MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is Shutterstock for real???  (Read 32163 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: October 16, 2015, 23:08 »
0
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.


« Reply #101 on: October 17, 2015, 07:19 »
+9
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.

« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 07:25 by JPSDK »

« Reply #102 on: October 17, 2015, 08:14 »
+6

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.



ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #103 on: October 17, 2015, 08:25 »
+5
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.

« Reply #104 on: October 17, 2015, 08:28 »
+1
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.

« Reply #105 on: October 17, 2015, 08:30 »
0
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.

« Reply #106 on: October 17, 2015, 11:16 »
+5
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.

marthamarks

« Reply #107 on: October 17, 2015, 12:01 »
+6
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?

« Reply #108 on: October 17, 2015, 12:09 »
+1
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?

marthamarks

« Reply #109 on: October 17, 2015, 12:15 »
+4
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.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #110 on: October 17, 2015, 13:25 »
+2
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.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #111 on: October 17, 2015, 13:29 »
0

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.

« Reply #112 on: October 17, 2015, 13:39 »
+2
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

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #113 on: October 17, 2015, 13:40 »
+2
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.


« Reply #114 on: October 17, 2015, 13:57 »
+4
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.





marthamarks

« Reply #115 on: October 17, 2015, 14:17 »
+2
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!

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #116 on: October 17, 2015, 15:53 »
+2
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?


« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 15:59 by Rose Tinted Glasses »


« Reply #117 on: October 17, 2015, 16:30 »
+3
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 Glasses

« Reply #118 on: October 17, 2015, 16:46 »
+1
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...

« Reply #119 on: October 17, 2015, 16:59 »
0
not here.

marthamarks

« Reply #120 on: October 17, 2015, 17:04 »
+4
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!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 02:37 by marthamarks »

« Reply #121 on: October 17, 2015, 21:40 »
+3
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.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 22:18 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #122 on: October 19, 2015, 10:05 »
+1
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...

« Reply #123 on: October 19, 2015, 10:56 »
0
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)

« Reply #124 on: October 19, 2015, 11:35 »
+1
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

"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?"
« Last Edit: October 19, 2015, 11:37 by gbalex »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3997 Views
Last post September 10, 2008, 01:03
by leaf
17 Replies
7562 Views
Last post February 26, 2009, 16:41
by Ssuper
24 Replies
16624 Views
Last post January 09, 2012, 16:10
by leaf
10 Replies
6246 Views
Last post November 26, 2013, 20:00
by Ed
8 Replies
3646 Views
Last post July 13, 2016, 03:46
by Noedelhap

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors