Ulrich Willmunder

Well... I'd like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow contributors for 15 years of mostly happy times in the forums. Good bye, everyone, it was fun while it lasted. Those who's like to stay in contact can find me on Facebook. Cheers - Ulrich Willmünder

Are you seriously still discussing this? I'm getting animations of line drawings rejected for noise. It's really simple: If you get the wrong reviewer, loads of clips get rejected for the random reason of the day. Results of reviews depend much less on the quality of your work than on weather the reviewer got layed recently. Simple as that.

The planet? Easily. The human race? For the sake of my daughter, her generation and all that follow, I sure hope so.

Almost... It has run for 8 years now. It's supposed to run for 50 years. Sadly I won't be around to see the results.

Architecture, especially internal design, might actually be worth doing. Depends on your skill, but then that's nothing new. As for one man team... all of the above, I guess. I keep away from weddings, though. Too much emotions, too much crazy. Most regular work for me is time lapse, though. Everything from a bit of traffic or a sunrise all the way to hard to get and extremely long term. My most long term has been running for 8 years now and ideally will run quite a bit longer than I will...

*snort* No Politics? As for 3D: You'd have to be extremely good to make good money with stock. Now client work, THAT pays well. I went into stock because I didn't want to do client work. People, and marketing, and lawyers... Not my thing. And initially it worked quite well. But by 2015 those 10% client work I did made up 90% of my income. Certainly convinced my wife to kick me out of my comfort zone some more...

Possible? Pretty sure it is. But it's a lot harder to find things that have commercial value, that doesn't cost you an arm and a leg to do, that noone has done (well enough) yet, and (in my case) that you can do as a single person.

Thanks. Maybe an hour of work, including editing. The clip made me over $3K - until I mentioned that little fact. Then it was copied to death and never sold again. First lesson in micro stock: Do something successful and you'll drown in copy cats.

Looks like 3D, yes, but it could have been done as stop motion animation, too. I did this one in 2003 literally in a broom closet with nothing but a P&S cam, a sheet of white paper and a a light bulb. Imagine what a real studio with a team should be capable of! https://www.shutterstock.com/de/video/clip-21513-building-mandarine---stop-motion-animation (And no, I havn't figured out how to embedd footage here either.)

Interesting bit of information I just stumbled upon. The location field does not only allow names of cities but also names of mountains (and I assume other features of nature, if they are prominent enough). So if you have footage of Mount Everest you can use that in your location field instead of searching for the nearest village. Sadly I only realised that AFTER submitting some footage of a mountain with the nearest village as location... *sigh*

Editorial content can't be edited other that simple colour adjustments and croping. So no pixelation. Other than that: Trial and error. The time when you got your account suspended for submitting too much inappropriate content are long gone.

For clarification, using your example: If I were to shot an image of a Jersey landmark in the foreground and the NYC skyline in the background (assuming such a shot would be possible - no idea, never been there), I obviously would want both NYC and Jersey in the keywords. Then what of the location field? Just leave it blank? Pick and choose?

Cool. Just upload (shots with tatoos) elsewhere. Perfectly fine. SS doesn't want tatoos. Their loss. You argueing about it however is just you loosing time.

Some might say following the rules of the site you're submitting to is part of the job... I'm pretty sure removing those tatoos in post work would have been much quicker than the time spent bitching on the forums about a long established and well documented rule of the site.

It's a tatoo, it's visible, Shutterstock doesn't want it. Their site, their rules. End of story. Also it's grainy as hell and out of focus, but with the quality of reviews these days, you might get away with that...