MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock review process again  (Read 8257 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 02, 2014, 17:55 »
0
I have a large portfolio istock, Dreamstime and Alamy with regular sales on all and can't believe how difficult it is to get the first batch if images accepted with shutterstock.
My latest review has failed again despite adding a comment for the reviewer as requested by a member of shutterstock staff.
It almost appears as if shutterstock aren't interested in new contributors.
If anyone from shutterstock reads this post please could you contract me.
Thanks
Sue.


Ron

« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2014, 18:02 »
0
Sue, I am afraid it dont work like that. You need to come up with 10 perfect images and 7 should pass at a minimum. There are a lot of people who can help you here when you ask for help.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4

However, without showing photos, you are not going to get the answers you need/want.

SS is still accepting new contributors, but the bar has been set high over the years. You really need to send them perfect images.

« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2014, 18:06 »
0
Wow, there are some really bad images in that forum that people are trying to get in with!

Ron

« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2014, 18:13 »
0
Wow, there are some really bad images in that forum that people are trying to get in with!
Yes, most people are new to photography, like me, 2 years ago. Eventually they get in, after they have experienced a very steep learning curve.

timd35

« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2014, 21:53 »
0
I tried twice and have not tried again. The first submission of 10 had 6 accepted and on a couple of the 4 that got rejected they gave recommendations on what to fix. I submitted the original six, fixed one per their recommendations, and submitted 3 others. All but one were rejected the second time.

I emailed them regarding the rejections and they essentially told me the following with reference to their reviewers.

"it is possible that they have different views about what is acceptable content. Our reviewers inspect all images at 100% for quality guidelines like focus and noise"

Oh well, I will spend time on my own site as well as the other sites I have been accepted too. I am just beginning in Stock anyway so I will cut my teeth at 123rf, DT, IS, and CS. Actually I started to get involved in Stock about 3 years ago but had to put everything on hold for a couple of years due to a family illness and just picked back up in August. For 2014 I was trying out Symbiostock and submitting and building portfolio's at the above sites I mentioned.

-Tim

« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2014, 22:53 »
+1
please, please, please,

show us the pictures and a 100% crop. Then we can talk and advice, else its all speculations.
We are not wizzards.

timd35

« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2014, 23:37 »
0
please, please, please,

show us the pictures and a 100% crop. Then we can talk and advice, else its all speculations.
We are not wizzards.


I was not really looking for critique right now as I have more than enough to do to get going on the other sites but here are a couple that was rejected for noise but have been accepted at 123rf, Canstock, and DT. I have not submitted them to iStock yet. I am just getting started in stock and I still have a lot to learn.







Thanks
Tim

« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2014, 23:58 »
+1
See now we can talk.
All agencies are different, and there is some randomness to it.
But this case is clear.

"Noise can mean many things", such as noise, which is logical, but it can also mean postprocessing that yeilds artefacts or and that is relatively unknown, lack of pixel quality, or pixels resolution from the sensor. (lousy camera)

In this case you have artefacts in both images. In the bird they come from overprocessing, too much contrast, too little resolution, too few well defined pixels. Which gives the image an unsharp and undetailled look.
With the book, you have clipping in the light, so that the edges of the letters, become artefacted. It can come from overexposure, uneven light or from sliding sliders in post.
In both cases, there is a loss of original details, which maybe werent there, transformed into artificial details that do not hold water in the chosen size of the image.

Ron

« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2014, 02:26 »
+1
I am sorry but I dont see noise nor artefacts

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2014, 04:31 »
+1
I am sorry but I dont see noise nor artefacts

Even if there could be a little it is absolutely not a problem for images that will be used @ 10% of the original size on web, and/or printed @ 300 dpi (so 25% of the original size) in offset
The story of "noise by stocks" is just ridiculous
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 04:34 by Beppe Grillo »

Shelma1

« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2014, 06:05 »
0
Inspectors' New Year's resolution, maybe? A couple of my B&W vectors were rejected because the inspector wanted "reference," though they accepted the color versions of the same art.

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2014, 06:52 »
0
It does seem to be a moving target.  It took me eight submissions to get accepted, and a couple of times I submitted only photos that had been accepted from previous submissions.  I suppose it's due to the differences among inspectors.

« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2014, 07:09 »
0
I am sorry but I dont see noise nor artefacts

Even if there could be a little it is absolutely not a problem for images that will be used @ 10% of the original size on web, and/or printed @ 300 dpi (so 25% of the original size) in offset
The story of "noise by stocks" is just ridiculous

No it is not.
First, you sell pictures in the size you sell them, and they should hold water at max size. Else you can sell them smaller, if you can.
Second. Noise and artefacts is the singlemost efficient parameter to ensure a certain technical quality of the pictures.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2014, 08:18 »
0
-
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 08:22 by Beppe Grillo »

ShadySue

« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2014, 08:26 »
0
,
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 08:44 by ShadySue »

timd35

« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2014, 08:27 »
0
Okay, my own critique on my images.

Bible: I think the lighting was a little harsh when I zoomed in at 100% and I do not like the shadow. But that is all. I did very little post processing so I just do not get "noise" as rejection. Maybe "lighting".

Sandpiper: The only area that I disliked at 100% was around the beak. I did heavily process this image. It was taken at the 300 end of a 70-300L and I cropped in a little too, but not a lot. I did use some noise reduction but used it selectively.

I do appreciate all comments because I am learning.

Thanks
Tim

« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2014, 08:28 »
0
In the bird picture it looks like sharpening has been overcooked in camera or post processing. This has caused some artifacts on the bird's fish/prawn. The text on the bible also shows signs of sharpening and looks slightly unnatural but....if I were reviewing I'd overlook that.


Ron

« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2014, 08:33 »
0
I still dont see it, is it not the texture of the surface and how the light hits it? I dont see the noise and artefacts. Maybe its my monitor.

« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2014, 08:50 »
0
Im no expert (I mostly contribute vectors), but maybe the subject and uniqueness also matter in this case? Although they didn't mention it in that "automatic reply", but if the photos were a new look on a subject, or really original, maybe the technical quality could be enough. It's a combination of reasons.


timd35

« Reply #19 on: January 03, 2014, 08:52 »
0
For reference here is a 100% of the raw with no processing and then my processed image.

Original:


Processed:


Thanks
Tim

Ron

« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2014, 08:55 »
0
Yes the original is underexposed and has noise. So by increasing the exposure, you will even get more noise, which needs to be reduced, which creates a soft image, which was already soft because of the noise. Its eminent to exposure correctly and use the lowest ISO possible to get the best results. You can downsize an image do reduce noise which will also make the image appear sharper. If you have enough pixels.

ShadySue

« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2014, 08:56 »
0
You introduced a halo aroun the beak.
Hope you know the actual species!

timd35

« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2014, 09:06 »
0
You introduced a halo aroun the beak.
Hope you know the actual species!

I am not sure which species of Sandpiper it is. I looked but it was difficult to pinpoint since several of the species looked very similar.

« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2014, 09:25 »
0
I am not sure which species of Sandpiper it is. I looked but it was difficult to pinpoint since several of the species looked very similar.

It's a plover of some kind. I have a reference book just about Sandpipers and can look it up in a bit if you need an ID.

timd35

« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2014, 09:39 »
0

It's a plover of some kind. I have a reference book just about Sandpipers and can look it up in a bit if you need an ID.

That would be great, thanks Martha. At your convenience though.

-Tim


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
19 Replies
4902 Views
Last post June 04, 2012, 20:24
by michaeldb
16 Replies
4292 Views
Last post July 10, 2012, 11:07
by tab62
3 Replies
1528 Views
Last post October 09, 2012, 00:49
by tavi
5 Replies
1885 Views
Last post December 13, 2013, 13:25
by Sue Burton Photography
17 Replies
2630 Views
Last post February 06, 2014, 07:05
by sdeva

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results