Quote from: Shelma1 on August 04, 2014, 01:34
Every one of my jpgs has been rejected by the photo/illustration inspector this week. Today a bunch more. Dozens of $%#$ images. Even black and white silhouettes..all rejected for noise. Not one grain of noise anywhere...they're vector illustrations, for God's sake! EPS all accepted as usual. The inspectors are out of control. Do they get paid more to reject images? 

I had an entire set of 6 macro butterfly images—all bright, colorful, and so sharp you could count the hairs on their wings—rejected this past week too.

Can't remember that ever happening before. Aaaargh!!!!

What was the rejection reason for the butterflies?

Quote from: marthamarks on August 04, 2014, 01:47

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 04, 2014, 01:34
Every one of my jpgs has been rejected by the photo/illustration inspector this week. Today a bunch more. Dozens of $%#$ images. Even black and white silhouettes..all rejected for noise. Not one grain of noise anywhere...they're vector illustrations, for God's sake! EPS all accepted as usual. The inspectors are out of control. Do they get paid more to reject images? 

I had an entire set of 6 macro butterfly images—all bright, colorful, and so sharp you could count the hairs on their wings—rejected this past week too.

Can't remember that ever happening before. Aaaargh!!!!

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 04, 2014, 22:33
What was the rejection reason for the butterflies?

Out of focus. Nope.

Grainy. Nope. Shot in bright sunshine at fast speed.

Bad composition on a couple of the shots. I don't think so.

But no matter. I've moved on.

Quote from: marthamarks on August 04, 2014, 23:17

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 04, 2014, 22:33
What was the rejection reason for the butterflies?

Out of focus. Nope.

Grainy. Nope. Shot in bright sunshine at fast speed.

Bad composition on a couple of the shots. I don't think so.

But no matter. I've moved on.

+1 on the last wisdom.  in a moment someone will come in and whoopie yay how 100% approval
so really, to those affected as Mr. Rinderhart , the only thing is in fact, to move on.

Yeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

100% approval

Shutterstock Rocks!

12264 active clips and images  (and growing rapidly)
Now what to shoot next?

Quote from: mike ledray on August 05, 2014, 01:41
Now what to shoot next?

I highly recommend close-up shots of butterflies. 

OK, I'm being a bit of a PITA in pursuing the reason for my rejections. So they sent me this example of the "noise" in one of my illustrations. They blew this small section of one drawing up 200%. This portion of the illustration was built with standard Illustrator shapes. The one on the left is supposedly "noisy," and the one on the right is "cleaner." They look the same to me. Am I missing something? Honestly. I blew them up even more...now we're talking 400% (who uses a raster at 400%?) and they still look the same.

Seriously, am I missing something? Is it my eyes? My computer?

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 05, 2014, 14:53
Seriously, am I missing something? Is it my eyes? My computer?

I agree with you. I could not spot any difference (or noise). I tried my best for 5 minutes. Sorry about the rejections. So, far I have not had issues with my rasters and vectors on SS. Photographs though have become difficult to predict in terms of acceptance.

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 05, 2014, 14:53

Seriously, am I missing something? Is it my eyes? My computer?

read my lips Shelma1 , "conflict of interest... !" reviewer/contributor !!!
it's pretty obvious by now, since it is not robot-reviewers, then it has to be contributors who are also reviewers to knock off anything that is competing against their own portfolios or friends' portfolios.
like in the old days of Istock where exclusives reviewed indies.

btw, has anyone from SS read the thread on IStock (penalizing diamonds)
similar disease going on there. it's not endemic, it's a bloody eperdemic
with the top 2 it seems 

I agree there might be inherent conflicts of interest, but in this case the vector version was approved and the raster was rejected, so I don't think the photo reviewer would feel I was competing, and the illustration reviewer who might see competition accepted the EPS. (And who is qualified to inspect images other than successful contributors?)

What I don't get is spending time creating this example and blowing things up to 200% instead of just admitting the rejections were a mistake.

