It was all fine up until this week, I got a few rejections here and there (mostly justifiable), but I'm getting 90% of my batches rejected in the last 2 days. For absurd reasons of course, mostly focus issues. They're non existant, because they're part of the same couple of series I uploaded last week, besides that they've been accepted on all other sites. I got a couple of rejections for misssing photographer's signature on the MR and I used that MR for approximately 100 times already in the last year. Since you can't check the release or swap it, I checked the first MR from the model and it was signed. That's just how obvious their reviewing mistakes are in my case in the last 2 days.

I hope this is just a temporary annoyance, because up until now I haven't had any real problems with Shutterstock and they bring me most money. I'd really like to love this site in the future as well. It's really the only one I like, it works, brings money, is easy to use...

ETA: I think someone needs to get a grasp on selective focus. Because up until now reviewers had no problems with it and lots of my shots really have shallow DOF.

I had today my first mass rejection for ridiculous reasons. This is the first time in 7 years I am with shutterstock that this happens.
I never got angry because of rejections, but just refusing good and professional work for stupid reasons is an obvious disrespect everybody SHOULD take personal.

No, nothing worth noticing lately. Reviews ok.

I've just got this rejection reason on an old photo that I've made corrections to: "Please provide a note to the reviewer when deleting previously accepted images and resubmitting them". I made it, it was very specific, because I didn't want another rejection, I was hoping I could at least get a couple of older studio shots through, but no. Not to mention one of the shots was a similar to my bestseller, so they could be loosing hundreds if not thousands of $ (I mentioned that as well).

Automated review process, I though writing a note would in fact bring a live person to review it. But you get an automated rejection. Or everybody over there is just dead drunk or high as a kite . I just can't see no other explanation, I've never ever experience anything like this. It's driving me crazy, there's just so much rejection a man can take!

Yes, I am completely with you. It is stupid.
As I predicted in another thread a couple of month ago, I honestly believe that only those Agencies will be able to survive on the LONG run which are able to satisfy professional suppliers. Now, you may think that there is an oversupply of stock and you are right about it, but exactly this is the problem of the Crowd-sourced based systems. When it works, it gets flooded. When it doesn`t work any more or looses its "hippness" it gets abandoned in the same way and in masses. Look e.g. at what happened to myspace...

Random rejections take away the basis of sustainable business of those who work with a professional approach and good equipment. And equally those will step out sooner or later or at least make a shift to another main source of income. What is left are the hobbyists and the low quality suppliers which make probably the mass but this kind of supply just decreases the rate of downloads per iamge (due lower quality) and as such increases costs for the agency (more storage, less income). The current arrogancy and ignorancy we see in the agencies is the ONLY real cause which makes the whole business approach of microstock unsustainable - and - if you think further and look at the global economic situation - this is not only limited to microstock. The american business modell of "Profit at all costs" may soon be proven to be failure by design.

Currently we see conceptless Agency managements on all fronts. They want to limit supply but seem to be totally helpless in their methods and unable to lead the stream of images in a more productive and less repetitive direction. Therefore their ways are without real concept and destructive.

No, nothing worth noticing lately. Reviews ok.

Me too but I only submit things that I think will pass and have lowered the volume down to about one photo a week. I have much less similar images, maybe two of a series, no more. If the picture is good enough someone will buy it. All that incremental views and 60 pictures of a girl sitting on a car, bike on a hill, talking on a phone... from 60 different angles, just in case, confuses the buyers. Give them a great shot and skip the redundant "maybe they want it one inch this way" theory.

In a world where MS income is based on quantity and exposure, I'm not playing the game right. But for rejections, it's working out just fine.

Maybe in the Winter when I'm back in the office seven days a week, I can work on that new Micro images quantity problem. For now I'm busy with something else.

I've noticed and seen several comments about rejected images seem to get accepted at Big Stock.  Bridge to Big Stock.  Sales are picking up at Big Stock.

Could it be that Shutter Stock is trying to increase sales at Big Stock?

I start to believe that agencies try to get rid of "middle class" of contributors. They like newbies who never get payouts and high end pros who give them best quality. Everything in between is just a cost if contributors provide good enough images and receive regular payments.

While I agree partially, the low sales people conspiracy seems a little far fetched. I mean they still owe the money if it's CrapStock cashing out for $100 once a year or MS Mastermind cashing for $1000 a month? The "never make payout" may be something, but it's hard to bank on that. Legally they can't use that money, so there's no gain in not paying. The data still points to 50% of the people on IS have never reached payout. WOW! And they are tough to get accepted. SS used to be easier, probably have upped those standards also. 300,000 photographers, is enough, but there's always room for more Top Level additions. I can't see them taking poor images, over good ones, based on the contributor never collecting. Just can't buy that argument.

As for the other part, YES. Too many pictures, too many Middle Class and for that matter too many Low Class old images. (talking about myself in that last group) With 15 million, they can afford to be a little more selective.

No I don't get mass rejections and last image I sent in was reviewed in hours. Amazing. Maybe they are trying to weed out the dead collections, inactive contributors and people uploading P&S snapshots. I still can't explain my getting accepted in the first place, (IS or SS) making continued sales or the continuing acceptance which I find fair, but I'll take the payments and spare cash.

Oh yes, when I have had rejections and I'm not a bridge member, I have sent them to BS and most of the time they are accepted. I'd say that there's a little more margin for acceptance, not that BS is taking junk images. Very slightly more accepting. Once the bridge is built and people submit to one place, taking a step out of the work and process, I wouldn't be surprised to see BS get just as touch as SS. They have the good pictures coming in from one location and don't need to have two review standards or staffs.

With 15 million, they can afford to be a little more selective.

Yes. But thats the problem. They are not selective. They just reject randomly independent of quality or accept independent of quality. Both happened to me. They have no idea about what they want or not. Uploading to shutterstock is like gambling nowadays. And this is what I take as an straight disrespect.

Quote from: melastmohican on June 28, 2011, 12:24

I start to believe that agencies try to get rid of "middle class" of contributors. They like newbies who never get payouts and high end pros who give them best quality. Everything in between is just a cost if contributors provide good enough images and receive regular payments.

While I agree partially, the low sales people conspiracy seems a little far fetched. I mean they still owe the money if it's CrapStock cashing out for $100 once a year or MS Mastermind cashing for $1000 a month? The "never make payout" may be something, but it's hard to bank on that. Legally they can't use that money, so there's no gain in not paying. The data still points to 50% of the people on IS have never reached payout. WOW! And they are tough to get accepted. SS used to be easier, probably have upped those standards also. 300,000 photographers, is enough, but there's always room for more Top Level additions. I can't see them taking poor images, over good ones, based on the contributor never collecting. Just can't buy that argument.

As for the other part, YES. Too many pictures, too many Middle Class and for that matter too many Low Class old images. (talking about myself in that last group) With 15 million, they can afford to be a little more selective.

No I don't get mass rejections and last image I sent in was reviewed in hours. Amazing. Maybe they are trying to weed out the dead collections, inactive contributors and people uploading P&S snapshots. I still can't explain my getting accepted in the first place, (IS or SS) making continued sales or the continuing acceptance which I find fair, but I'll take the payments and spare cash.

Oh yes, when I have had rejections and I'm not a bridge member, I have sent them to BS and most of the time they are accepted. I'd say that there's a little more margin for acceptance, not that BS is taking junk images. Very slightly more accepting. Once the bridge is built and people submit to one place, taking a step out of the work and process, I wouldn't be surprised to see BS get just as touch as SS. They have the good pictures coming in from one location and don't need to have two review standards or staffs.

I am not saying that agency is taking money from contributors who never reach payouts. How about calling it zero interest loan :-) Let's say that 50% of contributors every month do not get paid you can at least put the money on savings and earn interest from that :-)

But at SS you don't need to "request payment", you just put your paypal address and when the money reaches to $75 or $100 (depending on the amount you have set) they actuomaically make the payment. Imagine a person who register, upload a bunch of photos and dissapear... if the photos keep selling, payment will keep being transfered

I am talking about contributors who never reach this minimum. What is percentage of people who sell less than 400 images?

Quote from: Tempusfugit on June 28, 2011, 14:28

But at SS you don't need to "request payment", you just put your paypal address and when the money reaches to $75 or $100 (depending on the amount you have set) they actuomaically make the payment. Imagine a person who register, upload a bunch of photos and dissapear... if the photos keep selling, payment will keep being transfered

I am talking about contributors who never reach this minimum. What is percentage of people who sell less than 400 images?

I think there is a significant amount of money "Just Lying Around."  Wonder how many of us have gotten pissed and closed an account with money left in it?  I have; not much but it was money that I'll never get.  And, according to the agreement, that money belongs to the agency.

when i make a first pass thru a shoot i check all images at 100% - but that's just a screen's worth of image; i dont check the entire surface of every image as i'm just culling;  but i'm starting to suspect some reviewers DO it this way -- looking at only a portion of the image at 100%, which would explain the silly DOF and other selective focus issues

when i make a first pass thru a shoot i check all images at 100% - but that's just a screen's worth of image; i dont check the entire surface of every image as i'm just culling;  but i'm starting to suspect some reviewers DO it this way -- looking at only a portion of the image at 100%, which would explain the silly DOF and other selective focus issues

It is very unlikely that those rejections have anything to do with actual quality.
I am experiencing the same on illustrations with the argument of "limited commercial value".