MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Are you experiencing MASS REJECTIONS?  (Read 31578 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #25 on: June 16, 2011, 04:36 »
0
I've never done a resubmit.  It doesn't make the folks at SS angry?


« Reply #26 on: June 16, 2011, 11:36 »
0
I've never done a resubmit.  It doesn't make the folks at Shutterstock angry?

No :-)

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #27 on: June 16, 2011, 22:34 »
0
No, I am not experiencing mass rejections. But I don't submit to Shutterstock so that may be why

 ;D

« Reply #28 on: June 17, 2011, 06:25 »
0
yes mass rejection lately:(

« Reply #29 on: June 17, 2011, 07:10 »
0
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. 

WarrenPrice

« Reply #30 on: June 17, 2011, 10:25 »
0
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.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #31 on: June 17, 2011, 12:29 »
0
Iv got mass acceptance

« Reply #32 on: June 17, 2011, 12:35 »
0
Yes, last two weeks. Same day reviews :-)

WarrenPrice

« Reply #33 on: June 17, 2011, 13:40 »
0
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

Tempusfugit

« Reply #34 on: June 17, 2011, 14:00 »
0
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

« Reply #35 on: June 17, 2011, 14:08 »
0
Yes.. same here..
just uploading 11 images to SS

and all of them REJECTED

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #36 on: June 19, 2011, 10:13 »
0
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.

Moonb007

  • Architect, Photographer, Dreamer
« Reply #37 on: June 20, 2011, 14:32 »
0
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.

« Reply #38 on: June 20, 2011, 14:43 »
0
No for me!

lagereek

« Reply #39 on: June 21, 2011, 00:08 »
0
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.

« Reply #40 on: June 21, 2011, 00:52 »
0
No not mass-rejections at all.

However, reviewers att ALL sites have IMO, a limited creative knowledge<...>
yep same for me

« Reply #41 on: June 21, 2011, 16:01 »
0
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.


« Reply #42 on: June 21, 2011, 16:18 »
0
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.

« Reply #43 on: June 21, 2011, 16:25 »
0
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

WarrenPrice

« Reply #44 on: June 21, 2011, 16:37 »
0
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.   ??? >:(

« Reply #45 on: June 21, 2011, 18:52 »
0
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.   ??? >:(

dont 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! :)

lagereek

« Reply #46 on: June 22, 2011, 00:23 »
0
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.

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #47 on: June 22, 2011, 05:23 »
0
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.

« Reply #48 on: June 22, 2011, 06:30 »
0
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.

lagereek

« Reply #49 on: June 22, 2011, 06:49 »
0
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
« Last Edit: June 22, 2011, 06:52 by lagereek »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
19 Replies
4954 Views
Last post August 14, 2008, 11:46
by dnavarrojr
1 Replies
2619 Views
Last post July 10, 2008, 15:38
by CofkoCof
29 Replies
6016 Views
Last post February 12, 2012, 11:32
by Artemis
9 Replies
3270 Views
Last post March 16, 2012, 04:22
by Druid
81 Replies
12539 Views
Last post November 09, 2018, 19:42
by thor_odt

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results