There is a reason that shot was accepted and the other one wasn't.  Can't you look at the two shots and see that one is better exposed, more interesting, better cropped, etc...  It looks less like a walk around snapshot than the other ones you posted and doesn't have the problems they did.  Just because both photos are of doors doesn't mean they are anywhere near equal.

Why is an anonymous person criticising other's work, asking for examples, making assumptions about an agency he is not part of, when at the same time he is not man enough to share his own portfolio?

You posted those images asking for criticism.  I know I've responded to you on here before that I am a video contributor on SS and that I was a photo contributor for years there.  You don't need to be a contributor there to know that those images had multiple issues though.  If I ever complain about a rejection on here I will be sure to post examples but my philosophy is to improve rather than complain.

Quote from: tickstock on March 13, 2015, 12:08

If you are getting rejections the best thing to do is figure out how to improve.  The reviewers are almost certainly correct in their rejections, maybe the real reason is that the photos are not good so they pick some other reason from the list.  Shutterstock doesn't have a "your image is no good" rejection do they, if you're getting focus rejections and you're sure they are actually in focus then that's probably the reason ( how many many times have people said their images were in focus or noise free but when zoomed into 100% they obviously aren't?).  Make better images and you won't have problems, focus on improving rather than complaining and conspiracies.

Without submitting to Shutterstock, I believe you have no experience in the review process, to be honest.

If I get a rejections for focus, and the image is sharp, there is a problem. Rejections on HCV images for focus dont back up the part in bold. I do speak from experience as a version of one of my best selling images was rejected for focus when it was tack sharp. Selling multiple times per day means its a popular well selling image.

Like I said there may be a few errors but you posted your ones rejected for wb, they were LCV, had the wrong exposure, were taken at the wrong time of day, were cropped poorly, and had wb issues.  With nearly 2 million files accepted a month I think it's a hard argument to make that they aren't accepting enough images.  Focusing on the few errors in comparison to the vast majority of rejections which are for files with issues isn't going to help you in the long run.  I think there is a reason almost everyone doesn't post photos, they know that there are problems with them but it's easier to blame reviewers than take responsibility for their work.

Quote from: tickstock on March 13, 2015, 12:08

If you are getting rejections the best thing to do is figure out how to improve.  The reviewers are almost certainly correct in their rejections, maybe the real reason is that the photos are not good so they pick some other reason from the list.  Shutterstock doesn't have a "your image is no good" rejection do they, if you're getting focus rejections and you're sure they are actually in focus then that's probably the reason ( how many many times have people said their images were in focus or noise free but when zoomed into 100% they obviously aren't?).  Make better images and you won't have problems, focus on improving rather than complaining and conspiracies.

Explain my rejections for "poor rasterizeration," while the same jpgs are offered for sale at SS as an option to the vector file. And then after emailing about them I'm told to resubmit because the reviewer was mistaken.

I'm not sure what's going on...whether the reviewers really are making mistakes, or whether this is Shutterstock's way of holding back the huge tide of incoming images.

I doubt I could help with that, I don't know much about raster illustrations.  Obviously there could be some mistakes or they could have higher standards for rasters than vectors.  If they already are accepted as vectors (and by extension rasters) then why would you be resubmitting the exact same files?

Quite a mixture of corporate-speak gibberish and truth-economies... 

In one of the few instances where I could understand the mangled verbiage, it was interesting that iStock was labelled as a "midstock" offering... 

I have no clue what the "consumer and data space" might be...  unless that is a reference to their embedded image giveaway option... 

I did however have a look at their " bold new consumer website" ...  confusingly, when I clicked through to the Subscription & Custom Solutions page, the iStock Subs are listed as $199 and $499 for Essentials and Signature respectively, but when I clicked through to the iStock page, these subs are $99 and $199 ??

Where are you located, I only see subs listed as $199 and $499 for the month plan or $166 and $333 for the yearly.

Yes.

Doesn't a regular download allow that kind of use?

Did you read the terms?

Tickstock: I got the quote from Shutterstock Public Relations in answer to my question.

Interesting, Jon Oringer seemed to say just a few months ago that they paid around 30%.

Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO and Chairman
I'll take the royalty rate one first. I think that we've done a nice job I think of structuring royalties with our eye on the contributor. We want contributors to do well and make money be happy and bring us more content and part of that is kind of keeping things stable, at a good range. So, nearly all of our royalties are in a pretty tight range around that 30% payout rate.

That feels quite stable. If you look at a quarter-to-quarter, it's super strong and stable. Even as the newer piece of the business grow faster, whether it's offset or enterprise or even now music is getting going. We would not expect to see much variability in that percentage relative to revenue.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2654535-shutterstock-inc-s-sstk-ceo-jonathan-oringer-on-q3-2014-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=5

There is also this quote where he seems to say some people get a higher rate but that will be lowered in the future:

Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO, and Chairman
We'll take the payout question first. So, it has been part of our strategy for quite some time to target a similar payout range across our entire business. So, we strive to do that when we structure new payout levels. We think it's good for the business. We think it's also fair and correct for our contributors. It encourages them to bring in new content and it has worked very well.

On occasion where we think it makes sense for everyone involved, we will be a little more strategic. Offset, for example, in some cases we have had higher payout ratios because we are building in new brand in our new business and bringing something new to the market. But even there over time our goal is to continue to pay a high fair rate, but directionally get a closer over time to the overall rate of the company. So that has really enabled us to keep that flat over time.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2399635-shutterstocks-sstk-ceo-jonathan-oringer-on-q2-2014-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=5

Where did you get the quote about offset paying 40% or more?  A google search does not find that quote.

Quote from: tickstock on March 08, 2015, 00:11

I have the 504HD, it's ok but I think you need a fairly heavy setup for it to work best.  It doesn't work so well with a light setup.  It also wouldn't be good for photo if that's what you mean by landscape?  Another thing is that you need a different type of tripod to use it, you can't use your photo tripod legs with it.

Thanks, Ticktock. What are your opinions on a system more aligned with my weight? If I interpret your post correctly, you are saying that my (or a normal DSLR setup is a bit light for optimal use with the 540HD.  I see it is for up to 17 lbs and I know I won't get anywhere near that.  Are you suggesting to step down to a lighter ranked head?

Thanks you to you and Holmes for your feedback.

Yep something rated for lighter gear would be better.  You need to get the right kind of legs for the head also, some screw in like most photo heads but some sit in a bowl.  The RRS one you posted looks like it's a normal one but the 504hd needs video tripod legs with a bowl (there are different sizes of those too so make sure you get the right one or get it as a set).  The 504hd with legs is very big and weighs a lot too, you might want to look at something like that in person first or you'll be in for a surprise.  Also read up on the head you want, some say fluid but aren't actually.

I'm certain it wont be worth the time spent on it.

Then you shouldn't do it.

Quote from: KB on March 04, 2015, 17:28

According to the current poll results, iStock exclusives are now earning only a little more than 50% over what independents are at SS alone.

Hahaha. It dropped after I remembered to input my Feb figures!

Must mean not too many people are reporting here, I wonder if the minimum number of replies is required for the exclusive numbers?  I don't think I've filled out the poll in nearly a year, when the options get updated to allow more realistic reporting maybe I'll start again.