Author Topic: Does Shutterstock care what we think or post about? (Read 30070 times)

Rinderart · « **on:** July 23, 2014, 23:37 »

This is a re-post from a thread on SS. Any thoughts??

Just curious. we have started 20 threads about rejections being so off the chart, it's amazing, We have posted about Bugs and issues...The same issues for going on years now and No one says anything. NO ONE!!!! Is anyone out there? Is anyone at Home? Does anyone get paid to Moderate anymore. are they told to shut up. Stop talking to us? What . is going on? It has never been like this. Im telling ya guys this non Communication thing you got going on now is gonna come back and bite ya big time. That is if.......You care or if your allowed to care. If not, Thats pretty darn sad.

Do you want us to go away?, If so, Just say so...Trust me we have better things to do anyway as other sites are catching up. This site has become the lowest common denominator in contributor satisfaction of all sites and I for one am shocked at how we, who care are being treated.

This is highly unethical the way you treat your life blood and who pays your salaries. There are issues that "MUST" be addressed or at the very least explained.

Laurin Rinder 7/21/14

a1bercik · « **Reply #1 on:** July 24, 2014, 00:39 »

I don't know man. Personally, I have no issues with them, everything works including review process, which is fair - I mean I have to agree with rejections.
Is it personal for you?

marthamarks · « **Reply #2 on:** July 24, 2014, 00:45 »

Quote from: a1bercik on July 24, 2014, 00:39

I don't know man. Personally, I have no issues with them, everything works including review process, which is fair - I mean I have to agree with rejections.

I agree. No objections here about the review process. SS still accepts most everything I offer them, and when they don't I tend to understand why. Plus, on the few occasions when I've requested a re-evaluation of an image (or set of images) that was rejected, the second reviewer has agreed with me.

I like dealing with SS, and I earn more there than anywhere else. Just wish other companies could do as well.

Photobomb · « **Reply #3 on:** July 24, 2014, 00:47 »

Every few month you toss a grenade like this into the forums.
Geeze....Just go out and buy a new canvas and paint - I hear painting is a relaxing activity - you seem to need it.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #4 on:** July 24, 2014, 01:29 »

I thought this was the "Shutterstock is accepting too much content, the market is over saturated" thread not the "Shutterstock is rejecting too much content" thread (shuts door on way out)

Red Dove · « **Reply #5 on:** July 24, 2014, 01:54 »

I've had a few niggles around acceptance of late but other than that they are still top of the line on sales and site performance at my end.

The threads you mention seem to be started by and filled by the same people over and over and I find it hard to believe that "thousands" of others just read without posting....if the issues were more universal I'd expect to see a substantial increase in flaming torches and pitchforks.

But in fairness, I don't think SS are that bothered nor do I think that attitude has changed either way since I joined five years ago. Maybe it was different in olden times but that seems to be the case with everything from socks to cars. SS's attitude is much the same as any corporate entity, which was made clear to me at a Fortune 100 company many years ago, when I was told to "forget all that we are in business to serve the customer nonsense...we are in business to increase dividend for the shareholders or we're not in business anymore."

mojaric · « **Reply #6 on:** July 24, 2014, 02:31 »

shutterstock is still accepting everything that is shooted properly....this is the one and only irrefutable truth....if you still getting many rejections pay more attention while shooting

Mark Windom Photography · « **Reply #7 on:** July 24, 2014, 09:47 »

Sounds like one of many iStock posts from not too long ago....

Rejections, sales, etc. seem to be about average for me. The lack of a personal touch is pretty characteristic of the corporate agency nowadays.

Mantis · « **Reply #8 on:** July 24, 2014, 11:37 »

Lauren are u speaking on behalf of your submissions or others? Is it your paintings getting rejections or your photos? Just curious because your photography is very high quality. If it's your photos why not submit a few to SS for re review and if they are reversed communicate directly with SS with some recommendations.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #9 on:** July 24, 2014, 11:53 »

personally, i am not seeing the madness or the furor of the slaughterhouse from SS. then again, i can relate to your frustration, considering you have been with SS a lot more time than i have, and also, a lot more images in your portfolio.
i have been following the threads on SS, and i am wondering if it has anything to do with a certain reviewer in a certain region.
why i say so? because i keep also reading " no problem here, dude !... just uploading xxx and got xxx approved". etc. and the more blatant , "dude , if you submit excellent work, you get excellent results".
(cough cough, modest much???)

but definitely there is an issue and from the length of the thread, it appears that SS has become the new IS.
scary thought, really. but this is also the time to start looking elsewhere,
and be less dependant on sites that expect us to jump through hoops.

still, considering i am still making more money with SS then the rest, i am not going to be the first one
to wish for SS to follow IS ; at least, not before my independent stock site comes out.

geesh, i have work to do , haven't i? (hand me my axe, albert !!!.... have you seen the bridge???
has anyone seen the bridge??? )..

Rinderart · « **Reply #10 on:** July 24, 2014, 13:41 »

Quote from: Mantis on July 24, 2014, 11:37

Lauren are u speaking on behalf of your submissions or others? Is it your paintings getting rejections or your photos? Just curious because your photography is very high quality. If it's your photos why not submit a few to SS for re review and if they are reversed communicate directly with SS with some recommendations.

No, Not about me. just general consensus. sorry I brought it up. wonder why theres a huge thread here about SS reviewers beating folks up. and Im not talking about Newbies, But very seasoned shooters. Personally ...Never seen this much talk. If there non communication doesn't bother you guys, Then ....cool.

Rinderart · « **Reply #11 on:** July 24, 2014, 13:44 »

I read today on SS that someone mentioned SS have a newsletter. Very good Idea since they don't wanna acknowledge Bugs or questions. And yes, Of course SS is the best Yada Yada. But could be better.

EmberMike · « **Reply #12 on:** July 24, 2014, 13:58 »

Quote from: Rinderart on July 24, 2014, 13:41

...If there non communication doesn't bother you guys, Then ....cool.

I'm sorry, but what non-communication? That they don't come into the forums much to talk about things? Not many companies do that, and from what I've seen SS has more of an official presence here than many other stock agencies.

I kind of see it the other way around, that SS is more open with contributors than most companies. I've been invited to participate in phone calls with SS staff, I've had a meeting with two employees, who, by the way, drove out to my house to meet with me. I've got a standing invite to visit SS HQ (although maybe that's expired by now since I've dragged my feet on taking the guy up on that). No other company has ever taken as much initiative to communicate with me. Not even close.

I get that there are issues you want to discuss. And I'm not saying that you shouldn't be entitled to ask for more communication from SS or any other company to address those issues. But I just think it's worth mentioning that (in my opinion) SS seems to be one of the most open companies when it comes to contributor relations, reaching out to contributors, and trying to keep contributors happy.

gbalex · « **Reply #13 on:** July 24, 2014, 14:10 »

Quote from: Rinderart on July 24, 2014, 13:44

I read today on SS that someone mentioned SS have a newsletter. Very good Idea since they don't wanna acknowledge Bugs or questions. And yes, Of course SS is the best Yada Yada. But could be better.

The newsletter is shutterstock patting themselves on the back promotional material. Along with some information to guide and improve shutterstock content. You will never see them acknowledge or address the numerous issues that many people are experiencing with the site or with rejections.

I think etudiante_rapide makes a good point the reviews are most likely regional. As a matter of fact if you look at the job board they advertize for reviewers by country. I do not have a problem with rejections, however some of my friends do and their work and content, is of much higher quality than some here, who are preaching up the quality of your work etc.

Shutterstock does have review and site issues and if you are not experiencing issues count yourself lucky. It is no reason to become full of yourselves and throw those who are not so unfortunate under the bus.

Consider that most buyers will never visit nor report site accessibility issues and read the reply's here. You are in denial if you think the site is not having longstanding issues on the buyer and contributor end.

http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/shutterstock.com.html

stockastic · « **Reply #14 on:** July 24, 2014, 14:24 »

Exactly what gbalex said.

The answer to the OP's question is 'no' - they don't care. SS is now a publicly held corporation, meaning that their product is 'shareholder value'. There's no one at SS whose job description includes "care about contributors".

I think it's blindingly obvious - from numerous posts here over the last few months, many from experienced photographers - that there have been major changes in reviewing and that for at least some contributors, some of the time, it's gone totally off the rails. As for the inconsistency of it - with some people claiming no impact, others having huge difficulties - there could be a number of reasons. For example if SS is experimenting with some new outsourcing of reviewing, or with semi-automation of the process, I'd expect them to test these changes on some subset of submissions and/or contributors and maybe - hopefully - work out the obvious bugs and problems before fully deploying them.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #15 on:** July 24, 2014, 14:38 »

Quote from: stockastic on July 24, 2014, 14:24

Exactly what gbalex said.

The answer to the OP's question is 'no' - they don't care. SS is now a publicly held corporation, meaning that their product is 'shareholder value'. There's no one at SS whose job description includes "care about contributors".

DISAGREE
1) we don't know for sure if Jon Oringer knows about what his lower management is doing.

some time ago, i too was involved with a company that went from excellent caring for the employees to total don't give NFA to you . we all assume it was the change in management culture.
until one day, i met the CEO and told him about it.
the next week, it was Slaughterhouse week, and a lot of lower management got replaced.

we cannot assume Mr. Oringer is fine with this. unless you asked him yourself.

gbalex · « **Reply #16 on:** July 24, 2014, 14:49 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on July 24, 2014, 14:38

Quote from: stockastic on July 24, 2014, 14:24
Exactly what gbalex said.

The answer to the OP's question is 'no' - they don't care. SS is now a publicly held corporation, meaning that their product is 'shareholder value'. There's no one at SS whose job description includes "care about contributors".

DISAGREE
1) we don't know for sure if Jon Oringer knows about what his lower management is doing.

some time ago, i too was involved with a company that went from excellent caring for the employees to total don't give NFA to you . we all assume it was the change in management culture.
until one day, i met the CEO and told him about it.
the next week, it was Slaughterhouse week, and a lot of lower management got replaced.

we cannot assume Mr. Oringer is fine with this. unless you asked him yourself.

Jon and the entire world have access to the shutterstock boards. Owners that care, take the time to talk to employees as well as customers. I have known many owners who fly to locations to speak to customers and low level employees on a regular basis.

The fact that no one including Jon has responded to numerous threads here and on shutterstock speaks volumes. All they do is pop in with platitudes and I for one find it offensive.

Address the root issues, once and for all, so that we can put a nail in this.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #17 on:** July 24, 2014, 14:58 »

Quote from: gbalex on July 24, 2014, 14:49

Jon and the entire world have access to the shutterstock boards.

DISAGREE AGAIN

CEO don't have the time to come read the forum. at least the CEOs i worked for. they don't have the time to come even to sit with you in the canteen.
if you want to talk to Oringer, then maybe go to his facebook, twitter, or wherever he has a site to talk directly.
i don't know where, maybe someone who is good and locating him on the web might be able to
find us Mr. Jon Oringer site and then go there and ask him .
or even go to the board meeting and wait outside his office, whatever.

but once again,
NEVER ASSUME.
eg. lately i had written a top brass for something. for 3 months no answer, and i ASSUMED
she didn't give a r@t$ ar$e about me. a few days ago, i got a reply , "sorry i was on vacation... but finally got caught up and read your letter".

gbalex · « **Reply #18 on:** July 24, 2014, 15:12 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on July 24, 2014, 14:58

Quote from: gbalex on July 24, 2014, 14:49
Jon and the entire world have access to the shutterstock boards.

DISAGREE AGAIN

CEO don't have the time to come read the forum. at least the CEOs i worked for. they don't have the time to come even to sit with you in the canteen.
if you want to talk to Oringer, then maybe go to his tweeter or wherever he has a site to talk directly.
i don't know where, but once again,
NEVER ASSUME.

I know I will get flak for this. It is a simple choice. My father runs a fortune 200 company. I can guarantee you he makes the choice to stay in contact with low level employees and customers. When I was a little kid I visited satellite locations and I watched him consistently speak to and listen to the lowest level employees. He took and still takes the time, to get to know a few of them each time he visits at satellite offices around the world. He makes the choice to find out what is working well, what is not, how employees as well as customers are being treated etc.

He also makes it well known to them that if they have a good idea that will improve company, product or working conditions; he wants to hear about it and will implement those ideas as well as reward them. At this time he has over 10,000 employees in locations all over the world.

It is a choice plane and simple.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #19 on:** July 24, 2014, 15:16 »

Quote from: gbalex on July 24, 2014, 15:12

I know I will get flak for this. It is a simple choice. My father runs a fortune 200 company.
It is a choice plane and simple.

DISAGREE

your father may run a Fortune 200 company , but this is just your father.
Jon Oringer is not your father

and it is NOT a choice PLAIN and simple

gbalex · « **Reply #21 on:** July 24, 2014, 15:59 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on July 24, 2014, 15:16

Quote from: gbalex on July 24, 2014, 15:12
I know I will get flak for this. It is a simple choice. My father runs a fortune 200 company.
It is a choice plane and simple.

DISAGREE

your father may run a Fortune 200 company , but this is just your father.
Jon Oringer is not your father

and it is NOT a choice PLAIN and simple

I strongly disagree.

If my father can take the time to speak to both employees and customers as well as run a complex global comany with 10,000 employees and $3.1 billion in revenue.

Surely Jon can take time out of his busy schedule to speak to his 345 employees and address long standing contributors problems. How complex can a company with so few employees and revenues of 235.52 Million be?

PixelBytes · « **Reply #22 on:** July 24, 2014, 16:52 »

Scott Braut comes to this forum alot, like he did above. I don't agree that SS does not stay in touch. This thread seem more venting than constructive.

For gbalex dad, I wish the world still run that way and good for him. But if you are adult over, say 20, the world changed a lot since back then. CEOs spend more time worrying about shareholders than low level employees or independent contractors like us.

gbalex · « **Reply #23 on:** July 25, 2014, 01:46 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on July 24, 2014, 16:52

Scott Braut comes to this forum alot, like he did above. I don't agree that SS does not stay in touch. This thread seem more venting than constructive.

For gbalex dad, I wish the world still run that way and good for him. But if you are adult over, say 20, the world changed a lot since back then. CEOs spend more time worrying about shareholders than low level employees or independent contractors like us.

He and his company are still in operation, he is in his 60's and still working, still making the rounds. And he is not alone; there still plenty of companies that care about their employees, suppliers and customers. Greed may have become rampant, but fortunately it no where near as common, as it is in microstock.

And yes Scott popped in, however his comments did not address the issues that many contributor are legitimately experiencing at shutterstock. I do not see how platitudes & denial will help anyone, including shutterstock.

topol · « **Reply #24 on:** July 25, 2014, 02:44 »

Quote from: Rinderart on July 24, 2014, 13:41

Quote from: Mantis on July 24, 2014, 11:37
Lauren are u speaking on behalf of your submissions or others? Is it your paintings getting rejections or your photos? Just curious because your photography is very high quality. If it's your photos why not submit a few to SS for re review and if they are reversed communicate directly with SS with some recommendations.

No, Not about me. just general consensus. sorry I brought it up. wonder why theres a huge thread here about SS reviewers beating folks up. and Im not talking about Newbies, But very seasoned shooters. Personally ...Never seen this much talk. If there non communication doesn't bother you guys, Then ....cool.

yeah, it's a general consensus..... of 4-5 people with subpar ports. Like that woman who was beside herself with fury because shutterstock wouldn't accept her 134th (literally) daylight shot of the white house. They were all different

the real problem with ss actualy is:

-they accept waaay too many junk if it's technically ok, ppl with gray and green faces, ridiculously inapt models bady lit, and even those holy grails of non-photographers: pigeons, ducks, 'my doggie in the backyard'.

-low prices. They really should start raising prices gradually with so many customers addicted to the site.

mojaric · « **Reply #25 on:** July 25, 2014, 07:18 »

Quote from: gbalex on July 24, 2014, 15:59

If my father can take the time to speak to both employees and customers as well as run a complex global comany with 10,000 employees and $3.1 billion in revenue.

What are you doing here? Playing at "the photographer"? It's better for you and for 10,000 employees that you stop playing with images and think about your real life...

pixsol · « **Reply #26 on:** July 25, 2014, 07:54 »

Quote from: gbalex on July 24, 2014, 15:59

If my father can take the time to speak to both employees and customers as well as run a complex global comany with 10,000 employees and $3.1 billion in revenue.

Good for the 10,000 employees whose (company) owner takes some time to listen to them

PixelBytes · « **Reply #27 on:** July 25, 2014, 12:18 »

Quote from: pixsol on July 25, 2014, 07:54

Quote from: gbalex on July 24, 2014, 15:59
If my father can take the time to speak to both employees and customers as well as run a complex global comany with 10,000 employees and $3.1 billion in revenue.

Good for the 10,000 employees whose (company) owner takes some time to listen to them

Yes, I want to work there! Good to know 'business ethics' is not totally forgotten.

Goofy · « **Reply #28 on:** July 25, 2014, 12:47 »

Quote from: PhotoBomb on July 24, 2014, 00:47

Every few month you toss a grenade like this into the forums.
Geeze....Just go out and buy a new canvas and paint - I hear painting is a relaxing activity - you seem to need it.

there are other relaxing things to do as well but I cannot say them since thus is a family (Pg-13) site

gbalex · « **Reply #29 on:** July 25, 2014, 12:50 »

Quote from: mojaric on July 25, 2014, 07:18

Quote from: gbalex on July 24, 2014, 15:59

If my father can take the time to speak to both employees and customers as well as run a complex global company with 10,000 employees and $3.1 billion in revenue.

What are you doing here? Playing at "the photographer"? It's better for you and for 10,000 employees that you stop playing with images and think about your real life...

I leave that up to my 5 older brothers, who are a chip off the block. My journey is elsewhere and while I respect my father and brothers, I march to another tune. The biz, is not what floats my boat.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #30 on:** July 25, 2014, 12:56 »

Quote from: gbalex on July 25, 2014, 12:50

Quote from: mojaric on July 25, 2014, 07:18
Quote from: gbalex on July 24, 2014, 15:59

If my father can take the time to speak to both employees and customers as well as run a complex global company with 10,000 employees and $3.1 billion in revenue.

What are you doing here? Playing at "the photographer"? It's better for you and for 10,000 employees that you stop playing with images and think about your real life...

I leave that up to my 5 older brothers, who are a chip off the block. My journey is elsewhere and while I respect my father and brothers, I march to another tune. The biz, is not what floats my boat.

Yes. What a rude comment. Nobodys business what you do with your life

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #31 on:** July 25, 2014, 15:48 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on July 25, 2014, 12:56

Quote from: gbalex on July 25, 2014, 12:50
Quote from: mojaric on July 25, 2014, 07:18
Quote from: gbalex on July 24, 2014, 15:59

If my father can take the time to speak to both employees and customers as well as run a complex global company with 10,000 employees and $3.1 billion in revenue.

What are you doing here? Playing at "the photographer"? It's better for you and for 10,000 employees that you stop playing with images and think about your real life...

I leave that up to my 5 older brothers, who are a chip off the block. My journey is elsewhere and while I respect my father and brothers, I march to another tune. The biz, is not what floats my boat.
Yes. What a rude comment. Nobodys business what you do with your life

+10
we are not here to character assassinate just because we are short of grey matter.
if you don't like what gbalex say, say so, like we did,
but there is no need to get personal.
you can also just not come in, or ignore him or us.

just don't turn this into a mud-slinging match simply because you expect everyone here to tell you things you like to read.
you can start your own blog for that.

p.s.
sorry, no ignore button. i was going to use it

mike ledray · « **Reply #32 on:** July 25, 2014, 17:34 »

Thank You Scott
I for one Rarely have issues with my images being accepted or rejected
I understand SS's process and goals for business
Having WELL OVER 12 images online, I have seen a lot of positive changes through the years.
I for one LOVE Shutterstock and wish only the very best for the company and my sales

So with that said

Thank You
Rock On
SS ROCKS!

mike ledray · « **Reply #33 on:** July 25, 2014, 18:19 »

Gotta Love Shutterstock

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #34 on:** July 25, 2014, 21:37 »

Quote from: mojaric on July 25, 2014, 07:18

Quote from: gbalex on July 24, 2014, 15:59

If my father can take the time to speak to both employees and customers as well as run a complex global comany with 10,000 employees and $3.1 billion in revenue.

What are you doing here? Playing at "the photographer"? It's better for you and for 10,000 employees that you stop playing with images and think about your real life...

He's so rich he doesn't need to work it makes microstock is a good way to pass time and educate all us low life common people.
Does SS care? Why? People take 28 cents for work that costs much more to shoot. You make under minimum wage. Worst of all SS is the best place by 3 times and you ask if they care. They pay the best, don't cheat us, and what does that make the rest? Do any of them care?

Goofy · « **Reply #35 on:** July 25, 2014, 21:42 »

my father always told me that I would amount to nothing in life thus this industry is the perfect fit for me

mike ledray · « **Reply #36 on:** July 25, 2014, 22:33 »

My father makes $1,000,000,000,000 per week with his 5 employees and does not worry about what anyone says.
And I am the sole Heir

now where did I put that bottle of strychnine?

gbalex · « **Reply #37 on:** July 26, 2014, 00:25 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on July 25, 2014, 21:37

Quote from: mojaric on July 25, 2014, 07:18
Quote from: gbalex on July 24, 2014, 15:59

If my father can take the time to speak to both employees and customers as well as run a complex global comany with 10,000 employees and $3.1 billion in revenue.

What are you doing here? Playing at "the photographer"? It's better for you and for 10,000 employees that you stop playing with images and think about your real life...

He's so rich he doesn't need to work it makes microstock is a good way to pass time and educate all us low life common people.
Does SS care? Why? People take 28 cents for work that costs much more to shoot. You make under minimum wage. Worst of all SS is the best place by 3 times and you ask if they care. They pay the best, don't cheat us, and what does that make the rest? Do any of them care?

Dude maybe your family would pay your way forward, but in mine they expect you to stand on your own two feet. There are no free rides in this world and I have been completely on my own since I was 18. Paid for two degrees by working summers fishing in Alaska. If you want to make something of yourself there are plenty of ways to do it, rather than relying on family to prop you up.

I am no different than anyone here and certainly do not feel I am better than any man on this earth. In fact that is my point, every man and women here should be paid a fair rate for their work, there is no reason that a handful of people should be taking the lions share of the pie, while failing to hold up their end of the bargain. I was brought up in opposition of elitist ethics and that is the very reason my family is successful, they make it a win win for everyone and not just a chosen few.

mojaric · « **Reply #38 on:** July 28, 2014, 04:31 »

Quote from: gbalex on July 25, 2014, 12:50

Quote from: mojaric on July 25, 2014, 07:18
Quote from: gbalex on July 24, 2014, 15:59

If my father can take the time to speak to both employees and customers as well as run a complex global company with 10,000 employees and $3.1 billion in revenue.

What are you doing here? Playing at "the photographer"? It's better for you and for 10,000 employees that you stop playing with images and think about your real life...
I leave that up to my 5 older brothers, who are a chip off the block. My journey is elsewhere and while I respect my father and brothers, I march to another tune. The biz, is not what floats my boat.

sorry gbalex for the rudeness my post was provocative...but to say that your sounded a little bit like a "show-off"
Going back to peacefull tones what i think is that every company has it's own and different managment. A web-based company, like SS, cannot be matched to a traditional company (i guess like the one that your father runs)...exactly for what you were saying, speaking directly with one person is not like reading forum...managment can't make statements nor changements from 2 or 3 bad post written in few minutes from unhappy contributors

gbalex · « **Reply #39 on:** July 28, 2014, 08:34 »

Quote from: mojaric on July 28, 2014, 04:31

Quote from: gbalex on July 25, 2014, 12:50
Quote from: mojaric on July 25, 2014, 07:18
Quote from: gbalex on July 24, 2014, 15:59

If my father can take the time to speak to both employees and customers as well as run a complex global company with 10,000 employees and $3.1 billion in revenue.

What are you doing here? Playing at "the photographer"? It's better for you and for 10,000 employees that you stop playing with images and think about your real life...
I leave that up to my 5 older brothers, who are a chip off the block. My journey is elsewhere and while I respect my father and brothers, I march to another tune. The biz, is not what floats my boat.

sorry gbalex for the rudeness my post was provocative...but to say that your sounded a little bit like a "show-off"
Going back to peacefull tones what i think is that every company has it's own and different managment. A web-based company, like SS, cannot be matched to a traditional company (i guess like the one that your father runs)...exactly for what you were saying, speaking directly with one person is not like reading forum...managment can't make statements nor changements from 2 or 3 bad post written in few minutes from unhappy contributors

I do see your point and agree that most often keeping ones reality to ourselves is best. However I do think that a reality check is in order when it comes to the effort I see some CEO's putting out. There is no excuse, the points discussed are part of the responsibility of running a company.

In my past life I worked as a IT developer. There is really no excuse at all for Jon not to read the forums & net to see what type of challenges his customers and contributors are having. Part of a owners job is to verify that your management are delivering the end product, to both your customers and to your employees or suppliers as the case may be.

On the contributor end, a quick read in the bug forum will show you that there are long standing concerns that they continue to ignore. If this were minor bugs I would not say anything. However there are serious issues that they simply fail to address. It has become clear that Jon simply does not care about his contributors and I think it is well past time to address the issue.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #40 on:** July 28, 2014, 09:42 »

Quote from: gbalex on July 28, 2014, 08:34

It has become clear that Jon simply does not care about his contributors and I think it is well past time to address the issue.

yes, i am the one who gave you a +

u know what? i was disagreeing with u because i wanted 2 c if Jon Oringer comes in here, since he has his own twitter or whatever, so he must have time to come on the web, if he cares

given these times, along with the pages and pages of this issue on Oringer's own site forum,
i too, am convinced by you today
Jon simply does not care about his contributors

like the dude from Istock, he makes his money , and soon, he will sell it, and we will all see another replay of IStock. and maybe another new flavour of the year. if not already since he has Offset.

shame . but as Sting sings, "history teaches us nothing".

the bottom line is still people are greedy, and when they start up, they will help u because they need u to make their site grow. but once they become a monopoly, they will throw u out like the baby and bath water.

u convinced me after all these months, hanging to my belief in old-school
- when people are born, their nature is good.

but the times of these ancient saying is outdated. maybe i am wrong to believe this
and u r slowly convincing me that saying is no longer applicable.

and meanwhile, multitude of blind drowning followers are still grabbing straws and picking off crumbs from their tables, thinking that perharps, tomorrow another new site will come and be the new messiah.

and then when u come in here telling us it is crap, we will give u another big slap in the face.
but at least, today, i award u a heart because u r not afraid to say ur piece.

Batman · « **Reply #41 on:** July 30, 2014, 09:37 »

mike ledray · « **Reply #42 on:** July 30, 2014, 11:03 »

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #43 on:** July 30, 2014, 11:09 »

maybe

cthoman · « **Reply #44 on:** July 30, 2014, 11:13 »

Quote from: Batman on July 30, 2014, 09:37

NO

Shouldn't that be na na na na... Batman!?!?

gbalex · « **Reply #45 on:** July 30, 2014, 12:12 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on July 28, 2014, 09:42

Quote from: gbalex on July 28, 2014, 08:34
It has become clear that Jon simply does not care about his contributors and I think it is well past time to address the issue.
and then when u come in here telling us it is crap, we will give u another big slap in the face.
but at least, today, i award u a heart because u r not afraid to say ur piece[/b].

Respect etudiante_rapide, thank you for your words.

ravens · « **Reply #46 on:** July 30, 2014, 13:45 »

Quote from: marthamarks on July 24, 2014, 00:45

Quote from: a1bercik on July 24, 2014, 00:39
I don't know man. Personally, I have no issues with them, everything works including review process, which is fair - I mean I have to agree with rejections.

I agree. No objections here about the review process. SS still accepts most everything I offer them, and when they don't I tend to understand why. Plus, on the few occasions when I've requested a re-evaluation of an image (or set of images) that was rejected, the second reviewer has agreed with me.

I like dealing with SS, and I earn more there than anywhere else. Just wish other companies could do as well.

I agree completely. I love Shutterstock. The reviews are more than fair, they are easy to deal with, I have no problem with them. They sell my images so well, and my sales and earnings keep increasing. If anyone has a problem with them, why don't you email them directly? Or address the issue at the SS forum? Why complain here, and expect a prompt reply, it doesn't even make sense?
If you should put all the time and effort spent here complaining into learning to shoot the right type of images, and improving your technical skills you would have more images accepted, it would be easier and faster and you would earn more.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #47 on:** July 30, 2014, 13:57 »

Quote from: ravens on July 30, 2014, 13:45

Quote from: marthamarks on July 24, 2014, 00:45
Quote from: a1bercik on July 24, 2014, 00:39
I don't know man. Personally, I have no issues with them, everything works including review process, which is fair - I mean I have to agree with rejections.

I agree. No objections here about the review process. SS still accepts most everything I offer them, and when they don't I tend to understand why. Plus, on the few occasions when I've requested a re-evaluation of an image (or set of images) that was rejected, the second reviewer has agreed with me.

I like dealing with SS, and I earn more there than anywhere else. Just wish other companies could do as well.

I agree completely. I love Shutterstock. The reviews are more than fair, they are easy to deal with, I have no problem with them. They sell my images so well, and my sales and earnings keep increasing. If anyone has a problem with them, why don't you email them directly? Or address the issue at the SS forum? Why complain here, and expect a prompt reply, it doesn't even make sense?
If you should put all the time and effort spent here complaining into learning to shoot the right type of images, and improving your technical skills you would have more images accepted, it would be easier and faster and you would earn more.

ahem, cough, cough... lemmings much???

so i guess u r all correct.
oh, btw, did any of u dudes checked Mr. Rinderart's portfolio or resume?
afaik, this dude is not a newbie and knows how to compose a stock photograph, no doubt been able to do that longer than most of you have been alive, never mind be on Shutterstock.
and i am pretty much convinced , he knows how to WB
... unless lately he has developed amnesia or alzheimer.

i doubt that.

mike ledray · « **Reply #48 on:** July 31, 2014, 22:10 »

Gotta Love SHUTTERSTOCK!
Rock On you Cats and Kittens

Thank You

Shelma1 · « **Reply #49 on:** August 03, 2014, 19:34 »

Every one of my jpgs has been rejected by the photo/illustration inspector this week. Today a bunch more. Dozens of $%#$ images. Even black and white silhouettes..all rejected for noise. Not one grain of noise anywhere...they're vector illustrations, for God's sake! EPS all accepted as usual. The inspectors are out of control. Do they get paid more to reject images?

marthamarks · « **Reply #50 on:** August 03, 2014, 19:47 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 03, 2014, 19:34

Every one of my jpgs has been rejected by the photo/illustration inspector this week. Today a bunch more. Dozens of $%#$ images. Even black and white silhouettes..all rejected for noise. Not one grain of noise anywhere...they're vector illustrations, for God's sake! EPS all accepted as usual. The inspectors are out of control. Do they get paid more to reject images?

I had an entire set of 6 macro butterfly images—all bright, colorful, and so sharp you could count the hairs on their wings—rejected this past week too.

Can't remember that ever happening before. Aaaargh!!!!

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #51 on:** August 04, 2014, 16:33 »

What was the rejection reason for the butterflies?

Quote from: marthamarks on August 03, 2014, 19:47

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 03, 2014, 19:34
Every one of my jpgs has been rejected by the photo/illustration inspector this week. Today a bunch more. Dozens of $%#$ images. Even black and white silhouettes..all rejected for noise. Not one grain of noise anywhere...they're vector illustrations, for God's sake! EPS all accepted as usual. The inspectors are out of control. Do they get paid more to reject images?

I had an entire set of 6 macro butterfly images—all bright, colorful, and so sharp you could count the hairs on their wings—rejected this past week too.

Can't remember that ever happening before. Aaaargh!!!!

marthamarks · « **Reply #52 on:** August 04, 2014, 17:17 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 04, 2014, 16:33

What was the rejection reason for the butterflies?

Out of focus. Nope.

Grainy. Nope. Shot in bright sunshine at fast speed.

Bad composition on a couple of the shots. I don't think so.

But no matter. I've moved on.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #53 on:** August 04, 2014, 17:21 »

Quote from: marthamarks on August 04, 2014, 17:17

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 04, 2014, 16:33
What was the rejection reason for the butterflies?

Out of focus. Nope.

Grainy. Nope. Shot in bright sunshine at fast speed.

Bad composition on a couple of the shots. I don't think so.

But no matter. I've moved on.

+1 on the last wisdom. in a moment someone will come in and whoopie yay how 100% approval
so really, to those affected as Mr. Rinderhart , the only thing is in fact, to move on.

mike ledray · « **Reply #54 on:** August 04, 2014, 19:41 »

Yeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

100% approval

Shutterstock Rocks!

12264 active clips and images (and growing rapidly)
Now what to shoot next?

marthamarks · « **Reply #55 on:** August 04, 2014, 19:55 »

Quote from: mike ledray on August 04, 2014, 19:41

Now what to shoot next?

I highly recommend close-up shots of butterflies.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #56 on:** August 05, 2014, 08:53 »

OK, I'm being a bit of a PITA in pursuing the reason for my rejections. So they sent me this example of the "noise" in one of my illustrations. They blew this small section of one drawing up 200%. This portion of the illustration was built with standard Illustrator shapes. The one on the left is supposedly "noisy," and the one on the right is "cleaner." They look the same to me. Am I missing something? Honestly. I blew them up even more...now we're talking 400% (who uses a raster at 400%?) and they still look the same.

Seriously, am I missing something? Is it my eyes? My computer?

pixsol · « **Reply #57 on:** August 05, 2014, 09:05 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 05, 2014, 08:53

Seriously, am I missing something? Is it my eyes? My computer?

I agree with you. I could not spot any difference (or noise). I tried my best for 5 minutes. Sorry about the rejections. So, far I have not had issues with my rasters and vectors on SS. Photographs though have become difficult to predict in terms of acceptance.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #58 on:** August 05, 2014, 09:06 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 05, 2014, 08:53

Seriously, am I missing something? Is it my eyes? My computer?

read my lips Shelma1 , "conflict of interest... !" reviewer/contributor !!!
it's pretty obvious by now, since it is not robot-reviewers, then it has to be contributors who are also reviewers to knock off anything that is competing against their own portfolios or friends' portfolios.
like in the old days of Istock where exclusives reviewed indies.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #59 on:** August 05, 2014, 09:17 »

btw, has anyone from SS read the thread on IStock (penalizing diamonds)

similar disease going on there. it's not endemic, it's a bloody eperdemic
with the top 2 it seems

Shelma1 · « **Reply #60 on:** August 05, 2014, 09:21 »

I agree there might be inherent conflicts of interest, but in this case the vector version was approved and the raster was rejected, so I don't think the photo reviewer would feel I was competing, and the illustration reviewer who might see competition accepted the EPS. (And who is qualified to inspect images other than successful contributors?)

What I don't get is spending time creating this example and blowing things up to 200% instead of just admitting the rejections were a mistake.

robhainer · « **Reply #61 on:** August 05, 2014, 09:34 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 05, 2014, 09:21

I agree there might be inherent conflicts of interest, but in this case the vector version was approved and the raster was rejected, so I don't think the photo reviewer would feel I was competing, and the illustration reviewer who might see competition accepted the EPS. (And who is qualified to inspect images other than successful contributors?)

What I don't get is spending time creating this example and blowing things up to 200% instead of just admitting the rejections were a mistake.

I can see a little, tiny bit of pixelation (or something) on the curving edge of the bus, but only because you told me to look for it. Did they say what they did differently in converting the vector to raster?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #62 on:** August 05, 2014, 09:43 »

Quote from: robhainer on August 05, 2014, 09:34

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 05, 2014, 09:21
I agree there might be inherent conflicts of interest, but in this case the vector version was approved and the raster was rejected, so I don't think the photo reviewer would feel I was competing, and the illustration reviewer who might see competition accepted the EPS. (And who is qualified to inspect images other than successful contributors?)

What I don't get is spending time creating this example and blowing things up to 200% instead of just admitting the rejections were a mistake.

I can see a little, tiny bit of pixelation (or something) on the curving edge of the bus, but only because you told me to look for it. Did they say what they did differently in converting the vector to raster?

Nope. And if you have to look that hard at 200% to find something that tiny I really think they're stretching.

EmberMike · « **Reply #63 on:** August 05, 2014, 09:59 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 05, 2014, 08:53

...Seriously, am I missing something? Is it my eyes? My computer?...

I actually do see some compression artifacting in the stop sign, but in both versions. I don't get how one is better than the other. There are some flaws, but they both have the same flaws.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #64 on:** August 05, 2014, 10:02 »

still a lot of hoops to jump !!! viewing at what magnification?

hopefully, when u satisfy the great "lord reviewer", (s)he, upon eventual approval, will increase your earnings by an equal magnification

cthoman · « **Reply #65 on:** August 05, 2014, 10:09 »

Quote from: EmberMike on August 05, 2014, 09:59

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 05, 2014, 08:53
...Seriously, am I missing something? Is it my eyes? My computer?...

I actually do see some compression artifacting in the stop sign, but in both versions. I don't get how one is better than the other. There are some flaws, but they both have the same flaws.

I got a rejection like this from iStock once and there are artifacts in almost all rasterized vectors. It is tough to tell where they draw the line on what is acceptable/normal. I can see where confusion can arise.

gnirtS · « **Reply #66 on:** August 05, 2014, 10:25 »

Just got 37/37 accepted including a few i thought were borderline so can't really moan at that.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #67 on:** August 05, 2014, 10:26 »

Well, I just got an email from them admitting the two are identical and suggesting I resubmit. Took four emails for that.

marthamarks · « **Reply #68 on:** August 07, 2014, 08:04 »

Quote from: marthamarks on August 04, 2014, 17:17

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 04, 2014, 16:33
What was the rejection reason for the butterflies?

Out of focus. Nope.

Grainy. Nope. Shot in bright sunshine at fast speed.

Bad composition on a couple of the shots. I don't think so.

But no matter. I've moved on.

So, guess what? This morning DT accepted 5 of the 6 butterfly images that SS rejected a few days ago. And the 6th was rejected only because it was "similar" to the others, which is correct.

Go figure!

JPSDK · « **Reply #69 on:** August 07, 2014, 09:27 »

Would you care to show me the butterfly pictures? I have a special interest in that kind of pictures.

marthamarks · « **Reply #70 on:** August 07, 2014, 09:40 »

Quote from: JPSDK on August 07, 2014, 09:27

Would you care to show me the butterfly pictures? I have a special interest in that kind of pictures.

Sure. Always happy to show off my work!

You'll find those five Taxiles Skipper images (right next to a new series of Horseshoe Crabs) in the "latest uploads" section on this page:

http://www.dreamstime.com/marthamarks_info

And if you'd like to see four images of a Common Checkered Skipper, look for them on bright yellow flowers on this page:

http://www.dreamstime.com/marthamarks_more-latest-adition_pg1

gnirtS · « **Reply #71 on:** August 07, 2014, 10:02 »

Doesn't Dreamstime accept virtually anything though ?

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #72 on:** August 07, 2014, 10:14 »

Yes they do. Big change in the last 3 months or so. Everything is accepted.

marthamarks · « **Reply #73 on:** August 07, 2014, 10:20 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on August 07, 2014, 10:14

Yes they do. Big change in the last 3 months or so. Everything is accepted.

Well, they do seem to be accepting more "similars", however I don't think there's anything inferior or flawed with the images they've taken from me recently. And yes, they have rejected some for reasons other than being part of a series.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #74 on:** August 07, 2014, 10:24 »

I wasn't referring to you Martha. If you take a look at the latest page now and then you will see what I mean. I see some images before they are published so I have an insight into the changes that have taken place in the past few years (no, I'm not a reviewer but I do other things for them). http://www.dreamstime.com/new-stock-photos-images

JPSDK · « **Reply #75 on:** August 08, 2014, 08:49 »

Quote from: marthamarks on August 07, 2014, 09:40

Quote from: JPSDK on August 07, 2014, 09:27
Would you care to show me the butterfly pictures? I have a special interest in that kind of pictures.

Sure. Always happy to show off my work!

You'll find those five Taxiles Skipper images (right next to a new series of Horseshoe Crabs) in the "latest uploads" section on this page:

http://www.dreamstime.com/marthamarks_info

And if you'd like to see four images of a Common Checkered Skipper, look for them on bright yellow flowers on this page:

http://www.dreamstime.com/marthamarks_more-latest-adition_pg1

Ss is always bothered if large parts of the image is out of DOF, and it can easlily be with a small butterfly on a large flower taken with macro.

marthamarks · « **Reply #76 on:** August 08, 2014, 09:29 »

Quote from: JPSDK on August 08, 2014, 08:49

Ss is always bothered if large parts of the image is out of DOF, and it can easlily be with a small butterfly on a large flower taken with macro.

That may well be true. However, with subjects like insects in their natural setting (as opposed to half-frozen in a studio set-up) it's a common situation.

See the four butterflies-on-yellow-flowers images that SS did accept just a few weeks ago, on the 8th line down on my "new images" page:

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=508327&safesearch=1&prev_sort_method=popular&sort_method=newest&page=1

Actually, it's a common situation with "wildlife in nature" images, especially when you're shooting with a long lens at 4 or 4.5. You can see several other examples on that same page and many more throughout my SS portfolio. In the past, they haven't rejected many for that reason.

(As an aside, FWIW, the yellow flowers in both the accepted images and the rejected ones are only about 1 1/2" in diameter. They're native Coreopsis ("Tickseed") plants growing in pots on my balcony. The tiny-tiny skippers are frequent summer visitors. From inside our house, you almost can't see them as they take nectar from the flowers.)

ShadySue · « **Reply #77 on:** August 11, 2014, 21:58 »

Quote from: marthamarks on August 08, 2014, 09:29

Actually, it's a common situation with "wildlife in nature" images, especially when you're shooting with a long lens at 4 or 4.5. You can see several other examples on that same page and many more throughout my SS portfolio. In the past, they haven't rejected many for that reason.

I've read others saying their shallow-dof real wildlife pics were rejected at SS for that reason. I always assumed they were inspected by clueless-about-wildlife studio togs.

ijansempoi · « **Reply #78 on:** August 11, 2014, 22:04 »

formally enough, i dont think SS gives a da**.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #79 on:** August 11, 2014, 23:18 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 11, 2014, 21:58

Quote from: marthamarks on August 08, 2014, 09:29
Actually, it's a common situation with "wildlife in nature" images, especially when you're shooting with a long lens at 4 or 4.5. You can see several other examples on that same page and many more throughout my SS portfolio. In the past, they haven't rejected many for that reason.
I've read others saying their shallow-dof real wildlife pics were rejected at SS for that reason. I always assumed they were inspected by clueless-about-wildlife studio togs.

i think u r being too kind;
i don't think their curating-cluelessness (a class of its own) only applies to wildlife pics

i recall someone here who said they got rejections on images lit by setting sun 3400K being rejected for wrong WB .

Q :
how do u expect 5600K from 3400K?
A: have eyes like a certain breed of SS reviewer(s).

robhainer · « **Reply #80 on:** August 12, 2014, 09:04 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 11, 2014, 21:58

Quote from: marthamarks on August 08, 2014, 09:29
Actually, it's a common situation with "wildlife in nature" images, especially when you're shooting with a long lens at 4 or 4.5. You can see several other examples on that same page and many more throughout my SS portfolio. In the past, they haven't rejected many for that reason.
I've read others saying their shallow-dof real wildlife pics were rejected at SS for that reason. I always assumed they were inspected by clueless-about-wildlife studio togs.

All they care about is the eyes being sharp, from my experience.

ShadySue · « **Reply #81 on:** August 12, 2014, 09:07 »

Quote from: robhainer on August 12, 2014, 09:04

Quote from: ShadySue on August 11, 2014, 21:58
Quote from: marthamarks on August 08, 2014, 09:29
Actually, it's a common situation with "wildlife in nature" images, especially when you're shooting with a long lens at 4 or 4.5. You can see several other examples on that same page and many more throughout my SS portfolio. In the past, they haven't rejected many for that reason.
I've read others saying their shallow-dof real wildlife pics were rejected at SS for that reason. I always assumed they were inspected by clueless-about-wildlife studio togs.

All they care about is the eyes being sharp, from my experience.

Depending on the photo, that indeed can be all that matters; but I've heard of SS rejections for d-o-f where the eyes were perfectly sharp.

marthamarks · « **Reply #82 on:** August 12, 2014, 09:22 »

Quote from: robhainer on August 12, 2014, 09:04

All they care about is the eyes being sharp, from my experience.

That's my observation too. It's one of two things I will automatically reject my own images for. The other is if there's no catch-light in the eye.

Without a catch-light, the image looks dead, no matter how sharp it may be otherwise.

tickstock · « **Reply #83 on:** August 12, 2014, 09:41 »

The search in the forum doesn't work, it always goes to a white screen. It's been happening for a while, any plans on fixing that?

Valo · « **Reply #84 on:** August 12, 2014, 11:24 »

There will be a new moderated forum in about two months.

tickstock · « **Reply #85 on:** August 12, 2014, 11:33 »

Quote from: Valo on August 12, 2014, 11:24

There will be a new moderated forum in about two months.

I haven't seen an announcement for that do you have more info?

robhainer · « **Reply #86 on:** August 12, 2014, 12:22 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 12, 2014, 09:07

Quote from: robhainer on August 12, 2014, 09:04
Quote from: ShadySue on August 11, 2014, 21:58
Quote from: marthamarks on August 08, 2014, 09:29
Actually, it's a common situation with "wildlife in nature" images, especially when you're shooting with a long lens at 4 or 4.5. You can see several other examples on that same page and many more throughout my SS portfolio. In the past, they haven't rejected many for that reason.
I've read others saying their shallow-dof real wildlife pics were rejected at SS for that reason. I always assumed they were inspected by clueless-about-wildlife studio togs.

All they care about is the eyes being sharp, from my experience.
Depending on the photo, that indeed can be all that matters; but I've heard of SS rejections for d-o-f where the eyes were perfectly sharp.

Right. It would depend on the photo and the reviewer's judgment. I don't do them very often, but occasionally I'll do an insect macro or something outdoors where all I could get was the eyes in focus, and they've been accepted. I do a lot of natural light portraits at f2.8 or f4, and in those, only the eyes are sharp. Same thing with animals. I have a portrait of a police dog where the snout is out of focus, but the eyes are sharp and it passed. I've never had an issue as long as the eyes are sharp.

Sometimes I get a shot where one eye is sharp and the other eye is out of focus because I ran out of depth of field when the subjected turned a little. I generally reject those myself.

marthamarks · « **Reply #87 on:** August 15, 2014, 16:18 »

Well, speaking of butterflies… today SS accepted 5 of 6 Western Tiger Swallowtail images that I uploaded last night:

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=508327&safesearch=1&prev_sort_method=popular&sort_method=newest&page=1

Yesterday morning, this gorgeous creature happened to land on a pot of orange zinnias on my balcony. This morning, he's a great addition to my portfolio. Sweet!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Does Shutterstock care what we think or post about? (Read 30070 times)

Rinderart

marthamarks

Justanotherphotographer

Mark Windom Photography

Rinderart

Rinderart

Goofy

Goofy

Batman

marthamarks

Uncle Pete

marthamarks

marthamarks

marthamarks

marthamarks

cuppacoffee

marthamarks

cuppacoffee

marthamarks

marthamarks

Valo

marthamarks

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors