Author Topic: Is Shutterstock for real??? (Read 32553 times)

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #75 on:** October 16, 2015, 10:25 »

Quote from: Hongover on October 15, 2015, 19:46

I got rejected quite a few times before I got in to SS. It took a while, but once I got in, things have been good.

We all play by the same rules. It doesn't matter if you have 25 years or 25 days. Just because you have 25 years doesn't mean the rules will be different for you. If you got a rejection, it just means you're going to be facing a lot of competition when you do get accepted.

Don't take rejection so personally. You're never too old to learn from it. Your posting sounds a lot like entitlement than anything else.

The basic point I have made is clear, and I am not taking it personally at all. I am still stuck in WOWSER mode. Very short lived experiment and I am more than over it.

marthamarks · « **Reply #76 on:** October 16, 2015, 10:38 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on October 16, 2015, 10:14

The rejects from various other agencies and/or secondary images have to go somewhere and they end up on microstock. Excellent secondary income from seconds and or rejects. Best images to high end RF markets and/or RM and the sloppy seconds go to microstock. It's really not that complicated.

Well I, for one, do not send my "sloppy seconds" to microstock. Those get cut and dumped much earlier than that.

Have you considered the possibility that if you hadn't sent your "sloppy seconds" to SS, you'd have had a better initial response from them?

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #77 on:** October 16, 2015, 10:47 »

Quote from: marthamarks on October 16, 2015, 10:38

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on October 16, 2015, 10:14
The rejects from various other agencies and/or secondary images have to go somewhere and they end up on microstock. Excellent secondary income from seconds and or rejects. Best images to high end RF markets and/or RM and the sloppy seconds go to microstock. It's really not that complicated.

Well I, for one, do not send my "sloppy seconds" to microstock. Those get cut and dumped much earlier than that.

Have you considered the possibility that if you hadn't sent your "sloppy seconds" to SS, you'd have had a better initial response from them?

Not for one second. Experiment failed. Those very same images are on IS making money. First sale within 2 days. Not bad for an out of focus image.

FYI there is a thread out there on MSG about 38 pages long talking about wonky wacky rejects and it is all from people who have made it onto SS. We all dance how we want to dance, and my experience from SS is that I don't want to dance that way. It's simple.

There is also another thread about image spam on SS. And trust me when I say this, if they take that crap and reject my "sloppy seconds" well what can I say?

Experiment failed. It happens.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #78 on:** October 16, 2015, 11:30 »

You are a top notch photographer, I am sure your best images would have gone being accepted. Sean doesnt get rejections on SS so you wouldnt either. You sent your second choice images to SS and they rejected them, not sure why you are surprised and came here with your pants in a twist and sound all buthurt, you dont even want to be on ss. and we all know IS would accept blurry images of a dogs ass these days so no challenge there

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #79 on:** October 16, 2015, 11:47 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on October 16, 2015, 11:30

You are a top notch photographer, I am sure your best images would have gone being accepted. Sean doesnt get rejections on SS so you wouldnt either. You sent your second choice images to SS and they rejected them, not sure why you are surprised and came here with your pants in a twist and sound all buthurt, you dont even want to be on ss. and we all know IS would accept blurry images of a dogs ass these days so no challenge there

Where was that thread with 38 pages of reviewers beating people up at SS??? at least the solution seems to be don't submit on Thursday. If there is debate about which is the best day to upload to a site does that not tell you there are problems there?

Slow learners like you don't even know what seconds are. There are RF images that are not worth the time of day for microstock price wise and then there are common images that are worthy of microstock - hence seconds.

Ask Sean. He might be able to clue you on to that one. Do you really think he dumps his prime images into penny stock? Wake the F*ck up man.

I would think if you could do the same you would. But some of us can't and for that they live their life all butthurt.

BTW I love that term Butthurt. Really. Good one.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #80 on:** October 16, 2015, 12:04 »

So you are saying Seans sloppy seconds get accepted and yours dont? Ok. there might be a clue there

Shelma1 · « **Reply #81 on:** October 16, 2015, 12:14 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on October 16, 2015, 11:47

Quote from: Microstockphoto on October 16, 2015, 11:30
You are a top notch photographer, I am sure your best images would have gone being accepted. Sean doesnt get rejections on SS so you wouldnt either. You sent your second choice images to SS and they rejected them, not sure why you are surprised and came here with your pants in a twist and sound all buthurt, you dont even want to be on ss. and we all know IS would accept blurry images of a dogs ass these days so no challenge there

Where was that thread with 38 pages of reviewers beating people up at SS??? at least the solution seems to be don't submit on Thursday. If there is debate about which is the best day to upload to a site does that not tell you there are problems there?
BTW I love that term Butthurt. Really. Good one.

You mean the thread where you refused to believe us and instead gave us all a stern lecture about your awesome editing prowess? I think ShadySue linked to it in this thread. Take a gander.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #82 on:** October 16, 2015, 12:15 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on October 16, 2015, 12:04

So you are saying Seans sloppy seconds get accepted and yours dont? Ok. there might be a clue there

No that is not what I am saying, but that is what you want to hear.

The thread is about the bizarre rejection reasons for many of my images I submitted... http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-reviewers-beating-me-up-anyone-else/ 38 pages of WOWSER from people who have made it into SS. Do you see the pattern here?

Interesting article for you to read, and maybe it will clue you into what sloppy seconds are. This article is very much true to how I decide what image goes where... because I can. I choose my prime images to go into a non micro environment either in RF or RM. And as this article points out weaker or common images go where they belong, my so called sloppy seconds go into micro.

http://pronaturephotographer.com/2010/04/where-to-place-your-agency-images-royalty-free-or-rights-managed/

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #83 on:** October 16, 2015, 12:17 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 16, 2015, 12:14

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on October 16, 2015, 11:47
Quote from: Microstockphoto on October 16, 2015, 11:30
You are a top notch photographer, I am sure your best images would have gone being accepted. Sean doesnt get rejections on SS so you wouldnt either. You sent your second choice images to SS and they rejected them, not sure why you are surprised and came here with your pants in a twist and sound all buthurt, you dont even want to be on ss. and we all know IS would accept blurry images of a dogs ass these days so no challenge there

Where was that thread with 38 pages of reviewers beating people up at SS??? at least the solution seems to be don't submit on Thursday. If there is debate about which is the best day to upload to a site does that not tell you there are problems there?
BTW I love that term Butthurt. Really. Good one.

You mean the thread where you refused to believe us and instead gave us all a stern lecture about your awesome editing prowess? I think ShadySue linked to it in this thread. Take a gander.

Yep that is the one

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #84 on:** October 16, 2015, 12:30 »

I stand by my previous comment, you are upset ss doesnt accept your sloppy seconds, no surprise, and IS did accept them, it is tougher to get into ss these days, no need to get upset

tickstock · « **Reply #85 on:** October 16, 2015, 12:46 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on July 26, 2015, 10:34

The reviews are incredibly inconsistent. Nothing to do with reasons needing work. They worked fine up untill this whole inconsistency started.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #86 on:** October 16, 2015, 12:50 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on October 16, 2015, 12:30

I stand by my previous comment, you are upset ss doesnt accept your sloppy seconds, no surprise, and IS did accept them, it is tougher to get into ss these days, no need to get upset

True dat, even if you are in you can't get in unless you re-submit the same images again and again and never on a Thursday.

As Shelma pointed out I thought it was a joke. And now I know it is. The only difference being is that before when I thought it was a joke I really was not experienced, but now that I am, I know it's a joke.

Monty-m-gue · « **Reply #87 on:** October 16, 2015, 12:53 »

it's a bit of a joke expecting *anywhere* to take and sell 'sloppy seconds' these days.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #88 on:** October 16, 2015, 12:54 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 16, 2015, 12:46

Quote from: Microstockphoto on July 26, 2015, 10:34
The reviews are incredibly inconsistent. Nothing to do with reasons needing work. They worked fine up untill this whole inconsistency started.

The troll get's trolled...

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #89 on:** October 16, 2015, 12:55 »

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on October 16, 2015, 12:53

it's a bit of a joke expecting *anywhere* to take and sell 'sloppy seconds' these days.

not on the micros - all of them. never has been an editing process and never will be. that said, good quality images will sell anywhere. when i say sloppy seconds i am actually referring to my secondary images as opposed to the real top notch ones. there are many images that don't even make it onto my back up plan, they get deleted.

Monty-m-gue · « **Reply #90 on:** October 16, 2015, 12:57 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on October 16, 2015, 12:55

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on October 16, 2015, 12:53
it's a bit of a joke expecting *anywhere* to take and sell 'sloppy seconds' these days.

not on the micros. never has been an editing process and never will be.

Yeah, whatever.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #91 on:** October 16, 2015, 13:11 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on October 16, 2015, 12:50

Quote from: Microstockphoto on October 16, 2015, 12:30
I stand by my previous comment, you are upset ss doesnt accept your sloppy seconds, no surprise, and IS did accept them, it is tougher to get into ss these days, no need to get upset

True dat, even if you are in you can't get in unless you re-submit the same images again and again and never on a Thursday.

As Shelma pointed out I thought it was a joke. And now I know it is. The only difference being is that before when I thought it was a joke I really was not experienced, but now that I am, I know it's a joke.

so you submitted your sloppy seconds to get rejections in order to come back here to prove a point

stockastic · « **Reply #92 on:** October 16, 2015, 13:34 »

Quote from: Hongover on October 15, 2015, 19:46

I got rejected quite a few times before I got in to SS. It took a while, but once I got in, things have been good.

We all play by the same rules. It doesn't matter if you have 25 years or 25 days. Just because you have 25 years doesn't mean the rules will be different for you. If you got a rejection, it just means you're going to be facing a lot of competition when you do get accepted.

Don't take rejection so personally. You're never too old to learn from it. Your posting sounds a lot like entitlement than anything else.

You gotta be kidding. 100% rejection for high quality photos accepted everywhere else? From a photographer with 3,000 on IS?

Some people seem to be stuck in denial, but it's blindingly obvious that things have gotten seriously weird at SS.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #93 on:** October 16, 2015, 13:39 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on October 16, 2015, 12:50

Quote from: Microstockphoto on October 16, 2015, 12:30
I stand by my previous comment, you are upset ss doesnt accept your sloppy seconds, no surprise, and IS did accept them, it is tougher to get into ss these days, no need to get upset

True dat, even if you are in you can't get in unless you re-submit the same images again and again and never on a Thursday.

As Shelma pointed out I thought it was a joke. And now I know it is. The only difference being is that before when I thought it was a joke I really was not experienced, but now that I am, I know it's a joke.

I'm just surprised, with your stellar editing technique, that anything you submit anywhere would be considered "sloppy seconds" or would be rejected, anywhere, even with capricious standards.

I work with great photographers all the time, and it's Murphy's Law...any time you select the photo you think is best for the job it turns out to be OOF, and you have to go with your second choice. (It's the same with video...the take you like is 1 second too long, or a shadow is in the shot, or someone sneezed in the background.) Even the very best make mistakes. We haven't seen the shots you submitted, so it's entirely possible they were OOF. Who knows?

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #94 on:** October 16, 2015, 14:12 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 16, 2015, 13:39

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on October 16, 2015, 12:50
Quote from: Microstockphoto on October 16, 2015, 12:30
I stand by my previous comment, you are upset ss doesnt accept your sloppy seconds, no surprise, and IS did accept them, it is tougher to get into ss these days, no need to get upset

True dat, even if you are in you can't get in unless you re-submit the same images again and again and never on a Thursday.

As Shelma pointed out I thought it was a joke. And now I know it is. The only difference being is that before when I thought it was a joke I really was not experienced, but now that I am, I know it's a joke.

I'm just surprised, with your stellar editing technique, that anything you submit anywhere would be considered "sloppy seconds" or would be rejected, anywhere, even with capricious standards.

I work with great photographers all the time, and it's Murphy's Law...any time you select the photo you think is best for the job it turns out to be OOF, and you have to go with your second choice. (It's the same with video...the take you like is 1 second too long, or a shadow is in the shot, or someone sneezed in the background.) Even the very best make mistakes. We haven't seen the shots you submitted, so it's entirely possible they were OOF. Who knows?

I am surprised as well, I edit all my work at 100%. I know what an OOF image is and I know what camera shake is - happens to all of us from time to time. I know what a sharp image is. I also know that having 7 out of 10 images rejected for being out of focus when they are tack sharp is what I am surprised at. I have had many images rejected over the years for various reasons, but never in my career have I had an image rejected for out of focus let alone 7/10. Just sayin.

Seriously do you really think with my background I would submit OOF images as an entry process for approval? Unlikely.

modviz · « **Reply #95 on:** October 16, 2015, 14:58 »

IMO "out of focus" is the SS's way of saying: "We don't think your image
will be commercially successful - a statement Deposit Photo uses and I
highly respect. They don't think it'll be commercially successful? Fine. I
can live with that....but to throw in some erroneous statement like: Your image
is out of focus - or your image is poorly composed is totally disrespectful to
professional photographers around the world.

My two cents.

tickstock · « **Reply #96 on:** October 16, 2015, 15:21 »

Having 100,000 sales on iStock says something about the quality of work. If Shutterstock thinks those don't have commercial value what does that say?

stockastic · « **Reply #97 on:** October 16, 2015, 15:44 »

I think the key to understanding all of this might be to realize that they really, really want to cut reviewing costs. There has to be intense pressure to increase profits, immediately, in hopes of getting the stock price back up.

If that's the case they might be playing a number of games. I personally think automated, software 'screening' is a part of it. They may also be giving the reviewers new or changed instructions every week, while at the same time seeing turnover due to low wages and enforced quotas. The result is some degree of chaos.

Their idea of 'commercial value' might change from week to week. They have so much in the archives now, they don't want to spend a dime reviewing anything that they think they don't need. A quick rejection costs so little compared to a full review - now multiply that by hundreds or thousands. Actual quality might be a much smaller factor than we imagine.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #98 on:** October 16, 2015, 15:56 »

Quote from: modviz on October 16, 2015, 14:58

IMO "out of focus" is the SS's way of saying: "We don't think your image
will be commercially successful - a statement Deposit Photo uses and I
highly respect. They don't think it'll be commercially successful? Fine. I
can live with that....but to throw in some erroneous statement like: Your image
is out of focus - or your image is poorly composed is totally disrespectful to
professional photographers around the world.

My two cents.

Totally agree

Shelma1 · « **Reply #99 on:** October 16, 2015, 15:57 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on October 16, 2015, 14:12

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 16, 2015, 13:39
Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on October 16, 2015, 12:50
Quote from: Microstockphoto on October 16, 2015, 12:30
I stand by my previous comment, you are upset ss doesnt accept your sloppy seconds, no surprise, and IS did accept them, it is tougher to get into ss these days, no need to get upset

True dat, even if you are in you can't get in unless you re-submit the same images again and again and never on a Thursday.

As Shelma pointed out I thought it was a joke. And now I know it is. The only difference being is that before when I thought it was a joke I really was not experienced, but now that I am, I know it's a joke.

I'm just surprised, with your stellar editing technique, that anything you submit anywhere would be considered "sloppy seconds" or would be rejected, anywhere, even with capricious standards.

I work with great photographers all the time, and it's Murphy's Law...any time you select the photo you think is best for the job it turns out to be OOF, and you have to go with your second choice. (It's the same with video...the take you like is 1 second too long, or a shadow is in the shot, or someone sneezed in the background.) Even the very best make mistakes. We haven't seen the shots you submitted, so it's entirely possible they were OOF. Who knows?

I am surprised as well, I edit all my work at 100%. I know what an OOF image is and I know what camera shake is - happens to all of us from time to time. I know what a sharp image is. I also know that having 7 out of 10 images rejected for being out of focus when they are tack sharp is what I am surprised at. I have had many images rejected over the years for various reasons, but never in my career have I had an image rejected for out of focus let alone 7/10. Just sayin.

Seriously do you really think with my background I would submit OOF images as an entry process for approval? Unlikely.

I've argued with them and they've argued back, "look, at 200% something or other is jagged." So I said why the heck would you look at it at 200%?

Their review process has been frustrating for 38 pages. So now you know. As others have said, you can try again and you might very well get a different result. It's up to you whether your bruised ego is more important than potential greater earnings, and of course there's no way to know whether you'll earn more as an indie.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is Shutterstock for real??? (Read 32553 times)

Rose Tinted Glasses

marthamarks

Rose Tinted Glasses

Microstockphoto

Rose Tinted Glasses

Microstockphoto

Shelma1

Rose Tinted Glasses

Rose Tinted Glasses

Microstockphoto

tickstock

Rose Tinted Glasses

Monty-m-gue

Rose Tinted Glasses

Rose Tinted Glasses

Monty-m-gue

Microstockphoto

stockastic

Shelma1

Rose Tinted Glasses

modviz

tickstock

stockastic

Pauws99

Shelma1

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors