Mat's portfolios on other agencies notwithstanding, he has been a vocal cheerleader for Fotolia for a long time now.  I've been known to stand up for Shutterstock and a few other agencies against what I felt were unfair attacks, but Mat's posts felt more and more like those of an employee rather than those of an external advocate.  And that includes claims which I believed were false and which have turned out to be so.  As a mere supplier, he wouldn't be the first to make inaccurate assertions based on his own beliefs about an agency.  I don't know if there was a quid pro quo for his support for Fotolia or what led to their bringing him on board as an employee, but for me at least, his strained credibility is now in tatters.  I will not trust a word he says, nor can I trust anything he ever says.  And that would go for any representative of a company who doesn't divulge that connection.

Quote from: stockastic on April 30, 2014, 13:01

I don't see any hope of a turnaround.  Many people are clinging to the idea that SS is somehow our friend and is wearing the white hat, but I'd say that's a fantasy.  Let the minus-ing begin...

Look at their HQ in N.Y., there you can see wheres our money.

I don't think that's fair.  Judging by the number of ads I see and hear, I expect marketing and advertising are a much more significant expense than their offices.  And that's an expense that brings in more customers, meaning we get a slice of a growing pie.  Works for me.

Maybe my technique is better, or maybe I'm using better glass, but I hardly ever get focus rejections, and when I do, I can almost always see what the reviewer saw.  Given how subjective the review process can be, I'm surprised I don't have more images rejected.

I shoot with a Nikon D800, and I reduce the images by 25% in each dimension (36 MP down to 19 MB).  That's plenty of resolution for most any customer, and the file sizes are a lot more manageable.  I check my images at 200%; I edit on a retina MacBook Pro, where individual pixels are so small that Photoshop CC won't show me image problems at 100%.

Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have a hard time believing that perfect images are being rejected for focus on a regular basis.  Not at Shutterstock, at any rate.

23 of my old photos deleted so far:

Dear iStock Member,

The content is not suitable for our broad Royalty Free license; the reason given was: This image is deactivated due to a recent content guidelines change; images of a personal residence require a property release.

iStock Content Team

Pretty soon I won't have anything left there.

I'm guessing of course, but I'd say they don't like the shallow depth of field.  Maybe they think a photo of a photographer shooting a famous scene shouldn't blur out the scenic parts of that scene.

I think they want to have all the images of one model with the same release so they can use that to show more images w/ the same model. I wouldn't be surprised that there is specific IS/Getty language in their release that is objectionable to other agencies.

I believe this is the objectionable text in the Getty release:

I acknowledge and agree that this release is binding upon my heirs and assigns. I agree that this release is irrevocable, worldwide and perpetual, and will be governed by the laws (excluding the law of conflicts) of the country/state from the following list that is nearest to the address of the Model (or Parent*) given opposite: New York, Alberta, England, Australia and New Zealand.

Those are the places where Getty has a presence.  Other agencies aren't likely to accept jurisdiction based on a competitor's presence, and why should they?  I got around the problem by replacing this passage with a reference to US law, since that's where all my shoots take place.  Every agency that has received this modified release has accepted it.

I'd contact SS support and ask.  A while back (years, as I recall) a bunch of us got retroactive extended licenses when SS went after a calendar maker who didn't get the right license.  Let them say whether your case is like that one.

Another month, another error.

I have contacted 123rf support because April sales are being reported at the minimum royalty instead of our correct rates. It's really pathetic that they can't automate this...

To be fair (yeah, I know: why bother?), they do claim the process is automated.  It's just slow, as they run a process that calculates the right number of credits over the last 12 months for each supplier in turn.  Given how long it takes iStock to credit us with PP earnings once the process starts, I'm not surprised that 123RF takes a while to do a similar amount of work.

anyway that is insane, what lens were you using?

24-70mm F/2.8.  Although when the space is large enough to allow it, I prefer the 70-200mm F/4.

I would ignore the advice about keywords.  Note that the rejections were all related to the images, not their metadata.  I like general words like 'beautiful' and 'sexy', and have seen at least a few sales via such search terms.  If the reviewers don't object, I see no reason to avoid them.

Regarding the reasons they did give, do you see any noise or stippling at 100%?  At those settings you definitely shouldn't have noise problems, so whatever they see or think they see is coming from another source.  Make sure you look at everything at 100% (I'm on a Retina Display MacBook, so with Photoshop CC I have to check everything at 200% to be sure) and clean up anything that looks like noise.

If you're getting focus rejections at F/9, I'd consider moving to ISO 200 and F/11.  When I moved from a crop sensor camera (Nikon D300) to full frame (D800), I discovered the hard way that my Depth of Field at F/8 was a lot shallower than I'd expected.  I've since figured out how to take advantage of that look and still get images accepted, but if I want a lot in focus I'll go back to F/11 or even smaller.

The lighting complaint may be a lack of contrast.  I like to increase Clarity and Vibrance in Camera Raw; it makes the pictures pop more.  But of course you'll have your own preferences.

No.  I got in 12 hours ago without difficulty, and again just now.

There are two sets of factors that would explain the difference: White Balance and what Nikon calls Picture Controls.  Your camera's histogram is calculated from the JPEG image, not the RAW data; if your White Balance is off, your histograms will also be off.  Conversely, the histogram in Lightroom or Camera Raw is calculated using the current image settings; adjust your WB or anything else and the histogram moves accordingly.

Lightroom doesn't know about in-camera adjustments to the JPEG.  I'd set the camera to its most neutral settings; that way it will match your raw processor more accurately.