Author Topic: Are you experiencing MASS REJECTIONS? (Read 44381 times)

melastmohican · « **Reply #75 on:** June 28, 2011, 17:32 »

Maybe they have some sort of technical problem (running out of space and waiting to hardware update)? If they close down the pipe they can hold on for while without letting outside world to know that there is a problem.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #76 on:** June 28, 2011, 17:45 »

Quote from: melastmohican on June 28, 2011, 17:32

Maybe they have some sort of technical problem (running out of space and waiting to hardware update)? If they close down the pipe they can hold on for while without letting outside world to know that there is a problem.

The damage done in Contributor relations is far higher this way as if they would hold uploads for a week or install temporary limits for a month and communicate their Problem. I stick with my opinion and interpret their Behaviour as plain helplessness facing an overflooded Server in combination with ignorance.
And yes, Contributors opinion matters. Istock is going down. Partially because of the Contributor annoyance and their speading of the world, partially because of disappointed buyers and poor customer relations.

gbalex · « **Reply #77 on:** June 28, 2011, 20:20 »

Quote from: velocicarpo on June 28, 2011, 13:48

Quote from: RacePhoto on June 28, 2011, 12:55
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.

I completely agree, regardless if it is an actual (blind/lazy/greedy/biased) reviewer or some script. I am quickly losing respect for SS and after looking at a more than a few rejected images submitted by friends over the last 6 months and comparing the quality of those images to images that are routinely accepted. I am starting really question what is going on.

This is nothing new and it has been going on for at least 6 months. If it was one or two reviewers surely they would have been held accountable by SS management by now. The fact that these bizarre rejections continue is troubling on many levels because it means we can no longer count on fair reviews at SS.

gbalex · « **Reply #78 on:** June 28, 2011, 20:27 »

Quote from: melastmohican on June 28, 2011, 17:32

Maybe they have some sort of technical problem (running out of space and waiting to hardware update)? If they close down the pipe they can hold on for while without letting outside world to know that there is a problem.

I wondered about this scenario also, the site has been having server path issues for years and the bugs seem to be much more frequent! I started having the missing image issue 3 years ago and it is happening more often and on a wider scale these days.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #79 on:** June 29, 2011, 02:05 »

Quote from: melastmohican on June 28, 2011, 14:17

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 :-)

Only if you believe they are breaking laws, because they can't legally invest and earn interest on unpaid commissions.

And for the same reason, why would they reject good images that could sell, in order to take junk images, that buyers won't buy. Do you assume that buyers are idiots and will by poor images over good images, when offered 15 million choices?

It's just doesn't make sense.

People may not understand or accept the rejections, but finding some conspiracy behind that, isn't very logical. Space limitations, and taking poor images over good ones, both fall short of reasonable. Especially when the claim is they take the bad shots and ignore the good ones, which means the space claim, doesn't hold water.

toots · « **Reply #80 on:** June 29, 2011, 03:23 »

Quote from: gbalex on June 28, 2011, 20:20

Quote from: velocicarpo on June 28, 2011, 13:48
Quote from: RacePhoto on June 28, 2011, 12:55
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.

I completely agree, regardless if it is an actual (blind/lazy/greedy/biased) reviewer or some script. I am quickly losing respect for SS and after looking at a more than a few rejected images submitted by friends over the last 6 months and comparing the quality of those images to images that are routinely accepted. I am starting really question what is going on.

This is nothing new and it has been going on for at least 6 months. If it was one or two reviewers surely they would have been held accountable by SS management by now. The fact that these bizarre rejections continue is troubling on many levels because it means we can no longer count on fair reviews at SS.

I uploaded 3 vectors and 3 jpg versions of the same vector images. Vectors and jpgs are reviewed by different reviewers. Yesterday I had all 3 vectors approved, however when it came to the jpg versions only one was approved, the other 2 were rejected for 'limited commercial value', and one of these was a 2012 calendar!!! There is no consistency at all. I wrote to support about the inconsistency with the reviewing procedure and am waiting to hear back from them.

This does happen a lot to us illustrators, and we can see clearly the inconsistency when we submit the exact same images albeit in different formats and get one rejected and one approved. It just does not make any sense at all.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #81 on:** June 29, 2011, 06:29 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on June 29, 2011, 02:05

People may not understand or accept the rejections, but finding some conspiracy behind that, isn't very logical.

Completely agree.

I am experiencing both 100% rejection and 100% acceptance at Shutterstock lately, and neither is good.
But I don't think it's a conspiracy.
I think there are too many pictures submitted each week, too many (poorly paid and poorly trained) reviewers, and and this is the result: random acceptance or rejection.
I am not even sure this is bad for us: since these crazy reviews started, old pictures are selling more than ever. Just doesn't make me want to shoot new pictures anymore.

Paulo M. F. Pires · « **Reply #82 on:** June 29, 2011, 06:43 »

Even with my tiny and "strange" port @ SS, I believe that main cause for mass rejection is a question of "numbers": There are too many photographers, too many photos of same type, and they are more selective...

