Jump to content

Adam Gladstone

Members
  • Content Count

    244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About Adam Gladstone

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

673 profile views
  1. For me, I’ve only begun to use AS recently and have started (with an exception or two) uploaded photos that have sold elsewhere so my port’s smaller there than here on SS. I started before the pandemic hit and noticed even then it seems to take longer to review photos than elsewhere. So as I work to slowly improve my skills and look take photos that aren’t of the “there are 1000,000 of X already here” variety, I’ll be in a better place to talk about how SS is doing relative to other sites. (so far SS has my biggest port, but want more comparable #s before I start to compare sites).
  2. All of the above and remember this is a marathon and not sprint. Remember that the photos might be used for various things, like ads, so remember to have at least some photos that have room for copy (might be less of an issue for something that's editorial. and even a photo with little space for copy might be useful in a calendar or something). As mentioned above, it's a combination of numbers (maybe not 10,000 photos, but more than 48. A port of, say 600 can give a steady if small number of sale a month. How many dpends on 1) the quality of the photos and 2) what people are looking for - though other variables are important as well (keywording, etc). Another similarly sized port might give many more sales if the quality is good (and matches what people are looking for, and the descriptions and keywords are good). A port of 6,000 or 60,000 would give proportionally more sales. A small percentage of your port will give most of your sales (I think the numbers I've seen is that 20 % of a port will give 80% of sales), and remember that photo might be up for a year or more before it sells. I've also seen people reporting a photo selling within 24 hours of approval as well! An old time member (who, from what I understand is no longer here on shutterstock, or at least in the forums) would often give the advice of shoot things that are unique to where you live/visit. You might have 2 photos of something up on shutterstock, but they're less likely to be sold if they're 2 of 1,000,000 photos on the site than if they're 2 of 100 photos of the same subject.
  3. I am not sure. Many of my photos are taken near where I live, so a potential keyword/keyword pair is “new england” (the six most northeast states in the U.S.). Usually I just put new and england as separate keywords. though searching for “new england” fall and then searching without the quotes gave the same # of results....
  4. Another reason that the photo might have been considered editorial rather than commercial is that the people are potentially identifiable even though we don’t see their faces. You don’t mention anything about having a model release.
  5. I haven’t been uploading much anyhow. At this point I might just work on my skills when I am able and upload more to other sites I am on. The latest site I’m on only has a small # of my port but to be honest I’ve only uploaded photos that have sold elsewhere first. Once I have uploaded most of not all of them ... i am not dure what I will do here. Maybe just keep what I have and upload at the other sites. One question for folks: Do you think people (or just yourself in particular) would be less upset if SS had gone to a model similar to another site, where when first posted, photos are "level 1" and go up a level if get bought/used/etc (pick your term) a certain number of times in a 6 month period (it could be a different time period) and what you get goes up accordingly. If not sold in the same length of time, the photo goes down a level (to 0 if unsold for long enough). So it's a "per photo" change, not a total reset of your whole portfolio... so if a certain set of photos keeps getting sold regularly, they stay at the higher level/tier. I suspect even the bigger earners here don't sell everything in their ports. And even for those that do, there's some percentage (likely 15-20% based on what I recall being quoted) that makes up most of their earnings.
  6. From what I recall reading/hearing when I first joined SS, is that they change the algorhythm(s) every so often so that the same images don't keep coming up in searches (give everyone a chance at being found I guess). Whether they still do that, or I'm not remembering correctly is a different story. that could be part of the reason as well. Of course if it's a new(ish) picture, if part of the search algorhythm is to also show new (or "fresh") content as well, that could be a reason as well, as someone else mentioned.
  7. I get that. Not that I recall seeing that line about portrait/landscape orientation, though it's been a long time since I've looked at that page. Though part of me still feels like certain subjects (eg, some waterfalls) might benefit if there are infrequent such pairs of photos. I'm not talking a whole port of portrait/landscape pairs, more like some small percentage (like 0.5-1% of a port). Not being one to be too ornery or wanting to be too antagonistic, I'm not about to test the waters with that thought.
