DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Still thinking about Shutterstock?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 31, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/21/2005 08:28:09 PM · #1
Still thinking about Shutterstock? Might be the time to join. Seems like they are raising the price, but only for people that join before March 1, 2005 with at least 5 uploaded pictures and get $0.23 per download, join after and get the old rate ($0.20 per download).

If you are a member you can check out the thread.

Message edited by author 2005-02-21 20:30:20.
02/21/2005 08:32:00 PM · #2
thats a fortune... 3cents. hehe. :)
02/21/2005 08:32:59 PM · #3
Yeah...go join shutterstock! But click here to do it!

:-)

02/21/2005 08:34:38 PM · #4
Fighting over new photographers for money! Strange one
02/21/2005 08:42:24 PM · #5
Originally posted by Discraft:

thats a fortune... 3cents. hehe. :)

There are "at least" a couple of photographers over there who are taking in between $1-200/month. For them, a 15% or so increase is somewhat meaningful, and I don't see how it actually hurts anyone else who's already submitting photos.

I hate competing over the referrer links to Shutterstock, but it's dumb not to post mine too : )
02/21/2005 08:45:16 PM · #6
Question:How many times might the average image(or one that's reasonably popular)get downloaded?

Does the math make sense? Are you better off giving them away?

At 100 downloads, 23 bucks doesn't interest me unless, say, you have many images flying off the shelf and the real numbers start to kick in.

I also hate the thought of cheapening the market. I say that having been a victim of an undercutting freelance market.

As I've heard too many times before "...there's always a sncker, who's willing to do it for less"

Just my thoughts
02/21/2005 08:58:52 PM · #7
The "math makes sense" if you have images with (likely) no other commercial value, and are willing to invest the time to upload it.

No single image makes a "lot" of money -- the "successful" photographers have hundreds of images with a few downloads each.

I send them images which are:
-suitable compositionally and topic-wise for stock, but too "uninteresting" ir "inartistic" to make sellable prints.
-"alternate" versions of a shot I've used for something else.
-not unique enough and/or too small too distribute as rights-managed stock.

None of the photos in my Shutterstock Gallery are over 3MP -- they wouldn't even get me a look at some of the other agencies, but more than half of them have been downloaded at least once.
02/21/2005 09:12:21 PM · #8
I don't think I'm going to stick around at shutterstock. They seem to have a lot of things backwards. I don't think anyone's making as much there as some claim. I mean -- you get 7 downloads in a week and you're in the top 50.
02/21/2005 09:17:05 PM · #9
2 months, 30 images (2 rejections), 37 downloads....$7.40 should be quitting my day job soon... :)

Seriously, it is kind of fun, and for me it helps me take better compositions in the long run. Helps you look at everything closer cause there is probably a shot in there somewhere.

First you have to think what they want, then you have to take it. And most important of all is you have to get the right keywords so they can find it (get it right the first time on SS as it will go through the whole process again if you change keywords later).
02/21/2005 10:18:51 PM · #10
I'd be willing to bet that, if given the chance, I could make more money in one weekend selling prints locally than I could on shutterstock in the last 3 months.
02/21/2005 10:24:49 PM · #11
20 days, 24 images(now).... $6.00
02/21/2005 10:29:58 PM · #12
Originally posted by deapee:

I'd be willing to bet that, if given the chance, I could make more money in one weekend selling prints locally than I could on shutterstock in the last 3 months.


Stonehenge Gallery in Montgomery just sold one of my prints for $850 last week and sent me a check for $510. (goes toward a new camera)
02/21/2005 10:31:56 PM · #13
Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by deapee:

I'd be willing to bet that, if given the chance, I could make more money in one weekend selling prints locally than I could on shutterstock in the last 3 months.


Stonehenge Gallery in Montgomery just sold one of my prints for $850 last week and sent me a check for $510. (goes toward a new camera)


That is unreal for you. Congrats
02/21/2005 10:34:44 PM · #14
Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by deapee:

I'd be willing to bet that, if given the chance, I could make more money in one weekend selling prints locally than I could on shutterstock in the last 3 months.


Stonehenge Gallery in Montgomery just sold one of my prints for $850 last week and sent me a check for $510. (goes toward a new camera)


wow...now that's what I'm talking about!
02/21/2005 10:36:47 PM · #15
Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by deapee:

I'd be willing to bet that, if given the chance, I could make more money in one weekend selling prints locally than I could on shutterstock in the last 3 months.


Stonehenge Gallery in Montgomery just sold one of my prints for $850 last week and sent me a check for $510. (goes toward a new camera)


If you're pro you better get paid at least that much.
02/21/2005 10:40:51 PM · #16
Originally posted by deapee:

I'd be willing to bet that, if given the chance, I could make more money in one weekend selling prints locally than I could on shutterstock in the last 3 months.


This is true. I have made more selling one or two prints than I have selling stock in total. There is no reason you can't do both though.
02/21/2005 10:58:26 PM · #17
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by deapee:

I'd be willing to bet that, if given the chance, I could make more money in one weekend selling prints locally than I could on shutterstock in the last 3 months.


This is true. I have made more selling one or two prints than I have selling stock in total. There is no reason you can't do both though.

Hey, anyone who thinks they can sell any of my Shutterstock images at art print prices should let me know, and I'll email them a printable-sized file and split the net 50/50.

But I really don't think we're comparing the same kind of images. Sure, some images might sell for $1000, but probably not one of the images I have available as stock.

Maybe my most-downloaded image would make it as a higher-paying rights-managed image if it was bigger than 2-plus MP, but I don't think it will ever make it as a gallery print.

' . substr('//thumb.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/110/110,1099872601,1.jpg', strrpos('//thumb.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/110/110,1099872601,1.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
02/22/2005 12:32:33 AM · #18
Anyone else having trouble with rejections that don't make any sense?

I have had several lately for non-existent problems. I have even re-submitted and had them accepted yet the stats still show the rejections.

The "contact us" returned a real helpful, "We don't have time to review - seek advice of your peers".

Um . . .THERES NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM!

Examples:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/25464/thumb/144277.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/25464/thumb/144277.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/25464/thumb/147255.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/25464/thumb/147255.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/298/thumb/135564.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/298/thumb/135564.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
02/22/2005 12:44:57 AM · #19
Originally posted by dartompkins:

Anyone else having trouble with rejections that don't make any sense?

I have had several lately for non-existent problems. I have even re-submitted and had them accepted yet the stats still show the rejections.

Jon has hired two additional reviewers since we blitzed them with members back in October. They seem to have quite different standards on occasion. With about 5000 photos to review each week, they may make mistakes, or just have different feelings about a photo depending on when they view it -- remember how people complain here about seeing just four or five versions of the same subject; the SS reviewers have to look at THOUSANDS of similar photos, which are not even intended (usually) to be "artistic" or particularly interesting by themselves.

Shutterstock has now implemented a "Critique" section in their forum and made it easy to embed a sample of your image so you can get actual feedback from the other stock photographers. They are a surprisingly helpful group considering they are direct economic competitors.
02/22/2005 05:51:25 AM · #20
well i do agree $.23 isn't too much but it does add up and it is possible to make some money... it would take a few years to get your stock library up to a decent size to make a living but that is also possible.

It also isn't a waste of my time or photography to put them there. I am earning enough to buy a nice new lens per year... and that is a good amount in my opinion. When i am good enough, or have the images to join corbis, getty, or acclaim i will, as for alamy, myloupe, and pixibit,.. I have.

For those who have a 6+ mp camera i would sudjest checking out alamy, myloupe and pixibit.

oh..and if you want to joing shutterstock this is a good link to follow
Shutterstock Link
02/22/2005 06:28:50 AM · #21
Yeah I think they have new standards there.

Its for every 3 photos submitted only accept 1 that way we look like we are scrutinising the photos.

I have had some very nice photos rejected lately, accepted by pinupinoo (but I've left there now) and some photos I think are crap accepted. Go figure.
02/22/2005 07:05:20 AM · #22
if you want to join shutterstock you can use this great link Melissa's Shutterstock Link

Come on you know you want to join!

Message edited by author 2005-02-22 07:05:34.
02/22/2005 07:26:00 AM · #23
Originally posted by Gurilla:

Yeah I think they have new standards there.

Its for every 3 photos submitted only accept 1 that way we look like we are scrutinising the photos.

I have had some very nice photos rejected lately, accepted by pinupinoo (but I've left there now) and some photos I think are crap accepted. Go figure.


I submitted some nice winter/landscape shots to Shutter in the beginning of December and was floored when they were rejected. At the time "winter" was one of the top 10 search words. Out of five, they took the worst one of the bunch and rejected the others.

All were accepted at iStock and got good reviews, gallery additions and some downloads.

Go figure.
02/22/2005 07:59:57 AM · #24
All the stock sites have different standards, I have some files that sell well on one site and don't even get accepted on another!

Signup with ShutterStock Here!
02/22/2005 08:07:19 AM · #25
One of my favorite shots was not accepted. And the other one I had rejected was because of 'copyright/trademark infringement' -- which both were accepted on iStock.

I think people complained that shutterstock was accepting too many files, and letting a lot of garbage slip through, so they just started rejecting random photos. I can't think of any other reason they would accept them both at iStock and not Shutterstock.

Although when you think about it -- if you're just one of those people who lingers around shutterstock, getting a good bit of downloads, but aren't submitting your best work, drawing customers in, you're really just costing shutterstock money.

I don't personally see how a business like that can be successful, except now that the proposed the new 50 downloads a day maximum, thing...but then it's not really what they advertise it as -- which is unlimited downloads.

--

Not to mention, in the rules, it states that you must only include a model release if a face is visible...then you have the reviewer telling everyone on the message boards that no matter what, if it's a person and you don't have a model release (back turned or not), he will reject the photo. Then, you have people like me who call them out over it, and Jon responds in his little, amateur manner instead of acting like a professional like he should.

I've seen him involved in many heated debates both here and over on shutterstock while trying to promote his 'business'. Unfortunately, I don't think he acts like a professional, and I think, ultimately, that will be Shutterstock's biggest downfall.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/30/2021 07:37:16 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/30/2021 07:37:16 AM EDT.