The last 2 weeks in SS  I have had ALL images rejected for same reasons-POOR lighting, INCORRECT white balance, POOR composition- and I am utterly at a loss after spending HOURS in RAW Bridge and PS ! What is the problem? I am thinking of not submitting any more.
PS-similar images accepted in recent past.Is it a BOT or WHAT???

post for a critique on their forums - sometimes seeing something from someone elses perpective teaches us something new.
but all things said, I think we have all been hammered with the 100% rejection at one point or another

Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues and/or incorrect white balance. Please advise me as I have spent hours in RAW Bridge and PS  ans used white dropper/ grey dropper, etc and am still  getting everything rejected. Thanks.

First picture has harsh shadows blown high lights and I would suggest if you got a  lot lower the composition would have been much improved. The second picture doesn�t ring true. Strong blue sky and grey water. Also would have been better without the structure on the left. The last one I don't understand why you took the picture so its hard to comment on. If I might suggest you read up on composition. Look at good art and photography to see how and why things are put together the way they are. A technically perfect photo can still be useless whereas good subject spacing and light   
make all the difference.

Also I question the 'commercial value' on these images.  They fall into LCV images at least in my view finder...

They had the rejection its was called the LCV rejection and SS did away with it. Any image technically in order will get accepted.

I consider composition to be a part of the technical aspects.

I get the impression SS just doesn't want nature shots. Most of my nature shots are rejected by both FT and SS. I pick only the cream of the crop, and then do a lot of additional work in Photoshop. Beautiful photos, they just don't want them.

I upload mainly illustrations, most of which get accepted, but uploading photos is so depressing. I get the message, they just don't want nature shots. I don't do people shots or studio shots, so there is really no point in my uploading photos. It's a bummer, because I really enjoy photography. I use my photos as elements in my illustrations, so I guess I'll just stick to using them there. 

I get the impression SS just doesn't want nature shots.

Sorry, but I really don't feel that's the case. I have a portfolio on SS of over 1400 photos. The vast majority of them fall into the "nature" category, and yes, they do sell. Not as much as slick studio shots of gorgeous models or fabulous food. But, they do sell.

Don't believe me? Take a look: http://www.shutterstock.com/g/marthamarks

Quote from: Allsa on December 31, 2013, 15:32

I get the impression SS just doesn't want nature shots.

Sorry, but I really don't feel that's the case. I have a portfolio on SS of over 1400 photos. The vast majority of them fall into the "nature" category, and yes, they do sell. Not as much as slick studio shots of gorgeous models or fabulous food. But, they do sell.

Don't believe me? Take a look: http://www.shutterstock.com/g/marthamarks

But what percentage of your nature shots get accepted? What is the trick to getting nature shots accepted? My nature shots have around a 90% rejection rate at SS, probably a 98% rejection rate at FT. Also, very few of my nature shots feature animals - could that could be a factor?

When I started at Microstock back in 2004, I was submitting photos only. As time went on, the micros literally killed my enthusiasm for photography, so I gradually switched to illustration.  Once in a great while I'll upload photos, but if I weren't primarily an illustrator, I think there's a good chance I'd have walked away from microstock by now.

But what percentage of your nature shots get accepted? What is the trick to getting nature shots accepted? My nature shots have around a 90% rejection rate at SS, probably a 98% rejection rate at FT. Also, very few of my nature shots feature animals - could that could be a factor?

Hi Allsa,

In general, I don't keep track of my acceptance ratio. (Except on DT, which kindly tracks it for me and now tells me it's 68% overall since I started with them in 2010.) But on SS, I'm sure it's higher. I'd guess 75-80%.

The situation is very different with FT. There's a thread on MSG somewhere where I bitched and moaned last summer that I'd uploaded my entire port on FT (as a newbie there) and they accepted 18%.

At present, I have 1404 images on SS, 956 on DT, and 288 on FT. All from the same set of images. But I'm not currently uploading to any of them. Been focusing on my own Symbiostock site, where I'm the judge and jury� and a pretty tough one at that. It currently offers 1490 images� but a couple hundred of those are "exclusives" on that site, the result of an extended trip this fall. I may never offer them to SS, DT, FT, etc.

There's no single "trick" to getting nature shots accepted, but here's my advice: Produce the very best work you can, with the very best gear you can afford. Be ruthless in your self-critique. If an image is flawed, don't submit it. And don't submit anything that looks like a tourist snapshot (which I suspect is common in landscape photograph). Forever work at getting better. It helps a lot if you genuinely love the kind of photography you've chosen to do.

I don't think it's necessary to include animals in a pic to get accepted. Plenty of fabulous photo-artists do only landscapes. And if by "animals" you mean wild birds and other critters, be aware that your equipment needs will likely be even higher. I make almost all my wildlife images with a Canon 500 L f4 lens. It took me many years to be able to justify buying that lens, but it has made an immense difference in the quality of my work.

And finally, remember... I've been doing this a long, long time. Decades.

Good luck!

North American Bias? Less than 10% of my sales are in North America.

What percentage have North American subjects?
So you sell a lot of nature?

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 31, 2013, 17:34

North American Bias? Less than 10% of my sales are in North America.

What percentage have North American subjects?

I can't speak for Uncle Pete, but for myself� 100% of my images are of North American subjects. That's what I've chosen to do.

And I know that was the point you were making earlier: there may be a bias in favor of North American subjects, regardless of where the buyer happens to live.

Yeah thanks Martha and you said the magic word that I couldn't think of Landscape. Nature, Wildlife and Landscapes are very different.

True Sue, I don't really have "North American Subjects", or maybe I have all NA subjects, because that's where I am? But there has been an ongoing debate over sales percentages on SS and what percentage is North American and what is Other.

On one hand, the rest of the world is a pretty big place, and they have been marketing and adding new offices and promoting outside NA. So maybe there's a good simple reason why "The rest of the world" makes a bigger percentage of sales than it used to?

There also seems to be some kind of blackout during business hours (I don't know, but others have reported it) where NA sales drop during the business hours, in the USA, which is the opposite of what someone would expect.
 
So I'll put that NA sales bias on hold until I can find more information. If I understand right, you are asking if NA sales percentages are higher for NA subjects. Perfectly logical question, rather than, for everything anyone has, what percentage are NA sales. I get it. 

Quote from: ShadySue on December 31, 2013, 17:45

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 31, 2013, 17:34

North American Bias? Less than 10% of my sales are in North America.

What percentage have North American subjects?

I can't speak for Uncle Pete, but for myself� 100% of my images are of North American subjects. That's what I've chosen to do.

And I know that was the point you were making earlier: there may be a bias in favor of North American subjects, regardless of where the buyer happens to live.

If I understand right, you are asking if NA sales percentages are higher for NA subjects. Perfectly logical question, rather than, for everything anyone has, what percentage are NA sales. I get it. 

No, not really.
Martha got it:

And I know that was the point you were making earlier: there may be a bias in favor of North American subjects, regardless of where the buyer happens to live.

That's my speculation and question.

OH?  Well the poll is up asking what percentage of US subjects and what percentage of US sales. It's reported as US not North American by the way. Otherwise that would include Mexico and Canada. It's only USA.

Interesting question. Never thought of that? Might apply to other regions of the world?

Quote from: ShadySue on December 31, 2013, 18:41

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 31, 2013, 18:18

If I understand right, you are asking if NA sales percentages are higher for NA subjects. Perfectly logical question, rather than, for everything anyone has, what percentage are NA sales. I get it. 

No, not really.
Martha got it:

Quote from: marthamarks on December 31, 2013, 18:01

And I know that was the point you were making earlier: there may be a bias in favor of North American subjects, regardless of where the buyer happens to live.

That's my speculation and question.

Ask these questions if you like - they're not my question.
E.g. is a female shot in a studio with pearly whites and heavily made-up 'American' in styling no matter where they were shot? (I have no actual personal interest/relevancy in that question/answer, BTW.)

