I thought this was a good indication that something other than a reviewer being the root cause of high rejections at SS.  To not get even one image accepted for someone who shoots these kind of images and has a normally decent acceptance rate (according to her, anyway) says that perhaps they are using something like DT is employing, some technological initial first pass or a bug.  But the weird thing is that she had specific rejection reasons, so would it really be normal for a reviewer to reject 100 of 100 images? I mean, if they were that bad, yea.  But looking at her port, seems like she has a valid point of frustration.

Thoughts?

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=124130&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Without being able to see them, it's tough to say.

From her post on that thread:

Most rejected for composition, and out of focus which I know is not true. I wrote a long e-mail! They even asked for Editorial Caption for images that they have no people in it, and they are the DC Capitol images that do not need to be editorial. I have 77 DC Capitol images ,and none ever needed an Editorial Caption.
I can tell is a very inexperient reviewer.

As far as composition, unless they are REALLY bad, I don't know why reviewers use this reason. It's not up to them to decide how an image can be used, only to make sure that the image is technically sound. Out of focus...I have had a number of "focus is not where we think it should be", so maybe that affects a few of them. DC Capitol images...well, just because they accepted them before non-Editorial doesn't mean they continue to. Things change all the time. I used to be able to get people shot from behind accepted without releases, but no more.

But to me it sounds like maybe the reviewer looked at a few, saw some flaws (in their eyes, anyway), and just rejected the whole batch because he/she is lazy or something. This isn't something that only happens at SS, it happens at all of the agencies. Of course it's frustrating, but by now she should know NOT to submit 100 at a time. For this very reason. Different batches go to different reviewers and cuts down on your chances of having this happen. At least that's MY theory.

"
 Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:53 am       

Sheite i can submit over 200 over a weekend so it is not hard to do and pretty common among many submitters who do the same.

Look at Alex he did over 400 one week in a few days time uploading and then he waited."

I think they need to do more bulk rejections.  200 in a weekend?  "Here's my turtle.  Here's my turtle on grass.  Here's his head sticking out.  Here he's hiding.  Oh, a butterfly!  Top right, top left.  Wings open, wings shut..."

If your going to quote someone at least quote them with their username!

After all that is my quote so i would appreciate it to be quoted correctly with my username.

And there are many on SS and elsewhere that turn in well over 1000 images a week for review so this is a minor amount we are talking about here.

There are those site where they limit you but not SS which is a good thing and that is why they are #1

take me out to the ballpark take me out to the game!  10-9-8-7-6- Get real.

You can tell a good photographer because of the amount of dirt on their clothes.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on August 05, 2012, 11:09

There are those site where they limit you but not SS which is a good thing and that is why they are #1

That's exactly NOT a good thing and it's NOT why they are #1, you got it all wrong. Also, SS should better introduce uploading limits based on performance and acceptance rate, instead of swallowing zillions of similars that dilute the library.

LE: I had a look at the portfolio in question. She really needs to diversify a bit. Her whole portfolio is 9 pages. Now search for "capitol" in her port - 2 pages of results.

I agree that they need to clamp down on submitters who flood the site with similar's. It seems that some reviewers do have not problems accepting a huge series of LCV images that are almost identical, I am not talking about the OP's port this has been going on for years. SS has been allowing this to the extent that quite a few submitters have 20,000 to 40,000 image ports filled to the brim with LCV similar's. While it is frustrating to get rejected for similars on DT (that are not similar) at least DT has kept the problem to a minimum.

On the flip side in the past we have seen people like Sandra, Luba, Dave, Jeff, the list goes on who don't shoot similar's posting about large portions of their batches being rejected for erroneous reasons and that does give credence to the fact that SS does have review consistency issues.

Quote from: grp_photo on August 05, 2012, 11:53

Quote from: sjlocke on August 05, 2012, 08:42

...  Oh, a butterfly!  Top right, top left.  Wings open, wings shut..."

LOL  

Of course  you want a butterfly with wings open AND wings shut. Both photos are essential for identification.

+1

And the scientific classification names help sales as well not just typing Butterfly!

Some people who do studio only have no idea what it takes to shoot  nature shots.

Try catching a copperhead snake without getting bit so you can get the shot!

EDIT: To add the pic.

I think the thing missing here is that it's not hard to get 100 photos in a batch at Shutterstock that aren't similar because of the way the site does the review. While it might not be the case this time, if you just keep adding to your submission queue during the week, all the images get grouped together for review. So you can do 10 on Monday, 30 on Tuesday, 20 on Wednesday, etc., and build up 100 very different images into what actually ends up being one batch. It wasn't an issue when the reviews happened overnight, but now that they're taking anywhere from four to seven days. I've hit around the 100 marks plenty of times in recent months.

Even with the possibility of having a whole batch rejected, I still prefer they all get grouped together because at least some images get a quick review time. I basically always queue up an image after review to start up the next week's batch.

Ah, I didn't know that. I thought they stayed separate batches. So I'll that theory of mine out. 

Its is very unusual to have all 100 rejected. There could be a couple of reasons:
1..The photographer has fallen into some kind of flawed pit: Monitor setup, camera setting, low bloodsugar, trembling hands, depression, wb, diabetis.
2..The Photog has reached her limit, and the pictures are not up to par anymore.
3..The reviewer looked at her batch right after having seen an excellent batch from a super camera.
4..The reviewer was blind and dumb.

I cannot judge anything without having seen the pictures, but I have looked in  Lissandra�s port and see a few general things: all images are leaning to the right. Light is not optimal, composition is not optimal.
That is general.

If the batch of 100 had these 3 weaknesses combined, and that could happen if many were shot in a short time with bad light, and a tilting horizon. It might cause the reviewer to consider them more or less LCV, and its always LCV that spooks behind the scenes.

... It is very difficult to photograph living creatures in the wild.
And ever so hard to get them into the studio.

And usually illegal (unless you go to some sort of animal model agency, and GlobalP has that covered already.)
It's often illegal, and arguably always 'bad practice', to pick wild flowers to take to a studio or put into a more 'photogenic' situation (unless you grow the commoner species from seed).

OK Slocke. I agree.


Sue,
It is not at all illegal to rear caterpillars to butterflies and photograph them in surroundings of your choice.
That of course, if they are not on the Washington or Geneva convension list or otherwise protected.

Ja, I was thinking about that as well.
It is legal enough here to photograph an eartwig, a caterpillar or a butterfly.
It is good etichs, however, to release them after you have flashed them.

as for Slocke  ridiculing butterfly and reptile photography.

Thats not fair. It is very difficult to photograph living creatures in the wild.
And ever so hard to get them into the studio. But we can discuss that in another thread.

like the guy complaining about rejections, he just went to the zoo and shot 300 snake shots. Hers were focus and composition not lcv or similar. Something wrong there.

I hope the new CEO will hire some professional staff and pay them accordingly, you know, the kind that knows what they're actually doing, the kind that isn't a contributor (what are they thinking anyway)

You can put it every way you want but with a batch of 100 images, over a year experience and above 50% AR they would have at least accepted 1 or 2.
Common guys, you should know better. With inconsistency like this it's just a matter of time till it happens to you too, what then?

Similars? Snapshots? stock is flooded with that and keeps on coming.
I see too many people judging others while their own work is just standard material, hell, some of them aren't even successful in this business yet they seem to know what stock is all about 

@ sharpshot, same experience here mate, like you said besides wasting our time posting our frustrations on forums we can't do much about it, except for leaving the agency, stop uploading or putting our focus elsewhere, it's all up to us to take action.

Later