pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Frustrating rejections again at Shutterstock  (Read 21030 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 20, 2008, 04:47 »
0
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.


« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2008, 04:57 »
0
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  ;D

« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2008, 06:04 »
0
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

« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2008, 06:38 »
0
I was struck by that weired reviewing yesterday: 7 out of 8 LCV.

CofkoCof

« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2008, 10:37 »
0

« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2008, 10:53 »
0
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?

« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2008, 10:58 »
0
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

« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2008, 11:09 »
0
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 :)

« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2008, 11:45 »
0
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

« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2008, 12:48 »
0
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?

« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2008, 12:54 »
0
nothing wrong with this good photo. if they said "due to haircut" would make much more sense  :)

« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2008, 13:19 »
0
Your shot could be composed to tightly no copy space on either side

« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2008, 13:31 »
0
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

« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2008, 15:12 »
0
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  :P

« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2008, 17:09 »
0
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.

« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2008, 18:22 »
0
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.

« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2008, 19:06 »
0
I feel the would be beheaded rogue reviewer is just a robot.


« Reply #17 on: March 24, 2008, 06:46 »
0
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!
« Last Edit: March 24, 2008, 18:43 by Secretariat »

« Reply #18 on: March 24, 2008, 17:06 »
0
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".

« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2008, 17:11 »
0
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

« Reply #20 on: March 25, 2008, 12:59 »
0
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.

« Reply #21 on: March 25, 2008, 16:00 »
0
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...  LOL8)=tom
« Last Edit: March 25, 2008, 16:08 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #22 on: March 25, 2008, 16:30 »
0
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.

« Reply #23 on: March 26, 2008, 08:23 »
0
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?     
 8)=tom
« Last Edit: March 26, 2008, 09:18 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #24 on: March 26, 2008, 09:38 »
0
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


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
21 Replies
12794 Views
Last post September 15, 2006, 17:13
by beisea
0 Replies
3826 Views
Last post November 26, 2008, 12:15
by sharpshot
0 Replies
4378 Views
Last post January 21, 2009, 09:32
by sharpshot
22 Replies
10047 Views
Last post May 02, 2011, 13:54
by Morphart
18 Replies
10918 Views
Last post July 17, 2012, 08:11
by MarkRyanDesigns

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors