The reviewers have a limited number of reasons for rejection available in the list box, the reviewers (most, these days) are not competent and Shutterstock's motives are never shared with contributers. In addition, most of the elements that cause an image to be worthwhile in most situations except microstock � backlighting, crosslighting, selective focus, original composition � are frowned on by SS and their ilk Therefor: Never take their canned responses as legitimate criticism. It might lead you down the wrong path.

I you're an experienced photographer I don't think you can gain much information of value from the reviewer's comments. They have a limited number of canned responses from which to choose. For whatever reason they decide to reject an image they have to choose at least one response, which may not be at all relevant.

I have had editorial pictures of a unique event, made in a split second, rejected for composition! It would be funny to submit some of the great iconic images of photojournalism to a SS reviewer and see what happens.

As others have said, just accept the inconsistencies and idiocies and move on or resubmit or protest.

Yes!

SS is imperfect. Fact. Yet they've made it possible for me to afford any photo equipment I desire in my retirement years, something that would otherwise not be possible. In contrast to assignment work, I'm free to follow my nose and cover any subject I wish. I have no AD looking over my shoulder. Only a reviewer who, once-in-a-while may turn out to be an abject idiot . . . but not too often.

I read books on my Kindle and don't pay nearly what I used to for hard covers or even paperbacks. I enjoy all the music I can absorb for free. These are all 21st Century phenomena linked to computers and the internet. The graphic arts are no different than the entire arts field. To have expectations based on 20th Century practices is, to me, not realistic.

Some photographers will not lament the passing of the old business model. They will invent a new one.

That said, hey Shutterstock, how about increasing the 38 cents per by a few pennies!

Well, we've always suspected that many reviewers are not exactly top-tier or even remotely qualified. I was always willing to give the reviewers a little slack, but today . . .

Rejections for "Editorial Caption--Image requires proper caption and must be tagged as editorial."

After thousands of editorial acceptances I'm pretty sure I have the process down pat. The above reason is simply not true. Where did it come from and what are they thinking?

I am going contrary to most of the advice here. You, like me, are not in it to feed your family, but rather to get a return on an activity you enjoy and make a few bucks to further your expensive hobby. That's what I do. I've surpassed $18,000 all time on SS and a few dollars more on other sites. One went belly up recently, so I really only have SS and one other. That suits me just fine.

I shoot what I want and what interests me. If I tried to make images that are "in demand" I would not enjoy it and that would be reflected in lousy work. For instance, I've never been interested in studio work, models with releases or 17,000 varieties of business people posing in front of a white background. There are plenty of folks who are good at that and ready to (over)supply the market.

Ever since my army career in public information (writer and photographer) I've been interested in photojournalism and that's mainly what I do, along with the usual grist for my amateur's mill. I'm happy. I get to afford excellent equipment. I roam my territory photographing as the mood strikes me.

I really think you should photograph what you love. Maybe examine those images of yours that DO sell critically � see if there is a common denominator that made them interesting to buyers. Good luck!

You're right in that you probably didn't have to bother � non-ticketed event in public space. What I have often done, if in doubt, is to ask for credentials with the added note that if the event organizer did NOT issue credentials (highly likely) to reply to me with an email stating that they do not issue credentials. I then forward this response to SS. They in turn tell me I am pre-approved for credentials and to give the reviewer a case number.
A real PITA, wouldn't you say?

I do the same as you � submit first to SS, then BS. They have never rejected my photos based upon captioning, including the newer abbreviated form. Must be something else going on.

qwerty �

It gets harder and harder doesn't it? My understanding, based upon the answers I get from the admins, is that you don't need the email or credentials for a NON-TICKETED event held on public property. They gave me a little blurb to include for the reviewer so he/she wouldn't make a mistake. Sheesh!

I know most of the people who shoot microstock want to be able to live on this income

Are you kidding? Most people don't make a living at it. I have about 4500 images on two sites. Monthly income is about $250 - $300. I don't shoot released models on white so my contributions are more documentary and journalistic. Good luck!

I've had that problem for months with BS. At every stage it reads, "Image Not Available". After the image is accepted I can then see it.

Amazon's Kindle prices for many titles has increased about 50% during the last year. Amazon says, "The publisher sets the prices." Hmmm. Maybe the microstocks could raise prices and claim, "The photographers set the prices."

I know. I'm dreaming.

I use PS CS5. Since I've always had PhotoShop I see no reason to add Lightroom.