Jump to content

a katz

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About a katz

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Editorial photography, photojournalism & dachshunds

Recent Profile Visitors

537 profile views
  1. For whatever it's worth, I noticed recently that SS no longer advertises for content reviewers, at least not on a regular basis. They used to run ads all the time. I even applied myself a few times, took the test—no luck. Now I see adds for "freelance entertainment photo editor" in virtually every region. That developed a couple years ago. I guess they send out teams of paparazzi to celebrity-based events & this person coordinates in the input. I couldn't do it because I don't know enough modern pop stars by face. But point being, no open reviewer positions. I can only guess, as I write this, that SS has farmed out their picture reviewers to a different company altogether, maybe abroad. I would this will lead to strange & frustrating reviews as time goes on, but the individual contributor has become less & less important to SS's continued business model. andy
  2. I agree that your image in plainly acceptable for commercial use. The problem might be that it's only one person, & so more easily identified than several silhouettes. Whatever you do, don't remove the pole & submit as editorial. Editorial images can be cropped (as long as in so doing one doesn't change the meaning), darkened, lightened, etc, but you can't move pixels. Only submit as commercial if you're going to remove the pole or any other element. andy
  3. Let me add my own birthday wishes here, Laurin. Many, many happy returns. andy
  4. Really nice work, Brady. I can't see how it wouldn't be suitable for commercial applications.
  5. Best of luck, Phil. That's a lot to have on your plate at one time. I honestly think you're a guy whose skills & talent will carry him over these pitfalls. andy
  6. Do you know what triggered it, Ulrich? andy
  7. Amen to that, Brother Laurin! andy
  8. Greetings, I just found my account closed, zero images, uploading disabled, & note urging me to contact support. First I checked Yahoo, which is my official SS e-mail. Sure enough a note stating that due to suspicious activity, my account is suspended until I scan a copy of my ID and also send a picture of me holding up said ID to my face. Bear in mind, I'll contact support directly, but over the years this is the first time I've heard of such a thing. Were it not for the fact that my account truly is closed, I'd laughingly dismiss it as a not-very adroit attempt at phishing. I'm just wondering if this has happened to others, & if so, were they able to resolve it satisfactorily. Sad thing is, with nearly 30,000 images & videos online, I didn't even notice that my account had been suspended. Sad times indeed. andy
  9. Hey, I didn't realize. Let me join in by adding birthday wishes. All the best, Laurin. & boundless gratitude to you for the way you've given so generously of yourself in the past decade plus. andy
  10. Oh, indeed, Laurin. But to what end? I'm morally certain that rejecting for credentials was a mistake on their part, one which they're simply backing up now. Yesterday I covered Mahmoud Abbas, Jared Kushner, Nikki Haley, Danny Danon etc., but I can't get their images onto my port until I jump through yet another hoop now. Meanwhile, my colleagues & competitors, many of whom have never heard of Shutterstock, are having their UN images appear immediately via Rex or Sipa or some other agency. The irony is that my UN shots sell better on Shutterstock than they do on the agency I'm credentialed there with. Otherwise I'd simply not bother submitting. Of course, as in most problems now, there's really nothing we can do about it, either. andy
  11. After seeming endless back & forth bickering with credentials@shutterstock.com over rejection for credentials of my latest UN coverage, I finally gave in, submitted my credential (the same one, essentially, I've been using since 2016, & which basic common sense would tell the viewer that I couldn't get into the UN to shoot without), got a number, then for the fourth time, submitted a set I'd shot in late January for approval. Guess what happened. That's right. Again rejected for credentials. When I wrote to complain I heard back that there is some technical issue at play & they were working on it & regret the inconvenience, etc... Inconvenience.... Right. Anyway, I'll go out of my mind if I have to keep submitting these UN pix (or the several hundred Westminster Kennel Club images I have ready). So I'm wondering if anyone from SS will keep us updated on when & if the problem that seems to prevent the credential approval number from attaching will be fixed. andy
  12. The use of singular isn't a mistake. After more than a year submitting UN coverage to SS without going through credentials, my latest batch was kicked back demanding credentials. I wrote to <credentials@ss.com> explaining the problem. They finally wrote back insisting the reviewer was correct. Wrong. Just to be sure, I checked their credentials policy page, & no, the UN would not require credentials to SS anymore than a city council meeting or other political event would. Adding insult to injury is that through Rex & other agencies, SS is now obtaining UN coverage from colleagues of mine, some of whom have never heard of SS; their work is just channeled in via these other agencies. And because they don't have to submit, it gets in faster than mine however on point I might be about submitting. So now, a new barrier. I've written to support, but who the hell knows ... it's obvious that there's nothing as trivial as the SS contributor. The pity is my UN stuff sells better on SS than on the agency that accredits me there in the first place. It's just maddening that one newbie reviewer has the power to change the submission process by virtue of his or her own ignorance. andy
  13. Saturdays are usually my lowest in terms of sales. Haven't had an actual zero day in years—but did recently have a Sat with one sale total that came late in the day, so that's probably a distinction without a difference. andy
  14. Also having a singularly bad month after a slight uptick in December (though this Dec was still lower than the previous year). Interesting what someone wrote about reduced traffic to SS. I think, based mainly on speculation, that SS's methods of obtaining images no longer rely on the traditional contributor or even factory model. Given SS's acquisitions of Rex, & other sources I think we've become a hoard scrambling after maybe 5% of total sales or thereabouts. The ability to develop our own followers might once have offset this trend, but of course that is no longer possible. I agree with everyone else here that if Amir's port is not selling then ports in general just aren't selling anymore. andy
  • Create New...