MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: PedroV on June 11, 2011, 13:30
-
Are you experiencing mass rejections in a single day?
-
no!
-
no
-
nope
-
No
-
no
-
No
-
no, never!
-
Yes
-
no
-
Not me!!
-
Nope, almost everything accepted
-
Almost everything rejected from my last batches. And I upload the same style of images I upload for about two years and SS used to accept almost everything. I think I'm going to stop uploading for a while.
-
No. A year ago - about 20% accepted. Now more than 60%.
-
Very high rejection rate.
-
Still running at about 90% acceptance.
-
Yes
-
I hope not bring bad luck but I have 100% accepted works. But I'm an illustrator, maybe it's different ;)
-
Check the forums. You will see several threads and hundreds of complaints there about "rejections."
-
Check the forums. You will see several threads and hundreds of complaints there about "rejections."
and also a Shutterstock reply about it (which I cannot find now)
-
I recently had an entire batch rejected, which was a first for me on SS. Right behind that was a batch of editorial shots, most of which were accepted.
-
Unusual amount of rejections. They used to approve nearly everything and now they're rejecting nearly everything.
-
I had a batch of 20 rejected yesterday. White balance was off. Yeah, it was; I corrected and resubmitted, and 18 of 20 were approved.
-
nope
-
i had a mass rejection for white balance off - resubmitted two weeks later with NO changes, and most were accepted - the others were rejected for LCV
-
I've never done a resubmit. It doesn't make the folks at SS angry?
-
I've never done a resubmit. It doesn't make the folks at Shutterstock angry?
No :-)
-
No, I am not experiencing mass rejections. But I don't submit to Shutterstock so that may be why
;D
-
yes mass rejection lately:(
-
FWIW, I just uploaded 30 images and 6 were rejected for LCV....80% acceptance on that batch. Maybe I am stretching here, but it seems to me that they are rejecting on purpose (not for real LCV) just to send a message to contributors that "content quality" now all of a sudden matters. However, since their inspectors are not all designer experts, we all know what's accepted and rejected has mostly nothing to do with LCV. There is a different reason they are doing this but SS is not being transparent as to what constitutes acceptable CV in their eyes.
-
FWIW, I just uploaded 30 images and 6 were rejected for LCV....80% acceptance on that batch. Maybe I am stretching here, but it seems to me that they are rejecting on purpose (not for real LCV) just to send a message to contributors that "content quality" now all of a sudden matters. However, since their inspectors are not all designer experts, we all know what's accepted and rejected has mostly nothing to do with LCV. There is a different reason they are doing this but Shutterstock is not being transparent as to what constitutes acceptable CV in their eyes.
Sometimes... it just isn't consistent. Like trying to isolate a software problem ... it doesn't repeat as expected. I think it is more about a specific reviewer or reviewers. Some batches get rejected some are accepted ... even some borderline images make the cut.
It is terribly frustrating.
-
Iv got mass acceptance
-
Yes, last two weeks. Same day reviews :-)
-
Iv got mass acceptance
Really? We should all study your work. You seem to have solved the mystery to just what they want. :P
;D
-
Iv got mass acceptance
Really? We should all study your work. You seem to have solved the mystery to just what they want. :P
;D
:D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Yes.. same here..
just uploading 11 images to SS
and all of them REJECTED
-
Iv got mass acceptance
Really? We should all study your work. You seem to have solved the mystery to just what they want. :P
;D
: )))))))
well i don't really deal in masses, 40-100 uploads a week nowadays that I have more time ( none sometimes when I'm busy), but I do get very few rejections. imho there are ceratin things they don't want unless it's outstanding (at least by their standards). They are like a cranky missus, you send them flowers, and they get pissed.
-
I have had the last 20 images all rejected for copyright issues. Most of them are not full buildings, but they seem to be rejecting any part of a building. For example I uploaded a shot of just a window and a bathtub with bubbles...both images have been rejected for not providing a property release. However, Bigstock accepted them.
-
No for me!
-
No not mass-rejections at all.
However, reviewers att ALL sites have IMO, a limited creative knowledge, they dont understand focal-points, i.e. if everything isnt in focus, they will reject it, not understanding creative focus, shallow depth of field, etc.
Also, toned images are in the dangezone, since most reviewers will take it for faulty WB.
Yes it is unfortunately quite poor creative knowledge among the reviewers at most sites. I got a feeling that its computer-geeks looking at our shots, really just educated to detect focal problems and noise.
A pro picture-editor would demand too much salary.
-
No not mass-rejections at all.
However, reviewers att ALL sites have IMO, a limited creative knowledge<...>
yep same for me
-
No not mass-rejections at all.
However, reviewers att ALL sites have IMO, a limited creative knowledge, they dont understand focal-points, i.e. if everything isnt in focus, they will reject it, not understanding creative focus, shallow depth of field, etc.
Also, toned images are in the dangezone, since most reviewers will take it for faulty WB.
Yes it is unfortunately quite poor creative knowledge among the reviewers at most sites. I got a feeling that its computer-geeks looking at our shots, really just educated to detect focal problems and noise.
A pro picture-editor would demand too much salary.
Before this month I usually never got 100% rejections. Reviewers are either on vacations or got fired and outsourced.
-
I haven't sent them a lot of pics in the last 2 months or so, but the reviews seemed reasonable, then today I got a 100% rejection pile. I must say that it is frustrating, although it would be even more so if recent uploads sold the way they used to. At least they were accepted at most of the other sites.
-
like I said before do isolations and people, I have amost 100% in.. they have ton but hell they want more so we do it ;D
-
like I said before do isolations and people, I have amost 100% in.. they have ton but hell they want more so we do it ;D
NOW that is really frustrating. I had just about decided that isolations are LCV. ??? >:(
-
like I said before do isolations and people, I have amost 100% in.. they have ton but hell they want more so we do it ;D
NOW that is really frustrating. I had just about decided that isolations are LCV. ??? >:(
donīt shoot simple stuff! not a fruit! compose a little and give more to the picture.. but I am sure if u do a great apple they will get it! :)
-
Well guys, if you think this is bad reviewing, then you should look at most sites in the Low-tier and the German sites (sorry) , investigating and trying their searches, one soon understand why they are not selling much.
Searches there seam to be based on first-come-first-served, if you know what I mean.
-
like I said before do isolations and people, I have amost 100% in.. they have ton but hell they want more so we do it ;D
The vast majority of what I shoot is people (models), and my first mass rejection was a series with one beautiful young woman (most of which were accepted on other sites). It was followed by a series of editorial shots of the media circus across from the Orange County courthouse in Orlando, almost all of which was accepted. I don't think we'll ever figure out what they want because it seems to be a moving target. Even so, SS is still the best-selling and best-performing site for me.
-
Here is what you need to do to get accepted:
Produce a trite photograph, one with a theme that has been run into the ground, yet proved successful in the past. Make sure that it is overexposed a little, front lit and without all that contextual background confusion. Isolated on white is very much preferred to avoid perplexing the potential buyer. Do not submit editorial. Just because 90% of editorial usage is NOT newsworthy, they do not want to make money filling a common need of image users. The safe road is to just submit newsworthy photos if you insist. Try to learn who your reviewer will be ahead of time since each reviewer knows in his/her mind what newsworthy means. Of course you must obliterate any logo, trademark, design, icon, or recognizable shape from your picture. This may not leave you with many picture elements left in the frame, but this is all good since, as we have learned, simple is better. Simplistic is even better than that. Don't even think of testing their patience by submitting photos of historical interest. Those images will have been scanned from film and we all know that film grain is detestable. What were those ancients thinking? Well, there's probably more but that should get you thinking along proper lines. Remember, the ultimate objective is to have an image bank of 15 million + images that all look exactly alike.
-
Here is what you need to do to get accepted:
Produce a trite photograph, one with a theme that has been run into the ground, yet proved successful in the past. Make sure that it is overexposed a little, front lit and without all that contextual background confusion. Isolated on white is very much preferred to avoid perplexing the potential buyer. Do not submit editorial. Just because 90% of editorial usage is NOT newsworthy, they do not want to make money filling a common need of image users. The safe road is to just submit newsworthy photos if you insist. Try to learn who your reviewer will be ahead of time since each reviewer knows in his/her mind what newsworthy means. Of course you must obliterate any logo, trademark, design, icon, or recognizable shape from your picture. This may not leave you with many picture elements left in the frame, but this is all good since, as we have learned, simple is better. Simplistic is even better than that. Don't even think of testing their patience by submitting photos of historical interest. Those images will have been scanned from film and we all know that film grain is detestable. What were those ancients thinking? Well, there's probably more but that should get you thinking along proper lines. Remember, the ultimate objective is to have an image bank of 15 million + images that all look exactly alike.
Blimey ! sounds hard work ;D
-
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.
-
Had today my first batch massively rejected.. hope it was just a reviewer that didnīt got coffee.. really weird stuff
yesterday: 10 of 11 rejected
today: 7 of 7 approved
same stuff, same light... different reviewer! :)
-
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.
-
Well at least now I KNOW something is wrong, although I was 100% sure my photos should all pass.
I hope it's just a temporary confusion, they're obviously tightening reviews up, but they are really exaggerating. Rejecting everything won't get rid of 10+ mio of total garbage they have in their library and they should clean that first, or else it's going to stay as it is, but without any improvement since the good new material has little chance of being accepted. I'm pissed because I'm loosing cash every day for no reason whatsoever.
They could be incorporating some kind of automated review system, because it takes just 2-5h for reviews lately and rejections are so absurd that only some kind of computer algorithm could make it; 95% for focus. It obviously can't comprehend selective focus and shallow DOF. If it stays like that, we're back to 2005, with garbage isolated on white (like anyone even needs that anymore?!?).
-
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 :( :D . 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!
-
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 :( :D . 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.
-
For the past couple of years my acceptance rate has been about 30-100% .....maybe an average of 60%. Since March its been about 10% with lots of 100% rejections. They are mostly for LCV. Its really kind of sad for me as SS is my main earner. Almost all of the stuff that is rejected gets accepted at BS. Most of the stuff sells on the other sites. Because I think this will reduce my overall sales, eventually, I have added 4 lower tier sites ( I am already on the big 4and the middle tier). They are starting to make up what I am losing on SS. I am not sure if that is what SS intended.
So I will keep uploading to SS....but with no expectations of acceptance.
-
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. :D
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.
-
My level of acceptance is growing slowly, but each batch is a little lottery (my photos are of trips). Once I have rejected a whole batch. Wait a week and resubmit. Never again reject it. It is part of the game.
What I do think is that there are too many images...
-
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.
-
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 only 6 months into this stock malarky but am lost with what to do at SS, I got accepted with my first batch of pictures and to date have almost 190 images on line and have gone from an acceptance rate in the 70's to around about 25% in the last couple of months.
Seems odd that my acceptance rate on the other 7 sites I am submitting to is going in the upward direction yet SS is falling off a cliff. I failed the IS review three times so have only been submitting there for three months and am already catching up with the total upload figures for SS hand over fist.
It feels as though 75% of my rejections are focus issues (and I am not shooting crazy narrow dof stuff) and almost all of the rest from lighting...
As a site I like it a lot, good sales, simple to upload to simple to manage but the most frustrating thing is not knowing what they want, I would be willing to try something different on my shoots specifically with a view to expanding my SS portfoilio but I am not sure how.
-
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 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?
-
Let's theorize a little more. If SS search engine favors new images what happen to your sales if you stop supplying new ones (you really stopped or you got 100% rejections). You will be slowly moving toward low class if your portfolio is not large enough to generate enough sales for payouts every month. Stratification would be good for agency. They got more people in lower class and few of top middle class maybe push hard enough to jump into high class. Maybe it is become a pro or die strategy?
-
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.
-
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.
Word!
-
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
-
ALL of the rejected images were accepted in the morning, but aren't searchable or showing up in my port for 15 hours now. They'll probabaly show up on Saturday, just great :s
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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 .
-
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.
-
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. :P
-
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...
-
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. ;D
-
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. ;D
Maybe there is honeymoon with that too... but I do agree it's inconsistant
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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 (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 (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 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=80245342)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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???
-
Shutterstock doesn't think they have a problem....at least according to their admin forum posts.
-
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.
-
^^^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.
-
^^^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. :P
You can review them at SS, Christian.
-
^^^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. :P
You can review them at SS, Christian.
Well I think theyre nice, nothing wrong with that lighning, very tightly cropped though.
best
-
Thanks. I've had rejections for composition (cropping). I'm not really a food photographer. It's just something that is readily available ... and my wife is very artistic (presentation). We have to eat. Why not use the food as a prop? :P
Also, I'm cheap. Won't spend much money on stock until I see some income.
-
I think the winning formula would be food on a dirt bike.
-
;D ;D
-
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:
[url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/33573146[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/33573146[/url]) Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.
[url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/33573231[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/33573231[/url]) Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.
[url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/33573102[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/33573102[/url]) 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 [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=80245342[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=80245342[/url])
I've added more light to the shadow areas and finally SS has accepted one of those photos: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=80613217 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=80613217)
However the've rejected the blue picture because they think it's too similar to the one thy've accepted.
-
It's a shame, I like 'em all. They are definitely not mainstream and stand out on SS
-
I'm really getting pissed here... I have submitted some scans from old magazines (that are clearly in public domain because they are printed in the 1860s).
They seem to reject everything with always different reasons. If I correct my submission according to them, they get rejected for some other reason.
-> submit with information about the source in the description -> OK, I'll try to cram that in 200 characters somehow, I have to leave out much of the information what the image is about -> submit as editorial with editorial caption -> OK, I need to cram the information in 200 characters again, the description is getting ridiculous! -> not newsworthy -> Trying to resubmit non-editorial -> need to include property release (oh, but anybody doesn't "own" the source material any more!) ->
I'm really getting bored and sad. I have some PD images accepted and some of them are selling fine, but I can't seem to get any new ones online. If they don't want any more of such images, they should say so (and maybe throw away all old engravings and such).
If they want public domain images, they should have a tick box or a pipeline or something that someone with knowledge would look at the images.
-
last 50 photos submitted to shutterstock 54% accepted
last 50 photos submitted to bigstock 80% accepted
Interestingly out of the rejected photos at bigstock (10 of them) 5 of them were accepted at shutterstock.
My conclusion things have changed at shutterstock.
If they have a problem with the size of the collection just delete anything that hasn't sold in 3 years, you'd probably knock a couple of million photos out of the collection.
With the above stats I vote for a bridge from bigstock to shutterstock
-
-
-
^^That's no measure for inconsistency, it could just be that you're clueless :P
;)
-
submitting to SS = gambling, as one user said...
Most inconsistent reviewing process ever!!! I get approvals on images I was sure were going to be rejected and images that I consider good stock are rejected >:( >:( >:(
I happen to agree with you. Not just based on my experience but from feedback of other submitters who are more than average names.
-
I've come to the conclusion that the rejection reasons given are irrelevant. It now seems to be up to reviewers to decide whether or not they feel the collection would benefit from having something. If they think so, it gets accepted, if not, they hit a random rejection button.
Of course, some rejections will be for the given reason, but once something is good enough in technical terms, it then runs into the "do we want it" layer of reviewing.
DT's "too many of the same thing" when you have three completely different views of a subject may be irritating (and stupid) but at least you know what is happening.
-
I've come to the conclusion that the rejection reasons given are irrelevant. It now seems to be up to reviewers to decide whether or not they feel the collection would benefit from having something. If they think so, it gets accepted, if not, they hit a random rejection button.
Of course, some rejections will be for the given reason, but once something is good enough in technical terms, it then runs into the "do we want it" layer of reviewing.
DT's "too many of the same thing" when you have three completely different views of a subject may be irritating (and stupid) but at least you know what is happening.
I'm not doing this long and it's only a hobby but what you say is pretty obviously what's happening. I suspect reviewers have giidelines to work to and this is company policy - still has to be some room for personal judgement within these guidelines which explains why there is a degree of inconsistency.
-
I've come to the conclusion that the rejection reasons given are irrelevant. It now seems to be up to reviewers to decide whether or not they feel the collection would benefit from having something. If they think so, it gets accepted, if not, they hit a random rejection button.
Of course, some rejections will be for the given reason, but once something is good enough in technical terms, it then runs into the "do we want it" layer of reviewing.
DT's "too many of the same thing" when you have three completely different views of a subject may be irritating (and stupid) but at least you know what is happening.
I'm not doing this long and it's only a hobby but what you say is pretty obviously what's happening. I suspect reviewers have giidelines to work to and this is company policy - still has to be some room for personal judgement within these guidelines which explains why there is a degree of inconsistency.
There's not a lot of traction in your statement. In the case of SS there's blatant misuse of the rejection button...no guidelines, no public policy and a lot of personal judgement that's completely unwarranted. Anthony Correa of Shutterstock should be:
1. Ashamed of the "law" he's created
2. Quit if these random crap rejections are being shoved onto him
Having perfectly good images, marketable, and high quality are overrun by we "want to create the illusion that we are hard on image submissions so we can attract more buyers" when in reality it is a disservice to the buyers and photographers.
-
There's only a lack of traction if you ignore or don't want to see the evidence - anyway you seem to be agreeing with me (except I'm not taking any moral stance, just recognising facts)
-
I've come to the conclusion that the rejection reasons given are irrelevant. It now seems to be up to reviewers to decide whether or not they feel the collection would benefit from having something. If they think so, it gets accepted, if not, they hit a random rejection button.
Of course, some rejections will be for the given reason, but once something is good enough in technical terms, it then runs into the "do we want it" layer of reviewing.
DT's "too many of the same thing" when you have three completely different views of a subject may be irritating (and stupid) but at least you know what is happening.
I tend to agree with you on this.
Even being rejected for focus when it appears technically OK.
-
I think the winning formula would be food on a dirt bike.
maybe a baby seal eating strawberries with whipped cream, next to a bikini model holding a credit card and a laptop... all in the middle of a tulip field.
-
Or the Poetic image from Comte de Lautreamont (1846-1870), which is at the foundation of Dada and Surrealism.
"chance meeting on a dissecting-table of a sewing-machine and an umbrella."
we are slipping off subject into the bizarre . . . . .
-
I've come to the conclusion that the rejection reasons given are irrelevant. It now seems to be up to reviewers to decide whether or not they feel the collection would benefit from having something. If they think so, it gets accepted, if not, they hit a random rejection button.
Of course, some rejections will be for the given reason, but once something is good enough in technical terms, it then runs into the "do we want it" layer of reviewing.
DT's "too many of the same thing" when you have three completely different views of a subject may be irritating (and stupid) but at least you know what is happening.
you have just missed the "favorites" because every agency has their HONEYS!
-
Perhaps the company has been too lenient in the past on quality.It has a huge library now and if it continued accepting the majority of content submitted by its contributors the quality would be diluted.
If as the majority in this thread suspect,the inspection has got harder,i would except the new standard,learn it and match it .Simple.
-
something goes wrong
-
Perhaps the company has been too lenient in the past on quality.It has a huge library now and if it continued accepting the majority of content submitted by its contributors the quality would be diluted.
If as the majority in this thread suspect,the inspection has got harder,i would except the new standard,learn it and match it .Simple.
Good luck in that. We don't know what the standard is and seeing some of the rejects the top echelon gets smells of SS incompetence. There is no pattern other than random. We've asked over and over again for Anthony to define some kind of standard so we can comply and upload to those standards. They come out and say to "just shoot better stuff". What the Fk is up with that? They must be taking lessons from Istock.
-
Perhaps the company has been too lenient in the past on quality.It has a huge library now and if it continued accepting the majority of content submitted by its contributors the quality would be diluted.
If as the majority in this thread suspect,the inspection has got harder,i would except the new standard,learn it and match it .Simple.
Good luck in that. We don't know what the standard is and seeing some of the rejects the top echelon gets smells of SS incompetence. There is no pattern other than random. We've asked over and over again for Anthony to define some kind of standard so we can comply and upload to those standards. They come out and say to "just shoot better stuff". What the Fk is up with that? They must be taking lessons from Istock.
Who is Anthony?
Please dont bring another agent into the debate.Thanks
-
Guys, guys, guys, Baldrick is right. SS dont want BETTER stuff they want DIFFERENT stuff and they dont give a crap whether you are top echelon or not. They are not anything like IS who dont care what kind of boring crap is submitted as long as its TECHNICALLY good. Different wont sell as well as mainstream for the contributor but its additional sales from the point of view of the business.
-
deleted
-
mess, double post. Sorry;)
-
Guys, guys, guys, Baldrick is right. SS dont want BETTER stuff they want DIFFERENT stuff and they dont give a crap whether you are top echelon or not. They are not anything like IS who dont care what kind of boring crap is submitted as long as its TECHNICALLY good. Different wont sell as well as mainstream for the contributor but its additional sales from the point of view of the business.
Them not caring about top echelon is great. I mean who-T-F are they? They just sold more than the others. So what? So what? Some of them have done it just because they started among the first, but their photos are still varying from cr@p to average.
I don't completely agree on IS accepting all the cr@p as long it's technically perfect. IMO SS doesn't get DIFFERENT stuff, really conceptual or just not acceptable by some puritan code, e.g too violent, or just too tightly cropped (no copyspace). But some buyers need just that, for book covers etc. And that usually means ELs Wink. In this case I like IS better although I hate them ;)
-
Perhaps the company has been too lenient in the past on quality.It has a huge library now and if it continued accepting the majority of content submitted by its contributors the quality would be diluted.
