Jump to content

Jason Dudley

Members
  • Content Count

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jason Dudley

  1. We do all of the work, operate at a loss for our time and expense to hand them a finished product, make an insulting percentage and fight the reviewers constantly to do so. What exactly does SS do to earn their cut exactly? Abuse their content creators and ruin their own business with the worst decisions possible? No self respecting artist of any value would accept these conditions for their work. No producer in any market would accept these conditions in exchange for their goods. I guess SS believes theres enough Unsplash artists out there willing to upgrade from giving it away for free to getting pennies instead. I'm done with stock and am moving on to other ventures not in constant decline.
  2. The only reason SS would go through the effort of all this is to keep a majority of the profit for themselves... if not all the profit considering the lack of transparency. Just another betrayal of trust with our property. They undercut the artists own account price and channel the sales to them instead of you.
  3. So... I was looking at the latest alexa web stats for the current site traffic trends of SS and U assuming they represent the traffic majority for pay vs free trends. I like to watch them over time to try and better understand whats happening and maybe whats coming in the future. Trying to figure out where to go from here. SS global rank is increasing recently but I believe this is due to the massive traffic increase of new contributors flooding the site rather than more paying customers. U's rank is increasing rapidly and steadily over a long period while SS rank increase is slowing down. U will soon have the same web traffic as SS with no reason to slow down. Free vs pay. This is very bad. If you scroll down to the chart showing traffic entering the site from a search engine, you will see SS consistently dropping while U search traffic steadily and rapidly increasing. It makes sense that this search engine traffic would represent customers searching for images rather than contributors who enter the site through saved bookmarks. We now this is the trend thats happening but my concern is the rate at which it is happening. Faster than I expected. https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/shutterstock.com https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/unsplash.com
  4. because thanks to our generous fellow photographers looking for quick and easy exposure and attention, free is now the new normal. Now that the fish are swimming elsewhere, all agencies will have to try and compete somehow to keep as much traffic as they can or die. The damage is done. Low resolution images for web use *will* be free legally or not. At best, full resolution images may retain some value on pay agencies when the leeches get tired of the much smaller libraries of the free sites. Maybe.
  5. When the lawsuits start flying from unreleased images, its going to get very messy very fast. These sites are manipulating photographers and buyers saying these images are free and wide open to gain massive web traffic and kill the paying market. Images with trademarks like disney, spalding or nike. Its crazy and suicidal. Thats why micro agencies are being super paranoid about copyright violations and releases for people and buildings right now. They see whats coming. These free sites say they are trying to change or revolutionize the market. I think they are just trying to starve out and kill the existing agencies, so they can take over and start charging money themselves later.
  6. The view stats on the site are padded and dont reflect actual real interest in your work. Every image that returns as a search result on a page of thumbnails counts as a view for said images... even if the viewer is quickly scrolling past them searching for something else. The more broad a topic your image is about, the more searches it will return in. They design things to make the contributors feel super stoked about themselves and keep adding more free content. I think any promotion that leads to paying work on such a platform would be a small percentage. Most traffic will just leech images and move on.
  7. A chef spends his time and money to cook food and give it away for free on a busy city street. He feels good about himself for helping out his fellow man. People now start catering businesses using said free food to make profits for themselves at almost no cost. Its just a hobby, so its all good. Alot of these free images are very good. they have honest value. Far better than amateur shots on SS. Choosing to throw that value away just so others can exploit it is naive and lowers the value of our work and its future. Our choices are important. I'm sure the whole purpose of that site is to gain massive web traffic for future advertising leverage and profit for themselves while everything else burns.
  8. Stock photo sales are crashing everywhere. Research yourself about where creators are getting photo content now. Its literally a feeding frenzy over at Unsplash for completely free full res images and alot of the quality is actually good. The site creators treat the contributors great in a free and open community to polish their egos with millions of views/downloads in order to manipulate them to give their property away for free. The site gets constant growth in traffic and positive media publicity while the photo industry goes down the drain thanks to the mindless sheep being led to slaughter. Images that cost time and money to create being given away for free does not create future value and is not sustainable. Consumers now think they deserve photos for free. Free commercial use of unreleased images of people and trademarked property. When the lawsuits start flying, it will all fall apart but the damage is already done in the minds of the buyers and the perceived value of an image. And its all because of the choices made by the photographers themselves.
  9. Its a buyers market because of agencies like SS deliberately lowering their standards and flooding the market with garbage. Its because of free(commercial use) RF sites popping up and manipulating contributors to give away their images for nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling as they watch others make real money off their property. Soon free will be the new normal. As long as contributors continue to supply under these conditions, agencies will continue to exploit it to lower their costs. Its our property and our choices that allow it to happen. IMO
  10. Because contributors being ripped off for their undervalued content will keep getting worse everywhere as long as places like SS keep being *rewarded* for their actions. The "its better than nothing" attitude just validates what they do and makes it worse. They give you less profits to manipulate and motivate you to give them more quantity to try and offset your losses. This strategy makes them richer at your expense. At all of our expense. If contributors accept this behavior, images will have ZERO value and all agencies will be free RF images like many sites that are already out there now.
  11. SS will continue to increase their profits off of your property while you continue to get less. Thats the new reality you must accept. Everyone just keep your head down and shovel faster to stay in the game like good little slaves.
  12. Portfolio deleted and moving on. I'm done with the neglected upload/review issues, image theft and constant decline in sales due to SS favoring low quality images that break their own rules. I have zero respect or trust for SS anymore and simply refuse to support them and their practices. Its too much of a struggle to function in this environment for declining returns. Crossing your fingers and hoping it'll get better only benefits them and wastes your time. Your images are your property and investment and they deserve better.
  13. If the strategy of microstock is to make profit from a high volume of low value sales, then at what point does everything collapse? From what I've seen, It seems that all microstock sites are racing to lower their prices and inflate their libraries as fast as possible to increase their collective sales. The quality requirements go down and contributor volume rapidly goes up. This increases the collective volume of sales for the agency, while the sales for most individual contributors rapidly decreases. The agency wins and the contributor loses. The library becomes buried in substandard images. The customers become too frustrated and look elsewhere to meet their needs in a timely manner. Combine this also with the ever increasing number of low quality free image sites popping up stealing customers away as well. The microstock contributor is now struggling to get any sales at all...for mere quarters. The contributors are unhappy with increasing efforts being met with pathetic returns. The customer is unhappy with decreasing quality of images that are more difficult to find ones that meet their needs. Unless you have an existing portfolio of 5000 images or more already in place, I dont see how any future efforts in microstock are worth the effort to try and grow. The only way microstock can be viable for the individual contributor is with a volume of sales that cannot be achieved anymore under such conditions. Does it not leave the contributor hungry for an increasing value to their now low volume of sales in order to continue selling stock? Does this not eventually leave the customers hungry for better quality of images and customer service? So if I'm reading the terrain correctly, does this not mean microstock trending tragically downwards and macrostock trending upwards in the future to meet these needs on both sides? If the contributor is going to struggle to get any sales at all, one may as well have some self respect and aim upwards instead of down. Continuing on this path only makes Shutterstock more rich at our expense and they have proven often enough they have no respect for the contributor. I'm sitting here editing new images and I find I dont feel good about wasting it on microstock anymore. Will the future of stock return to macro? Thoughts?
  14. A week ago the forum wasnt responding and I couldnt login. Now it just failed 2 times to login to the main contributor site(oops something went wrong error). Never ever had these problems before. Anyone else?
  15. SS must be favoring the high volume uploaders and letting them bypass the whole review process completely. It increases the library the fastest with the least amount of work, which equals maximum profit for them regardless of the quality of the content. They couldnt review it all manually fast enough anyways. I'm betting they blanket reject most of our images because our contributions are too small to waste time over. Again... the least amount of work. Quantity now has value over quality. 100 similar images of the exact same thing is acceptable while 2 related images are rejected for being too similar. The uploading and review problems are never fixed because it only applies to regular low volume contributors forced to use it that have no value to SS. By these rules, I doubt the game is worth playing for most contributors. ... and I still dont trust they are reporting our sales to us honestly.
  16. Wow. Its funny how SS routinely accepts images that completely break their own rules. How do these huge sets of uploads even get through when ours have huge failure rates *every time* when following the rules? Favoritism to certain contributors who get to bypass the review process completely? Something is going on. Its like conditions for some groups of contributors are being made intentionally more difficult. But that would be a conspiracy theory, so it couldnt be that.
  17. its on the main submit.shutterstock.com page before you log in. The grapefruit/citrus is on the login page.
  18. I wasnt sure if people understood what I was talking about after I posted it, actually. I was just annoyed having had many images rejected for far far less of quality issues. It seemed kind of insulting. Just my opinion.
  19. It was pretty cool to see large growth over the last couple of years... especially last year. A small port yields small profits but the growth ratio is what matters to maximize results. Thats all gone now. With all of the site issues, total complete crash of sales and Shutterstocks new way of running things, I'm not submitting here anymore and am going to submit elsewhere. SS makes it far too much of a struggle to be worth the time and effort here.
  20. To be clear ,the image is the photographer and waterfall against the sunset one on the front end of the contributor site. Horrible color aberrations and fringing on the person and rocks in the lower corner. Looks blurry overall. Distracting perspective distortion on the photographer. Blown out highlights. All reasons they reject images for everyday and they put that front and center to show to new contributors? I guess it does reflect the overall quality and apathy of Shutterstock these days.
  21. Regardless of what most people say around here, its not only about the portfolio size. Most larger portfolios only have a select few images that sell consistently because of their content . Your subject matter must be something in demand for commercial or editorial use. Shooting random things and hoping they sell does nothing. My portfolio is 1 page and would sell between 5-10 images a week with steady growth... at least until a few months ago. Now most peoples sales are dead.
  22. Thank you for your recent upload to Shutterstock. Not Approved Unfavorable lighting conditions Ambient light is not complementary or is distracting Lighting is flat and lacks contrast Image is too high in contrast or has an unacceptable lighting ratio between the key and fill light Color Fringing / Chromatic Aberration Chromatic aberration, also known as color fringing or purple fringing, is a common optical problem that occurs when a lens is either unable to bring all wavelengths of color to the same focal plane, and/or when wavelengths of color are focused at different positions in the focal plane. Chromatic aberration is caused by lens dispersion, with different colors of light travelling at different speeds while passing through a lens. Color fringing manifests as colored edges (red, green, blue, yellow, purple, magenta) that appear around objects, especially in high-contrast situations, such as trees against the sky. Lens Flare Lens flare is created when a bright light source shines directly into the lens, resulting in streaks, polygonal shapes, or a decrease in contrast which causes an image to have a washed-out appearance. Lens Distortion Perspective Distortion: Perspective distortion is a warping or transformation of an object and its surrounding area that differs significantly from what the object would look like with a normal focal length, due to the relative scale of nearby and distant features.
  23. All of my top consistent selling images for years are now dead for many weeks here. No sales at all. I'm selling more at AS than here with less than 1/4 of the portfolio size. There better be something big like the rollout of a complete site redesign coming soon to fix things or I'm deleting my port and building elsewhere. Uploading and review is broken. Rampant Image theft. No support or acknowledgement that we even exist from SS. Its not just a matter of losing growth anymore, its harmful to our property to even have a portfolio here.
  24. SS will give a rehearsed token response once a month and members will keep crossing their fingers and hope it all gets better.
×
×
  • Create New...