Author Topic: Shutterstock hates me. (Read 7091 times)

Whiz · « **on:** July 14, 2007, 15:48 »

Haha. Well, I tried submitting ten images to Shutterstock again but to no avail. These photos were ones that both iStockphoto and Dreamstime accepted. I thought they would stand a better chance at being accepted by Shutterstock since these other two microstock agencies accepted the images(especially iStockphoto). I was wrong. And here's the email(part of it). By the way, what does it mean when they just say rejected but don't say why? Thanks.

ID Status
------------------------
3851647 Rejected:
3851650 Rejected:
3851653 Rejected: Noise--Noise, film grain, over-sharpening, or artifacts at full size.
3851656 Rejected:
3851659 Rejected: Noise--Noise, film grain, over-sharpening, or artifacts at full size.
3851662 Rejected:
3851665 Rejected:
3851668 Rejected: Noise--Noise, film grain, over-sharpening, or artifacts at full size.
3851671 Rejected: Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.
3851674 Rejected: Focus--Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best.

chellyar · « **Reply #1 on:** July 14, 2007, 16:19 »

Can you post links to the images on the other agencies, then we might be able to help out with why we think they got rejected.

SS is harder to 'get into' than the other agencies, as their noise/artifact criteria is tighter than the others, I assume because they up-res the images for the larger file size downloads.. (That's only a guess, BTW)

Cheers, Chris H.

Whiz · « **Reply #2 on:** July 14, 2007, 16:36 »

pr2is · « **Reply #3 on:** July 14, 2007, 17:01 »

Whiz,

1. those that have no reason for rejection are as good as accepted - if not for other 5, they would be in. Don't assume that that will be accpeted next time you submit though, another inspector may have different opinion.

2. SS doesn't hate you (I know you were joking or half-joking). It's just too easy to take these things as personal while they are not.

3. Assumption that what IS accepted has a good chance to be accepted by SS and visa-versa is questionable. While chance is probably higher, it's never done thing. Not only criteria are different betwenn agencies but they vary even between reviewers within one agency, and I suspect same reviewer may look at things differently on another day... let me illustrate the point by two examples so it's clear that there is no straightforward logic and clean continuation in review/acceptance process. I'll post examples in two following posts.

fintastique · « **Reply #4 on:** July 14, 2007, 17:03 »

You need 7/10 to get in, five were rejected with reasons and the other five were actually OK, but 5/10 isn't good enough so they just write rejected.

What would be even better is re-edit your first post so we can see the SS rejection linked to the image at iStock to see if the reason was valid.

I personally think you may have OD them on isolated objects.

my suggestion next time, try the five they rejected with no reason and five non-isolated photos from your portfolio at DT (which can't find) anyway I am sure you will get some better ideas from other folk.

But I always thought it was best to give them as diverse a selection of technically perfect photos as possible.

Though I get the feeling its getting harder to get photos online these days.

pr2is · « **Reply #5 on:** July 14, 2007, 17:05 »

Two photos, same theme, slightly different execution:

Both are submitted to SS and IS. Each of agencies takes one, rejects one. You guessed right - they picked different ones

Easy to see, there iss no simple conclusion that what is good for one of them must be good for another.

leaf · « **Reply #6 on:** July 14, 2007, 17:09 »

i looked at your images at 100%?? or whatever it is at istock and they look pretty good.

Perhaps shutterstock feels they have tons of isolated on white images and are being extra picky about those for things like noise. There didn't seem to be too much noise really but if i were you i would get out a program like noise ninja and use a healthy dose of it in the shadows and on the solid areas, and make sure to pay special attention to solid reds and blues... but keep the details in the detail areas by masking out the 'noise reduction' layer (if you have noise ninja as a photoshop plug in)

and i am guessing after the first 5 didn't make it, they didn't bother checking the rest as you need 7 good ones.... they just stamped them as rejected.

pr2is · « **Reply #7 on:** July 14, 2007, 17:12 »

Image below was submitted to IS (among others) and accepted:

Now, another one is the same parrot, isolated:

Isolation is done is the same breath, meaning I did it when finished working on original without closing and reopening it. Thus, image is absolutely identical quality wise. Being submited a day later though it gets rejected by IS for artifacting (can you even see artifacts on a parrot feathers??

The only conclusion I can come to is, different reviewer...

Hope those two example show illustrate well how far from straightfoward the process is.

Oh, and I am with fintastique on the thought that more variety won't hurt in first 10

dbvirago · « **Reply #8 on:** July 14, 2007, 17:36 »

Yeah, my acceptance rate across the top 3 sites, DT, IS, SS are about the same, but the images they accept are different. I quit trying to guess who is going to take what. I throw the same images at everyone and see what sticks. Often, images I think will do great get scrapped across the board based on something I didn't or cant see. Recently I had one I thought was borderline, uploaded anyway. All 10 sites took it and it's selling a few on SS.

pr2is · « **Reply #9 on:** July 14, 2007, 17:57 »

Quite similar experience here dbvirago, and on top of that, I run into new suprizes when trying to guess what sells and what doesn't. Things that seem to me very stock-oriented sit ignored for weeks, things that I upload by "while at it, let's throw this one in too" imulse become popular with buyers... so I do now what you do, upload and let the nature take its course

Whiz · « **Reply #10 on:** July 14, 2007, 18:54 »

Well, that's good to know then. I wasn't really expecting to be accepted this time around, but I was hoping to at least get a few images approved. I had just assumed that since everything in the email said rejected that my images were still no where near Shutterstock's standards. I'm glad to see that I was mistaken. Five out of ten isn't so bad(for me). Maybe I'll get in next time. Thanks everyone.

codersys · « **Reply #11 on:** July 15, 2007, 17:16 »

I`ve tried to get in with them for the last 3 months in a row. I think my images have improved and I am getting closer slowly to getting in with them.

O well nevermind.

litifeta · « **Reply #12 on:** July 15, 2007, 17:45 »

I would ask for some feedback from their forums. Most of us here got rejected heaps of times before we actually got accepted.

I still have not been accepted at StockXpert, but that is my fault.

spartika · « **Reply #13 on:** July 15, 2007, 20:19 »

I just got rejected for the third time at SS. I too only submitted images that had already been accepted at iStock, Dreamstime and Crestock. This time around all 10 were denied; 8 of them for noise. It's really frustrating because they were all new shots that I had shot at 200 iso (the lowest my D70 will go) in good light. I'm pretty new to stock photography and I've been trying to be extra conscious of Noise and trying to avoid it in-camera.

I guess this means I'll have to invest in Noise Ninja, and start incorporating it into my basic workflow. Any other suggestions? Could it be that my lenses are sub-par?

pr2is · « **Reply #14 on:** July 15, 2007, 23:35 »

Good lighting and good exposure are crucial for getting noise-free images but even with all the right conditions it's not always possible to obtain fully clean shots right out of the camera. Best example is blue sky which is one of the worst noise offenders even when you do everything right. Hard to tell what caused SS rejection without seeing your images but if there is a lot of sky in those, pay special attention to it. You may be able to get rid of it without special software by slight blurring/masking. Don't overdo it, there is a fine line between cleaning out the noise and killing the details, I always do noise clean-up on separate level to mask out some parts if needed.

Sorry about rejection but really, it's rather rule than exception with SS to go through several of those before getting accepted.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #15 on:** July 16, 2007, 01:46 »

In this year I never heard of anyone who got accepted at SS without being rejected prior. Probabably thats policy at SS to tell the photographers what high standart they have. I do not think the standard is as high when you submit images. Makes me wonder if they rejected Iofoto the first time he applied

So take it lightely, be patiend and try again.

sharply_done · « **Reply #16 on:** July 16, 2007, 11:44 »

Quote from: Freezingpictures on July 16, 2007, 01:46

In this year I never heard of anyone who got accepted at SS without being rejected prior. ...

The only "Big Six" place that rejected my initial application was StockXpert ... what nerve! (playful grin)

Quote from: Freezingpictures on July 16, 2007, 01:46

... I do not think the standard is as high when you submit images. ...

I agree with this - I haven't had a rejection at SS in over 200 submissions! I sure wish IS was as lenient as their competitors sometimes are.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #17 on:** July 16, 2007, 15:23 »

I said I never heard of one, I didn't say I will never hear of one

sharply_done · « **Reply #18 on:** July 16, 2007, 15:52 »

I think you misunderstood my playful jab, Freezingpics - I meant "what nerve" to StockXpert, not you!

Mellimage · « **Reply #19 on:** July 18, 2007, 16:42 »

Ok if anyone gets annoyed with rejections, take a look at this thread - it made me laugh.

Amusing rejections

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock hates me. (Read 7091 times)

Whiz

chellyar

Whiz

pr2is

fintastique

pr2is

leaf

pr2is

dbvirago

pr2is

Whiz

codersys

litifeta

spartika

pr2is

Freezingpictures

sharply_done

Freezingpictures

sharply_done

Mellimage

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors