Frustrating rejections again at Shutterstock

[litifeta]

A few days ago I uploaded a collage of signs I have been selling for ages. Within hours of them being accepted they put me back into the sales I was having years ago. So I uploaded more.

NO GOOD.

I get the rejection message. POOR COMMERCIAL - we do not need images like this at this time.

I really wish the reviewers would have a look at what is actually selling before they send the messages out, it just makes them look like fools.

[null]

Yeah, Attila the reviewer, the wandering rogue reviewer, passed at SS again last week. It was a while ago. Don't worry, he likes to switch agencies 

[howardg]

You're not the only one...something wierd going on over there:

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34843&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[vphoto]

I was struck by that weired reviewing yesterday: 7 out of 8 LCV.

[CofkoCof]

Images rejected for LCV (funny topic):
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34913&highlight=

[vikavalter]

hey, look at this awfully exposed picture I shot, do you think I shall still give it a try to stock photography and shoot only isolated on white furniture or just dedicate myself to something like gardening?

[vikavalter]

really pisses me off when a reviewer is obviously so narrowminded that would reject everything that a is a bit more different from his/her taste
reeeaaally pisses me off beyond imaginable, I wish I could talk to that reviewer tet-a-tet and tell what  I think about exposure and where he/sh can shove his/her photography knowhow

[vonkara]

I started photography because I was drawing full size people and one draw was taking me 1 or 2 weeks each time. I say to me... hey in just one click I can have a full size image why not. So first I was creative I was trying different filters, angles many different framing in diverse situation.

Lately I discover that making a small amount of money was more attractive that continuing to be creative . What I find difficult whit creativity in stock it's that you have to calculate everything and then the wrong portion of the brain is working.

The only creativity allowed is in the photography concepts, at least for me because I'm not that good to go shoot in a rave party at 400iso and having great quality pictures whitout blur, correct exposure, everybody in frame... But at least my 1600iso pics are good to show to my friends

[Artistallen]

I have had trouble with them all week. And I thought it was just me. I could take the same subject, in the same lighting and seconds apart and one might be accepted and the other rejected on grounds of poor lighting. But the lighting was the same. I did not make sense. So, maybe I should shrug it off and keep going.

Artistallen

[null]

This is one they rejected last weekend for limited blabla due to framing and/or cropping and/or composition. How should I crop then? add 20 megabytes of grey space around the shot?

[vphoto]

nothing wrong with this good photo. if they said "due to haircut" would make much more sense 

[Jack Schiffer]

Your shot could be composed to tightly no copy space on either side

[vikavalter]

Your shot could be composed to tightly no copy space on either side

even an average designer can add copy space in 1 sec with even background like that

[null]

Your shot could be composed to tightly no copy space on either side

The background is single-color gray all over. Sample a point there in the background color and enlarge canvas as much as you like in any direction you like. I hate to sell dead pixels to a customer. This isn't politics 

[litifeta]

Just got this email from SS support:

We have been experiencing a small issue regarding batch rejections, we are working to resolve it now. We apologize for the inconvenience.

[null]

We have been experiencing a small issue regarding batch rejections, we are working to resolve it now. We apologize for the inconvenience.

What it really means is they are making preparations to behead the rogue reviewer.

[vphoto]

I feel the would be beheaded rogue reviewer is just a robot.

[Secretariat]

A newbie reviewer....you can train them as much as you want, theres still no telling whats gonna happen when they are turned loose on the queue!

[litifeta]

Yeah I figure hiring reviewers would be a lottery.

I used to have a media monitoring contract. Some reviewers would reject every story I sent in. Then you would get a blast from head office for not reporting an important story! I would say: "Check the reject bin baby, it is there".

[hospitalera]

This is one they rejected last weekend for limited blabla due to framing and/or cropping and/or composition. How should I crop then? add 20 megabytes of grey space around the shot?

Whoever s/he was, it was completely blind! Honestly Flemish I don't know your WHOLE portfolio but from what I know so far it is the best shoot ever! Sweet concept of teenage/ young people in love, simply gorgeous! SY

[miskolin]

I've also experienced that today, when all of my 11 pictures were rejected for:"Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect."
First of all I took photos in my studio, so there can't be poor lightning (i'd say they are over exposed if anything but not poor lightning), ok there is one with shadows but only one, and the last thing, i don't know how the white balance could be incorrect if i adjust my WB every time i go taking photos, and what is more I also correct every single picture in PS for those mistakes.

I'm already reuploading.

[a.k.a.-tom]

I just mentioned in another thread..

I'm finding this to be true... in my case,  everywhere.  I get a pic rejected for "not stock material", "Don't need any more of this/too many now"  or even for tech reasons that I feel are... really stretching the point....

I sit on the pic for a few weeks and shoot it in again.  I have lost count how many times I've done that, the pic gets accepted, and most importantly, it starts selling!
It's not a 100% sure thing, but,  I can comfortably say it's way better than half, probably closer to 75% success.

Try it, what have you got to lose.  If I had just let them all go and didn't do the resub a few weeks later,  my selling portfolio would be much smaller than it is now.  Go figure.!?!?!   I don't know why it is, but it is.

Perfect example is FlemishDreams' pic.  It's a great pic   (except as someone said, for the haircut...humm... let me think.... yeah, on second thought, ....I'd take that hair just  as it is in lieu of my bald head...  LOL)  =tom

[miskolin]

So if I get you right... all pictures that were rejected you reupload after few weeks with no major changes or what? Or do you take picture of the same thing again?

And do you say something to reviewer or just don't say anything? Because as far as I know you can get a warning for reuploading your images without any word to the reviewer why you reuploaded them.

[a.k.a.-tom]

So if I get you right... all pictures that were rejected you reupload after few weeks with no major changes or what? Or do you take picture of the same thing again?
And do you say something to reviewer or just don't say anything?

First, I don't just do it to be a wise guy, or a smart alec. And I don't reload every pic that is rejected.   I don't like my time being wasted so I try not to waste other's time either. 
I have had plenty of shots that , frankly, the reviewer was correct. They found a blemish I didn't see, those I correct and send back in. If I can't fix them, they go to the round file cabinet under the desk.
Other shots such as the  "not stock/we don't need/etc"   yeah,  I wait a awhile and I reload.   
     No I don't say anything to anyone..  and that's part of the point.  It wasn't stock worthy then but it is now.??

   Why?       I assume situations change and now someone is looking for those images,  or two,  a different reviewer who thinks they are indeed stock worthy is on duty. Who knows why it sucked in march but was good in april?   
              I guess that's the point.  The review system isn't perfect.
Neither am I.  Some outfits such as IS  invite you to fix and resub tech problematic shots and that's great. I don't get very many "not stock' rejections from IS.  I don't do it to SS & IS for one reason.  There, I have to agree with the reviewer most of the time.  It is rare that I get a reject from SS or IS that  I think is bogus.  AND... they are my bread & butter,  that's where I make the majority my sales & $$... SS & IS.

Just about everywhere else  I have  previously 'not stock/not needed' pictures selling well.              Go figure.   

At the same time,  Miskolin,  I've only been in the biz a couple of years.. there are many here far more wise than I.  It would be good to get a few more opinions.  As you should with any 'tips' you read anywhere.  It works for me but that doesn't mean it'll work for everyone.

I will give one example.  I have a long shot of a modern living room.  One of the first pix I uploaded when I got into this thing.  Some took it, some didn't.  One of the 'big 5' rejected it as 'not stock material' and a 'non-big 5'  rejected it for 'composition'.  Those that took it, started to immediately sell the thing.  Thru FT and just by surfing the net  I've found that a  paint manufacturer in France has used it in web ads and in print advertising.  An art seller in the U.K. has used it in both web and print ads (their designer took the shot, removed a plasma tv on the wall and replaced it with one of the artworks they are selling, looked really cool).  It's been used by a couple U.S. home/design outfits... and by unknown others for unknown reasons. The picture sells just about every day and some days 6-8 or more times across the board. It's sold in large format......  it just sells and continues to sell.
     The 'Big 5' outfit that rejected it as 'not stock material' .... unbeknownest to them,  has sold it just under 200 times AND..has sold with EL's (not stock material?).  Reloaded to the 2nd tier outfit a couple months after they rejected it for 'composition' , they've sold it  over 150 times in a matter of months.  Overall, the pic has sold nearly 2k times.  Considering it took me all of 2 minutes to walk in, compose the shot in my head, then in the camera... click... do the math.
     Soooooooooo  was it REALLY  "not stock worthy" and "poor composition"   Or did someone on the review screen make a bad call?
Well, in those two cases,  I see it as me doing those two agencies a favor in spite of themselves and their reviews.  LOL  They're making a helluva lot more money on those pix than I am... and their reviewers shot them down.
      I've got pix across the board that were rejected and I later reloaded, that have subsequently been published, some rejected for tech reasons, turned out to be 2 page large in magazines...  and yet some of those agencies now have them and are selling them making me money and themselves too......  as I said,  in spite of the reviewer that first shot them down.  And not knowing I resubed the original image and it was taken the second time.

     Why?          ........the review system isn't perfect.  One man's trash is another man's treasure.

To each his own.  It seems to work for me.... and really work for the agency, no?     
 =tom

[ichiro17]

Lack of controls over reviewers are really annoying for everyone.  Thats why if I feel a photo is good enough I will reupload it until it gets through and it usually does (especially if other sites accept it first try).

Worked a bunch of times and now I have great sellers because of it

[miskolin]

Thanks for that explanation!

[rjmiz]

I don't tolerate any reviewers rejections.....I find out who they are and threaten their lives.
I tell them I just got out of prison on parole, and say "Don't make me have another body"

God * reviewers. making bubble gum wages.

[null]

Sweet concept of teenage/ young people in love, simply gorgeous! SY

To be honest, this and all other shots of the series were all accepted by SS 5 days later after a resubmit (with a note to the reviewer). To please them, I made a tighter crop on this one (only cutting the gray slack) and more pop-up and less red in the other ones.

[miskolin]

So after resubmitting i got 10/11 accepted, yesterday result was 0/11.  So i guess some reviewers just don't care about their job.

[null]

So after resubmitting i got 10/11 accepted, yesterday result was 0/11.  So i guess some reviewers just don't care about their job.

A great target for a Tomahawk cruise missile  ;-)

[lisafx]

Glad I read this thread.  Thought it was just me.  Just resubmitted the 13 of a batch of 18 that were rejected. 

It still amazes me that some new or premenstrual reviewer can run amok for days on a site rejecting hundreds or thousand of acceptable images, with no oversight until contributors start a forum thread.

Glad Jon has stepped in and sorted this out...

[vphoto]

last two batches results: 30 of 32 admitted, 10 out of 11 admitted. I do not know if is due to the complaint I sent to them about 7 out 8 images rejected. No response from support. Glad to be lucky 2 times out of 3 then.

[takestock]

We work hard - we are at their peril!
We cant win em all - we wish we could but believe we should!!

[ichiro17]

NOthing has changed.  Woke up this morning to find 28 out of 30 rejected for "Composition" and "Poor lighting" meanwhile I have other photos with similar "composition" that are getting downloads daily and I have photos of a goalie playing hockey in which I can't control the lighting and the lighting is perfectly fine.  Here is an example at DT:

http://www.dreamstime.com/hockey-goaltender-image4079577

EDIT:

Its stupid crap like this that makes me want to go exclusive at IS.  In the end I hope that these companies get what they deserve for hiring idiots or trying to save money by using machines.  That said, I know that SS has been good in the past so I hope they return to that level - but given the recent events, it just seems to get worse.

[cdwheatley]

I had a couple rejected for composition a few weeks ago that are selling fine everywhere else. One is on the front page rotation at bigstock I thought that was kind of funny.

[Alatriste]

last two batches results: 30 of 32 admitted, 10 out of 11 admitted. I do not know if is due to the complaint I sent to them about 7 out 8 images rejected. No response from support. Glad to be lucky 2 times out of 3 then.

Curious.

Let me tell you a short history:

I sent my first 10 images batch. Rejected.

Next month I took the approved images, re-sended them with a new ones. They approved the news ones and rejected the others (approved in the first batch)

Next month I took the last batch approved images and re-sended with a new ones. New images approved, old images (approved in the past) rejected.

It was enough for me. This people are making fun of me, this is the last time I submit to SS. And so I wrote in the "note for reviewers" square.
I took 10 images that had been approved at least 1 time in the past and submited them...

Approved...

That is the way they test us...

[RacePhoto]

Trebuchet, I'm not making fun of your English, but the message makes little sense to me.

You say you had ten rejected from the first batch of ten and the next batch you included the accepted? Which were then accepted? If they were rejected how could there be anything accepted?

Maybe it's me and it's late at night. 

Did you submit the same images three times? Once accepted, then second time rejected, and then with the note, they were accepted? So isn't your portfolio filling with duplicates?

Doesn't SS get kind of angry that you are consuming their time, running tests and resubmitting accepted and rejected images, multiple times? I'd worry about being banned from the site.

I forgot about this thread and submitted a new batch tonight. I was going to wait until the all clear had sounded. Oh well, I'm getting ready for rejection.

[vphoto]

I think I understand Trebuchet. He was not accepted at SS and on his retries was resending to them images approved on failed attempts to be admitted. And again they rejected  some of the previously approved images. But the will power  was strong and he got in ... 

[gbalex]

I hope you are kidding

I have heard that you are not alone, others employ your methods.  They have ways of routing out cloaked reviewer identities. 

Inside stool pigeons etc. Then they make life hell for the hapless reviewers. This cuts way down on rejections

I don't tolerate any reviewers rejections.....I find out who they are and threaten their lives.
I tell them I just got out of prison on parole, and say "Don't make me have another body"

God  reviewers. making bubble gum wages.

[leszek]

These stories sound just...well, kind of unreal. Shutterstock on the whole appears to have pretty consistent review process, some of the rejections are (or used to be) a bit unjustified - but that was mostly due to sometimes a bit cryptic reason for rejection. But for the most part - the rejection is described well enough to have a second look at the picture - and to start wondering how I could have ovelooked this before ?  Most of the rejected images I was able to fix and resubmit - and they were accepted. I also learned to pay attention to things which the reviewer may be looking at, and to fix them before submission. Works for me.

[cdwheatley]

These stories sound just...well, kind of unreal. Shutterstock on the whole appears to have pretty consistent review process, some of the rejections are (or used to be) a bit unjustified - but that was mostly due to sometimes a bit cryptic reason for rejection. But for the most part - the rejection is described well enough to have a second look at the picture - and to start wondering how I could have ovelooked this before ?  Most of the rejected images I was able to fix and resubmit - and they were accepted. I also learned to pay attention to things which the reviewer may be looking at, and to fix them before submission. Works for me.

This one was rejected for composition

Please tell me how to fix it 

[vphoto]

make the sea deeper, the clouds and mountains higher, and most importantly bring the female with the umbrella to the closer scrutiny by  male reviewers.

[cdwheatley]

Thanks, I'll remember that for next time 

[fotografer]

This one was rejected for composition

Please tell me how to fix it 

My eyes are drawn to the driftwood instead of the women.  I think if you clone it out you'll have a good seller.

[hatman12]

Yes, I agree with that fotografer - the driftwood is a distraction.

[DanP68]

This one was rejected for composition

Please tell me how to fix it 

My eyes are drawn to the driftwood instead of the women.  I think if you clone it out you'll have a good seller.

I agree.  I don't think it is quite true that the image lacks composition, but the drift wood is distracting.  Plus, it is very harsh looking, which takes away from the idyllic nature of the image.  A little cloning, and you will be fine.  You might consider cropping a little closer too, at the same time removing some drift wood.

[cdwheatley]

I like the driftwood its a little different! I guess its just a matter of personal taste. I have a similar shot without driftwood already in my port. Also have a tighter crop. I think it will sell ok over time. I actually prefer this shot from a lower angle.  I was kind of surprised when Bigstock put it in the front page rotation. Thanks for your comments.

[madelaide]

I'm curious about this discussion.  I understand people may think they image could be better, but is it reasonable to have it rejected?  Colors are beautiful, exposure seems perfect, assuming that focus and noise are good, why reject it?

Regards,
Adelaide

[cdwheatley]

I'm curious about this discussion.  I understand people may think they image could be better, but is it reasonable to have it rejected?  Colors are beautiful, exposure seems perfect, assuming that focus and noise are good, why reject it?

Regards,
Adelaide

Right! and thank you! I think every picture in my portfolio could be improved in some way as I am my worst critic. This particular rejection made me kind of throw my arms up the air and say what! Normally I agree with reviewers as I feel they are more than fair with me. Hit me with noise, focus, artifacts, exposure issues, filtering, fringing, but composition? If it was cropped to tight I would understand that. I know there were a bunch of people that had similar problems a couple weeks ago, I just thought this was a good example of a bad review.

[fotografer]

I agree completly that this should never have been refused but the question was 'please tell me how to fix it'.

[cdwheatley]

I agree completly that this should never have been refused but the question was 'please tell me how to fix it'.

That was my failed attempt at sarcasm.
I'm no expert but, For me I focus on the color, feel, and concept. Is it inviting?, Is it balanced? could it be used to sell something?  The bigest problem I see is the umbrella. It sounded like a good idea at the time but if I did it again I would lose the umbrella. Unfortunately its not cheap to get there.  Its like the joke "how many photographers does it take to shoot (insert text)? it takes 100... one photographer to take the shot and 99 others to say how they would have done it different. I know Its not going to be one of my top sellers, but it will probably sell a little bit. The designers/buyers are king in the stock world, let them decide.

[stokfoto]

The image is on the front page of BS.congratulations.
funny isn't it one rejects it while another  puts it on the front page:)

I agree with the above comments  had I been the reviewer I wouldn't have rejected it however  I do agree that  it could be improved by  cloning out the drift wood.

[welshsnapper]

 
I'm fairly new to microstock libraries, but I've tried 2 - Shutterstock and Shutterfarm and I get the distinct impression, especially after reading other posters' comments, that these libraries are perhaps using some kind of automated assessment system. A whole batch of mine were rejected with exactly the same reason - 'image contains noise or pixelation'.

First question would be "well, which is it - noise or pixelation?"

I've checked the images in question and they are neither noisy - very clean digital images, and neither do they have any kind of pixelation.

I can only assume that these pictures had not actually been reviewed by a human being.

Can anone out there confirm this theory or otherwise please?

[peep]

What is shutterfarm? I have never heart of them. Does anybody have any experience? Are they worth joining for people who are already with shutterstock?

[welshsnapper]

Shutterfarm is a newish library which offers a payout of $0.50 per 'credit' where the number of credits required to buy an image is set by the artist.

[CJM Grafx]

I am glad to hear it's not just me then regarding SS!

I just found this web site and I am glad I did, there are a lot of great folks here with good advice. I was only submitting to IS, which I just started using at the end of last year, but based on info from people here I joined several of the others.

I submitted my initial ten images to SS this weekend and yesterday the first 4 were rejected, which means no submitting for thirty days now! Oddly enough, the four images that were rejected by SS are my best selling images at IS.

Any way, thanks to the great group of folks here. Like I said, glad I found this site.

Joe

[Snufkin]

I submitted my initial ten images to SS this weekend and yesterday the first 4 were rejected, which means no submitting for thirty days now! Oddly enough, the four images that were rejected by SS are my best selling images at IS.

Yeah, SS seems tougher than IS. I got accepted 2 weeks ago, that was my second attempt, got 9 out of 10 accepted.
Just pay attention to noise and lighting, Joe, because they are very strict about that. You might want also downsample the pics to 4-5 MP range, as it may help to conceal some flaws like e.g. noise.

If you got 6 at the first time, it is not bad at all, you will make it.
From what I have read many people have failed the first attempt, some had to try a couple of times.

[Waldo4]

As of late I've been getting a new rejection from them (2 in the last few weeks) that really bothers me.  They have been rejecting my shots for keyword spamming, which I do not do.

They don't tell you which ones they don't like unfortunately so you just have to guess.

The first one was a glass of beer and a bottle.  Simple enough, but there are 100000 of these shots so to stand out I got very descriptive.  I included all of the styles that it could be by visual inspection, it was a shot of a lighter German Dopplebock (and was in a Dopplebock glass), but I also included Belgian Dubbel and Scotch in the keywords, as by a visual inspection there is no way that you can tell the difference between some examples of these styles.  I dropped the ones that weren't 100% accurate (Belgian, Dubbel, Scotch) and wrote two sentences that completely described my shot, which happened to include every keyword and it got accepted on a resubmit.

Next was an isolated apple.  Again this is a shot that there are 1000000 of so I got very descriptive, and used a less common variety to stand out.  It is cross bred between a Jonathan and a Golden Delicious, a Jonagold.    It is an isolation with shadows, but I included a shadowless clipping path with the file, and indicated as such in the keywords, since lacking a description for buyers, the keywords become the description (some buyers search for files with clipping paths, IMO if it is contained in the file (and you put forth the effort to put it in when it wasn't needed) this should be indicated to buyers).  I am almost sure that one of the naughty words is either cross, path, Golden, or Jonathan, yet these words can describe the image 100% accurately (apple clipping path, Golden Delicious Jonathan cross, cross bred apple, etc...).  These searches however will eliminate most of the isolated apple shots out there, but my words are not innaccurate.  I resubmitted it with three sentences that described the shot that contained every keyword, (no inaccuracies in the sentences either), hopefully it is approved since there is no spamming.

This leaves me with a growing concern that I am going to have to write out descriptive sentences in the reviewer notes for every shot that I submit to justify my keywords, in the end making the submission process more difficult than IS's disambiguation.  Good keywording IMO is one thing that will make your shot found years from now.  If you can describe your shot in a manner that the search results return less than a page of shots, amongst the millions that they have, your shot has to potential to last a very long time.  Even though the search may be ultra rare (or never done), any search is possible, and I want to be included in all searches that are 100% relevant to my shot, even if it is at the expense of showing up in completely irrelevant searches (like religious searches with my apple - golden cross), it isn't my fault that they do not have something like disambiguation that would eliminate showing up in completely unrelated places.

[massman]

Who on earth is going to search with 'golden cross' when looking for an apple, if they are aware that this rare apple exists then surly the would use 'Jonagold'. I understand what you are saying, but I think you maybe taking it a bit too far.

[Waldo4]

Who on earth is going to search with 'golden cross' when looking for an apple, if they are aware that this rare apple exists then surly the would use 'Jonagold'. I understand what you are saying, but I think you maybe taking it a bit too far.

They wouldn't search with golden cross, but cross bred apple is a very legitimate search, as is red and golden apple, as is Golden delicious cross (this isn't the only one).

At SS red isolated apple might last a week before being buried to oblivion.  Absolutely nothing is inaccurate in my keywords, and they would give it rare search staying power.

[gborce]

So what is the best way to contact SS about these rejections? I wrote several times to their customer support through the 'contact us' link, but no reply whatsoever? Is posting to their forums better? Or is there another way?

Btw, I had the same experience with reposting lighting/composition rejected images, they usually get accepted after a couple of times, but it is a pain to do, and keep track of , especially when submitting to 10+ sites.  I only bother resubmitting for IS and SS anyway.