Jump to content

peace baby

Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About peace baby

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. For me I had about 25% more sales than usual. But my earnings were 25% less. I thought I'd give it a month to see what the results would be. I haven't uploaded anything in a while as I've been to busy recently. My portfolio is small and my numbers are always small, but I need that extra bit of cash. Going forward I don't see myself having the motivation to upload here. I'll probably upload exclusively elsewhere and most likely disable sales here. I'm curious if anyone who has already disabled their port has seen an increase in sales elsewhere?
  2. Almost all my people shots are of the same person. However, for some photos I don't see any other photos in the 'Same model' section. Here is an example: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/toddler-driving-ride-on-car-outside-1185085279?language=en How does shutterstock decide when it's the same model? Do all photos need to have the exact same model release file attached to the image for that section to fill out? Since the model release asks for a description of the shot + shoot date, I'm often uploading new model releases for the same model when picture is in different settings taken on different days. Is this a mistake on my part?
  3. I did a search on bees. A lot of it looks decent at first. Probably very useful for lower res application like for social media, but if you zoom in you might find the image is oversharpened, or very cell phone like, or other weirdness. I think they are hoping it drives business to their other channels. Looking at there port on another site I noticed the resolution they offered was also slightly lower than images on their paid channels. There might be something to it. So far I've made more money on images that were available freely under a CC license on flickr than I've made on SS (but I've only been here a year, if I had started ss earlier I probably would have been ahead). However, I only made money on free images because people didn't follow my cc license properly, and when I had facebook pull down their viral content they decided to be generous with me. Overall, I came here because too many people were taking my images and not giving me credit (all I was asking). Some people did. In some situations even when they did try, and even when it was a big reputable company like National Geographic, they'd credit name or link wrong (mainly I wanted backlinks links to build the reputation of my websites). Anyone familiar with Cory Doctorow? He's published a lot of books at this point and preferes to make them freely available. This is him commenting on why. I think the free sites are doing it for the same reason. It's always a bit of a gamble. For it to work you need to be really good at what you do (I'm not a great photographer). ...or maybe it just works better in the book world were people still care to about possessing a physical book object over a digital download.
  4. It doesn't make any sense for them to do this intentionally. They seem to actively encourage as many uploads as possible. They don't want to give their customers limited options, constraining by a factor that is likely to exclude new fresher content would seem like a particularly bad idea, while other sites have the new content. It might seem like an easy fix to you but I've learned often to not underestimate the complexity of doing simple things in large sites. Particularly if it wasn't well coded in the first place....Given the other weird bugs on the site I wouldn't be surprised if there are some complicating factors in terms of how the overall site code was structured. The code behind how the search works is also likely longer than you think. There's mysterious algorithms involved in how ss chooses what to return first for any search and that likely incorporated resolution categories. Beyond that they likely have a couple of bugs fixes on the go, then hopefully sending it through a rigorous QA process before pushing changes live.
  5. I have the video upload for 4-5 hours via ftp. It completes 100%. Then the submission page tells me there was some error. Many people complaining about this in the technical issues section of the forum.
  6. What will you do once the bug is fixed? I don't think there is any advantage to shutterstock to do this intentionally. I'm sure they are eager to implement a fix. In the meantime you guys are lucky that you can upload videos at all. I haven't had a successful video upload since trying In mid-July.
  7. It seems to be a couple of random people in Montreal. The video channel that Jason posted also have a video interview with one of the founders. He mentions needing to figure out a way to monetize it and suggests the photographers would like some money too.
  8. Yes. I believe the individual in the blog referenced a couple mentions per 3 thousand downloads. Yet, unless they are lying, seem happy about the experience.
  9. Interesting. In chrome I don't see anything at all. I don't think I have any ad block on. I do see the small sponsored by message in safari on the home page only.
  10. It seems some pro photographers see it as an advertisement vehicle that is more effective than social media. https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/9312839751/what-i-ve-learned-after-sharing-my-photos-for-free-on-unsplash-for-4-years However, I'm not really trying to position myself to be a pro photographer. I'm just hoping for a little extra cash here and there.
  11. I'm not noticing ads or affiliate links. Initial thought that came to me is it's probably only the subject matter that people like to shoot for fun. When I looked I found I was wrong. I see staged business meeting photos with models. Seems other photo businesses are giving large photos away there as a way to advertise their own site with full res images.
  12. Lot's of people do like photography as a hobby. Evidently some people want to share their hobby for free. However, maintaining + distributing a large collection of photos online to a wide audience is not cheap. There current model is useful for getting attention but unless the owners are filthy rich and generous there's got to be a plan for monetizing this in the long term.
×
×
  • Create New...