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 05, 2014, 15:21
I agree there might be inherent conflicts of interest, but in this case the vector version was approved and the raster was rejected, so I don't think the photo reviewer would feel I was competing, and the illustration reviewer who might see competition accepted the EPS. (And who is qualified to inspect images other than successful contributors?)

What I don't get is spending time creating this example and blowing things up to 200% instead of just admitting the rejections were a mistake.

I can see a little, tiny bit of pixelation (or something) on the curving edge of the bus, but only because you told me to look for it. Did  they say what they did differently in converting the vector to raster?

Quote from: robhainer on August 05, 2014, 15:34

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 05, 2014, 15:21
I agree there might be inherent conflicts of interest, but in this case the vector version was approved and the raster was rejected, so I don't think the photo reviewer would feel I was competing, and the illustration reviewer who might see competition accepted the EPS. (And who is qualified to inspect images other than successful contributors?)

What I don't get is spending time creating this example and blowing things up to 200% instead of just admitting the rejections were a mistake.

I can see a little, tiny bit of pixelation (or something) on the curving edge of the bus, but only because you told me to look for it. Did  they say what they did differently in converting the vector to raster?

Nope. And if you have to look that hard at 200% to find something that tiny I really think they're stretching.

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 05, 2014, 14:53...Seriously, am I missing something? Is it my eyes? My computer?...

I actually do see some compression artifacting in the stop sign, but in both versions. I don't get how one is better than the other. There are some flaws, but they both have the same flaws.

still a lot of hoops to jump !!! viewing at what magnification? 
hopefully, when u satisfy the great "lord reviewer",  (s)he, upon eventual approval, will increase your earnings by an equal magnification 

Quote from: EmberMike on August 05, 2014, 15:59

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 05, 2014, 14:53...Seriously, am I missing something? Is it my eyes? My computer?...

I actually do see some compression artifacting in the stop sign, but in both versions. I don't get how one is better than the other. There are some flaws, but they both have the same flaws.

I got a rejection like this from iStock once and there are artifacts in almost all rasterized vectors. It is tough to tell where they draw the line on what is acceptable/normal. I can see where confusion can arise.

Just got 37/37 accepted including a few i thought were borderline so can't really moan at that.

Well, I just got an email from them admitting the two are identical and suggesting I resubmit. Took four emails for that. 

Quote from: marthamarks on August 04, 2014, 23:17

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 04, 2014, 22:33
What was the rejection reason for the butterflies?

Out of focus. Nope.

Grainy. Nope. Shot in bright sunshine at fast speed.

Bad composition on a couple of the shots. I don't think so.

But no matter. I've moved on.

So, guess what? This morning DT accepted 5 of the 6 butterfly images that SS rejected a few days ago. And the 6th was rejected only because it was "similar" to the others, which is correct.

Go figure!

Would you care to show me the butterfly pictures? I have a special interest in that kind of pictures.

Quote from: JPSDK on August 07, 2014, 15:27
Would you care to show me the butterfly pictures? I have a special interest in that kind of pictures.

Sure. Always happy to show off my work! 

You'll find those five Taxiles Skipper images (right next to a new series of Horseshoe Crabs) in the "latest uploads" section on this page:

http://www.dreamstime.com/marthamarks_info


And if you'd like to see four images of a Common Checkered Skipper, look for them on bright yellow flowers on this page:

http://www.dreamstime.com/marthamarks_more-latest-adition_pg1

Doesn't Dreamstime accept virtually anything though ?

Yes they do. Big change in the last 3 months or so. Everything is accepted.

Quote from: cuppacoffee on August 07, 2014, 16:14
Yes they do. Big change in the last 3 months or so. Everything is accepted.

Well, they do seem to be accepting more "similars", however I don't think there's anything inferior or flawed with the images they've taken from me recently. And yes, they have rejected some for reasons other than being part of a series.

I wasn't referring to you Martha. If you take a look at the latest page now and then you will see what I mean. I see some images before they are published so I have an insight into the changes that have taken place in the past few years (no, I'm not a reviewer but I do other things for them). http://www.dreamstime.com/new-stock-photos-images