MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Rose Tinted Glasses on October 09, 2015, 09:40
-
WOWSER!!! I am an IS exclusive with well over 100,000 downloads and well over 3,000 images online. I have well over 1,000 images on GI as a house contributor. I have made my living full time from stock for 25+ years. I have worked for some top name magazines as a regular contributor. I have done several ad campaigns. I have won awards for my work. I have coffee table books to my credit etc. etc. etc. and blah blah blah...
I thought I would test the water's and consider the world of being non-exclusive and start with Shutterstock. What a joke that turned out to be. 10 submissions, and 9 rejected for reasons that baffle me. How is it even technically possible to have a shot "out of focus" when it is shot on one of the top end cameras locked down on a tripod at f/8? < 7 out of the 10 for that reason alone. The other reasons were totally bizarre as well. Three of the images for lack of composition???
Needless to say I won't be going with that agency. You lost me and you lost me fast baby.
Again all that comes to mind on this rejection is WOWSER.
-
The "sharpness" thing is definitely kind of wacky. Some reviewers seem to reject for "not in focus" on images that are clearly quite sharp. Just sharpen them more to the point of verging on being oversharpened.
-
If you're an exclusive, how did you test the "water's" at SS?
-
If you're an exclusive, how did you test the "water's" at SS?
Pretty simple Sean, I uploaded 10 images as the starting process to "qualify" then I could make the next move if approved. But the next move from them was Check Mate so I will simply stay exclusive - seriously I won't sacrifice what I have for the incompetence of what I was just dealt. If I was a complete newbie I would have felt hurt and had all of my little bubbles popped, but I have been in this game longer than you and I can only say WOWSER. Unfuckingbelievable indeed.
-
The "sharpness" thing is definitely kind of wacky. Some reviewers seem to reject for "not in focus" on images that are clearly quite sharp. Just sharpen them more to the point of verging on being oversharpened.
That is simply too quircky for me. The images were fine and totally in focus. Shutterstock has shown me they are not the agency for me.
-
I don't think making or breaking on an entrance exam will tell you much.
Want to post the 10?
-
There is a reviewer at SS who rejects everything except 1 photo. You probably stumbled on him.
-
I can understand the frustration. If you're a pro and 9 out of 10 of your images are rejected by a clueless reviewer, you have that to look forward to with every submission. The process is so capricious there I now double upload everything just in case. That way I can just click a button to resubmit. Unfortunately, that means their simple upload process is made more complicated and time-consuming. (Not as time-consuming or complicated as FT or iS, however.)
-
I don't think making or breaking on an entrance exam will tell you much.
Want to post the 10?
I passed the entrance exam 25+ years ago. Putting on training wheels at this point in my career is not really the direction I want to focus on. I am amused at the rejection.
-
I can understand the frustration. If you're a pro and 9 out of 10 of your images are rejected by a clueless reviewer, you have that to look forward to with every submission. The process is so capricious there I now double upload everything just in case. That way I can just click a button to resubmit. Unfortunately, that means their simple upload process is made more complicated and time-consuming. (Not as time-consuming or complicated as FT or iS, however.)
I don't know about FT, but the process at Istock is seamless, just use deepmeta and zing it's done.
-
There is a reviewer at SS who rejects everything except 1 photo. You probably stumbled on him.
Rejection in general is part of daily life at Getty Images, you submit 10 images and they take 1-3 at best. Usually the rejection is based on an edit and accepting the best in the series. I only submit technically sound work, and to have my work rejected at Shutterstok on grounds of "out of focus" is laughable.
-
SS brings in about 1/5 of my income. If I threw a fit and didn't try to work into the system, I'd be missing out.
Even if you had the 10 approved though, that wouldn't tell you anything about whether to drop exclusivity.
-
WOWSER!!! I am an IS exclusive with well over 100,000 downloads and well over 3,000 images online. I have well over 1,000 images on GI as a house contributor. I have made my living full time from stock for 25+ years. I have worked for some top name magazines as a regular contributor. I have done several ad campaigns. I have won awards for my work. I have coffee table books to my credit etc. etc. etc. and blah blah blah...
I thought I would test the water's and consider the world of being non-exclusive and start with Shutterstock. What a joke that turned out to be. 10 submissions, and 9 rejected for reasons that baffle me. How is it even technically possible to have a shot "out of focus" when it is shot on one of the top end cameras locked down on a tripod at f/8? < 7 out of the 10 for that reason alone. The other reasons were totally bizarre as well. Three of the images for lack of composition??? Tell that to over 5,000 downloads at Istock.
Needless to say I won't be going with that agency. You lost me and you lost me fast baby.
Again all that comes to mind on this rejection is WOWSER.
I feel your pain. Getting old GI photos accepted by SS is a huge pain in a@@.
I had to re-process them in order to pay attention to what I know SS is nowadays very strict about. I am half way through. I have to admit that some of those 4 years old photos really need a re-process :)
Nevertheless, the approval process is chaotic, indeed. Some photos require 2 or even 3 attempts to get them through.
So I can't imagine how long it could take to re-process 3k photos.
-
There is no way SS doesn't want you. I remember when Istock lost it's exclusives enmasse a couple years ago they asked you to contact someone directly and I think it was a more or less direct pass once they saw the Istock port.
Anyone know if there is a name that Rose should contact? Was it the Anthony guy who used to be in charge of editorial?
-
RCG, You're experiencing a common problem. I just went through a similar situation at P5 with images. Drove me crazy.
-
I am not sure if you had a chance to look into this thread initiated by Scott Braut when he was at SS (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock/)) which was about 2.5 years ago. It mentions a blog entry (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock)) which is still there. There is an email id ([email protected]) that is mentioned. I don't know if it is still active.
-
SS brings in about 1/5 of my income. If I threw a fit and didn't try to work into the system, I'd be missing out.
Even if you had the 10 approved though, that wouldn't tell you anything about whether to drop exclusivity.
I am not throwing a fit. I was simply testing the water's, and I failed the test, or I should say Shutterstock failed the test. Either way, I still make very decent returns over at Istock and Getty Images and all this has proven to me is that I don't want to give up 5/10 of my income from Istock for this travesty in hopes of making it back. I can't run the risk of having 90% of my work rejected for silly reasons. Remove the logo I understand, but out of focus on a top end professional camera with top end professional prime lenses locked down?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-reviewers-beating-me-up-anyone-else/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-reviewers-beating-me-up-anyone-else/) here is 37 pages of people throwing a fit, or so I thought. This seems to be the norm, and it's a dance that I don't want to do. Sure before I thought it was a laughable post, but now from personal experience I can say I want nothing to do with it.
Risking a reduction of several thousand dollars a month inicome is not worth the risk in hopes to maybe get my images accepted and recoup that income.
The experiment failed and that is hardly throwing a fit.
-
Good to know that it's not only with us beginners. I am just starting and as a test to see how it goes, I selected 100 images to upload to DT, IS and SS. DT accepted 100, IS 80 and SS 18.
-
WOWSER!!! I am an IS exclusive with well over 100,000 downloads and well over 3,000 images online. I have well over 1,000 images on GI as a house contributor. I have made my living full time from stock for 25+ years. I have worked for some top name magazines as a regular contributor. I have done several ad campaigns. I have won awards for my work. I have coffee table books to my credit etc. etc. etc. and blah blah blah...
I thought I would test the water's and consider the world of being non-exclusive and start with Shutterstock. What a joke that turned out to be. 10 submissions, and 9 rejected for reasons that baffle me. How is it even technically possible to have a shot "out of focus" when it is shot on one of the top end cameras locked down on a tripod at f/8? < 7 out of the 10 for that reason alone. The other reasons were totally bizarre as well. Three of the images for lack of composition??? Tell that to over 5,000 downloads at Istock.
Needless to say I won't be going with that agency. You lost me and you lost me fast baby.
Again all that comes to mind on this rejection is WOWSER.
I feel your pain. Getting old GI photos accepted by SS is a huge pain in a@@.
I had to re-process them in order to pay attention to what I know SS is nowadays very strict about. I am half way through. I have to admit that some of those 4 years old photos really need a re-process :)
Nevertheless, the approval process is chaotic, indeed. Some photos require 2 or even 3 attempts to get them through.
So I can't imagine how long it could take to re-process 3k photos.
I have success processing my images once so processing them 2-50 times in hopes of getting them accepted is too time consuming. I'd really rather be out shooting or doing other things than sitting on the computer processing the same image multiple times to please a bipolar reviewer at Shutterstock.
I am a shoot, process, upload kind of guy. I don't fret about rejection and rarely if ever resubmit any rejections as I generally have faith in the process. But this rejection was simply over the top in my opinion.
Again, if I was a newbie I'd be in tears, but this is amusing.
-
Good to know that it's not only with us beginners. I am just starting and as a test to see how it goes, I selected 100 images to upload to DT, IS and SS. DT accepted 100, IS 80 and SS 18.
Based on your 100 as a beginner you are doing better than me, they would have only taken 10 of mine. :)
-
Either way, I still make very decent returns over at Istock and Getty Images and all this has proven to me is that I don't want to give up 5/10 of my income from Istock for this travesty in hopes of making it back.
I believe you'd give up a lot more than 5/10ths. If it's working, stick with it.
-
The rejections on SS are beyond weird. they have threads of complaints a mile long in their forums, but there doesnīt seem to be any improvement.
If I do bother to upload photos to SS these days, I downsize 36 MP files to 6 MP and increase contrast very much. They like eye popping images that just jump at you from the screen.
However, i really like them for video, fast inspections, hardly any rejections, good sales, sometimes better than pond5. Itīs like working with a different agency.
Maybe this is one way for you to try the many different agencies - do video first and get to know the different players. You will lessen your exposure to istock/getty but keep the steady returns from your photo income.
Also rebuilding your positions on any new agency with millions of files takes a lot of time. I have some bestsellers on SS and could probably expand that niche significantly, but I find that supplying high end photo agencies gives me better returns and is a lot less work.
But for video I fully recommend them.
If you do want to consider leaving istock, I would contact Blendimages, offset, stocksy etc...or any other macrostock house. Also increase your getty house portfolio. content that is expensive to produce is not getting enough downloads on the micros to make it worthwhile IMO. If you are an established pro and keep feeding into your port, it maybe different, but if you are coming in new and have experience, then macrostock is more interesting right now.
At least this has been my experience.
Here is Michaels experience, basically low cost mass produced for the micros, high end for macro. He has overtaken his old istock income, although he already did that in 6 month. But he is the only one I know who achieved that so quickly:
http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/the-state-of-the-microstock-world-and-me-in-it/ (http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/the-state-of-the-microstock-world-and-me-in-it/)
-
Nowadays going indy doesn't make much difference anymore.
Stick with it like Sean suggested! Unless you like to babysit all these agencies and give them a slap when they misbehave, which is 99% of the time.
As for reviewers, these are just people trying to make a quick extra buck in this business by spinning the wheel of fortune. More then half of them don't have a clue what they are doing. You can't take this business serious anymore.
Good luck with whatever you decide!
-
You can't take this business serious anymore.
Agree 100%. It's a circus.
Where to go though? I wasn't happy with Getty either - actually closed my account there. Returns weren't impressive, and them giving away my work was even less impressive.
-
Not saying the reviewer was right or wrong, or whether your images were in or out of focus since I haven't seen them, but stating that they were in focus because, " it is shot on one of the top end cameras locked down on a tripod at f/8," is confusing coming from an experienced photographer. We hear that a lot in these forums from beginners, but you know better. The type of camera has nothing to do with focus. A tripod can eliminate camera shake, but has nothing to do with focus. The aperture determines depth of field, but doesn't mean that the subject, or any part of the image for that matter is in focus. SS doesn't like narrow depth of field or selective focus, so that is something we have learned to live with or rant against, but we can't change it.
Having said that,
Currently, iStock is bringing in about 1% of my micro income and SS is bringing in about 47% (or 5/10) if you prefer. If it increased my income, I would gladly go exclusive at SS and wouldn't consider other sources for micro-stock. As you said, I'd rather be out shooting than doing repetitive work for minor increases in income.
In other words, if it ain't broke, why are you trying to fix it?
-
Proof if any were needed that the SS inspection process is seriously flawed. Whatever the merits of the pictures surely it can't make any sense if pictures that already commercially successful are rejected can it?
-
I think that SS always reject your first submition... i dont know... maybe to check your constancy or something...
Im vector illustrator (im not on photography) anyway my first submition was also rejected because of bizarre reasons, my acceptance rate is about 99% after i was accepted up to today.
-
I think that SS always reject your first submition... i dont know... maybe to check your constancy or something...
Im vector illustrator (im not on photography) anyway my first submition was also rejected because of bizarre reasons, my acceptance rate is about 99% after i was accepted up to today.
Which would be ridiculous in itself but the weight of evidence is overwhelming that the process is broken.
-
Proof if any were needed that the SS inspection process is seriously flawed. Whatever the merits of the pictures surely it can't make any sense if pictures that already commercially successful are rejected can it?
It wouldn't really matter if it was successful somewhere else. My 10K seller on IS has sold maybe a handful of times on the others.
-
Proof if any were needed that the SS inspection process is seriously flawed. Whatever the merits of the pictures surely it can't make any sense if pictures that already commercially successful are rejected can it?
It wouldn't really matter if it was successful somewhere else. My 10K seller on IS has sold maybe a handful of times on the others.
Reminds me of a rainy day project I've been meaning to get to. Track my top 10 at each agency to see how much they have in common, and which ones aren't.
-
I think that SS always reject your first submition...
SS didn't reject my first submission. They accepted all 10 images. Your statement is much too broad to be credible.
-
I think that SS always reject your first submition...
SS didn't reject my first submission. They accepted all 10 images. Your statement is much too broad to be credible.
I'm just speculating based on the evidence of my own experience and what i heard in the forum... too may first submissions with perfect images rejected... there must be an explanation ... maybe the explanation is not what i say before but there must be an explanation...
-
It took me several tries to get accepted at Shutterstock. But once I was it ended up being my biggest earner - and with the least amount of pictures (compared to what I have at other sites).
-
Not saying the reviewer was right or wrong, or whether your images were in or out of focus since I haven't seen them, but stating that they were in focus because, " it is shot on one of the top end cameras locked down on a tripod at f/8," is confusing coming from an experienced photographer. We hear that a lot in these forums from beginners, but you know better. The type of camera has nothing to do with focus. A tripod can eliminate camera shake, but has nothing to do with focus. The aperture determines depth of field, but doesn't mean that the subject, or any part of the image for that matter is in focus. SS doesn't like narrow depth of field or selective focus, so that is something we have learned to live with or rant against, but we can't change it.
Yep. Most of my images are shot handheld at f4 and I don't have any trouble with rejections. Very rare.
-
It is funny how many people excuse obviously inconsistent and sometimes obviously absolutely stupid way how SS deals with rejections. Im in this business long enough to recognize bad and good picture. If it gots rejected by 5 of 7 agencies, it is probably really bad. If it gets accepted by 5-6 of 7 best agencies, then the reviewer is probably idiot. The latter is the case with SS mostly... I dont bother with uploading bad pictures and Im with them since 2007. These "killing sprees" really bother me...
-
I think that SS always reject your first submition...
SS didn't reject my first submission. They accepted all 10 images. Your statement is much too broad to be credible.
Yeah. Me too was accepted first time.
-
Proof if any were needed that the SS inspection process is seriously flawed. Whatever the merits of the pictures surely it can't make any sense if pictures that already commercially successful are rejected can it?
It wouldn't really matter if it was successful somewhere else. My 10K seller on IS has sold maybe a handful of times on the others.
It will only really "matter" when it starts to impact on SS's bottom line - which it doesn't seem to (yet?) given their last set of figures.
-
Could be worse. They could be like DT.
-
I have met many old school photographers, professionals in the trade during 1990 and up to 2010, doing stock or "police and accidents".
They often failed to adapt to global crowdsourcing. Where people from Ucraine and Uri from Denmark simply produced a better product, because they produced a more precise, more striking content without distractions, that could be used globally and not only in the local media..
They could not compete or adapt. Their artistic development was halted because of greenhouse effects and lack of competition and it was characteristic that they said: " I like to shoot photos" and " I dont like to photoshop too much".
Which is exactly what you say.
So I think you should ask yourself if the istock greehouse has limited you and if you are competitive in a global crowdsourcing environment.
And I dare you: show us some of your photos.
-
I have met many old school photographers, professionals in the trade during 1990 and up to 2010, doing stock or "police and accidents".
They often failed to adapt to global crowdsourcing. Where people from Ucraine and Uri from Denmark simply produced a better product, because they produced a more precise, more striking content without distractions, that could be used globally and not only in the local media..
They could not compete or adapt. Their artistic development was halted because of greenhouse effects and lack of competition and it was characteristic that they said: " I like to shoot photos" and " I dont like to photoshop too much".
Which is exactly what you say.
So I think you should ask yourself if the istock greehouse has limited you and if you are competitive in a global crowdsourcing environment.
And I dare you: show us some of your photos.
If this were one exception......but its not
-
There could be two issues. Number one could be that this old school photographer has had images accepted by Tony Stone (I remember Tony Stone) 30 years ago that would be unacceptable by today's standards.
The second could be that the reviewing at SS is capricious and has been for about a year now. There's no doubt some reviewers just reject things to make whatever quota they've set for themselves.
But wasn't the OP the guy who lectured all the rest of us about editing and scoffed at our complaints about the reviews at SS? Or was that someone else?
-
But wasn't the OP the guy who lectured all the rest of us about editing and scoffed at our complaints about the reviews at SS? Or was that someone else?
"As per upload limits, Getty Images has none, but they edit, so if you get 10% in you are doing well, and it can also take weeks to get in image accepted, not the usual 5 minutes on every micro site.
It's actually very funny and sad at the same time, I remember reading on this very MSG about a photographer that bought a new camera and because of his camera his approval ratings soared. Did his/her skills suddenly get better? I very much doubt it.
My bet is on the for future of success is agencies that edit. I honestly think the micros have far too much crap to quality ratio."
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/fifty-million-stock-images-on-shutterstock-50-million!/msg428841/#msg428841 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/fifty-million-stock-images-on-shutterstock-50-million!/msg428841/#msg428841)
But like the rest of us, he's learned that rose-coloured glasses can only save us from what iS is doing for a short time:
"I could never afford to sell my work for 0.25c on up to 0.38c"
"http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/a-monday-like-sunday#/msg427253/#msg427253" (http://"http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/a-monday-like-sunday#/msg427253/#msg427253")
In fact, from that and other posts on that thread in particular, rtg implied that he did not submit to any micros, including iStock. Or at least, that was a reasonable inference.
-
Oh, then this thread is about comeuppance.
-
Either way, I still make very decent returns over at Istock and Getty Images and all this has proven to me is that I don't want to give up 5/10 of my income from Istock for this travesty in hopes of making it back.
I believe you'd give up a lot more than 5/10ths. If it's working, stick with it.
Hate to be picky, but we do all know 5/10 =1/2 from basic maths, right?