If as the majority in this thread suspect,the inspection has got harder,i would except the new standard,learn it and match it .Simple.
Good luck in that. We don't know what the standard is and seeing some of the rejects the top echelon gets smells of SS incompetence. There is no pattern other than random. We've asked over and over again for Anthony to define some kind of standard so we can comply and upload to those standards. They come out and say to "just shoot better stuff". What the Fk is up with that? They must be taking lessons from Istock.
Who is Anthony?
Please dont bring another agent into the debate.Thanks
Honestly, don't tell me what to do. I don't march to the beat of your drum. And to educate you, Anthony is one of the head guys at SS and he manages the inspectors, so he is a viable name to mention here.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D
shank puts his fingers on every matter, there is no PP there my friend, you are the Yuri of the PP not the SS one! :)
-
how many images are too many images? i think SS went past it 2 years ago
-
Perhaps the company has been too lenient in the past on quality.It has a huge library now and if it continued accepting the majority of content submitted by its contributors the quality would be diluted.
If as the majority in this thread suspect,the inspection has got harder,i would except the new standard,learn it and match it .Simple.
There in lies the rub...
The common theme of this whole thread is a lack of consistancy and not understanding what Shutterstock now want, I have no problem with the bar being raised, I'm relatively new to all this so it can only improve my peformance... If it was a logical rejection pattern, if there is one I cannot see it and that also seems to be the case for many experienced and succesful submitters too.
-
how many images are too many images? i think SS went past it 2 years ago
They can never have too many images. I often can't find anything like the photos I'm uploading and they still get rejected. It's a big world and they would need billions of images to cover everything. And fashion changes, people change, places change and the cameras we use improve each year. They really should be encouraging us to keep producing new content.
Looks like I'm going to have to get my own site and sell direct. I know people would buy some of the stuff that most of the big sites are now rejecting. I think it's a crazy policy for the sites because lots of us will be looking at other ways to sell our new images now.
-
They can never have too many images. I often can't find anything like the photos I'm uploading and they still get rejected. It's a big world and they would need billions of images to cover everything. And fashion changes, people change, places change and the cameras we use improve each year. They really should be encouraging us to keep producing new content.
Looks like I'm going to have to get my own site and sell direct. I know people would buy some of the stuff that most of the big sites are now rejecting. I think it's a crazy policy for the sites because lots of us will be looking at other ways to sell our new images now.
My thoughts exactly. The buyers know what they want much better than the reviewers do. Let the buyers decide.
I too have begun to think lately about different ways to sell my images, and as a result I have been doing more searches on the stock sites. I have been shocked at how many gaps there are in the microstock inventories, how many subjects are not covered or covered very thinly. The total current microstrostock inventory could be several times larger than it is and still have room for many, many more images.
-
Looks like I'm going to have to get my own site and sell direct. I know people would buy some of the stuff that most of the big sites are now rejecting. I think it's a crazy policy for the sites because lots of us will be looking at other ways to sell our new images now.
FWIW, I wouldn't regard your own site as the solution, in the short term. Not unless you are prepared to invest a lot of time and money promoting it.
My site has been up several months now. After over $1k in investment, I've only had a couple of sales. Lots of views, so people are definitely finding it, but nobody buying.
Not that I am sorry I started it. I feel like I have a lot more options now, but as far as monetary return - nada.
-
how many images are too many images? i think SS went past it 2 years ago
They can never have too many images. I often can't find anything like the photos I'm uploading and they still get rejected. It's a big world and they would need billions of images to cover everything. And fashion changes, people change, places change and the cameras we use improve each year. They really should be encouraging us to keep producing new content.
Look at it from the agency's perspective. Its mainly a subscription based model where there really is no benefit to the agency to have 30 million images. For the buyer there can never be too much images to choose from. I would understand if its more of a pay per download model where each image is unique and has an actual download cost tied to it.
-
Getting off topic here:
Probably the agencies will have to extend their search functions where buyers can choose from a time period when the images were uploaded.
Fashion, maekeup and other factors are changing constantly so it would be useful for the buyers to filter that out instead of deleting "unwanted or outdated" content.
But I guess the agencies will wait until enough buyers complain about that before taking any action ::)
-
I donīt believe buyers will complain about the amount of results for their search, if I was a buyer I would look at most popular or newest to get fresh content, if there are hundreds and hundreds better.. SS is a subscription agency where a buyer can get 25 pics per day, if they miss a few no problem they have plenty more slots to download.. I really think they should clean their collection instead of these weirds rejections for pictures well produced..
and the true is that there are two types of reviewers, the ones that approved all pictures done in perfection.. and other that go to low commercial value or other reason when they feel they arenīt worth to SS which ainīt wrong, the only problem is the favoritism of some that I guess have "quick" reviews (not talking about top contributos but some that I keep track) and some of that were just as good as a "lower" contributor that might have less files online or sales.. but I dont believe they have a perfomance feature next to contributor during the reviewing... but who knows..
-
Contributors are obsessive by nature in microstock.They are often under the impression there next piece of work is going to make them $1000's.
If a company rejects a few a contributor might venture into a forum and let rip......
Just chill and go with the flow.....
-
Perhaps the company has been too lenient in the past on quality.It has a huge library now and if it continued accepting the majority of content submitted by its contributors the quality would be diluted.
If as the majority in this thread suspect,the inspection has got harder,i would except the new standard,learn it and match it .Simple.
that's precisely the problem - there IS no standard - rather it's random selection of reviewers ,many of whom do NOT follow the existing standards
one solution is a better search algorithm, rather than limiting the collection - netflix PAID for a contest to improve their recommendations algorothm. no ms agency seems to be investing much effort in fine tuning the search based on buyer's needs.
for example, in the initial search limit the # of similars shown, BUT indicate there are similars so the buyer can choose how to continue
s
-
Contributors are obsessive by nature in microstock.They are often under the impression there next piece of work is going to make them $1000's.
If a company rejects a few a contributor might venture into a forum and let rip......
Just chill and go with the flow.....
I have no idea of your credentials. You certainly have little knowledge of what I think. Maybe it is time for you to chill. :P
-
I just submitted 2 - exactly 2 images to SS. Identical shots, identical subject (a closeup of an industrial object), identical exposures. The only difference is that one is on a black background, the other is on white. Like I said - same camera settings, all I did in postprocessing was tweak the white/black points bit to get pure backgrounds.
Within an hour they'd been reviewed. Yup, you guessed it. One was accepted, the other rejected for "noise".
[sigh]
-
it's getting really difficult now :-[
only the picture on the left got accepted. all the others rejected coz of similarity.... hmmmm.... for me every shot is quite different, isn't it. and also - if somebody is looking for an asian woman standing/walking with luggage on white background he/she won't find too many results.... ::)
(http://www.gastroprint.net/mint.jpg)
-
it's getting really difficult now :-[
only the picture on the left got accepted. all the others rejected coz of similarity.... hmmmm.... for me every shot is quite different, isn't it. and also - if somebody is looking for an asian woman standing/walking with luggage on white background he/she won't find too many results.... ::)
([url]http://www.gastroprint.net/mint.jpg[/url])
Not quite different, but who's buying shots isolated on white anyway? It's a loss of time, unless you're satisfied with a couple of DL/image per year (unless they're unique, which these aren't).
-
Slovenian what the heck are you shooting? I really think that you talk too much and donīt do anything :P
it is a nice picture, the true is that DT is almost demaning this or we wonīt have pictures online..
-
This is a double profession: photographer and soothsayer ...
-
it is a nice picture, the true is that DT is almost demaning this or we wonīt have pictures online..
I agree. If those pictures aren't good stock images then 90+% of what's on the microstock agencies isn't either. Good images IMO.
-
it is a nice picture, the true is that DT is almost demaning this or we wonīt have pictures online..
I agree. If those pictures aren't good stock images then 90+% of what's on the microstock agencies isn't either. Good images IMO.
Exactly, 90% is rubbish. Mostly total rubbish.
-
it is a nice picture, the true is that DT is almost demaning this or we wonīt have pictures online..
I agree. If those pictures aren't good stock images then 90+% of what's on the microstock agencies isn't either. Good images IMO.
Exactly, 90% is rubbish. Mostly total rubbish.
mate I would love to see your NON stocky stuff that sell like hot bread :P
-
it is a nice picture, the true is that DT is almost demaning this or we wonīt have pictures online..
I agree. If those pictures aren't good stock images then 90+% of what's on the microstock agencies isn't either. Good images IMO.
Exactly, 90% is rubbish. Mostly total rubbish.
mate I would love to see your NON stocky stuff that sell like hot bread :P
I won't bother posting it for you, you wouldn't understand it anyway ;) . Ignore back on, so pls just stop quoting me and save the time to come out with all that nonsense you always do by replying to people who didn't put you on ignore. Yet.
-
it is a nice picture, the true is that DT is almost demaning this or we wonīt have pictures online..
I agree. If those pictures aren't good stock images then 90+% of what's on the microstock agencies isn't either. Good images IMO.
Exactly, 90% is rubbish. Mostly total rubbish.
mate I would love to see your NON stocky stuff that sell like hot bread :P
I won't bother posting it for you, you wouldn't understand it anyway ;) . Ignore back on, so pls just stop quoting me and save the time to come out with all that nonsense you always do by replying to people who didn't put you on ignore. Yet.
there are really too much people like you here (like I am the king of the world and other sucks, I love that stuff) but I wonīt ignore you or other
-
I submitted 60 pics yesterday, all accepted, not a single rejection. I just wrote this to annoy ppl.
-
I submitted 60 pics yesterday, all accepted, not a single rejection. I just wrote this to annoy ppl.
I'm sure they're boring as hell and won't make any money :P
-
I submitted 60 pics yesterday, all accepted, not a single rejection. I just wrote this to annoy ppl.
I'm sure they're boring as hell and won't make any money :P
Of course its boring, its ******* micorstock...
: ))
-
I submitted 60 pics yesterday, all accepted, not a single rejection. I just wrote this to annoy ppl.
I'm sure they're boring as hell and won't make any money :P
Of course its boring, its ******* micorstock...
: ))
I think u (slighltly) missunderstood ;) . I was just returning the favour :P
I submitted 60 pics yesterday, all accepted, not a single rejection. I just wrote this to annoy ppl.
-
I submitted 60 pics yesterday, all accepted, not a single rejection. I just wrote this to annoy ppl.
I'm sure they're boring as hell and won't make any money :P
Of course its boring, its ******* micorstock...
: ))
I think u (slighltly) missunderstood ;) . I was just returning the favour :P
I submitted 60 pics yesterday, all accepted, not a single rejection. I just wrote this to annoy ppl.
yeah got it, but its true, it is boring microsuck sheisse, no options really...
-
Yes -- I'm a vector contributor, so if I submit a vector and its jpeg, the jpeg is now getting rejected for LCV. Absurd.
I resubmitted a rejected jpeg with a note to reviewer saying the vector was accepted, and they rejected it a second time! And, in two weeks that vector is now in my top 10 most popular. It's really discouraging, since I am getting the least amount of money per download at SS compared to all the other sites I submit to.
SS should make it a rule -- if vector is accepted, so is jpeg. Period. And, both should be ON THE SAME PAGE, just like the other stock sites. SS has 15 million+ images because they make vector artists submit the jpegs separately.
-
I only upload four or five images at a time, and only maybe twice a week. The only rejections I get are images that are dark, moody and a bit 'left field'. Even studio shots with reflected light get stuffed. I believe they only like really bright well lit sanitized shots - I'm not complaining mind you - last month I had 34 downloads of very similar images (light, bright and sanitized) within 15 days of them being accepted - wow 10 bucks for all those sales - that's subscriptions for you! This month so far (2nd) = 3 d/l's
-
The only rejections I get are images that are dark, moody and a bit 'left field'. Even studio shots with reflected light get stuffed. I believe they only like really bright well lit sanitized shots
Agreed. Any attempt at 'dramatic' lighting or shadows is shot down. In my mind, I picture their offices: gleaming white walls, floors and furniture; bright light floods every corner. On every desk is a pearly white Mac. The employees are handsome but somewhat vacant-looking, with perfect hair and radiant smiles, dressed in white and light pastels...
-
Recently I got a higher acceptance rate. Maybe they find now a good balance...nothing to complain atm :-)
-
Perhaps the auto-reject reviewers are on vacation? If they reject less, it might make me want to upload more. I'm sure the sites lose a lot of money by rejecting too much because it demotivates contributors.
-
The only rejections I get are images that are dark, moody and a bit 'left field'. Even studio shots with reflected light get stuffed. I believe they only like really bright well lit sanitized shots
Agreed. Any attempt at 'dramatic' lighting or shadows is shot down. In my mind, I picture their offices: gleaming white walls, floors and furniture; bright light floods every corner. On every desk is a pearly white Mac. The employees are handsome but somewhat vacant-looking, with perfect hair and radiant smiles, dressed in white and light pastels...
Maybe Yuri should book their offices for one of his shoots....... ;D
-
Almost 100% acceptance at my latest batches, nothing to complain about. Mostly landscapes (fewer in studio), some of them catch instantly and sell many times in hours after being approved. They're ok... ;D
-
No problems here with mass rejections either (thankfully - touch wood!). Sorry to hear it's happening to others though.
-
Just got a whole series rejected. It's very frustrating since I love that series, I think it's my best healthy lifestyle so far. It's a shame some of the reviewers are lacking basic knowledge, they can't distinguish between sunset lighting (warm colours) and incorrect WB. That was the case with this batch: Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.
-
Just got a whole series rejected. It's very frustrating since I love that series, I think it's my best healthy lifestyle so far. It's a shame some of the reviewers are lacking basic knowledge, they can't distinguish between sunset lighting (warm colours) and incorrect WB. That was the case with this batch: Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.
I feel your pain - I recently have got the dreaded WB message on rejections. The one I get most which is completely infuriating because I am a real stickler for sharp focus is;
Not Approved:
Focus--Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best.
That really drives me nuts - are these reviewers blind or just stupid?
-
That really drives me nuts - are these reviewers blind or just stupid?
I've come to the conclusion that the critical part of that rejection is:
"...is not located where we feel it works best".
It's entirely subjective, and worth appealing the decision. A second reviewer, higher up the chain, may not agree with the first.
-
Just got a whole series rejected. It's very frustrating since I love that series, I think it's my best healthy lifestyle so far. It's a shame some of the reviewers are lacking basic knowledge, they can't distinguish between sunset lighting (warm colours) and incorrect WB. That was the case with this batch: Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.
I feel your pain - I recently have got the dreaded WB message on rejections. The one I get most which is completely infuriating because I am a real stickler for sharp focus is;
Not Approved:
Focus--Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best.
That really drives me nuts - are these reviewers blind or just stupid?
In my case they usually don't have a grip on selective focus. Though admittedly it happened once the sharpness at 100% wasn't perfect (but it was accepted everywhere else), so I just had to downsize it to get it accepted. Luckily at a sub site size doesn't matter too much (to the buyers too) and we get payed just the same. But what if you have a sheatty consumer zoom, you'll never have tack sharp images at 100% unless you stop it down to the aperture it's sharpest at (usually f8-f11)? And outdoors that can be a problem and if you have the money for studio lighting you also have enough to buy a decent lens. I use C 85 1.8 and S 501.4, first is insanely sharp, the other still sharper than any zoom (perhaps the new 70-200 2.8 can catch up at f4 and smaller apertures, but I rarely use them).
-
Spoke too soon, after having a batch 100% accepted, I had 100% rejections today. Seems crazy, I will go back to being unmotivated :(
-
I just had a couple rejected for 'focus'. I resubmitted with a note saying, in a polite way - please look again, I believe these are perfectly in focus. So they agreed, and rejected them again for 'lighting - lens flare, purple fringing'. These were studio isolations with calibrated white balance, soft box lighting... as perfect as I know how to make them. Of course DT accepted them the first time. Where does one go from here?
-
I just had a couple rejected for 'focus'. I resubmitted with a note saying, in a polite way - please look again, I believe these are perfectly in focus. So they agreed, and rejected them again for 'lighting - lens flare, purple fringing'. These were studio isolations with calibrated white balance, soft box lighting... as perfect as I know how to make them. Of course DT accepted them the first time. Where does one go from here?
Have a beer and chill ;)
-
I just had a couple rejected for 'focus'. I resubmitted with a note saying, in a polite way - please look again, I believe these are perfectly in focus. So they agreed, and rejected them again for 'lighting - lens flare, purple fringing'. These were studio isolations with calibrated white balance, soft box lighting... as perfect as I know how to make them. Of course DT accepted them the first time. Where does one go from here?
Red wine, and maybe, probably, the whole bottle. Tomorrow is another day and hopefully another inspector on duty. This happens so many times, with so many different sites it beggars believe. Enjoy the wine. Be happy.
-
I just had a couple rejected for 'focus'. I resubmitted with a note saying, in a polite way - please look again, I believe these are perfectly in focus. So they agreed, and rejected them again for 'lighting - lens flare, purple fringing'. These were studio isolations with calibrated white balance, soft box lighting... as perfect as I know how to make them. Of course DT accepted them the first time. Where does one go from here?
Red wine, and maybe, probably, the whole bottle. Tomorrow is another day and hopefully another inspector on duty. This happens so many times, with so many different sites it beggars believe. Enjoy the wine. Be happy.
As I posted my response so did Slovenian. I concur. Fully.
-
Almost had a heart attack. After months of mass rejections ( <20% acceptance)...... I submitted 10 images, same camera, same kind of subject, same lenses.....100% accepted. I used to get that every now and then a year or two ago.
I hope this is a change in policy!!
-
Yes, a tall glass of nice dark ale is the only proper response to this experience.
Somewhat more seriously, experiences like this should convince us all going exclusive, anywhere, could be a big mistake. I've had essentially no acceptance problems at SS for the last 2 years; then suddenly, a whole series of weird rejections. I wonder if it's something that will pass...
-
The only rejections I get are images that are dark, moody and a bit 'left field'. Even studio shots with reflected light get stuffed. I believe they only like really bright well lit sanitized shots
Agreed. Any attempt at 'dramatic' lighting or shadows is shot down.
Except for composites : ) With composites there's a get-out-of-jail-free card. Often had leftfield photos rejected, but never a composite (except my first attempt).
-
when I first read this post I thought it was possibly an individual situation, but I have noticed a shift in my acceptance rate in the past two months. After a year with 90%+ acceptance rate at SS I have seen recent batches with roughly 50% acceptance rates. I do not consider my recent batches to vary greatly from the batches submitted in the year past. If anything they are more on-point. There has definitely been a shift in reviewing.
-
Hmm, strangely, my last batchs are being accept by SS with a good rating, and full rejected by 123RF, Fotolia. IS is more likely 50% rejected.
For that reason i still prefer keep my work with more than one agency, because i never know which one will want a particular batch.
-
Having not uploaded for a while I was pleasantly surprised that most of my last batch made it through - after reading this thread I fully expected 100% rejection. Uploading at the weekend seems to be the way to go :)
-
This is really becoming a pain in the ass, I've had my last series accepted elsewhere but got them all accept one rejected twice today at SS :-X
-
i get mass rejections and then resubmit with minor adjustments and usually have success. i think SS problem is huge inconsistencies with their reviewers. it is a pain in the ass; doing double the work to get an image through. what irks me most is i have several images that i've been persistent about getting in my port so i kept submitting until they were accepted and they happen to be my best sellers. soooo what. would be nice to think the reviewers had a better eye then me, just a beginner but apparently in all cases they dont.
-
i get mass rejections and then resubmit with minor adjustments and usually have success. i think SS problem is huge inconsistencies with their reviewers. it is a pain in the ass; doing double the work to get an image through. what irks me most is i have several images that i've been persistent about getting in my port so i kept submitting until they were accepted and they happen to be my best sellers. soooo what. would be nice to think the reviewers had a better eye then me, just a beginner but apparently in all cases they dont.
That's exactly what I'm gonna do with this batch, I'm gonna keep them sending over and over a few times a day until all get accepted. I really don't care, I know they are the best healthy lifestyle photos I've ever made and I can really be stubborn. They're gonna have so much more work because of that.
-
I submitted a batch of images where the important part of the image had a carefully placed spotlight. The rest of the image was also lit, so nothing was too black. 100% rejected for "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect."
-
I submitted a batch of images where the important part of the image had a carefully placed spotlight. The rest of the image was also lit, so nothing was too black. 100% rejected for "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect."
Got the same rejection over and over for natural, "sunset" lighting, really nice warm colors and it was more or less evenly lit as well (not even close enough to being really uneven). Notes to editors didn't help, I wonder if the system is automated, looks like nobody reads them (at least they could redirect those to real ppl if that's the case)
-
I think SS is accepting only bright photos, and that's pretty discouraging!
-
I can really be stubborn. They're gonna have so much more work because of that.
thats an interesting point
-
I can really be stubborn. They're gonna have so much more work because of that.
thats an interesting point
On the other hand, they are clearly aren't noticing that the same images are being submitted again, if they do will they not take some form of action?
-
I can really be stubborn. They're gonna have so much more work because of that.
thats an interesting point
On the other hand, they are clearly aren't noticing that the same images are being submitted again, if they do will they not take some form of action?
Dunno, but I sure won't be denied from having photos online that are meeting ALL of their technical requirements and are also good (composition, concept, model etc). I mean it's absurd, they got accepted at ALL of the other agencies, only IS rejected 2/14, other agencies accepted the whole series.