, deapee should let people know where he's coming from when he knocks Shutterstock. But also, along the same line, I'd like to see people stop using dpc as a place to discuss, and promote, Shutterstock. I think the OP should have made his announcement in a forum on the Shutterstock site, not here.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 09:07:23 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by deapee:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... |
Yes, you seem to have appointed yourself the "loyal opposition."
If you are no longer an active member of Shutterstock, I think your information will quickly become dated, and any subsequent proclamations on your part should probably be be considered opinion based on speculation.
I think it's also fair that your posts be accompanied by the disclaimer that you personally had a negative experience with SS, and that you are no longer a participant there. Unless you can prove fraud or misrepresentation on Jon's part, I think it is improper for you to use these forums for the purpose of undermining someone else's business.
You are welcome to express your opinions, but I think you need to be more clear/up front about their bases, and recognize that there are many others here who do not share them, either about the RF model or the administrators of that site in particular. |
I think you have made a good point GeneralE, deapee should let people know where he's coming from when he knocks Shutterstock. But also, along the same line, I'd like to see people stop using dpc as a place to discuss, and promote, Shutterstock. I think the OP should have made his announcement in a forum on the Shutterstock site, not here. |
It's all mute. In five years no one will even remember what Shutterstock was.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 11:39:02 PM · #13 |
----------------------DISCLAIMER----------------------
The opinions expressed here are for entertainment purposes only and are not shared with the hopes of damaging any business, persons, or their well-being. Some of my statements may hold little or no factual value and are represented here solely as my opinion on said matter. Before continuing, you must accept this disclaimer. I cannot be held responsible for any actions, hurt feelings or any other damages concurred from my shared opinions albeit deriving from factual origin or otherwise.
----------------------DISCLAIMER----------------------
How does my information have anything to do with me deciding not to be an active member of shutterstock? Obviously, if I thought the place was just peachy, I'd still be a member.
I'm simply expressing my freedom of speech (while, yes, I understand that dpc is a private message board and anything can be edited or sensored as the admin's wish)...but I would expect that if someone has something negative to say, it will be said.
As far as my experience, I speak solely from what I've seen him do on message boards in front of a wide array of audiences. It's no secret.
Anything else I've experienced with him I have stated. Such as the emails he's sent me after a thread where I suggested that people look into 'real stock agencies' and not shutterstock.
I don't mean to offend anyone and I'm certainly not the type of person to sugar-coat things either. I tell it like I see it -- that is my strong-point, and also my biggest fall-back.
Just to make a point, as I've been called 'immature' by said user over the subject in emails, that is perfectly fine. I am at this site to express my art, my life -- through photography -- and hopefully bring a smile to a face or two. I have no personal agenda or self-image to uphold. Quite possibly one day I may, but when the day comes, you will possibly see a more refined, more held-back me.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 11:48:19 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by deapee:
----------------------DISCLAIMER----------------------
The opinions expressed here are for entertainment purposes only and are not shared with the hopes of damaging any business, persons, or their well-being. Some of my statements may hold little or no factual value and are represented here solely as my opinion on said matter. Before continuing, you must accept this disclaimer. I cannot be held responsible for any actions, hurt feelings or any other damages concurred from my shared opinions albeit deriving from factual origin or otherwise.
----------------------DISCLAIMER----------------------
|
I like this. Is there any way we can this atttached to every post over in the rant forum?
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 11:53:20 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by deapee:
----------------------DISCLAIMER----------------------
The opinions expressed here are for entertainment purposes only and are not shared with the hopes of damaging any business, persons, or their well-being. Some of my statements may hold little or no factual value and are represented here solely as my opinion on said matter. Before continuing, you must accept this disclaimer. I cannot be held responsible for any actions, hurt feelings or any other damages concurred from my shared opinions albeit deriving from factual origin or otherwise.
----------------------DISCLAIMER----------------------
|
I like this. Is there any way we can this atttached to every post over in the rant forum? |
That might be copyright infringement. Let me call my lawyer hahahah just kidding -- put it wherever you want. I mean it's sort of a joke in a way, but really that should be put at the top of every one of my posts.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 11:53:41 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by deapee:
----------------------DISCLAIMER----------------------
The opinions expressed here are for entertainment purposes only and are not shared with the hopes of damaging any business, persons, or their well-being. Some of my statements may hold little or no factual value and are represented here solely as my opinion on said matter. Before continuing, you must accept this disclaimer. I cannot be held responsible for any actions, hurt feelings or any other damages concurred from my shared opinions albeit deriving from factual origin or otherwise.
----------------------DISCLAIMER----------------------
How does my information have anything to do with me deciding not to be an active member of shutterstock? |
Your having info about their current operations is relevant if you are going to offer opinions to other people as to whether or not they should become active members.
That is a pretty well-done disclaimer : )
If we could all remember that it automatically applies to anything any of us says, we could probably keep the conversations somewhat lower-key.
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 23:54:06. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 12:11:24 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Quickshutter:
I submitted a batch of four photos just 45 minutes ago,
Mark |
it's a lie!!!! I've been waiting since Friday!
:)
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 10:03:34 AM · #18 |
What is Alamy? Sorry for the retarded question
Originally posted by Damian:
Maybe shutterstock is gettign less and less photos submitted to them, its quite possible people are realizing they are worth more. The more I think about it, the more I want to get out of shutterstock and Istockphoto. When I build up some good photos to submit to Alamy, im out of there, its just not worth the pennies. A huge turn around from when I started out photography and thought that 20 cents was amazing. |
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 10:31:32 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Brantner:
What is Alamy? Sorry for the retarded question
|
A stock agency that charges (and pays) a much higher fee for usage of images.
//www.alamy.com
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 10:34:16 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Brantner:
What is Alamy? Sorry for the retarded question
|
A stock agency that charges (and pays) a much higher fee for usage of images.
//www.alamy.com |
Has anyone on here actually earned any money from Alamy?
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 10:37:18 AM · #21 |
Has anyone tried Digital Railroad?
//www.digitalrailroad.net |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 10:59:05 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Brantner:
What is Alamy? Sorry for the retarded question
|
A stock agency that charges (and pays) a much higher fee for usage of images.
//www.alamy.com |
Wow! Getting images to Alamy is not for the meek. I just took a look at the submission requirements and they are pretty healthy. The one about file size alone made me think twice considering my camera is only 4mp.
Requirements for file size (excerpt from //www.alamy.com/stock-photography-guide.asp) "48 MB minimum. We strongly recommend that digital camera images are captured on a digital camera capable of producing files of 17MB and upwards."
What kind of camera is capable of that? What is the minimum mp to get there? At 4mp the max file size I get is around 1.4mb. What would a Canon at 8mp get?
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 11:03:55 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Brantner:
What is Alamy? Sorry for the retarded question
|
A stock agency that charges (and pays) a much higher fee for usage of images.
//www.alamy.com |
Wow! Getting images to Alamy is not for the meek. I just took a look at the submission requirements and they are pretty healthy. The one about file size alone made me think twice considering my camera is only 4mp.
Requirements for file size (excerpt from //www.alamy.com/stock-photography-guide.asp) "48 MB minimum. We strongly recommend that digital camera images are captured on a digital camera capable of producing files of 17MB and upwards."
What kind of camera is capable of that? What is the minimum mp to get there? At 4mp the max file size I get is around 1.4mb. What would a Canon at 8mp get? |
From talking to photogs in the past the idea seems to be to upsample the image and submit on CD.
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 11:13:47 AM · #24 |
I understand the principle of upsampling (although I didn't realize you could move a file size up that dramatically), but it was this line that really caught my attention:
...images are captured on a digital camera capable of producing files of 17MB and upwards...
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 11:28:42 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
What kind of camera is capable of that? What is the minimum mp to get there? At 4mp the max file size I get is around 1.4mb. What would a Canon at 8mp get? |
An uncropped image from my 20D saves out to a 24Mb tiff.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 10:41:18 PM EDT.