  8. I agree. I'd not heard that advice. Ages ago when I'd done some reading about medium format cameras, I read (or think I did) that one reason to use them for professional photography shoots/advertizing shoots is that it gave the client flexibility in how to crop the image. Or at least something along those lines. Though I recently (a month or two ago I think, could have been a bit longer) submitted two images of a waterfall. One was landscape and one was portrait. And that's it. No 50 different angels No 50 slightly different views. Just the two and one got rejected for "being too similar". I just figured it would give a bit more flexibility to who needed an image of that particular waterfall.
  9. Not to hijack this thread, but I had noticed @Laurin Rinder hadn’t posted in a while (life got ahead of me and it’s been a while since I’ve been on the forums). Does anyone know how/where he is?
  10. THough I think I'll end up repeating some of the advice already given: 1) Give locations/names in your descriptions and keywords. Not just "mountain" or lake (which mountain, which lake) people may be looking for shots a particular location (eg, they're writing about Massachusetts here in the states, a picture of "motif no. 1" in Rockport Mass. might be what they need, but without the proper keywords, the photo won't be found). 2) If shooting wildlife and plants - give the common name in english (eg, ring billed seagull) and scientific name (Larus delawarensis) both in the description and keywords. 3) One piece of advice I've heard here in the forums, is to shoot things near you that are unique. Or if you visit places that aren't as well represented here on SS (EG, a quick search of "sri lanka" brings up ~252,000 photos, a quick search of rose brings 4,614,9897 images! 4) don't get discouraged. I think everyone who's been on SS long enough has had a photo or two that has sold for the first time a long time after being posted. Also, I think I've seen the figure ~15% of your photos will account for the majority of your earnings (I don't know if it's all, 50% or something like 80%. Others might recall, if they've heard similar figures).
  11. Other sites, as mentioned, give the submitters the option of putting photos out there for free. I'm not sure I'd want photos deleted or offered for free automatically if they haven't sold in _x_ amount of time. I've had photos that went a year or more before being sold (or between sales). On the other hand, if someone hasn't logged in for a some length of time (probably a better indication of someone is still active than time since last upload as some might go months without uploading due to illness/other work/taking time to improve their skill set/etc), deactivating them with a way of turning them back on, as you suggest, might be a way of cleaning up clutter. I've also seen sites that give a limit to the number of photos one can upload in a week, depending on the % approved (the higher the % images/videos approved, the more you can upload in a week. I think the max is 7,000.... I think you'd have to be doing it full time or a company with several photographers to get that high in a week).
  12. it is strange, but the URL does start with shutterstock... though it doesn't 100% mean it's legit, though it could be owned/operated by shutterstock. THeir facebook page does have photos with shutterstock watermarks on them. It'd be suspicious if it turns out that there isn't some real connection to SS (maybe one of the admins who reviews forums can enlighten us).
  13. I do know they selll. I do have a few flowers in my port, some of which have sold as well. I already do put the common name(s) and scientific names not just in the description, but in the keywords as well. And no, I wouldn't expect a huge amount of downloads, just a few more perhaps, if the photos were, say 1 or 2 out of 100 photos than if they were 1 or 2 out of four million photos.
  14. I think it's been mentioned ad naseum in other threads (mostly with new/newish submitters) about how nature shots - I think flowers in particular - is a saturated subject here on Shutterstock. I've also heard/gotten advice about submitting things that are unique, especially to areas near home (hey, not everyone can get to the Boston area, for whatever reason). One thought occured to me when I was going through some photos where I have shots of plants, flowers, etc where there are relatively few photos here. I'm talking like 90 photos, 78, 1150. Not millions, like if one searches for "roses" for example. Do any of the more experienced folks here think it's worth submitting photos of such subject matter even though it's nature photography? I realize the call for such photos might be small, but then again, stock photography isn't a get rich quick arena.
  15. It's something I'd considered. I think I'll have to revisit the idea once I've uploaded a few mor photos.....
×
×
  • Create New...