Quote from: KuriousKat on June 27, 2023, 21:01
You need to add the day. They changed the rules recently, I believe.

Oh great, I used to put the actual date but at least I still have those.

I've no idea why but I GIVE UP. SS is up to its old tricks again. I've always written this ' editorial caption' correctly & have no idea how to do it differently yet they are rejecting it straight away. They rejected 3 others the same way for the 2nd time. Maybe they are getting fussy about editorial now.

Dear Shutterstock Contributor,

As the creative landscape evolves to include new uses for creative assets, Shutterstock wants artists to have the opportunity to take advantage of all the ways they can earn compensation for their work. Shutterstock is working to better support artists through ethically-sourcing our content, increasing transparency about its use, and financially compensating our contributors. We're excited to announce we'll now be accepting more assets into our library, following a change to how we process submissions.

What's changing

Starting next week, Shutterstock will be introducing Data Licensing, a new opportunity that will include content that would otherwise not meet the criteria for our traditional stock marketplace. These assets will be found under your portfolio within a new section called Data catalog and will be available for licensing as datasets. Earnings on assets within this library will be paid via the Shutterstock Contributor Fund – learn more about it here.

I know that Adobe will reject flower or food pictures because they have so many, unless it's shot in a way that is unique.

Quote from: yougogirl on June 12, 2023, 17:51

Quote from: photostockad on June 12, 2023, 16:35
Same problem. I am contributor for more than 10 years, with approval rate above 95% (main rejections regarding intellectual property). Today I've got a 100% rejection on a set, quality issues. I don't think I've changed my editing style/skills in the past months/year and my images are all accepted on the all other big agencies.

Same here. I've been getting some ridiculous rejections in the past week from adobe when in the past, I have about a 95% acceptance rate like you. I would like to know what's going on and what, if anything, changed.

Maybe some reviewers from SS have jumped ship & joined Adobe

Quote from: yougogirl on June 12, 2023, 17:51

Quote from: photostockad on June 12, 2023, 16:35
Same problem. I am contributor for more than 10 years, with approval rate above 95% (main rejections regarding intellectual property). Today I've got a 100% rejection on a set, quality issues. I don't think I've changed my editing style/skills in the past months/year and my images are all accepted on the all other big agencies.

Same here. I've been getting some ridiculous rejections in the past week from adobe when in the past, I have about a 95% acceptance rate like you. I would like to know what's going on and what, if anything, changed.

Maybe some reviewers from SS have jumped ship & joined Adobe

Quote from: Jaggy on June 12, 2023, 15:04
A week ago, I had 4 photos rejected by Adobe for "quality issues". Generally, I don't resubmit but I thought I would try resubmitting one of them as a trial.

Predictably, this photo has been accepted by Adobe.

Does this mean that, in the last week, Adobe has reduced their quality standards? Alternatively, perhaps it highlights that there is inconsistency in the review process and that Adobe's review guidelines lack the specificity to allow for consistent reviews.

Does it also mean that we must now adopt the ridiculous 'resubmission game' that has been a feature of the relationship with Shutterstock.

I had thought Adobe was better than that!

Agreed and it's not fair to make us use more energy to have to re-upload. Shutterstock has now vastly improved its reviews in the last few months so Adobe should do the same.

I couldn't afford the electricity to upload 100s of photos & have them rejected even if I took that many, thanks to the outrageous behavior of UK utility companies.

Quote from: kubeslaw on June 07, 2023, 23:15
Obviously there is some issue with extraordinary rejection rate at Adobe, even if Matt is trying to deny that.

Today I got really frustrated as out of batch of 500 diverse pictures 400 has been already rejected. And I am surely not an idiot trying to submit some useless crap, previously my acceptance rate was around 90% and I have almost 8000 pics in my portfolio.

I corrected all 3 photos & adobe has now accepted them. I didn't even have to downsize them. The other thing is that I wrote the exact location in some of the titles this time. Adobe doesn't have too many photos from my local area & there were no I.P. problems either

Great! Adobe has now accepted all 3 photos I mentioned here. This is because people on here mentioned what was wrong so I corrected them accordingly, thanks. Although tech quality is only part of it - see the below post.
For all the trouble Adobe give, they have at least paid me 99c per photo for the last few DLs. which is much better than SS so it was worth it.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 02, 2023, 17:30
Lets see if I can learn how to share with DropBox? Both sharing sites were down for 502 bad gateway today.



Something strange going on in the trees? The sky has noise. Maybe instead of sharpen, you should blur the sky?

Are you exposing for the shadows and then bringing the photo down? I suggest that vs making a exposure for the foreground and sky, for example, then bringing up the shadows.  Making the shadows lighter makes more noise and artifacts, while over exposure, + 1/3rd is usual, means you can bring down the shadows and it has the apparent effect of reducing noise.

Shoot to the right = ETTR (I'm a user, my cameras are set +1/3rd and advocate) https://photographylife.com/exposing-to-the-right-explained

I don't know about the size and the camera you have, very much, but 16MP image, you have room and size to reduce the images in the final version = save the original, and upload 10MP images. That also helps reduce artifacts.

This is a 100% crop.

I used HDR in the raw photo to try to equalize the exposure which raised the darker areas of the photo. The way the sun shines on the trees is though is showing mist or pollution yet the right side of the photo is much clearer.

These are the full images made a lot smaller to upload here Uncle Pete. The camera I used is a Sony NEX 5n

Quote from: Zero Talent on June 01, 2023, 14:08

Quote from: TonyD on June 01, 2023, 10:59
I normally check for sharpness at 100% but Adobe seems to find other things wrong, they even reject for color balance which can be subjective. Shutterstock now seems to accept nearly everything including my river landscape shown here so they've changed their reviewing process recently.
Adobe also rejected the two below taken on the same day.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ctxupk0ybyw6bbt/DSC04736.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2secfv9jj3wkaw/DSC04738.jpg?dl=0

On one hand, I can see very soft, smushy trees, and on the other hand, sparkling oversharpening HDR like artifacts.
Attached is a 100% zoomed piece of the left side of the 1st photo, but the same is also valid for the 2nd.

I've now turned down the noise reduction in RAW & removed a lot of (but not all) the smudging in trees but there's some mist or pollution. Also, I had to shoot at f11 or f16 to get the most D.O.F as I could but it seems to reduce overall sharpness.
below is a 100% crop from the latest image.
NOTE: I submitted the below version of the photo & adobe accepted it along with the other 2.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 01, 2023, 13:45
You posted the same link twice, so I can only comment on one

As I mentioned for the earlier image, it's likely the quality rejection had more to do with "we don't want this subject matter", but I could also find some technical flaws they might be referring to.

The image looks really over-sharpened - crunchy - and for an apparently overcast day, has much more contrast that I'd expect. If you were concerned about softness, I'd back off on the processing and downsize to try and improve sharpness. If it was a cloudy day with relatively flat light, let it be that rather than trying to amp it up too much.

yes, I see what you mean. I reduced sharpness & increased the D. range to reduce contrast in the RAW files. I corrected the 2nd link but the same will apply to that as it was taken about the same time.

I normally check for sharpness at 100% but Adobe seems to find other things wrong, they even reject for color balance which can be subjective. Shutterstock now seems to accept nearly everything including my river landscape shown here so they've changed their reviewing process recently.
Adobe also rejected the two below taken on the same day.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ctxupk0ybyw6bbt/DSC04736.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2secfv9jj3wkaw/DSC04738.jpg?dl=0

Maybe Adobe has got like Alamy & rejecting the whole batch if they find something wrong with the 1st photo.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 31, 2023, 19:10

Quote from: TonyD on May 30, 2023, 05:58
I just added one new Dropbox link to see if it works
https://www.dropbox.com/s/30pipmd5luxldef/DSC04742.jpg?dl=0

I can see this - thanks for sorting out the problem.

I suspect that the "Quality Issues" translates to "we don't want this subject matter" rather than technical flaws, but I thought I'd point out something in the details of the shot I noticed that don't look great. It may be that this is just how the camera is - it looks like it's a Sony NEX-5N from the metadata - but could be how you're processing it.

This was pixel peeping, and probably doesn't mean much for most real-world uses of this image, but I saw some "wormy" looking artifacts in some of the tree trunks and leaves that reminded me of what my Fuji RAW files look like when Lightroom processes them (I use Capture One to avoid that). To make it easier to see what I'm referring to, I've put an example together. Click on the thumbnail to view the example at full size.



Sometimes these "wormy" artifacts are made more noticeable by sharpening in Lightroom/ACR. You can turn off sharpening in RAW processing and use Photoshop's high pass sharpening instead which is much cleaner. If you're shooting JPEG, perhaps turn off/down the sharpening in camera?

FWIW, I wish Adobe had a different rejection for images they don't want because of subject matter - when they say "quality" it suggests if you'd just done it "better" it would be accepted. Then save the quality rejection for technical flaws.

Hope this is helpful.

Yes, it's Sony NEX 5n. The trees didn't look clear enough so I probably sharpened the RAW photo too much. I also saw some telegraph lines in this photo that looked like chains when viewed at about 125% after conversion to JPEG in GIMP - an alternative to Photoshop. This crop should show here:

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2023, 18:55
It's not just you. That's not a sharable dropbox link. You can see instructions here

https://help.dropbox.com/share/create-and-share-link

You'll want to create a view-only link (scroll down a bit)

This is what a sharable link looks like:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lyss812ksfy9dzl/Ilex-trees-path.jpg?dl=0

My computer won't get to that link it says 'Hm can't reach that page' connection reset. it even does stat for the Dropbox help center. UPDATE: your links are OK now my antivirus was stopping me reading pages from the links.

I shared photos before on here but that was with Photobucket & they deactivated my account.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 29, 2023, 19:08

Quote from: TonyD on May 28, 2023, 14:06

Quote from: TonyD on March 14, 2023, 11:22
Why does Adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent?

They just rejected all my photos yet again (a total of 7) for quality but there is nothing wrong. What's going on adobe?

I'm only mildly psychic and can't see your rejected images, so anything I'd say is a total guess. Could you post some examples for people here to see and try to help you figure out why they are being rejected?

I just added one new Dropbox link to see if it works
https://www.dropbox.com/s/30pipmd5luxldef/DSC04742.jpg?dl=0

adobe either seems to turn down all my images in a batch OR accepts most of them at other times.
I can NEVER see what's wrong when they reject for quality issues even though I looked at 100% with my PC monitor set at the standard 1024 x 768 display setting. Maybe the reviews are looking at an HD monitor. I'd have to plug in my TV to the PC to get HD.

Quote from: TonyD on March 14, 2023, 11:22
Why does Adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent?

They just rejected all my photos yet again (a total of 7) for quality but there is nothing wrong. What's going on adobe?

They are probably paid the same as contributors ie not a lot so they wouldn't be able to afford to live in a Western country. Maybe they work remotely in the Philippines Thailand etc.

Shutterstock is now accepting virtually all of my photos. (even older ones that they rejected several times before and I gave up on) There are not even those stupid noise & focus rejections anymore. Maybe their A.I. has improved a lot or they were losing sales due to too many incorrect rejections.

Quote from: Brasilnut on March 22, 2023, 10:52
My largest one-off sale on Alamy was $113 net

Is net what Alamy paid you?

Quote from: sharpshot on March 24, 2023, 10:34
I wonder what size the DPReview website would be? Probably huge, but if I could get an offline version, it would be great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe40pxcjPpM

DPReview closure: an update
Published Apr 7, 2023 | Scott Everett
Share   
Dear readers,
We've received a lot of questions about what's next for the site. We hear your concerns about losing the content that has been carefully curated over the years, and want to assure you that the content will remain available as an archive.
We've also heard that you need more time to access the site, so we're going to keep publishing some more stories while we work on archiving.
Thank you to this community and the support you've shown us over the years.

Scott Everett
General Manager - DPReview.com