Jump to content

Firn

Members
  • Content Count

    1,243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Firn

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

1,643 profile views
  1. It's true that he didn't provide figures, but he made the mistage of showing his eaning charts and at some point had a SOD where he said how much he made from it when he bragged about and that SOD was clearly visible in the chart so his figures could be easily deducted from that and they were not impressinve at all. I made way more than him with a port not even half that size at that time. However, when I showed my chart im comparison he would refuse to believe it, saying it could have easily been altered... 😛 He was so set on believing that the quanitity over quality method was the only eff
  2. No, but you can try including them in the title and try rephrasing your picture's description so that it becomes clear. I sometimes have the problem with botanic names of tropical plants and while on Shutterstock usually writing such non-english names in quotation marks is enough, on Bigstock I have to write my titles in a way that even someone with half a brain can unerstand it. So, on Shutterstock I can for example write "Tropical 'Begonia Maculata' houseplant in flower pot" as title and in 95% that works, but on Bigstock I always have to write "Tropical houseplant with correct botanic na
  3. To be fair - if you read the reviews you will understand that most of the negative reviews are from people who signed up for the free trial not reading the conditions, so they weren't aware that they had to cancel (Sorry, no pity for people who think Shutterstock would just give them 10 free images out of the generosity of their hearts without any strings attached). These aren't really "customers". Just people who wanted 10 free images. And most of the rest from people who wanted out of their subsription for other reasons, but didn't understand that this is not possible without a fine. And
  4. The reviewer, person or AI, was correct. There are issues with all of these photos.
  5. From Shutterstock's Q2 2020 results: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4361410-shutterstock-inc-sstk-ceo-stan-pavlovsky-on-q2-2020-results-earnings-call-transcript
  6. There is no option to request payment on Shutterstock. You get your payment as soon as you reach your minimum payout. If you want a higher minimum payout, you can change it in your account settings.
  7. No, that's not correct. You just click on the "editorial" tab, no need to add it as a keyword. You only need to add "illustrative editorial" to the keywords if you wish to submit an illustrative editorial (=staged) image, but not for normal editorial images.
  8. While stock agencies don't exactly explain how their search algorithm works, there is nothing to indicate that an increased file count will make the search algorithm favor you in any way.
  9. Yes, started for me today. Until yesterday all sales on the map also showed up in the chart and the other way around, though there always used to be a time difference and the chart showed the sales according to US "Shutterstock" time and the map showed the sales according to my local time. But today it's not just a time difference thing as images keep showing up in my chart that don't show on the map during the day when my local time and US time both match the same calendar date.
  10. Since maybe 2 months I started having my images reviewed in different "rounds". Like, I will submit 15 images, all commercial, and maybe 5 will be reviewed instantly, and the rest will take hours, sometimes up to a day, even though they were all submitted at the same time. I suspect that one (probably the fast one) is an AI review that only is able to review certain images based on some criteria I don't know and what the AI can't review gets passed on to real people. Ironically I only get rejections in the first round of reviews, while I have a 100% acceptance rate for the images that take lon
  11. In the second image the roses are not sharp. The first one you had a very strict reviewer. The pages in the middle of the heart have a bit of a soft focus, the rest is sharp. Some reviewers are like that. There is an easy fix for your problem though: You seem to submit your photos in full size resolution. 8.104px × 5.968px. That's really not necessary for microstock where 90% of all images end up being used online in small resolutions. And even for most prints this huge resolution is not necessary. This large size will always make every soft focus very appearant and you seem to have a lot
  12. He can't make better descriptions, because he didn't create these images, so he has trouble even understanding what is shown in them. The one titled "An artwork of man and women" for example? That's Belle and the Beast from Disney's version of "Beauty and the Beast". Not original artwork from Disney, but the character design itself is copyright protected. Should not have been approved even if it wasn't stolen. Can be found all over google. I don't know about the other images, but one stolen image in a port is one too many.
  13. Since the photo you posted here is only 1.000px wide, it's impossible to tell from that size whether it's out of focus or not. One would need the full size resolution you submitted to Shutterstock to determine whether it is in focus or not.
  14. I filled it out once, but unfortunately it didn't make it go away and it keeps appearing annoying me. I see it at least once a day. Not sure why I keep gettng it anyways, as it's a customer survey, not a contributor survey.
×
×
  • Create New...