By other side, it appears that they are accepting anything Editorial ( Another agencys too )

Last weekend I correct some old refused photos and they accepted the most unexpected ones...

gbalex · « **Reply #83 on:** June 29, 2011, 07:42 »

Quote from: toots on June 29, 2011, 03:23

Quote from: gbalex on June 28, 2011, 20:20
Quote from: velocicarpo on June 28, 2011, 13:48
Quote from: RacePhoto on June 28, 2011, 12:55
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.

I completely agree, regardless if it is an actual (blind/lazy/greedy/biased) reviewer or some script. I am quickly losing respect for SS and after looking at a more than a few rejected images submitted by friends over the last 6 months and comparing the quality of those images to images that are routinely accepted. I am starting really question what is going on.

This is nothing new and it has been going on for at least 6 months. If it was one or two reviewers surely they would have been held accountable by SS management by now. The fact that these bizarre rejections continue is troubling on many levels because it means we can no longer count on fair reviews at SS.

I uploaded 3 vectors and 3 jpg versions of the same vector images. Vectors and jpgs are reviewed by different reviewers. Yesterday I had all 3 vectors approved, however when it came to the jpg versions only one was approved, the other 2 were rejected for 'limited commercial value', and one of these was a 2012 calendar!!! There is no consistency at all. I wrote to support about the inconsistency with the reviewing procedure and am waiting to hear back from them.

This does happen a lot to us illustrators, and we can see clearly the inconsistency when we submit the exact same images albeit in different formats and get one rejected and one approved. It just does not make any sense at all.

I hope their position will changed. Many of us have written to support, only to get terse disrespectful responses by management at SS who seem not at all interested in solving the problem. When the discrepancy's between rejections were logical at SS, rejections were not so hard to swallow. However the gap these days can be huge and when very good work is being rejected in large batches at the same time very poor work is routinely and consistently accepted, you really have to wonder what has gone horribly wrong and why. Given that they sell huge numbers of images every year, at worst is in not inconceivable that a company would prefer to pay $0.25 vs $0.38 for a percentage of good enough to sell images .

Slovenian · « **Reply #84 on:** June 29, 2011, 08:49 »

I hope they're not the last of the big 4 to fuck it all up. For me it was an incredible place to sell photos until this week. I really hope this mess is only temporary and that things will return to normal soon. I'd really like to love uploading to at least one agency, because now I'm just nervously anticipating the outcome of every review which I'm sure should pass.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #85 on:** June 29, 2011, 10:46 »

Here's a good one; a batch of my ShutterStock rejects was accepted at iStock. Any advantage gained from iStock blunders is being lost to Shutterstock Bullheadness.

lthn · « **Reply #86 on:** June 29, 2011, 10:50 »

The last thing I want is to look sycophantic towards any agency (I basically at least mildly dislike any of them) but when I checked these threads on SS, and took a look at the ports of ppl with many complaints, they did look pretty novice-yyy to be honest. Inapt models, grayish skin especially at 'on white' isolations, dull contrast even by regular standards, dull subjects, etcetc...

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #87 on:** June 29, 2011, 11:25 »

Quote from: lthn on June 29, 2011, 10:50

The last thing I want is to look sycophantic towards any agency (I basically at least mildly dislike any of them) but when I checked these threads on SS, and took a look at the ports of ppl with many complaints, they did look pretty novice-yyy to be honest. Inapt models, grayish skin especially at 'on white' isolations, dull contrast even by regular standards, dull subjects, etcetc...

And those are the ones that were accepted, right? Maybe those should be deleted rather than rejecting my "fabulous" images.

lthn · « **Reply #88 on:** June 29, 2011, 12:00 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 29, 2011, 11:25

Quote from: lthn on June 29, 2011, 10:50
The last thing I want is to look sycophantic towards any agency (I basically at least mildly dislike any of them) but when I checked these threads on SS, and took a look at the ports of ppl with many complaints, they did look pretty novice-yyy to be honest. Inapt models, grayish skin especially at 'on white' isolations, dull contrast even by regular standards, dull subjects, etcetc...

And those are the ones that were accepted, right? Maybe those should be deleted rather than rejecting my "fabulous" images.

Maybe there is honeymoon with that too... but I do agree it's inconsistant

gbalex · « **Reply #89 on:** June 29, 2011, 19:57 »

Quote from: lthn on June 29, 2011, 10:50

The last thing I want is to look sycophantic towards any agency (I basically at least mildly dislike any of them) but when I checked these threads on SS, and took a look at the ports of ppl with many complaints, they did look pretty novice-yyy to be honest. Inapt models, grayish skin especially at 'on white' isolations, dull contrast even by regular standards, dull subjects, etcetc...

Do you think most high level submitters post much on SS anymore? A good number left the forums years ago and most would never publicly complain about rejections for multiple reasons. That is a shame because our silence does nothing to help resolve the issue.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #90 on:** June 30, 2011, 00:25 »

There are a few threads on the SS forum as well regarding mass rejections, with posts from some high level / old-timer photographers; and their tone is not the usual (and usually right) "post to the critique forum" but they adknowledge there's a problem this time. Laurin says this rejection thing affects us a "community". Interesting.
My guess is that - while SS pretends not to be listening - that's not the case actually, and things will silently return to normal sooner or later - it happened before.

Mr Korn Flakes · « **Reply #91 on:** July 06, 2011, 03:35 »

Since weeks I'm getting a lot of rejections from SS and I can't understand what's wrong with my photos; others sites are accepting them, so I'm really confused (and frustrated too!).
These are my last 3 rejections:

http://us.fotolia.com/id/33573146 Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.
http://us.fotolia.com/id/33573231 Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.
http://us.fotolia.com/id/33573102 Focus--Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best.

This file, with similar lighting and WB, has been accepted http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=80245342

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #92 on:** July 06, 2011, 03:56 »

The trouble is not knowing what their standards are. You get a dozen shots that you reckon are among your best ever rejected for poor lighting and you (or at least I) go away and think about what they want. Maybe even lighting with very light shadows is considered poor now, so you adjust the lighting balance to boost the shadows and shift their direction/length (wasn't that their "bad lighting" in the past?) and then you get another set of rejections, but this time for "focus". Meanwhile, iStock takes almost everything.

Without knowing for sure what the thinking behind this is, it is impossible to correct for it. The Shutterbuzz lighting tutorial is just a joke, it says nothing, and if the rejection reason is not really what they say, then you could switch from lighting they like to something they won't accept because they've told you to stop using a set-up that they don't really object to.

Yours sincerely,

Confused of Brighton.

sharpshot · « **Reply #93 on:** July 06, 2011, 04:33 »

I see 53k photos added this week, didn't that used to be over 100k most weeks? I don't like the mass rejections but they are doing a good job of selling my old stuff. Had a BME in June, so I can't really complain. I have to laugh when people still say that istock has higher standards than SS. That clearly hasn't been true for a long time now.

I didn't think SS would do this until they had more images than alamy. SS has 15 million, alamy has 24 million and claims to be "the world's largest independent stock photo site". I really thought SS would want to overtake alamy before raising the bar so high that it puts people off uploading.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #94 on:** July 06, 2011, 11:08 »

So Confusing ... not just the Mass Rejections but the total inconsistency. I was going along just great, thinking I had figured out how to light my food shots. Had some rejections but was getting a few accepted; then WHAM 20 of 20 rejected ... mostly for lighting.

I just do not understand???

ed; and even worse -- trying to light things for SS is now getting me MASS rejections at DT???

Mantis · « **Reply #95 on:** July 06, 2011, 17:38 »

Shutterstock doesn't think they have a problem....at least according to their admin forum posts.

lagereek · « **Reply #96 on:** July 07, 2011, 00:14 »

Warren! food is one of the most difficult aspects in photography and to light food can be a nightmare, show us some of your food shots.

We should not complain about the SS accept/reject percentage, their reviewers are still lightyears ahead of most other agencies, they know what they want, simple as that.

The reviewing at DT and FT, is reasonably good as well. The IS reviewing is good for their exclusives.

sharpshot · « **Reply #97 on:** July 07, 2011, 00:57 »

^^^You must get a different reviewer to me. SS are rejecting images that sell on the other sites. As they sell more for me than any other site, it must be costing me and them money. I still don't see how this is a positive thing.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #98 on:** July 07, 2011, 08:27 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 07, 2011, 00:57

^^^You must get a different reviewer to me. SS are rejecting images that sell on the other sites. As they sell more for me than any other site, it must be costing me and them money. I still don't see how this is a positive thing.

SS is rejecting images that sell at SS.

You can review them at SS, Christian.

lagereek · « **Reply #99 on:** July 07, 2011, 10:21 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on July 07, 2011, 08:27

Quote from: sharpshot on July 07, 2011, 00:57
^^^You must get a different reviewer to me. SS are rejecting images that sell on the other sites. As they sell more for me than any other site, it must be costing me and them money. I still don't see how this is a positive thing.

SS is rejecting images that sell at SS.

You can review them at SS, Christian.

Well I think theyre nice, nothing wrong with that lighning, very tightly cropped though.

best

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Are you experiencing MASS REJECTIONS? (Read 44381 times)

melastmohican

velocicarpo

gbalex

gbalex

RacePhoto

toots

microstockphoto.co.uk

Paulo M. F. Pires

gbalex

Slovenian

WarrenPrice

lthn

WarrenPrice

lthn

gbalex

microstockphoto.co.uk

Mr Korn Flakes

BaldricksTrousers

sharpshot

WarrenPrice

Mantis

lagereek

sharpshot

WarrenPrice

lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors