Jump to content

Adam Gladstone

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Adam Gladstone

  1. I’m a bit jealous. My port isn’t that large (about 678 photos) and I think it’ll be a while before I get to level 2 or 3. Hopefully as I think more about what’s unique about where I live and figure out what hasn’t been uploaded to death I can change that... Hopefully my newer photos look less like “snapshots”, as someone once described them (or at least that some of my photos looked as such). Also reminds me of the “discussions” about what’s important, quantity or quality. Just goes to show, it’s perhaps a bit of both. Like I’ve told “newbies” - a small port with well exposed, well compos
  2. So far I’m doing better download wise this April than I did last April. Though not enough to make up for the decrease in pay per download. Then again my port’s small, in nead of more local/unique stuff. So hopefully over time both will improve. Of course next year the number of April downloads could decrease.
  3. Here are some other ideas/suggestions, on top of what’s already been suggested. I’ll probably end up repeating a suggestion or two: 1) take a look at this thread (there may be other similar ones) where people post their most recent downloads so you can get a sense of what sells: 2) Take pictures of things that are unique to where you live - whether is plants and animals native to Brazil to man made objects. Just be aware that some places have restrictions on whether they can be photographed and then used for above and beyond personal use (eg, vacation pictures). the
  4. I think there was a thread once with the same question. My recollection was that when there's a dash, it means that SS discovered the (or at least a person if the photo has had multiple downloads) has used the photo for more than the initial license allowed (eg they downloaded it as a standard license but really needed the enhanced license). Getting more than 10 cents (or whatever pay level you're at) would go along with that I think.
  5. If it’s any consolation, I’ve had photos rejected here on SS for being out of focus that were accepted on other sites. I hadn’t much thought of resubmitting as some have suggested (other than one or two where I resubmitted with the phrase “narrow depth of field” when appropriate and got them accepted).
  6. This thread is bound to leave someone in a foul mood (pun intended). Anyhow here’s my contribution (uploaded before I found out about the “no ducks rule"
  7. Congrats! AS for the OP, I agree that it’s more likely the time of the year. If New Year’s Day had been a Monday, people would have been back to work by now (excepting those that work in, say, retail whose shops are open, work in healthcare, etc - those jobs that don’t stop just for a weekend). I’d assume that buyers pay the same rates they did before the change.
  8. For me, it’s been zero downloads so far. But then again my port is on the small side, and I do need to get some shots of the of the Boston area (even if it’s “just for editorial” - they sell too y’know. I know, maybe not as much as commercial, but....) that are under represented on Shutterstock. Plus the usual “getting unique stuff (not just specific to Boston/New England) up that are good commercial photos"
  9. In addition to Thijs’ comments, it can take time for photos to sell. In the past couple of months I had one photo sell that had been up for at least a year or two! This is a marathon, not a sprint. I can only see 5 photos in your port, not 13, but even 13 is a small number compaired to the hundreds of photos in some ports (like mine) and thousands in others. Never mind that there are more than 350,000,000 photos on SS at the moment. As for how many photos one needs before a sale occurs is something I don’t think anyone can say. Some people that have been on SS for a while have reported a
  10. While I’ve heard two opinions on the number of keywords. One is “more is better” and “more can hurt”, though each advice was on a different microstock site (the former here, I forget the other site for the second) so it might be more an issue with each site’s algorhythms. What’s probably more important, or at least just as important, is that the keywording be as accurate as possible. Don’t just say “yellow flower”, for example, but something like “Yellow day lily (scientific name here), seen blooming in the spring....” in the description and then using yellow, day lilly, the scientific name, a
  11. I’ve had some weirdness on the site with acceptances and rejections.... In one case the same photo rejected here on SS for focus was accepted on a couple of other sites. On the other hand I’d also submitted a small (two photos I think) batch of photos only to realize that I’d uploaded the wrong file on one of them - it had obvious sensor dust that I’d somehow missed before saving the image as a jpeg, it ended up getting approved quickly!!!
  12. It doesn’t matter if there’s no face. A person could still be recognizable without a face (eg, has a unique scar, or a tattoo - though that is also an issue based on other posts/threads I’ve seen here). SO it’s still possible that even without showing a face, there’d need to be an MR. as per this page: https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Why-was-my-content-rejected-for-Unnecessary-Release?q=model+release+body+parts&l=en_US&fs=Search&pn=1 if we’re talking body parts (eg, hand, knee, etc) and there aren’t any identifiable scars/tattoos, etc, then f
  13. The advice I think was for photos (which is what I thought/assumed the OP was referring to). I have all of about 2 or thre videos up. The original advice I saw was reguarding photos. How much time to take looking up scientific names I guess depends on the person and familiarity with his/her subject matter (and how often he/she is taking differente pictures with the same animals/plants/fugi in them). I am sure it doesn’t hurt. How much it helps is another matter.
  14. While I would agree that a caption shouldn’t be/sound like a caption for a science book. however I’ve heard the argument made for adding the scientific name of plants/animals/etc that are the subject of the photo. THe reason being, I guess/hopefully remember correctly, is that someone might not just be looking for a photo of “a seagull” but a specific kind of gull (A Caspian gull rather than a ring billed gull, for example) and the scientific name is a way of helping photos show up if the searcher uses the scientific name.
  • Create New...