I get the impression SS just doesn't want nature shots. Most of my nature shots are rejected by both FT and SS. I pick only the cream of the crop, and then do a lot of additional work in Photoshop. Beautiful photos, they just don't want them.

I upload mainly illustrations, most of which get accepted, but uploading photos is so depressing. I get the message, they just don't want nature shots. I don't do people shots or studio shots, so there is really no point in my uploading photos. It's a bummer, because I really enjoy photography. I use my photos as elements in my illustrations, so I guess I'll just stick to using them there. 

my main emphasis is nature & travel so I know I'm fighting high saturation of images with relatively low demand..,.

SS DOES take nature shots, but it depends on the reviewer -- some detest anything taken at sunrise or sunset, even though these are the most dramatic

recently I've had rejections for a series of mountain sheep against beautiful red sandstone -- 'lighting' was the claim.  other sites took them as is -- for SS I ran  them thru PS with auto level which produced what I felt were less dramatic, less realistic, washed out images -- but SS accepted them!

Quote from: Ron on December 31, 2013, 14:43

I consider composition to be a part of the technical aspects.

technical aspects need to be objective criteria that most reviewers would agree on

composition is subjective by definition  - it's an aesthetic OPINION  just like LCV

just for reference, alamy, which REALLY has no subjective reasons for rejection doesn't have composition as a reason for rejection

Agree but a tilted horizon would get rejected on Alamy as well, no? Thats kind of a technical issue, not levelling your camera.

Did you look at the poll question before you wrote that? Yes, someone said people don't every GO to the US. That's not the point. It would be style and type of photos. By the same point, and it gets a little strange, if I shoot Indonesian food in Wisconsin, is that American content?

If I shoot German people in Milwaukee, is that American? But if I shoot an American looking model in Australia, that's US style. Yes I get it.

Problem is you are starting to get into all kinds of complications and conditions, debating what is and what isn't. While SS has something simple. Income from US sources. So we can use the same and people can make that judgement call on their own. Photos that are US Style images.

It was never meant or asked to be exclusively shot on US Soil.

Yes, I know you are an IS exclusive, but I thought it was still a good question, since we see the numbers and the DLs and the income from US Sources. So does US or a North American STYLE shot, sell better, around the globe? I wonder?

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 31, 2013, 18:54

OH?  Well the poll is up asking what percentage of US subjects and what percentage of US sales. It's reported as US not North American by the way. Otherwise that would include Mexico and Canada. It's only USA.

Interesting question. Never thought of that? Might apply to other regions of the world?

Quote from: ShadySue on December 31, 2013, 18:41

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 31, 2013, 18:18

If I understand right, you are asking if NA sales percentages are higher for NA subjects. Perfectly logical question, rather than, for everything anyone has, what percentage are NA sales. I get it. 

No, not really.
Martha got it:

Quote from: marthamarks on December 31, 2013, 18:01

And I know that was the point you were making earlier: there may be a bias in favor of North American subjects, regardless of where the buyer happens to live.

That's my speculation and question.

Ask these questions if you like - they're not my question.
E.g. is a female shot in a studio with pearly whites and heavily made-up 'American' in styling no matter where they were shot? (I have no actual personal interest/relevancy in that question/answer, BTW.)

Quote from: lisafx on December 31, 2013, 17:39

Quote from: Goofy on December 31, 2013, 05:07

Also I question the 'commercial value' on these images.  They fall into LCV images at least in my view finder...

I think this is the bottom line.  They just don't need more flowers, landscapes, etc. unless they are spectacular.  Although the shadows are harsh and the white blown,  I don't think the exposure was the main reasons for the rejection - just the most convenient button for the reviewer. 

Do they even have a "low commercial value" rejection at SS?

No, they got rid of that. They accept everything.

Thanks for the info Ron.  Sounds like the don't accept everything though.  Whatever their rejection letter states, it seems to be tougher to get landscape stuff accepted.  From what I hear anyway. 

"We expect to see a greater variety of style and demonstration of skill for your submissions."

That's a new one.  18/18 rejected.  It's becoming increasingly obvious that submission to SS is a total waste of time as I am in no way near the same "style" and "skill" as Ansel Adams or Annie Liebovitz .
But then again, if I were I would certainly "expect to see" greater compensation for my "skill" than 38 cents. 

Quote

Quote from: ShadySue on Yesterday at 19:28
Quote from: marthamarks on Yesterday at 18:01

    And I know that was the point you were making earlier: there may be a bias in favor of North American subjects, regardless of where the buyer happens to live.

That's my speculation and question.

Could be because the NA bruins are more photogenic than the UK variety.

We don't have any (wild)!

"We expect to see a greater variety of style and demonstration of skill for your submissions."

That's a new one.  18/18 rejected.  It's becoming increasingly obvious that submission to SS is a total waste of time as I am in no way near the same "style" and "skill" as Ansel Adams or Annie Liebovitz .
But then again, if I were I would certainly "expect to see" greater compensation for my "skill" than 38 cents. 

Was that for your test, or is that a new rejection reason? I thought the test on SS is 10 images. And what was on the images you submitted if you dont mind me asking?

Quote from: Ron on January 02, 2014, 04:04

Quote from: Gel-O Shooter on January 01, 2014, 19:28

"We expect to see a greater variety of style and demonstration of skill for your submissions."

That's a new one.  18/18 rejected.  It's becoming increasingly obvious that submission to SS is a total waste of time as I am in no way near the same "style" and "skill" as Ansel Adams or Annie Liebovitz .
But then again, if I were I would certainly "expect to see" greater compensation for my "skill" than 38 cents. 

Was that for your test, or is that a new rejection reason? I thought the test on SS is 10 images. And what was on the images you submitted if you dont mind me asking?

I didn't think it was for submission, as they said 38c. Don't newbies get <30c?

25 cent

If it was for someone on 38 cent then that rejection is worrying. Do we now need to show diversity in our submissions? How is this determined? If that is true, that you need to show skill, it might cause some upset. Maybe its the new LCV rejection? What if someone is a studio model shooter, do they all of a sudden become a different photographer? Do we need to change our style? I think there are too many questions, deserves some explanation from SS.

"Was that for your test, or is that a new rejection reason? I thought the test on SS is 10 images. And what was on the images you submitted if you dont mind me asking?"

No, not a test.  I've been submitting since 2004.  We are in Florida for the winter, so my submissions were state park/nature scenes, and what I thought were some pretty good shots of oranges/citrus fruit on the tree.  I was disappointed with the rejections of the fruit as I thought they were much better than the ones I did last winter and those have been good sellers all year.

No, I'm not going to post my rejects.  My SS rejections are nearly 100% accepted on DT, 123, and DP, etc.  I highly value my anonymity here and my ability to speak freely without repercussions from the agencies.

That is truly ludicrous. So with each submission you are supposed to show a diversity of styles and skills? So if someone is a successful people/object/wildlife tog, they have to shoot different styles with each upload?

Honestly, the more I hear of SS, the less I'd want anything to do with them. (But never say 'never', in case you have to eat your words one day.)

It seems that if any one company reaches a superior position, they think they can mess contributors around as much as they like.

From a vector person's POV, I think you guys are beating yourselves up and second-guessing yourselves for no reason. Honestly, when an entire batch of my illustration jpgs are rejected for some ridiculous reason like "noise" while the vectors are accepted, it's clear to me the photo inspectors (or a few photo inspectors) are off their rockers. Either that or there's some incentive we don't know about for them to make mass rejections.

Well, I dunno! Submitted 5 similar food shots on 29/12, 100% accepted on 30/12. Maybe they want food and other subjects less. I dunno.

FWIW my rejections were wildlife (African) and landscape (European).

The trend for me that I am seeing is that SS is becoming more like FT in terms of what they accept/reject for nature/landscape/wildlife images.  They are probably so saturated in this category that you have to really shine if you want anything accepted.  Point, shoot, upload is no longer acceptable at least for the big four.  I am just back from a trip and I have maybe 100 new nature scenic images and more if you count my underwater stuff.  I am not expecting a big acceptance across the board except for the underwater work, which also isn't a giant selling subject.