| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/18/2005 02:27:29 PM · #1 |
Wow! I uploaded my first 6 pictures to SS 3 weeks ago, and they are still pending... Two of my friends have uploaded around 100 pictures each to SS within the past 2 weeks and have had them approved. Did I possibly do something wrong uploading them? I posted on SS but the only answer I got was to be patient... Anyone else have a similar problem?
-Ryan- |
|
|
|
03/18/2005 02:30:25 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
03/18/2005 02:39:58 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Be patient. |
Message edited by author 2005-03-18 14:42:02. |
|
|
|
03/18/2005 02:42:08 PM · #4 |
I just joined Shutterstock this week and uploaded 34 pics on Monday. I just got a reply from them today. 19 were accepted. I'm a newbie but mine only took 4 days.
??????? |
|
|
|
03/18/2005 02:46:25 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by DannyM:
I just joined Shutterstock this week and uploaded 34 pics on Monday. I just got a reply from them today. 19 were accepted. I'm a newbie but mine only took 4 days.
??????? |
well damn! |
|
|
|
03/18/2005 04:20:15 PM · #6 |
| Must be something wrong, as they usually only take a day or two |
|
|
|
03/18/2005 04:24:37 PM · #7 |
ShutterStock slow or just me?
Just you :)
Message edited by author 2005-03-18 16:25:33.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2005 05:41:16 PM · #8 |
You sure you completed the submission? It is a 2 - 3 step process.
Upload images with EXIF data
Verify spelling in keywords and discriptions
Upload Model Releases if required
If your EXIF data is not embedded you can add the step that requires adding keywords and descriptions.
Either way the images must be physically submitted to the server at the end of each step. If you did not complete each required step your images sat in an unfinished upload que for 7 days and then were deleted from the server.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2005 06:02:16 PM · #9 |
People still go there? That wannabe that runs the site mouths off way too much for my liking.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 03:03:03 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by deapee:
People still go there? That wannabe that runs the site mouths off way too much for my liking. |
That was really kind of uncalled for and really shows your bitterness don't you think? The truth is since you left as a result of your own indignation he has had no need to mouth off to anyone. It has been a nice quite, peacful and very productive community.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 05:51:44 AM · #11 |
I would contact support! That happen to me like 3 months ago, and I still have 10 files pending....But when I contacted support they told me they did not get them.....even if they are in the pending section....so I just uploaded them again....and got approved!
Melissa
Originally posted by Brantner:
Wow! I uploaded my first 6 pictures to SS 3 weeks ago, and they are still pending... Two of my friends have uploaded around 100 pictures each to SS within the past 2 weeks and have had them approved. Did I possibly do something wrong uploading them? I posted on SS but the only answer I got was to be patient... Anyone else have a similar problem?
-Ryan- |
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 07:28:55 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by realdealphoto:
Originally posted by deapee:
People still go there? That wannabe that runs the site mouths off way too much for my liking. |
That was really kind of uncalled for and really shows your bitterness don't you think? The truth is since you left as a result of your own indignation he has had no need to mouth off to anyone. It has been a nice quite, peacful and very productive community. |
Hey...it's a free world and I'm free to share my views. If you dislike them, you can share your own, but calling my freedom of expression 'uncalled for' and 'bitter' probably isn't the best. I personally dislike the guy ... and I have from the beginning. It seems any time he's confronted, he gets about as edgy as a 13-year old girl and as defensive as a murder caught red-handed. He's a horrible business man. Maybe he has a great idea, but I assure you his business won't be successful if he continues his arrogant ways. And thanks for giving me a reason to elaborate some more. You're right, just calling someone a wannabe isn't really enough.
As far as being bitter, that couldn't be further from the truth. The fact is, and I realize this is like beating a dead horse, but there's one person getting rich from your photos on that site -- and guess what -- that person is NOT you. Sure your photos would be sitting on your harddrive collecting dust if they weren't there, but at least you wouldn't be lowering their value. Try selling one of those pictures to anyone that matters for even as low as $50 outright and they find out it was on shutterstock and sold a time or two -- you're beat.
Save up your pictures and submit to a real stock agency...it will be well worth your time in the long-run.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 08:41:16 AM · #13 |
I have no dog in this fight but I have to agree this Shutter Stock thing seems terrible.
I don't like the idea of cheapening an industry for a lousy couple of bucks(Euro's...whatever). I'd prefer letting my photos rot on my hard drive than to(practically)give them away and drag down wages for good work.
Pride? Integrity? Or .20 cents?
To each, his or her own...
Message edited by author 2005-03-19 08:53:38. |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 08:46:31 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Pride? Integrity? Or .20 cents? |
Shutterstock GENEROUSLY just gave everyone a pay raise -- it's now $.23 cents -- yep, you heard right -- TWENTY THREE cents.
edit: typo
Message edited by author 2005-03-19 08:46:48.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 08:57:00 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Pride? Integrity? Or .20 cents? |
Shutterstock GENEROUSLY just gave everyone a pay raise -- it's now $.23 cents -- yep, you heard right -- TWENTY THREE cents. |
That's beer money. No thanks.
On that note, who does pay the best? Or should I say, who pays? |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 09:45:48 AM · #16 |
I just love reading these anti-stock site rants. All these photographers afraid my hobby is going too ruin their industry...
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 10:14:07 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by louddog:
I just love reading these anti-stock site rants. All these photographers afraid my hobby is going too ruin their industry... |
lol...don't flatter yourself, kid.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 10:16:40 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by louddog:
I just love reading these anti-stock site rants. All these photographers afraid my hobby is going too ruin their industry... |
lol...don't flatter yourself, kid. |
I'm not your kid. I'd refer to you with an unflattering name, but I stopped name calling when I grew up.
Message edited by author 2005-03-19 10:18:14. |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 10:20:59 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by louddog:
I'm not your kid. I'd refer to you with an unflattering name, but I stopped name calling when I grew up. |
Apology accepted.
In all seriousness, no one thinks you're ruining anyone's industry. You're merely cheapening yourself. National Geographic and the other high-price buyers aren't going to be downloading from shutterstock any time soon. Shutterstock just is an outlet for those who are cheap to buy cheap photos. If your photography fits that category, be my guest. Otherwise, the only thing you're 'cheapening' is yourself.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 10:48:42 AM · #20 |
I appreciate your concern, but I don't feel I'm cheapening myself. I know what I'm worth.
I take photos for fun, because I enjoy it. As soon as I start worrying about how much money I'm making on it or having to work to sell images, it will no longer be fun for me. I give my images away all the time. I'm honored that someone would want to hang my picture on a wall or use it for something. That makes me feel good and I don't need to get paid for that. I do the stock sites because I can sit down for an hour, upload 20 images, and walk away. I make a few bucks and I'm happy, no effort. I'm not cheapening myself, I don't need a price tag on my work to know I like it. I don't need to have $$$ in my pocket to have pride in my work. If it was all about money, I wouldn't waste my time with photography. I could make a lot more doing other things.
Also, I'd go to the larger stock sites but my camera doesn't meet their requirements and I won't carry a DSLR and lens on a hike. The stock sites are pretty much my only option unless you know of "quality" sites that take images from a 3.2mp camera.
Maybe I'm different then most of the people on the stock sites, but I really don't care how much money I make off photography. I just do it for the fun.
Message edited by author 2005-03-19 10:50:34. |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 11:28:23 AM · #21 |
"I make a few bucks and I'm happy, no effort. I'm not cheapening myself"
Again, I have no dog in this fight but there is Nothing else that exemplifies cheap more than $.23. Metaphorically or otherwise you're selling cheap anyway you cut it. If you don't need the money why do it? I personally wouldn't be able to take much pride in simply being able to say that I sold my work if all I made was pennies. They are just taking clear advantage of the many who plopped down for a digital camera and want to say that they're selling...mostly for the sake of selling itself.
No matter how you feel about it on a personal level you are lessening the value of the work when you give it away to places like Shutter Stock. I give away my photo's nicely framed with great pride and get a thrill from that fact that people hang them as well.
Even with the "why not make a buck passively" argument you slide your hobby into a McDonalds like category.
I'm also certain that it DID take some "effort" to make those 20 or so photo's that you shot and should I mention the cost of the equipment and the time it took to hone your craft? We're not talking Hamburgers here so the no effort thing really doesn't fly.
Selling your work at cut rate prices, even if it is only a hobby, however insignificant it may seem does lessen the planet bit by bit and encourages bottom feeders (on both or all ends). I take this kind of thing seriously as a freelancer. I won't work for two or three dollars and hour not matter what it's for or what my situation is. I hope you wouldn't either. If you calculate the real time it took to take your shots plus cost you're not even making close to that. It seems obvious to me. I will not support such a system.
Do what you wish but let's call a spade a spade. That's just my opinion of course but I do hope people at least understand my point of view. Do as you please, it's a free world........apparently! |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 11:48:10 AM · #22 |
okay yada yada yada everyone - all your points are well taken, informative and added some drama to my life, but out of curiosity - Are there any good stock photography sites out there?
Peace Love and please just answer the darn question!! (Kidding I'm just kidding) ;-) Thanks in advance |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 01:04:39 PM · #23 |
getty, alamy are both good.
louddog, you are obviously not rich otherwise you would have a better camera so clearly you *could* use the money.
Here's what I think so that everyone can understand...
It's great to sell your work from your hobby and make $.23, you're correct. But in reality, your images could be worth so much more with just about the same effort. Get signed up on a real stock site.
I remember a couple months ago seeing a 5-page advertisement in a magazine ... The advertisement was decent with decent photos. I saw it talked about on a stock site's message boards. Basically, the photographer got paid $1.00 -- that's right, ONE DOLLAR for a five page ad in a fairly popular magazine...that is just sad.
I also read about one guy selling one image through a stock site like shuterstock for $.20 and since he granted them royalty free usage to the image (as is in their contract), the company used his image in pamphlets, on their web page, and even on the sides of buses. All for a whopping $.20.
Now that is just about a kick in the behind if I've ever heard one.
Don't sell yourself short...and dont' get all defensive toward me for offering my point of view. If you have a point to share, share it...I'm always up for debate, but don't belittle my opinion. All I've said is fact.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 01:54:32 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
"I make a few bucks and I'm happy, no effort. I'm not cheapening myself"
Again, I have no dog in this fight but there is Nothing else that exemplifies cheap more than $.23. Metaphorically or otherwise you're selling cheap anyway you cut it. |
And then there's the case of someone like Robert Abplanalp, once one of the richest men in America (and famed supporter of Richard Nixon) got that way by getting one cent ... for each of those little valves on the top of an aerosol can.
The whole d****d economy is being based on mass production of cheap, disposable items -- why should photos be different? Rather than blaming Shutterstock, maybe we should be after the WalMart/China juggernaut for undermining our "traditional" attitude being willing to pay for quality.
But for those of us with "smaller" cameras, there seem few outher viable options to the RF Stock market. |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 02:25:39 PM · #25 |
"...everybody else does it, so why shouldn't I" has never been great motivation for me, I'm glad to say. And modeling my business practices after the Chinese isn't big on my list either.
The Nixon supporter is quite an exceptional example to parade around in this discussion when you compare selling billions of something at $.01 to amounts of 20, 30 or a 100 of an item selling at $.23. Does his fortune really apply here?
Nixon?
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 05:12:44 PM EDT.
