pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Photo rejected multiple times at SS  (Read 4956 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 02, 2016, 16:28 »
0
Hi all,

This photo and few others from the batch has been rejected 6 (!) times at SS, due to various reasons every time (all except for legal ones, since the pictures were submitted as editorial with all the rules adhered to). I've given up with SS for this batch, but will appreciate your feedback, to improve in future, as perhaps I'm missing something...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2g9dxtgw3e47hs4/IMG_7027.jpg?dl=0

Thanks a lot.

P.S. Needless to say, this photo has been accepted at all other major agencies from the top and middle tier. SS is such an SS...


« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2016, 16:43 »
0
over exposure, editorial only

« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2016, 13:33 »
+8
Six times???  I admire your persistence.   But I have to ask, why on earth are you wasting time re-submitting this?  Life is too short and by re-submitting even once you are most likely wasting more time than you will ever earn back.


« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2016, 17:46 »
0
over exposure, editorial only

did editorial. as for overexposure, personally don't think so and so did four other microstock agencies which accepted the batch. but thanks for your feedback though.


Six times???  I admire your persistence.   But I have to ask, why on earth are you wasting time re-submitting this?  Life is too short and by re-submitting even once you are most likely wasting more time than you will ever earn back.

first, because as my experience with SS showed me, resubmitting at SS can be quite successful. And secondly, from purely mercantile reasons: SS (unfortunately) generates the most for me as of today, and I want my good (subjectively) pictures to be available in their search.

« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2016, 17:57 »
0
It's a tad soft at 100% and there are trademark issues all over the place. I would even question the gold tower and the blue disc things as "needs property release". So Cesar is right about it being editorial.

« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2016, 18:29 »
+1

[quote ]
first, because as my experience with SS showed me, resubmitting at SS can be quite successful. And secondly, from purely mercantile reasons: SS (unfortunately) generates the most for me as of today, and I want my good (subjectively) pictures to be available in their search.
[/quote]SS is I think the biggest revenue generator for many of us.  But if they reject one of mine I move on and shoot something else.  I have on occasion re-submitted after correcting an image and I've complained and re-submitted whole batches when they rejected in mass.  But to go back six times?  You should take the hint and move on.  As to other agencies accepting it, so what?  Means nothing.

As to critique, honestly I would never have submitted that image in the first place.  I am astonished it was accepted anywhere.   (maybe I should adjust my standards:) )  The building has areas of overexposure, it looks like some motion blur or maybe just soft.  I suspect there would be copyright issues as well.  No reason not to give it a shot if you have the time but if they rejected it, move on.  Just my humble opinion of course but as others have said I agree with the reviewer.

« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2016, 22:42 »
0
Six times???  I admire your persistence.   But I have to ask, why on earth are you wasting time re-submitting this?  Life is too short and by re-submitting even once you are most likely wasting more time than you will ever earn back.

6 times,??? 6 new images would have got you 6 approvals instead of 5 more rejections.
i agree with jatrax. reject,... throw it away... move on... next !!!

one thing i can tell you about ss...
if they reject it... it won't sell.  8)
i don't care if the others approved it or what. ss is the only place that sells.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2016, 23:24 »
+3
Resubmit next month when the new batch of reviewers are hired and those that are harassing us now are fired or quit.  8)

Hi all,

This photo and few others from the batch has been rejected 6 (!) times at SS, due to various reasons every time (all except for legal ones, since the pictures were submitted as editorial with all the rules adhered to). I've given up with SS for this batch, but will appreciate your feedback, to improve in future, as perhaps I'm missing something...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2g9dxtgw3e47hs4/IMG_7027.jpg?dl=0

Thanks a lot.

P.S. Needless to say, this photo has been accepted at all other major agencies from the top and middle tier. SS is such an SS...

« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2016, 01:36 »
+1
It's a nice photo. Like others said, wait a while and re-submit together with other stuff.


« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2016, 09:19 »
+2
one thing i can tell you about ss...
if they reject it... it won't sell.  8)

I have some images that I have re-uploaded and they sell very well. It really depends on the rejection reason. But it's hard to understand SS rejections.

That said, maybe your strategy of discard the file and move on could be the most efficient in terms of productivity.

« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2016, 12:29 »
0
one thing i can tell you about ss...
if they reject it... it won't sell.  8)

I have some images that I have re-uploaded and they sell very well. It really depends on the rejection reason. But it's hard to understand SS rejections.

That said, maybe your strategy of discard the file and move on could be the most efficient in terms of productivity.

yes, in terms of productivity this is the work method i use , like the other person who advised before me the same.  the thing is , i believe , we are working against robots  ;)
you cannot fool the robots;
you change this, you change that, .. the robot sees it in the workflow ..
as i mentioned in the other thread, (re: spam)... you beat the robot with marijuana , tomatoes, apples.. because the robot of ss will review all that as perfect histogram, sharp, white white,
no blur in the foreground, no cut off zebra b*tt or man's tail etc  ;D ;D ;D (this will get you rejected
on bad composition or blur).  blue sky , and no creative lighting, (this will get you rejected
as unfavorable lighting or whatevr they call it in their disposition).

that is why a good image get rejected by experienced contributors
and marijuana and tomatoes get approved 100% by the millions each day  ;D

robot (like human) love marijuana and tomatoes

« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2016, 14:18 »
+3
It's a tad soft at 100% and there are trademark issues all over the place. I would even question the gold tower and the blue disc things as "needs property release". So Cesar is right about it being editorial.

lol

I seems that you don't read the posts ;) >> He told twice (at least) that the image has been submitted as editorial  :P
« Last Edit: January 04, 2016, 14:22 by Chichikov »

« Reply #13 on: January 04, 2016, 18:41 »
+1
It just looks fine to me. I don't see any special tech/compo issue either.
And definitely not overexposed.

« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2016, 22:33 »
+1
Personally, I'm just fed up with Shutterstock.   They reject images that are my best sellers at other sites.  They reject entire batches of images for intellectual property reasons when there are no infringments at all and when no other site has a problem with them.  One photo which is my best seller on two sites was rejected for poor cropping.  One image was sent with a vertical crop and a horizontal crop and the one was accepted and the other one rejected saying it was blurry.  That was kinda impossible since it was the same photo.  I have close to 90% acceptance on four other sites and yet Shutterstock rejects almost everything.  I just don't understand their review process at all.

« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2016, 09:32 »
0
I guess the rejection reasons were mainly softness and noise. Their technical quality requirements are ridiculous high. Some lens + camera combinations can't even meet those requirements. For the night shots anything handheld and with higher ISO than 200 is rejected in my experience. I'm using Olympus OM-D system. I upload my Shutterstock rejects to Getty Moment. They accept most of it, however income is lower.

« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2016, 11:48 »
0
when i was submiting images onto ss, rarely, i sent images twice - with corrections. because, even if really rear for me, their rejection reasons most of the time had sense. except "focus is not ..... where..." (they feel it fits best). actually, that was main reason i stopped upload and sell images at ss.
 nowadays i submit clips onto ss. i guess i re-submitted rejected clips (with corrections) only few times (editorial vs regular caption/description). i do not know if their standards regarding stills changed/evaluated, but if they rejected the same image twice, or even three times - it is most likely that something is really wrong with your image.
 

« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2016, 12:02 »
0
*for me this image looks as bad executed composite of Cologne dome, Rhine river promenade, lighting equipment for ice skating, with disproportions.
 i'm not saying that is the case, image is too small, but i'm saying my impression.
 

« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2016, 12:08 »
0
Just for everyone's information, people have started multiple resubmissions to SS because their review process has become seriously flawed.

Their sales are still good enough that contributors are still willing to make the effort, but I don't know how long that will last.

This particular image, though, I think isn't quite good enough to be worth the effort.  Just not *quite* sharp focus, not *quite* good exposure. 

I don't blame you for not believing the SS reviewers, though.

« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2016, 08:45 »
0
I think if you look to the left sky above the buildings it does look pretty noisy. (remember they are going to review this at 100%)

Editorial allows for some adjustment, I would check the rules on shutter stock for which adjustments are allowed if you could NR and maybe darken the skies a little, and reduce the file size as much as possible, I would say its good..as others have said maybe a little soft and i am not sure of the market for long exposure editorials..

....but its a nice pic regardless :)

« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2016, 09:36 »
0
nice pic but it really is overexposed and not sharp enough.

Always expose on the lights and in post lighten up the dark parts.  Maybe you should have made a HDR image

« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2016, 12:06 »
0
Always expose on the lights and in post lighten up the dark parts.

Wrong advice. Always expose to the right (ETTR) and reduce the exposure in post, to avoid having to lighten up the shadows and get your photo rejected for noise.

Otherwise, following the SS standard (as I understand it), the photo is rather soft and borderline from the noise point of view.
You might need a sharper lens and/or a better tripod.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2016, 12:27 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2016, 04:41 »
0
Always expose on the lights and in post lighten up the dark parts.

Wrong advice. Always expose to the right (ETTR) and reduce the exposure in post, to avoid having to lighten up the shadows and get your photo rejected for noise.

Otherwise, following the SS standard (as I understand it), the photo is rather soft and borderline from the noise point of view.
You might need a sharper lens and/or a better tripod.

isn't that sort of the same? concentrate on the lighter parts, without loosing the details? Just like we did in the old days with slide film.
Also easier to understand for the poster than ETTR (I had to check wikipedia for it).

« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2016, 05:18 »
0
Always expose on the lights and in post lighten up the dark parts.

Wrong advice. Always expose to the right (ETTR) and reduce the exposure in post, to avoid having to lighten up the shadows and get your photo rejected for noise.

Otherwise, following the SS standard (as I understand it), the photo is rather soft and borderline from the noise point of view.
You might need a sharper lens and/or a better tripod.

isn't that sort of the same? concentrate on the lighter parts, without loosing the details? Just like we did in the old days with slide film.
Also easier to understand for the poster than ETTR (I had to check wikipedia for it).

ETTR is the opposite. You "overexpose" when you take the shot and reduce the exposure in post. When you reduce the exposure, you also reduce the noise.

Besides, the analog-digital quantisation is not liniar, but logarithmic. The sampling is denser for the highlights. So you get more details in the shadows, if you push the histogram to the right and compensate in post.

Your advice, to push the histogram to the left and lighten up the dark parts, will amplify the noise. It is a good advice for negative film, but not for slides or digital.

Maybe this is why we can notice the noise in the photo presented by the OP, despite being taken at ISO 100.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: January 09, 2016, 05:33 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2016, 17:24 »
0
Resubmit next month when the new batch of reviewers are hired and those that are harassing us now are fired or quit.  8)


LMAO, that is the funniest comment and hopefully the best news i get for starting this new year.
good one, Striving  8)

i can see it now. all the harASSing reviewer(s) being marched to the door;
most of them nepotism case as their cousin's cousin's cousins , uncle, etc are no longer main shareholders, so ss can now sacked them.

let's hope the new ones are properly trained, and not have the same eye-sight and monitor problem as the existing ones, who keep see everything blur at 300% 100% and wrong WB.
also that they know how to set their monitor screen to show full screen instead of partly- cut off
so we stop getting the other rejection reason (Poor composition).

i believe the days of marijuana spam are numbered when the new reviewers come in. (i hope!!!)

« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2016, 17:07 »
0
Six times???  I admire your persistence.   But I have to ask, why on earth are you wasting time re-submitting this?  Life is too short and by re-submitting even once you are most likely wasting more time than you will ever earn back.

YES

Just the Facts

« Reply #26 on: January 17, 2016, 17:25 »
+1
one of the many challenges in this business is not to be emotionally attached to our images- easier said than done.  Just accept the reject and look at that image a few months down the road to see if you still feel it is worth resubmitting. Many times I've done this and most times I never resubmit it...

« Reply #27 on: January 21, 2016, 09:54 »
0
.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2016, 09:56 by lanabyko »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
3191 Views
Last post January 01, 2007, 15:16
by madelaide
0 Replies
561 Views
Last post April 16, 2013, 20:29
by aly
4 Replies
836 Views
Last post February 02, 2015, 09:03
by Mantis
1 Replies
547 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 11:21
by ShadySue
5 Replies
1236 Views
Last post January 28, 2017, 09:28
by salaaaah

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors