Quote from: lthn on August 02, 2011, 12:34
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

Quote from: Slovenian on August 02, 2011, 12:36

Quote from: lthn on August 02, 2011, 12:34
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

Of course its boring, its ******* micorstock...

: ))

Quote from: lthn on August 02, 2011, 12:52

Quote from: Slovenian on August 02, 2011, 12:36

Quote from: lthn on August 02, 2011, 12:34
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

Of course its boring, its ******* micorstock...

: ))

I think u (slighltly) missunderstood . I was just returning the favour

Quote from: lthn on August 02, 2011, 12:34
I submitted 60 pics yesterday, all accepted, not a single rejection. I just wrote this to annoy ppl.

Quote from: Slovenian on August 02, 2011, 12:59

Quote from: lthn on August 02, 2011, 12:52

Quote from: Slovenian on August 02, 2011, 12:36

Quote from: lthn on August 02, 2011, 12:34
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

Of course its boring, its ******* micorstock...

: ))

I think u (slighltly) missunderstood . I was just returning the favour

Quote from: lthn on August 02, 2011, 12:34
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

Quote from: Cogent Marketing on August 02, 2011, 22:40
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.

Quote from: stockastic on August 02, 2011, 23:17

Quote from: Cogent Marketing on August 02, 2011, 22:40
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.......

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... 

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.

Quote from: Slovenian on August 03, 2011, 11:37
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?

Quote from: Cogent Marketing on August 03, 2011, 15:15
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.

Quote from: Cogent Marketing on August 03, 2011, 15:15

Quote from: Slovenian on August 03, 2011, 11:37
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?

Quote from: stockastic on August 03, 2011, 21:31
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

Quote from: stockastic on August 03, 2011, 21:31
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.

Quote from: Cogent Marketing on August 03, 2011, 23:48

Quote from: stockastic on August 03, 2011, 21:31
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...   



 

Quote from: stockastic on August 02, 2011, 23:17

Quote from: Cogent Marketing on August 02, 2011, 22:40
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.