Comments on: Shutterstock http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html For People Selling Photos Online Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:19:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: LEE http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html/comment-page-1#comment-49850 LEE Sat, 28 Nov 2009 05:57:15 +0000 http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html#comment-49850 AMEN - slides seem to count for nothing despite decades of being a professional and much published photographer! AMEN – slides seem to count for nothing despite decades of being
a professional and much published photographer!

]]> By: Lee Torrens http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html/comment-page-1#comment-43301 Lee Torrens Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:40:02 +0000 http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html#comment-43301 Hi Kobus, apologies for the super-late response. I'd suggest doing everything you can to get the photos looking as professional as possible. If they're comparable in quality to photos from a modern digital camera, then agencies have no reason to reject them. I'm not suggesting you break the rules, but submitting them without specifying they're originally from slides will ensure they're reviewed on the basis of the image quality, nothing else. Also see if you get better results downsizing the photos. This removes a lot of focus, noise and artifact problems. Otherwise, no, I don't have any information on attitudes of specific agencies towards slides. -Lee Hi Kobus, apologies for the super-late response.

I’d suggest doing everything you can to get the photos looking as professional as possible. If they’re comparable in quality to photos from a modern digital camera, then agencies have no reason to reject them. I’m not suggesting you break the rules, but submitting them without specifying they’re originally from slides will ensure they’re reviewed on the basis of the image quality, nothing else.

Also see if you get better results downsizing the photos. This removes a lot of focus, noise and artifact problems.

Otherwise, no, I don’t have any information on attitudes of specific agencies towards slides.

-Lee

]]> By: Kobus Smit http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html/comment-page-1#comment-26298 Kobus Smit Sat, 07 Feb 2009 10:21:03 +0000 http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html#comment-26298 Dear Lee I submitted my 10 slides last night and no one was accepted, but I am not very worried because Istock has accepted 3 of the photos and me as a contributor. Looking at their comments on my submission I also get the idea that Shutterstock are not very keen to accept slides. Do you have any information on their attitude towards slides? Regards Kobus Dear Lee

I submitted my 10 slides last night and no one was accepted, but I am not very worried because Istock has accepted 3 of the photos and me as a contributor. Looking at their comments on my submission I also get the idea that Shutterstock are not very keen to accept slides. Do you have any information on their attitude towards slides?

Regards
Kobus

]]> By: FEOJ http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html/comment-page-1#comment-21125 FEOJ Thu, 06 Nov 2008 01:19:43 +0000 http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html#comment-21125 Ran into the same problems (poor images, etc) from 3 other agencies. One had the comment "35mm slides are not a viable format, we accept only digital. Scanned 35mm slides are also not accepted". So much for my collection of 12,000+ images from the late 1960's to 2002.... Ran into the same problems (poor images, etc) from 3 other agencies. One had the comment “35mm slides are not a viable format, we accept only digital. Scanned 35mm slides are also not accepted”.

So much for my collection of 12,000+ images from the late 1960’s to 2002….

]]> By: Lee Torrens http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html/comment-page-1#comment-20950 Lee Torrens Mon, 03 Nov 2008 02:14:30 +0000 http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html#comment-20950 Hi FEOJ, This is a common complaint from established professional photographers. Ironically, quality standards are much higher in microstock compared to traditional stock and many other photo markets. You need to play the game a little until you figure out what it is the agencies are seeking. Also remember that the 'application tests' to get approved to submit to some of these agencies are tougher than regular reviews - they need to see that you're going to be a profitable contributor. -Lee Hi FEOJ,

This is a common complaint from established professional photographers. Ironically, quality standards are much higher in microstock compared to traditional stock and many other photo markets. You need to play the game a little until you figure out what it is the agencies are seeking.

Also remember that the ‘application tests’ to get approved to submit to some of these agencies are tougher than regular reviews – they need to see that you’re going to be a profitable contributor.

-Lee

]]> By: FEOJ http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html/comment-page-1#comment-20937 FEOJ Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:11:07 +0000 http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html#comment-20937 Twice tried to submit images to Photostock and got a "photos are poor, not professional" response. Ironic, as I have been in freelance photography since the 1970's. The fact that the images I uploaded were Kodachrome25 slides, later scanned in, also got me a negative response. I got the impression that the uploaded images have to be digital in origin. Which bums me out, considering I have a few thousand slides in binders... J Twice tried to submit images to Photostock and got a “photos are poor, not professional” response. Ironic, as I have been in freelance photography since the 1970’s. The fact that the images I uploaded were Kodachrome25 slides, later scanned in, also got me a negative response. I got the impression that the uploaded images have to be digital in origin.

Which bums me out, considering I have a few thousand slides in binders…

J

]]> By: microstockphoto http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html/comment-page-1#comment-20744 microstockphoto Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:15:03 +0000 http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html#comment-20744 Shutterstock is the best selling micro stock site for most microstock photographers (including myself) so we can't simply ignore it. But the race to submit more and more just to stay visible is driving me crazy: we are forced to engage in shooting "quantity over quality" which is not what I like to do. How long this model will be sustainable? Shutterstock is the best selling micro stock site for most microstock photographers (including myself) so we can’t simply ignore it.

But the race to submit more and more just to stay visible is driving me crazy: we are forced to engage in shooting “quantity over quality” which is not what I like to do. How long this model will be sustainable?

]]> By: Erik Kolstad http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html/comment-page-1#comment-13238 Erik Kolstad Thu, 03 Jul 2008 08:25:47 +0000 http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html#comment-13238 Come July, I decided to delete all my images from Shutterstock. I only had around 100 uploads there, but after having considered for a while, I just couldn’t live with being paid $0.25 per download. In just over three months, I made $98 on 390 downloads. This is the comparable to what I would have made on one download of a medium-sized royalty-free image at the PhotoShelter Collection, to where I am slowly moving my portfolio. [...] The rest of this blog entry can be read on my new photo blog (click on my name above). Like Lee, I will share my microstock earnings each month. The gist of it is that with small portfolios, you make next to nothing on SS. With a larger portfolio, you make more, of course. But if you divide your earnings by the hours spent shooting, editing, keywording etc., I'm not sure you'd be happy with the results. I'm moving to PhotoShelter. EWK Come July, I decided to delete all my images from Shutterstock. I only had around 100 uploads there, but after having considered for a while, I just couldn’t live with being paid $0.25 per download. In just over three months, I made $98 on 390 downloads. This is the comparable to what I would have made on one download of a medium-sized royalty-free image at the PhotoShelter Collection, to where I am slowly moving my portfolio. [...]

The rest of this blog entry can be read on my new photo blog (click on my name above). Like Lee, I will share my microstock earnings each month.

The gist of it is that with small portfolios, you make next to nothing on SS. With a larger portfolio, you make more, of course. But if you divide your earnings by the hours spent shooting, editing, keywording etc., I’m not sure you’d be happy with the results. I’m moving to PhotoShelter.

EWK

]]> By: Lee Torrens http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html/comment-page-1#comment-10556 Lee Torrens Mon, 19 May 2008 01:03:50 +0000 http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html#comment-10556 Yes, some people downsize their images before uploading to Shutterstock as they don't like that the subscription model gives buyers full sized images for such a low per-sale commission. The contrary argument is that buyers will sometimes choose another image if yours isn't available at full size. You choose which one works for you. I don't downsize for Shutterstock. -Lee Yes, some people downsize their images before uploading to Shutterstock as they don’t like that the subscription model gives buyers full sized images for such a low per-sale commission. The contrary argument is that buyers will sometimes choose another image if yours isn’t available at full size. You choose which one works for you. I don’t downsize for Shutterstock.

-Lee

]]> By: Richar http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html/comment-page-1#comment-10547 Richar Sun, 18 May 2008 16:09:34 +0000 http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock.html#comment-10547 SS says to send full-sized images. Don't upsize or downsize images. What does this mean exactly? I constantly read here and in other forums how peolple do just the opposite. I want to shoot in large full-size RAW and convert (downsize?) to 5 MP Jpeg to upload. Is this the way to do it or not? SS says to send full-sized images. Don’t upsize or downsize images. What does this mean exactly? I constantly read here and in other forums how peolple do just the opposite. I want to shoot in large full-size RAW and convert (downsize?) to 5 MP Jpeg to upload. Is this the way to do it or not?

]]>