-
what does "comeuppance" mean, its a new word for me?
-
what does "comeuppance" mean, its a new word for me?
Google is our friend:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define:+come+uppance&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=o2cZVr0mzLRRque_iAI (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define:+come+uppance&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=o2cZVr0mzLRRque_iAI)
-
Either way, I still make very decent returns over at Istock and Getty Images and all this has proven to me is that I don't want to give up 5/10 of my income from Istock for this travesty in hopes of making it back.
I believe you'd give up a lot more than 5/10ths. If it's working, stick with it.
Hate to be picky, but we do all know 5/10 =1/2 from basic maths, right?
PB, that was certainly true when I was in grade school six decades ago. Haven't looked at grade-school arithmetic books since then, but I assume the basic math-facts are still the same.
-
Either way, I still make very decent returns over at Istock and Getty Images and all this has proven to me is that I don't want to give up 5/10 of my income from Istock for this travesty in hopes of making it back.
I believe you'd give up a lot more than 5/10ths. If it's working, stick with it.
Hate to be picky, but we do all know 5/10 =1/2 from basic maths, right?
PB, that was certainly true when I was in grade school six decades ago. Haven't looked at grade-school arithmetic books since then, but I assume the basic math-facts are still the same.
Was just teasing Sean about his 1/5 of his income and thinking hmmmm.... that's 20%, so to play with his figure of this I was suggesting I would potentially lose 50% of my at the beginning if I finally chose to drop being exclusive. I was only having a bit of fun.
-
I have met many old school photographers, professionals in the trade during 1990 and up to 2010, doing stock or "police and accidents".
They often failed to adapt to global crowdsourcing. Where people from Ucraine and Uri from Denmark simply produced a better product, because they produced a more precise, more striking content without distractions, that could be used globally and not only in the local media..
They could not compete or adapt. Their artistic development was halted because of greenhouse effects and lack of competition and it was characteristic that they said: " I like to shoot photos" and " I dont like to photoshop too much".
Which is exactly what you say.
So I think you should ask yourself if the istock greehouse has limited you and if you are competitive in a global crowdsourcing environment.
And I dare you: show us some of your photos.
I think you have missed the point and drifted on to a new topic in your condescending reply.
This is not about new school or old school etc or willingness to adapt, or crowdsourcing, or being better than anyone, or comeuppance etc. Yawn.
It was about being totally surprised at this bizarre rejection and the reasoning behind it.
There is another thread close by with 37 pages of loyal contributors saying the same thing. Are they the same type of people as you have portrayed in your reply?
-
I can totally understand Rose Tinted Glasses. That was one of the reasons I have stopped uploading photos and switched to videos instead.
-
Try again with the same 10. I'm almost certain they will get accepted. You got stuck with one of the exceptional reviewers. You'll make more money being on IS and SS. Once you get a nice automated workflow, you can work with other agencies. 8)
-
This thread is comedy gold, karma's a bitch, aint it op?
-
You may be right RoseTinted but a statement as "shutterstock loose me" or "they loose me" is certainly not the right attitude....shutterstock doesnt give a *** of who are you and how many prices you have won
I understand frustation but i still suggest you to retry and contribute to SS , not for proud or curriculum, but just because they are the best selling microstock agency...btw with your background im sure you can find some alternatives
-
I agree with Mojaric.
I know SS can be difficult but just giving up on them is just hurting yourself. If you dont want to submit for now it is fine but i would at least keep your portfolio there. It will not solve the problem to leave. Like i said this is like self destruction. For most people SS is the heart of Microstock and the other agencies sub earnings.
Mirco
-
What surprises me is that they donīt do anything about it. They have enough money to train their people well and create an inspection experience that is the best in the industry.
I know they are taking 600 000 files a week, but the interesting content is now often to be found on the smartphone agencies and none of those files would get into SS.
And yet that is the content everyone wants and what they have themselves on Offset.
Very strange.
-
without looking at the 10 you submitted , as SLocke asked, it's hard to be objective to sh*t on ss and side you.
but as already shown by old timers like from the other threads whining or justified complaining,
i can only say one of many things.
1) when i entered micro , many ppl incl lisafx, sjlocke, stacy newman,etc said, "if i had to do it today, i would not be so confident as when i joined IS, a long time back" (or something like that).
that was in the days when ss was in the upper 90s close to 100% on the poll results on this page
and IS was top contender and the others were quite good .
today, dt is a joke, as with BigStock, etc... and IS,.. well, you know..
and ss is like the remake of history of IS before they eff-up.
there is no more transparency in ss, and the review system is totally anal. lots of conflict of interest, if u ask me.
so lastly , my explanation of why you got rejected big time is that
most likely you got a reviewer who sees you as a big threat to be part of ss
as u would be taking a big chunk out of his/her pie.
if u submitted a real 10 of lousy laughable snapshots ... like the kind of stuff
you see sign-up/log in home page ie. capcha or that really out of focus pix of the lady with the black and white striped shirt holding the camera ..
i would bet you would pass the test with flying colours 8)
-
What surprises me is that they donīt do anything about. They have enough money to train their people well and create an inspection experience that is the best in the industry.
I know they are taking 600 000 files a week, but the interesting content is now often to be found on the smartphone agencies and none of those files would get into SS.
And yet that is the content everyone wants and what they have themselves on Offset.
Very strange.
I'm a fairly straight shooter here and I have to say that I really liked IStocks old inspection process. There were times when inspectors would write me a private note saying "this is a nice image, look at the top right, set Photoshop this way and then you will see what I mean". I REALLY appreciated them helping in that way and I not too often challenged the rejection because most of the time they were right, not all though. That editing discipline I still apply today even though they have poopoo'd their acceptance criteria. SS is the opposite. Very strict, but unknown guidelines, whether personal dislike for an image, images competitive with the inspectors, software pre-screening for sharpness, spending zilch time to really look at images, metrics they are measured against (# accepted v # rejected=job performance criteria), if one is bad they all must be bad rejections, etc. Bake into that the odd rejection reasons. That broadens the mystery. The lack of action & communication from SS almost smells of some kind of guilt, or exposing something they don't want us to know because it would be embarrassing to them. Why they just do not fix the behind the scenes problems is a mystery in and of itself as well. I am wondering if they started farming out inspections (maybe some but not all) to basement personnel to handle the flow of images and to cut costs for the shareholders and they also do not want us to know that. Every agency is trying to cut overhead and farming out inspections certainly could be one contributing factor. Link that to other broken process pieces within the inspection process and you have the critical mass of real system failures.
My last batch of 110 images wasn't too bad. I think I got 10 rejected. But other times quite the opposite. It's like probability. Flipping a coin, or for some, rolling a dice and hoping for a six.
-
I have met many old school photographers, professionals in the trade during 1990 and up to 2010, doing stock or "police and accidents".
They often failed to adapt to global crowdsourcing. Where people from Ucraine and Uri from Denmark simply produced a better product, because they produced a more precise, more striking content without distractions, that could be used globally and not only in the local media..
They could not compete or adapt. Their artistic development was halted because of greenhouse effects and lack of competition and it was characteristic that they said: " I like to shoot photos" and " I dont like to photoshop too much".
Which is exactly what you say.
So I think you should ask yourself if the istock greehouse has limited you and if you are competitive in a global crowdsourcing environment.
And I dare you: show us some of your photos.
Really 18+ likes
How soon we forget that IS "used to" have the toughest reviews in micro.
I do think SS farms out its reviews by region and who you get is the luck of the draw. Take a good long look at the new images coming in to shutterstock. Many of those images would have never made the reviews at the former IS.
The review process is flawed.
-
I really dont see the point of this thread as long as the images you submitted are not shown here. Or at least a link to your portfolio on IS.
Just not serious!
-
[/quote]
Really 18+ likes
How soon we forget that IS "used to" have the toughest reviews in micro.
I do think SS farms out its reviews by region and who you get is the luck of the draw. Take a good long look at the new images coming in to shutterstock. Many of those images would have never made the reviews at the former IS.
The review process is flawed.
[/quote]
I am not sure if IS was the toughest in the review process, but they were very tough once upon a time and I learned a lot of very good information during that process. If an image was rejected they were clear on why it was rejected and you could fix it - more often than not. And I have never had 90% rejection during the toughest period of IS days.
This whole notion of submit the same 10 images again you might get a different reviewer is not my game.
Anyway, that is enough from me, I just wanted to share what I thought was a very bizarre first experience in the review process at SS.
-
I always found IS to be tough but fair until they flipped to accept everything. I think SS have a certain type of stock style they like and if you don't fit then you are in trouble.
-
Maybe you could still learn something. If you think your photos are too good to be ever rejected, your photography will no longer progress.
-
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-reviewers-beating-me-up-anyone-else/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-reviewers-beating-me-up-anyone-else/[/url]) here is 37 pages of people throwing a fit, or so I thought. This seems to be the norm, and it's a dance that I don't want to do. Sure before I thought it was a laughable post, but now from personal experience I can say I want nothing to do with it.
Why didn't you add your tuppenceworth to that thread?
BTW, I have more sympathy than may be perceived with those wanting to give up iS exclusivity. iS is on a one-way trip to nowhere. Even those exclusives who did well via Getty will have their income cut via the new UltraPack reductions for image packs there, now available to everyone, as well as the behind scenes mega-low deals we already have experienced.
-
When I joined Shutterstock, I bypassed all of the BS by contacting them ahead of time, giving them a link to my portfolio and then arranging to send them a hard drive with a CSV file. They did all the work importing everything and I had like a 99.9% approval. Of the 8 files they rejected, I simply re-uploaded them and got 6 accepted with no edits.
-
I failed my first submission and I was pissed. I think most were underwater and I know what makes up a good UW pic. I think I had 7 of 10 rejected. All I did was submit another batch but with only one underwater image and the rest a cross section of images and all accepted. It is frustrating to get rejections indeed but that's this game. Doesn't mean it's fair by any means, just that it is what it is. Should SS fix it? Yes. Will they? They haven't yet, even in the face of being formally contacted by several big players about this mess they've created. I know one BIG player who has gone glamour and stopped micro stock altogether because of Istock and Shutterstock. She is extremely successful in her new business.
-
I have met many old school photographers, professionals in the trade during 1990 and up to 2010, doing stock or "police and accidents".
They often failed to adapt to global crowdsourcing. Where people from Ucraine and Uri from Denmark simply produced a better product, because they produced a more precise, more striking content without distractions, that could be used globally and not only in the local media..
They could not compete or adapt. Their artistic development was halted because of greenhouse effects and lack of competition and it was characteristic that they said: " I like to shoot photos" and " I dont like to photoshop too much".
Which is exactly what you say.
So I think you should ask yourself if the istock greehouse has limited you and if you are competitive in a global crowdsourcing environment.
And I dare you: show us some of your photos.
Really 18+ likes
How soon we forget that IS "used to" have the toughest reviews in micro.
I do think SS farms out its reviews by region and who you get is the luck of the draw. Take a good long look at the new images coming in to shutterstock. Many of those images would have never made the reviews at the former IS.
The review process is flawed.
I also liked the tougher reviews on IS. Maybe they will come back with the new CEO?
I think you are also right about SS, some reviewers are in NY the rest are farmed out to incompetent services.
The review process is horribly flawed and inconsistent.
The OP did miss some words in his rant about how wonderful he is and how SS is missing his work. SS accepts half a million images a week, they don't really care about any one of us. Those photos passed, didn't they?
This applies to all of us Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best. http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/why-images-get-rejected-for-focus (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/why-images-get-rejected-for-focus) it helps to understand what the rejection really means. It isn't just about sharpness.
-
There is a reviewer at SS who rejects everything except 1 photo. You probably stumbled on him.
I think, I've met two times with this reviewer:
-other reviewers accepts more than 95% of my vectors
-this reviewer accepted only 10-20%
He/she rejected even types of my images, that had 100% acceptance ratio after several hundred images uploaded.
-
Good to know that it's not only with us beginners. I am just starting and as a test to see how it goes, I selected 100 images to upload to DT, IS and SS. DT accepted 100, IS 80 and SS 18.
That's interesting! DT simply hate most of my works, but SS loves them (except one reviewer).
I haven't tried IS because they listed everything that I make in their we don't need list. :)
-
WOWSER!!! [...] I thought I would test the waters and consider the world of being non-exclusive and start with Shutterstock. What a joke that turned out to be. [...] a shot "out of focus" [...] The other reasons were totally bizarre as well. Three of the images for lack of composition???
Needless to say I won't be going with that agency. (...)
pretty similar to my own experience there. If they are over-saturated with photos (not too hard to believe, and their mass-market business model is increasingly failing) why are they trying so hard to seduce still more photographers into that outfit?!?
IMHO, they're a total waste of time (for photo submissions).
-
Has anyone ever got a notice of TECHNICAL GLITCH-please resubmit? What does this mean?
-
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.
-
I have well over 1,000 images on GI as a house contributor. I have made my living full time from stock for 25+ years. I have worked for some top name magazines as a regular contributor. I have done several ad campaigns. I have won awards for my work. I have coffee table books to my credit
The fact that you would bother with micro stock in the first place baffles me.
-
Has anyone ever got a notice of TECHNICAL GLITCH-please resubmit? What does this mean?
It means that there was a problem with uploading - like the file is corrupted or something and you should try again.
-
We all play by the same rules. It doesn't matter if you have 25 years or 25 days.
Thats the point I don't think we all get judged in the same way......opinion I know but I doubt the sheer volume of complaints from some very capable people is because they have suddenly become less comptetent.
-
I have well over 1,000 images on GI as a house contributor. I have made my living full time from stock for 25+ years. I have worked for some top name magazines as a regular contributor. I have done several ad campaigns. I have won awards for my work. I have coffee table books to my credit
The fact that you would bother with micro stock in the first place baffles me.
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
So you are saying Seans sloppy seconds get accepted and yours dont? Ok. there might be a clue there
-
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.
-
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/ (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/ (http://pronaturephotographer.com/2010/04/where-to-place-your-agency-images-royalty-free-or-rights-managed/)
-
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 ;)
-
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
-
The reviews are incredibly inconsistent. Nothing to do with reasons needing work. They worked fine up untill this whole inconsistency started.
-
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.
-
it's a bit of a joke expecting *anywhere* to take and sell 'sloppy seconds' these days.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
He already said he was Istock exclusive, and most his posts seem happy with it. This was just a experiment with SS and now he feels correct that he's doing right staying exclusive. Just my reading of the OP, but I don't think he was ever seriously gonna join SS.
-
It is characteristic, that both here and in the other 38 mile long whining thread, we never see any pictures.
So people can just whine and claim innocent and being abused or whatever they claim, without providing any proof.
So its just words and hurt emotions. Which is also the case here.
And now we hear that the OP uploaded some of his second hand images.
In my ears its a clean example of the greenhouse effect and a swollen head.
Can we see som pictures or will you stop whining, Please.
-
What do you suggest JPSDK? That we upload a 18mb image so you get a true sense of their error "out of focus"? IMO these posts are not filled with "whiners". How about Shutterstock come to the forum and reply to hundreds of consistent complaints? Maybe then, finally, it'll quiet us "whiners".
In my ears its a clean example of the greenhouse effect and a swollen head.
Can we see som pictures or will you stop whining, Please.
-
As has been noted before, enough people have resubmitted rejected files without alteration which then get accepted to show that either the rejecter/s or the accepter/s has the wrong take on the requisite standards.
-
I suggest you upload a 100% cut out from the image at least 500 pix wide, best wider. And then a small version of the total image.
Then we can all see and possibly judge if the reviews are wrong or not, and even give advice.
It would be a learning experience for us all, instead of just a talking experience.
-
As has been noted before, enough people have resubmitted rejected files without alteration which then get accepted to show that either the rejecter/s or the accepter/s has the wrong take on the requisite standards.
I have not seen them. But then again I do not follow things closely.
-
I have not seen them. But then again I do not follow things closely.
That's a given. Shutterstock rep Vincent responded immediately to "Has Shutterstock Been Hacked" yet they've ignored months of contributors questioning Shutterstock's reviewers.
-
Shutterstock rep Vincent responded immediately to "Has Shutterstock Been Hacked" yet they've ignored months of contributors questioning Shutterstock's reviewers.
Yep, I noted that too. Tells us something, doesn't it?
-
Shutterstock rep Vincent responded immediately to "Has Shutterstock Been Hacked" yet they've ignored months of contributors questioning Shutterstock's reviewers.
Yep, I noted that too. Tells us something, doesn't it?
They respond about important things like security concerns?
-
Shutterstock rep Vincent responded immediately to "Has Shutterstock Been Hacked" yet they've ignored months of contributors questioning Shutterstock's reviewers.
Yep, I noted that too. Tells us something, doesn't it?
They respond about important things like security concerns?
Yep, they do do that. But otherwise, they don't seem to take contributor concerns very seriously.
-
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.
He already said he was Istock exclusive, and most his posts seem happy with it. This was just a experiment with SS and now he feels correct that he's doing right staying exclusive. Just my reading of the OP, but I don't think he was ever seriously gonna join SS.
You have more or less hit the nail on the head. For the most part I am very happy as an exclusive albeit there are things over there that peeve me. The biggest peeve I actually have with IS is that once you are exclusive it's either you are all in or all out. I would love to see them go image exclusive. As they are not it's a bit of a stranglehold on my RF work, unless I contribute the "Getty Family" -puke. I know how to play the stock game and just wanted to explore options.
-
What do you suggest JPSDK? That we upload a 18mb image so you get a true sense of their error "out of focus"? IMO these posts are not filled with "whiners". How about Shutterstock come to the forum and reply to hundreds of consistent complaints? Maybe then, finally, it'll quiet us "whiners".
In my ears its a clean example of the greenhouse effect and a swollen head.
Can we see som pictures or will you stop whining, Please.
Some people seem to simply get stuck... they can't see the forest for the trees.
-
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.
He already said he was Istock exclusive, and most his posts seem happy with it. This was just a experiment with SS and now he feels correct that he's doing right staying exclusive. Just my reading of the OP, but I don't think he was ever seriously gonna join SS.
You have more or less hit the nail on the head. For the most part I am very happy as an exclusive albeit there are things over there that peeve me. The biggest peeve I actually have with IS is that once you are exclusive it's either you are all in or all out. I would love to see them go image exclusive. As they are not it's a bit of a stranglehold on my RF work, unless I contribute the "Getty Family" -puke. I know how to play the stock game and just wanted to explore options.
So one attempt and you give up? theyre accepting 500k images per week go figure
-
Shutterstock rep Vincent responded immediately to "Has Shutterstock Been Hacked" yet they've ignored months of contributors questioning Shutterstock's reviewers.
Yep, I noted that too. Tells us something, doesn't it?
They respond about important things like security concerns?
Yep, they do do that. But otherwise, they don't seem to take contributor concerns very seriously.
My two cents... they should ignore people like me and my concerns of OOF cause by definition they are in control of whether they want me or not so in effect I don't count. They want me to jump through hoops, and my gut says no thank you.
Now the other thread that is 38 pages long from accepted mostly dedicated contributors whining doing what I thought was whining from an outsiders perspective and based on total lack of first hand experience should warrant immediate attention from management. I don't count or matter in this fiasco, that is easy to sort, but now that I have been through it once, I am no longer convinced it is whining, rather a very legitimate voice of concern from dedicated contributors.
That is what I am seeing looking from the outside in.
-
My point being: Since noone shows their pictures, noone knows if you or the other 3800 people have a good case or not. So we dont know if the reviewers are correct or how much randomness there is in it. Or if you are right and misjudged. You could be, but we dont know.
-
they should ignore people like me and my concerns of OOF cause by definition they are in control of whether they want me or not so in effect I don't count.
Bingo!
-
they should ignore people like me and my concerns of OOF cause by definition they are in control of whether they want me or not so in effect I don't count.
Bingo!
And respond to a problem that is very real for their contributors. In case you have not noticed, I am not the only one with this problem. Interesting how you choose to only interpret and focus on a very small section of what I wrote and ignore the meaning of the whole narrative and twist it to suite yourself
Or is BINGO the same answer you give to the committed contributors to "their" 38 page rant regarding the very same buIIshit review I went through?
Funny thread that one 38 pages in total agreement on how bad things are - when have you seen that before on MSG?
-
Rose tinted.
Please realize that you have ventured the area of global crowdsourcing. There is no decency, there are no rules other than the rules of the people in power. You are being exploited, and noone cares if you live and die, they might even hope the latter, so that there is less competition.
Its globalisation and the payment is a bowl of rice per day. You put your head in and looked and it was ugly. Yes.
Get used to it, or do something.
... and we would be happy if you could, many have failed before you.
-
Rose tinted.
Please realize that you have ventured the area of global crowdsourcing. There is no decency, there are no rules other than the rules of the people in power. You are being exploited, and noone cares if you live and die, they might even hope the latter, so that there is less competition.
Its globalisation and the payment is a bowl of rice per day. You put your head in and looked and it was ugly. Yes.
Get used to it, or do something.
... and we would be happy if you could, many have failed before you.
Sorry to pop all of your little bubbles Grasshopper, but humanity has behaved like this since the beginning of time...
-
not here.
-
they should ignore people like me and my concerns of OOF cause by definition they are in control of whether they want me or not so in effect I don't count.
Bingo!
And respond to a problem that is very real for their contributors. In case you have not noticed, I am not the only one with this problem. Interesting how you choose to only interpret and focus on a very small section of what I wrote and ignore the meaning of the whole narrative and twist it to suite yourself
Or is BINGO the same answer you give to the committed contributors to "their" 38 page rant regarding the very same buIIshit review I went through?
Funny thread that one 38 pages in total agreement on how bad things are - when have you seen that before on MSG?
RTG, you seem to be extreeeeeeeeemely sensitive and verrrrrrrrrrrrry self-important.
As an older woman with lots of experience and even a bit of wisdom that comes from having lived long and well, I suggest you try to not to take yourself so seriously. It ain't easy, but life is just too short for all the &%@* you dish out.
Or, in other words
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Shutterstock rep Vincent responded immediately to "Has Shutterstock Been Hacked" yet they've ignored months of contributors questioning Shutterstock's reviewers.
Yep, I noted that too. Tells us something, doesn't it?
They respond about important things like security concerns?
Yep, they do do that. But otherwise, they don't seem to take contributor concerns very seriously.
My two cents... they should ignore people like me and my concerns of OOF cause by definition they are in control of whether they want me or not so in effect I don't count. They want me to jump through hoops, and my gut says no thank you.
Now the other thread that is 38 pages long from accepted mostly dedicated contributors whining doing what I thought was whining from an outsiders perspective and based on total lack of first hand experience should warrant immediate attention from management. I don't count or matter in this fiasco, that is easy to sort, but now that I have been through it once, I am no longer convinced it is whining, rather a very legitimate voice of concern from dedicated contributors.
That is what I am seeing looking from the outside in.
From this perspective your experiment has shown good results. Its not just hacks and newbies and its not just whining. There's something up over at SS. Way too much smoke about wonky reviews for there not to be some fire.
To be clear, I have not submit to any micro sites in a few months, but never had rejection problems at any, including SS, but I recognize a lot of the names who have problems there lately and I know their ports, so even if it didn't happen to me I am not gonna say that 38 pages of complaints is just a bunch of whiners or no talent hacks.
The OP has sold over 100k sales from 3k images at istock, most probably uploaded when they had high standards so I don't discount his experience.
-
Ss is absolutely the BeSt...
You do not need to panic for that...
Recently it happens when they have 60000 new photos every week... They refuse because reviewed probably cannot accept everything...
JUST RESUBMIT UNTIL THEY ACCEPT YOU..
You'll see that SS will grow fastet if you have quality imagesas you said...
-
Shutterstock rep Vincent responded immediately to "Has Shutterstock Been Hacked" yet they've ignored months of contributors questioning Shutterstock's reviewers.
Yep, I noted that too. Tells us something, doesn't it?
They respond about important things like security concerns?
i think leaf should close this never-ending story
with the last word to sjlocke and martha and modvi
ss address important things immediately
ie to say contributors issues no matter extending 38 pages on ss forum and how many more pages here on msg
is not important issue.
capiche? read my lips, you contributors, me ss insiders, reviewers,etc
don't give a hoot about you contributors concern
because you are little ants we can step on and brush aside
with so many millions willing to lick our **** and thank us for the little crumbs they get 8)
-
Shutterstock rep Vincent responded immediately to "Has Shutterstock Been Hacked" yet they've ignored months of contributors questioning Shutterstock's reviewers.
Yep, I noted that too. Tells us something, doesn't it?
They respond about important things like security concerns?
Shutterstock is responsive in that they come here to manage our perceptions, in regard to their lack of security and the recent measures needed to protect our accounts because they were asleep at the wheel.
There is actually a bigger problem. The default log in page is not encrypted, it uses http rather than https. Chrome says the identity of the web site cannot be confirmed. The http site should automatically route users to the https site to ensure encryption is used to protect the data entered during log in by the user. This is web security 101.
Additionally when you manually enter the https vs http Chrome says the site uses weak security (SHA-1). Again Web Security 101. This was not the case previously. I suggest whoever is in charge needs to take a look at what is going on very carefully and users be very cautious.
I also just noticed that my Paypal email address has been removed from my details on Shutterstock. This getting more concerning.
BS users reporting that their paypal email had been changed and payment had been requested. http://tinyurl.com/oa286l2 (http://tinyurl.com/oa286l2)
"I woke up this morning to emails from BS saying I'd changed my payment email. And apparently initiated paypal payment to the new address. I can't figure out how to change my password there and I'm furious. How can BS (owned by SS) allow payment to be made within moments of changing your email?
Check your accounts folks. If you can figure out how to change your password there, I would suggest doing so.
They also changed the name on my account... and I can't get in to fix the profile. "
And now they "need to verify that our email address is correct". Please at least admit you have been hacked.
"Verify your email
Is this the address you'd like associated with your account?"
-
Shutterstock is responsive in that they come here to manage our perceptions, in regard to their lack of security and the recent measures needed to protect our accounts because they were asleep at the wheel.
oh wow, you explained what my first impression was when ss immediate responsive to the matter.
i just could not find the right words to my thoughts... it's like crooked politicians damage control
or the corporation or military middle management sleeping on the job
and had to quick wipe off their evidence before their bosses find out and sack them all.
i am sure there will be scapegoats to take their blame, of course. much like the public service
always hire temps in this time so they can blame the temps for their f**kups
sleeping on the job, like you say...so correctly on the mark.
well said.
-
subjects like this are why SS will not answer to review questions. Theres no point in answering, when nobody listyens.
(http://i.imgur.com/5mzuYAS.jpg?1)
-
subjects like this are why SS will not answer to review questions. Theres no point in answering, when nobody listyens.
([url]http://i.imgur.com/5mzuYAS.jpg?1[/url])
lol ss was dead the moment oringer went public with ss .
-
Shutterstock (SSTK) Taps Tumblr's Aggarwal as CTO
http://www.streetinsider.com/Management+Changes/Shutterstock+%28SSTK%29+Taps+Tumblrs+Aggarwal+as+CTO/10984622.html (http://www.streetinsider.com/Management+Changes/Shutterstock+%28SSTK%29+Taps+Tumblrs+Aggarwal+as+CTO/10984622.html)
-
You have to retain a sense of humour in this game - just had 17 out of 20 rejected on SS mostly for OOF. Meanwhile on RF123 had 2 rejected - one of them for OOF - guess what? - one of the three accepted on SS. (and I very rarely get /cant remember the last oof on RF)
-
You do need a sense of humour, yet that is something sorely lacking in this forum (Thats not directed at you Pauws99).
SS are unpredictable, it's true. You mentioned 123RF - at the moment, and I'm still reasonable new to this, I have 100% acceptance rate with them, but rubbish sales. Yet at SS i have a 70% acceptance rate, and 10 times the revenue of 123RF.
There are plenty of images SS rejected that are selling on Istock and Fotolia.. but SS still out performs all of them.
If I'm really honest with myself, the images SS refused deserved it, with a few exceptions. I've also noticed that at times, especially when I really can't see any faults in the image, I just resubmit and 9 times out of ten they accept them :D It's a pain, but at the end of the day, it pays off.
I'm going to regret saying this but there are a significant number of people in this forum that really should consider trying something new.. they seem to hate noobies, they hate Microstock and hate life. Why they're here is beyond me.
Noobies, by the way, are found everywhere - all business have to live with new competitors all the time. Why is this any different?
Ok, to balance that out I have an image of a nice pair of boobs that will cheer everyone up... :)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26761740/Boobs/download.jpg)
-
You do need a sense of humour, yet that is something sorely lacking in this forum (Thats not directed at you Pauws99).
SS are unpredictable, it's true. You mentioned 123RF - at the moment, and I'm still reasonable new to this, I have 100% acceptance rate with them, but rubbish sales. Yet at SS i have a 70% acceptance rate, and 10 times the revenue of 123RF.
There are plenty of images SS rejected that are selling on Istock and Fotolia.. but SS still out performs all of them.
If I'm really honest with myself, the images SS refused deserved it, with a few exceptions. I've also noticed that at times, especially when I really can't see any faults in the image, I just resubmit and 9 times out of ten they accept them :D It's a pain, but at the end of the day, it pays off.
I'm going to regret saying this but there are a significant number of people in this forum that really should consider trying something new.. they seem to hate noobies, they hate Microstock and hate life. Why they're here is beyond me.
Noobies, by the way, are found everywhere - all business have to live with new competitors all the time. Why is this any different?
Ok, to balance that out I have an image of a nice pair of boobs that will cheer everyone up... :)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26761740/Boobs/download.jpg)
I love boobies ;)
-
You have to retain a sense of humour in this game - just had 17 out of 20 rejected on SS mostly for OOF. Meanwhile on RF123 had 2 rejected - one of them for OOF - guess what? - one of the three accepted on SS. (and I very rarely get /cant remember the last oof on RF)
They're probably using some kind of software that clearly still needs a lot of improvements. I had rejections for OOF recently too - and trust me, after 10 years in this business and 15,000 images I can tell if an image is in focus or not. Funny thing I didn't even get upset this time - just laughed (honestly). All images accepted everywhere else of course...
I have a couple of very nice new shoots that I can't even make myself to start processing. Where will I send them? SS will reject all but one for OOF (and will give away that one as a giant preview), DT won't sell a single image, Alamy too, on FT they'll earn a few cents and disappear somewhere deep in the database, Istock won't sell much either, Getty will just give away for free for anyone to use as they please.... I am so tired of this game.
-
You have to retain a sense of humour in this game - just had 17 out of 20 rejected on SS mostly for OOF. Meanwhile on RF123 had 2 rejected - one of them for OOF - guess what? - one of the three accepted on SS. (and I very rarely get /cant remember the last oof on RF)
They're probably using some kind of software that clearly still needs a lot of improvements. I had rejections for OOF recently too - and trust me, after 10 years in this business and 15,000 images I can tell if an image is in focus or not. Funny thing I didn't even get upset this time - just laughed (honestly). All images accepted everywhere else of course...
I have a couple of very nice new shoots that I can't even make myself to start processing. Where will I send them? SS will reject all but one for OOF (and will give away that one as a giant preview), DT won't sell a single image, Alamy too, on FT they'll earn a few cents and disappear somewhere deep in the database, Istock won't sell much either, Getty will just give away for free for anyone to use as they please.... I am so tired of this game.
Good for you for even bothering to do new shoots. I can't bring myself to shoot anything new for exactly the reasons you listed.