pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: does SS do not like anymore new photos???  (Read 7644 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 30, 2021, 09:50 »
+4
I have been uploading to SS for 5+ years and build a portfolio of 4k+ pictures, but lately it is almost impossible to get new content approved as it is declined for the weirdest reasons, mainly focus or noise, lens dirt, posterization etc.
obviously total nonsense as I know how to edit photos and have pro gear

what is wrong with them? are they viewing the photos in 400% resolution and think they are out of focus?
do they have space problems and dont want new pics anymore?

my acceptance ratio is from 100% to 20% now and I am feeling a little desperate.....


thijsdegraaf

« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2021, 14:01 »
+1
I have been uploading to SS for 5+ years and build a portfolio of 4k+ pictures, but lately it is almost impossible to get new content approved as it is declined for the weirdest reasons, mainly focus or noise, lens dirt, posterization etc.
obviously total nonsense as I know how to edit photos and have pro gear

what is wrong with them? are they viewing the photos in 400% resolution and think they are out of focus?
do they have space problems and dont want new pics anymore?

my acceptance ratio is from 100% to 20% now and I am feeling a little desperate.....

Welcome. I don't know if you were on the defunct Shutterstock forum, but there were quite a few threads on the subject.
With me they are often right about lens dirt. Usually almost invisible. If I remove it, it will be approved.
Also on this forum there is a not so old topic: https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/focus-pocus!/

« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2021, 16:26 »
+3
What shutterstock is doing at the moment is total nonsense from my point of view!

The mistakes of the last few years have been recognized. Much to much garbage has ended up in the database. That is a good realization.

To save on staff and let the AI take over the selection of the images is wrong!

But shutterstock will recognize that just like they recognized the garbage problem. It will just take another year or two - then they will take countermeasures there as well.

For Real

« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2021, 16:51 »
+2
Judging by my sales on new images they really hate me! My acceptance rates is around 80% which is the worse I've had in several years!  :-\

« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2021, 17:35 »
0
I have been uploading to SS for 5+ years and build a portfolio of 4k+ pictures, but lately it is almost impossible to get new content approved as it is declined for the weirdest reasons, mainly focus or noise, lens dirt, posterization etc.
obviously total nonsense as I know how to edit photos and have pro gear

what is wrong with them? are they viewing the photos in 400% resolution and think they are out of focus?
do they have space problems and dont want new pics anymore?

my acceptance ratio is from 100% to 20% now and I am feeling a little desperate.....

On my side is everything normal, once a time noise problem, nothing really hard to fix or just let it gooooo... :)

« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2021, 18:03 »
0
Seems ok for me, video is another story thou.

« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2021, 06:45 »
0
I haven't had too many issues. I reckon about 85% of my submissions get through first time.

« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2021, 08:15 »
+2
thank you for your feedback, I know about the SS forum threads but they are gone now. I will check the other thread here as well

videos I have no problems at all, at they are shot with the same equipment. Also my sales are good, only the acceptance rate really has gone down the drain.
I try it with resizing them and, for my point of view, oversharpening them and it works most of the times. but i produce 50 MP pictures and it a shame to downsize them to 20 or less.

I dont have any problems with other agencies like istock, adobe, getty etc. it is only SS which drives me insane lately.

either it is a wrong adjusted AI or it is some cheap, outsourced workers with low screen resolution and knowledge....

« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2021, 14:53 »
0
there are still occ'l problems, but mostly straightforward - just had an entire batch of 40 rejected for posterization (when i hadnt done any post-processing).  re-submitted & all accepted

« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2021, 17:49 »
+3
but i produce 50 MP pictures and it a shame to downsize them to 20 or less.

In my view, this is the wrong approach! You get between $0.10 and $0.20 for most downloads, and with the revenue you worry about the generous buyer only getting a 20 MP photo? How many downloads do you need to even begin to recoup the cost of an equimpment that allows 50MP?

From a financial point of view, I think you need to rethink!

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2021, 11:35 »
+3
but i produce 50 MP pictures and it a shame to downsize them to 20 or less.

In my view, this is the wrong approach! You get between $0.10 and $0.20 for most downloads, and with the revenue you worry about the generous buyer only getting a 20 MP photo? How many downloads do you need to even begin to recoup the cost of an equimpment that allows 50MP?

From a financial point of view, I think you need to rethink!

That's my answer too. Just downsize and move on. Giving away 50MP images for a dime is not going to make more than giving away 10MP images for a dime. And if the 10MP images come from that 50MP camera (what the heck is that?) and you are downsizing, you'll have almost no rejections for focus, pixelation, grain, soft or any of the other absurd rejections from the SS Bots.

« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2021, 11:48 »
+3
but i produce 50 MP pictures and it a shame to downsize them to 20 or less.

In my view, this is the wrong approach! You get between $0.10 and $0.20 for most downloads, and with the revenue you worry about the generous buyer only getting a 20 MP photo? How many downloads do you need to even begin to recoup the cost of an equimpment that allows 50MP?

From a financial point of view, I think you need to rethink!

That's my answer too. Just downsize and move on. Giving away 50MP images for a dime is not going to make more than giving away 10MP images for a dime. And if the 10MP images come from that 50MP camera (what the heck is that?) and you are downsizing, you'll have almost no rejections for focus, pixelation, grain, soft or any of the other absurd rejections from the SS Bots.

When SS was still worthy, I used to send them only the minimum size (6Mpx). The full format was available only on my website, if buyers needed more..

« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2021, 13:49 »
+1
but i produce 50 MP pictures and it a shame to downsize them to 20 or less.

In my view, this is the wrong approach! You get between $0.10 and $0.20 for most downloads, and with the revenue you worry about the generous buyer only getting a 20 MP photo? How many downloads do you need to even begin to recoup the cost of an equimpment that allows 50MP?

From a financial point of view, I think you need to rethink!

That's my answer too. Just downsize and move on. Giving away 50MP images for a dime is not going to make more than giving away 10MP images for a dime. And if the 10MP images come from that 50MP camera (what the heck is that?) and you are downsizing, you'll have almost no rejections for focus, pixelation, grain, soft or any of the other absurd rejections from the SS Bots.

in addition to less time creating file, faster upload, less storage, less resubmission.

« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2021, 15:27 »
+2
Seems ok for me, video is another story thou.

Yes I found the same, recently had a number of images accepted on SStock but video not, and all the videos were accepted on Adobe.

« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2021, 04:29 »
0
but i produce 50 MP pictures and it a shame to downsize them to 20 or less.

In my view, this is the wrong approach! You get between $0.10 and $0.20 for most downloads, and with the revenue you worry about the generous buyer only getting a 20 MP photo? How many downloads do you need to even begin to recoup the cost of an equimpment that allows 50MP?

From a financial point of view, I think you need to rethink!

That's my answer too. Just downsize and move on. Giving away 50MP images for a dime is not going to make more than giving away 10MP images for a dime. And if the 10MP images come from that 50MP camera (what the heck is that?) and you are downsizing, you'll have almost no rejections for focus, pixelation, grain, soft or any of the other absurd rejections from the SS Bots.


I have also bigger sales at SS, actually these bigger sales drive the overal revenue, why should I not have the chance to have them?

now, in the last days I did not have any rejections anymore, weirdly exactly after opening this thread, perhaps a coincidence?

« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2021, 04:56 »
+2
but i produce 50 MP pictures and it a shame to downsize them to 20 or less.

In my view, this is the wrong approach! You get between $0.10 and $0.20 for most downloads, and with the revenue you worry about the generous buyer only getting a 20 MP photo? How many downloads do you need to even begin to recoup the cost of an equimpment that allows 50MP?

From a financial point of view, I think you need to rethink!

That's my answer too. Just downsize and move on. Giving away 50MP images for a dime is not going to make more than giving away 10MP images for a dime. And if the 10MP images come from that 50MP camera (what the heck is that?) and you are downsizing, you'll have almost no rejections for focus, pixelation, grain, soft or any of the other absurd rejections from the SS Bots.


I have also bigger sales at SS, actually these bigger sales drive the overal revenue, why should I not have the chance to have them?

now, in the last days I did not have any rejections anymore, weirdly exactly after opening this thread, perhaps a coincidence?


Bigger sales come in - no matter if you upload 50 MP or 10 MP images from my point of view.

What I was getting at is that both buyers and agencies are shrinking our revenues more and more. At the end of the day, all buyers want all images for free. And based on that, from my perspective, they have no right to expect contributors to go to expense to be able to produce huge photos.

I myself have only photos in my portfolio that were taken with a compact camera. So my investment in equipment is dwindling and that leaves me with more money.

My three best-selling photos, with a combined 10,000 downloads at SS, are 8 MP, 7 MP, and 5 MP. It's quite possible that I would have even more sales with them if the images had a resolution of 50 MP. But I would need an estimated 4,000 more downloads to recoup the price difference for the camera. I don't think I would have had that many additional sales because of the higher resolution.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2021, 16:38 »
+1
but i produce 50 MP pictures and it a shame to downsize them to 20 or less.

In my view, this is the wrong approach! You get between $0.10 and $0.20 for most downloads, and with the revenue you worry about the generous buyer only getting a 20 MP photo? How many downloads do you need to even begin to recoup the cost of an equimpment that allows 50MP?

From a financial point of view, I think you need to rethink!

That's my answer too. Just downsize and move on. Giving away 50MP images for a dime is not going to make more than giving away 10MP images for a dime. And if the 10MP images come from that 50MP camera (what the heck is that?) and you are downsizing, you'll have almost no rejections for focus, pixelation, grain, soft or any of the other absurd rejections from the SS Bots.


I have also bigger sales at SS, actually these bigger sales drive the overal revenue, why should I not have the chance to have them?

now, in the last days I did not have any rejections anymore, weirdly exactly after opening this thread, perhaps a coincidence?


Bigger sales come in - no matter if you upload 50 MP or 10 MP images from my point of view.

What I was getting at is that both buyers and agencies are shrinking our revenues more and more. At the end of the day, all buyers want all images for free. And based on that, from my perspective, they have no right to expect contributors to go to expense to be able to produce huge photos.

I myself have only photos in my portfolio that were taken with a compact camera. So my investment in equipment is dwindling and that leaves me with more money.

My three best-selling photos, with a combined 10,000 downloads at SS, are 8 MP, 7 MP, and 5 MP. It's quite possible that I would have even more sales with them if the images had a resolution of 50 MP. But I would need an estimated 4,000 more downloads to recoup the price difference for the camera. I don't think I would have had that many additional sales because of the higher resolution.

That's funny. My top three all time sellers on SS are 8mp 2012, 4mp 2012, and 8mp 2016, and all three are black and white.  :D I never thought of looking at size, until you did that. Of my top 25, only one is 2017, (and it's black and white!) all the rest are older. Odd what I see sometimes when I look. New images do alright, but not as well as the old ones did, back before the new deal.


« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2021, 16:49 »
+1
I disagree with downsizing if you can avoid it. Just looking at best sellers within your own port may not be sufficient data to make this decision. When you look at a range of successful ports you will notice a large number of photos are very large.

The answer to avoiding focus rejections is not downsizing - it's about learning how to nail your focus.

« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2021, 01:20 »
0
I disagree with downsizing if you can avoid it. Just looking at best sellers within your own port may not be sufficient data to make this decision. When you look at a range of successful ports you will notice a large number of photos are very large.

The answer to avoiding focus rejections is not downsizing - it's about learning how to nail your focus.

I agree that downsizing may affect some chances of an image being sold because many buyers prefer higher megapixel images irrespective of whether they need it or not. But the problem with a 50 megapixel image is not the focus but the noise, even a little bit of which could get seriously amplified if the sensor isn't good or big enough and which can be a pain to get rid of. So in that case, it might not be a bad idea to downsize it to 20-24 megapixels (which is still a very large image). But yeah, maybe cutting it down to 10 is not such a great idea.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2021, 12:13 »
+2
I disagree with downsizing if you can avoid it. Just looking at best sellers within your own port may not be sufficient data to make this decision. When you look at a range of successful ports you will notice a large number of photos are very large.

The answer to avoiding focus rejections is not downsizing - it's about learning how to nail your focus.

I agree that downsizing may affect some chances of an image being sold because many buyers prefer higher megapixel images irrespective of whether they need it or not. But the problem with a 50 megapixel image is not the focus but the noise, even a little bit of which could get seriously amplified if the sensor isn't good or big enough and which can be a pain to get rid of. So in that case, it might not be a bad idea to downsize it to 20-24 megapixels (which is still a very large image). But yeah, maybe cutting it down to 10 is not such a great idea.

Unless it's SS bots that reject just about everything for focus if there's water, sand, grass clouds or depth of field. But by downsizing they are accepted.


Rejected image left. I flipped and cropped, nothing else changed, not re-sized or anything. Second image passed. (the one on the right which isn't a fair representation because the thumbnail is smaller, so I had to make it bigger to match) But the contention is, the one on the left was rejected, identical image, because of the water and reflections, not because of actual subject sharpness or focus. And in both cases, not a very good image because of the grass and weed stem through the middle.

Adobe has told us that some buyers want nothing less than 10MP, which tells me, that's the bottom. Everywhere else, except SS get full size images and I have no problems.

My answer for downsize was specific to SS rejections, no place else.

« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2021, 15:45 »
+3
I disagree with downsizing if you can avoid it. Just looking at best sellers within your own port may not be sufficient data to make this decision. When you look at a range of successful ports you will notice a large number of photos are very large.

The answer to avoiding focus rejections is not downsizing - it's about learning how to nail your focus.

I agree that downsizing may affect some chances of an image being sold because many buyers prefer higher megapixel images irrespective of whether they need it or not. But the problem with a 50 megapixel image is not the focus but the noise, even a little bit of which could get seriously amplified if the sensor isn't good or big enough and which can be a pain to get rid of. So in that case, it might not be a bad idea to downsize it to 20-24 megapixels (which is still a very large image). But yeah, maybe cutting it down to 10 is not such a great idea.

Unless it's SS bots that reject just about everything for focus if there's water, sand, grass clouds or depth of field. But by downsizing they are accepted.


Rejected image left. I flipped and cropped, nothing else changed, not re-sized or anything. Second image passed. (the one on the right which isn't a fair representation because the thumbnail is smaller, so I had to make it bigger to match) But the contention is, the one on the left was rejected, identical image, because of the water and reflections, not because of actual subject sharpness or focus. And in both cases, not a very good image because of the grass and weed stem through the middle.

Adobe has told us that some buyers want nothing less than 10MP, which tells me, that's the bottom. Everywhere else, except SS get full size images and I have no problems.

My answer for downsize was specific to SS rejections, no place else.

Yeah, certain weather conditions such as fog, rain, etc can be a problem with focus and noise - and I have advised someone on SS forum once, who had a fog problem with an otherwise beautiful photo, to downsize - and that was the only thing that worked for his acceptance.

I am just afraid that telling people to downsize to avoid SS rejections will get them into bad habits - with lesser potential income. Extra large images are good for all sorts of buyer reasons. eg. Potential for cropping, etc.

I dont have any focus or noise rejections anymore. I do have a good mirrorless camera now, but I learnt the hard way back in the early days of tough reviews with an old not-so-great camera.So there's no excuses.  And its all about learning exposure and how to shoot manually where you get the most control over your camera and shots.

Here's what I wrote on another thread. Maybe it might helps others.

...

Here's some tips on getting photos past fussy reviewers - if it helps.

When I started microstock in 2013, all I had was an old Nikon d90 and a kit lens. And reviewers were even fussier back then. And I used to shoot all handheld because I didnt have a tripod back then as well.

And this is what I learnt: 1. For your aperture, find the sweet spot on your lens. That will ensure super sharp focus. There's lots of articles about it on google. 2. If shooting handheld, your shutterspeed should be 3 times the length of your lens. And 3. always, always have your ISO set on the lowest possible setting. (for noise-free shots) The rest is light, so invest in some good strobes or whatever. And study lighting.

And if I ever did have some noise in backgrounds or dark areas, I would go over those areas in Photoshop with the blur tool.

No sharpening. No downsizing.

« Last Edit: December 05, 2021, 18:48 by Annie »

« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2021, 18:51 »
+1
I shot with a Canon R5 and RF lenses, almost impossible to get blurry pics as it has so many stabilizers inbuild now, so pictures are roughly 8200x5500 pixels

what I see is that with editorial pictures there is almost no issue with focus or noise.
also, when I add specific keywords like blurred, defocussed etc. then picture passes.
model pictures almost passes all the time no matter what is going on around the model.

rain/snow/fog/sand/water causes problems and needs specific keywords in the title and tags

I really think it is an AI problem plus the guy who sits behind the AI and checks, it heavily depends on the weekday as well and on the time when I submit pictures.

no problems with other agencies, no problems with 4k videos as well on SS.

« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2021, 19:47 »
+4
I shot with a Canon R5 and RF lenses, almost impossible to get blurry pics as it has so many stabilizers inbuild now, so pictures are roughly 8200x5500 pixels

what I see is that with editorial pictures there is almost no issue with focus or noise.
also, when I add specific keywords like blurred, defocussed etc. then picture passes.
model pictures almost passes all the time no matter what is going on around the model.

rain/snow/fog/sand/water causes problems and needs specific keywords in the title and tags

I really think it is an AI problem plus the guy who sits behind the AI and checks, it heavily depends on the weekday as well and on the time when I submit pictures.

no problems with other agencies, no problems with 4k videos as well on SS.

First of all, its not about 'blurry pics' - its an entirely different issue. Its about nailing the focus. And its not all about having a great camera. Yes, having a good camera helps - but 'nailing the focus' is controlled by the photographer.

I've seen a lot of photos from people saying: my image is IN FOCUS. But when you look closely at them at 100% - you can see that its too soft around the main subject area. Pete's photo above is a good example. The frog heads are a bit too soft. (apologies Pete to use you as exhibit A lol).

This then makes the photo borderline. Some may pass and some may not. Its the luck of the draw.

To get 100% focus approvals - you have to really nail that focus on the main subject area. No borderline ones. I have uploaded about 1,000 images to SS this year - and not one rejection on focus or noise. In fact, I can't remember the last time I had a focus or noise rejection. It was years ago.

You said you've been doing this for about 5 years. Here's a bit of history: prior to 2017 it was really difficult  to - 1) to get into SS in the first place - and 2) to get images passed for quality. After that they relaxed everything and for a few years it was easy street and every borderline shot was accepted.

Prior to 2017,  it was 100% human reviewer. And I remember how I used to complain, and jump up and down, because I had so many rejected. So I really understand your frustration.

Then one day, a friend helped me - and I shot it correctly and nailed it.  I mean, when you finally get it - it knocks your socks off! And you never look back again and complain.

Maybe that's not your problem, but I think its important for others reading this to know the difference between a borderline focus or noise shot and one that isn't.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2021, 19:52 by Annie »

« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2021, 09:10 »
+1
but i produce 50 MP pictures and it a shame to downsize them to 20 or less.

In my view, this is the wrong approach! You get between $0.10 and $0.20 for most downloads, and with the revenue you worry about the generous buyer only getting a 20 MP photo? How many downloads do you need to even begin to recoup the cost of an equimpment that allows 50MP?

From a financial point of view, I think you need to rethink!

That's my answer too. Just downsize and move on. Giving away 50MP images for a dime is not going to make more than giving away 10MP images for a dime. And if the 10MP images come from that 50MP camera (what the heck is that?) and you are downsizing, you'll have almost no rejections for focus, pixelation, grain, soft or any of the other absurd rejections from the SS Bots.

I totally agree. I said that yesterday that for 10 cents they only deserve to get images taken with a mobile phone.

H2O

    This user is banned.
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2021, 09:52 »
+1
I don't have a problem with having any photo's accepted at SS, as I haven't uploaded to this site since they cut the commission rates last year.

So no rejection at all in over a year.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2021, 11:53 »
0
but i produce 50 MP pictures and it a shame to downsize them to 20 or less.

In my view, this is the wrong approach! You get between $0.10 and $0.20 for most downloads, and with the revenue you worry about the generous buyer only getting a 20 MP photo? How many downloads do you need to even begin to recoup the cost of an equimpment that allows 50MP?

From a financial point of view, I think you need to rethink!

That's my answer too. Just downsize and move on. Giving away 50MP images for a dime is not going to make more than giving away 10MP images for a dime. And if the 10MP images come from that 50MP camera (what the heck is that?) and you are downsizing, you'll have almost no rejections for focus, pixelation, grain, soft or any of the other absurd rejections from the SS Bots.

I totally agree. I said that yesterday that for 10 cents they only deserve to get images taken with a mobile phone.

Or small Crapstock from me.  ;D My mobile phone isn't "good enough".


I am just afraid that telling people to downsize to avoid SS rejections will get them into bad habits - with lesser potential income. Extra large images are good for all sorts of buyer reasons. eg. Potential for cropping, etc.


Yes, good important points and the rest of the advice as well.

I don't have a problem with having any photo's accepted at SS, as I haven't uploaded to this site since they cut the commission rates last year.

So no rejection at all in over a year.

Too easy, but I'm confident that you aren't missing much, other than frustration, anger and disappointment.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2021, 11:54 »
0
i produce 50 MP pictures and it a shame to downsize them to 20 or less.

I might have missed the answer but What camera and what lenses? 50MP images are pretty large.


« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2021, 18:37 »
+1
i produce 50 MP pictures and it a shame to downsize them to 20 or less.

I might have missed the answer but What camera and what lenses? 50MP images are pretty large.

that's a Canon R5

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2021, 18:40 »
0
By the way at the moment contributor dashboard is not working for me! Anyone else?

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #29 on: December 08, 2021, 16:11 »
0
i produce 50 MP pictures and it a shame to downsize them to 20 or less.

I might have missed the answer but What camera and what lenses? 50MP images are pretty large.

that's a Canon R5

So much for that theory, yours should be flying through.  ;D

By the way at the moment contributor dashboard is not working for me! Anyone else?

Yes, apparently I slept through the crisis. I only check once a day in the morning.

OM

« Reply #30 on: December 08, 2021, 20:42 »
+1
 ;D Me neither! No rejections since May 2020....haven't uploaded anything since then.............but if the subs of >$0.38 continue to increase and the ten&teen-cents decrease then will maybe reconsider.

Must find a symbol for Adobe Stock instead of 'Adobe Stock formerly known as Fotolia' (ASFKAFT) ;D


« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2021, 06:05 »
+1
it was better last week, now this week everything gets declined again for crap reasons like noise.

I think I will just stop uploading with them, it is my main income agency with a 4 digit number every month but I cannot take this daily frustration anymore.

« Reply #32 on: December 14, 2021, 08:26 »
0
I have been uploading to SS for 5+ years and build a portfolio of 4k+ pictures, but lately it is almost impossible to get new content approved as it is declined for the weirdest reasons, mainly focus or noise, lens dirt, posterization etc.
obviously total nonsense as I know how to edit photos and have pro gear

what is wrong with them? are they viewing the photos in 400% resolution and think they are out of focus?
do they have space problems and dont want new pics anymore?

my acceptance ratio is from 100% to 20% now and I am feeling a little desperate.....

Welcome. I don't know if you were on the defunct Shutterstock forum, but there were quite a few threads on the subject.
With me they are often right about lens dirt. Usually almost invisible. If I remove it, it will be approved.
Also on this forum there is a not so old topic: https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/focus-pocus!/
Could you guide me on how you finally identified all this almost invisible lens/sensor dust? Helpful to improve quality

« Reply #33 on: December 14, 2021, 14:07 »
0
I have been uploading to SS for 5+ years and build a portfolio of 4k+ pictures, but lately it is almost impossible to get new content approved as it is declined for the weirdest reasons, mainly focus or noise, lens dirt, posterization etc.
obviously total nonsense as I know how to edit photos and have pro gear

what is wrong with them? are they viewing the photos in 400% resolution and think they are out of focus?
do they have space problems and dont want new pics anymore?

my acceptance ratio is from 100% to 20% now and I am feeling a little desperate.....

Welcome. I don't know if you were on the defunct Shutterstock forum, but there were quite a few threads on the subject.
With me they are often right about lens dirt. Usually almost invisible. If I remove it, it will be approved.
Also on this forum there is a not so old topic: https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/focus-pocus!/
Could you guide me on how you finally identified all this almost invisible lens/sensor dust? Helpful to improve quality

This is how I do it: take an image of a clean plain white paper (fill your frame). Select spot removal in Lightroom and drag the visual spots slider to the max.
When editing an image with possible dust spots, I identify them by dragging the dehaze slider to the max. Spots in for instance skies will become visible, so you can remove them with the spot removal tool.

Not sure these both options are the ideal ones, but that's how I do it, and it seems to work. 

« Reply #34 on: December 14, 2021, 14:17 »
0

Then one day, a friend helped me - and I shot it correctly and nailed it.  I mean, when you finally get it - it knocks your socks off! And you never look back again and complain.

Maybe that's not your problem, but I think its important for others reading this to know the difference between a borderline focus or noise shot and one that isn't.

Care to share your friend's trick that knocked your socks off Annie?
Some of us, myself included might learn something from well established and experienced contributors like you.
Some focus rejections really puzzled me, and made me actually believe that it's a cheap excuse to tell you "we don't need more of these kind of pictures" (which I would be fine with). Yet other agencies take them without any single rejection. My best selling image from last year is actually one that got rejected twice, and finally approved on the third time.

« Reply #35 on: December 14, 2021, 14:24 »
0
My best selling image from last year is actually one that got rejected twice, and finally approved on the third time.

Same experience with me. And this concerns numerous images.

« Reply #36 on: December 14, 2021, 15:53 »
+1
My commercial stuff is getting 80-100% rejected. Editorial 80-100% accepted.
Same photographer, camera, lenses, lighting, and composition.

Different Reviewer.


« Reply #37 on: December 14, 2021, 19:01 »
+1
its an AI dont bother. i uploaded  two images the other day to fill the medatada without even posting them for review the next page after the upload had this massage your images were rejected.anyway i filled the metada i submitted them for review the next day i checked VOILA rejection :P their ai is moronic as f lol

« Reply #38 on: December 15, 2021, 04:01 »
+1
My commercial stuff is getting 80-100% rejected. Editorial 80-100% accepted.
Same photographer, camera, lenses, lighting, and composition.

Different Reviewer.
That's because editorial stuff doesn't have the same technical requirements regarding things like focus or grain.

"For Documentary Editorial images the quality standards are more lenient." https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/How-do-I-submit-editorial-content?language=en_US

If you have a rejection rate of 80-100% with commercial photos you really should reevaluate your photography technique  there is something wrong with your image quality.
Don't always look for the problem at SS reviewers or some AI that might ore might not exist. If that's where the problem is all people would face a similar rejection rate. I think a rejection rate above 10% already shows that there is a problem with your image.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2021, 04:04 by Firn »

thijsdegraaf

« Reply #39 on: December 15, 2021, 04:36 »
+1
I always zoom in on my photos. If it's not quite sharp at 200%, I know I could have a problem.
Landscape photos without a foreground, where the foliage of trees is not sharp, is a problem.
Before shooting for Shutterstock, I thought I took nice photos, but almost all of them would be disapproved for sharpness.
Sometimes the question is whether that sharpness is necessary for certain photos, but that is the rule at Shutterstock.
Photos that are on the border are sometimes approved and rejected the other time. And sometimes, of course, photos completely unjustly rejected.
On the shutterstock forum. the rejected photos were often shown. Often it turned out to be justified according to the Shutterstock rules.
I found that educational. I rarely see pictures here. Just complaining doesn't help, of course.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2021, 04:39 by thijsdegraaf »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #40 on: December 15, 2021, 11:34 »
0
My commercial stuff is getting 80-100% rejected. Editorial 80-100% accepted.
Same photographer, camera, lenses, lighting, and composition.

Different Reviewer.
That's because editorial stuff doesn't have the same technical requirements regarding things like focus or grain.

"For Documentary Editorial images the quality standards are more lenient." https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/How-do-I-submit-editorial-content?language=en_US

If you have a rejection rate of 80-100% with commercial photos you really should reevaluate your photography technique  there is something wrong with your image quality.
Don't always look for the problem at SS reviewers or some AI that might ore might not exist. If that's where the problem is all people would face a similar rejection rate. I think a rejection rate above 10% already shows that there is a problem with your image.

Good facts, and there's a small exception. When you get a moron reviewer who doesn't know they are Editorial!  ;D No really, a whole batch rejected for the usual noise or focus or some of the catch-all rejections. I waited a day, sent them all, a couple rejected for similar, if I remember, two for focus. The other 46 passed just fine.

AI exists, (machine learning actually) it's been in their corporate news for years and promoted last year in the stockholders reports. To what extent, yes, we don't know exactly. But at minimum, the software, advises reviewers on flaws and a lazy person can just click and make fast review money. Then the issue that it's machine learning and the software learned in the past from reviewers, and some of those, were wrong or overly harsh about noise, focus, or soft around the edges. Then the machine learns to reject for improper reasons.

And I'd agree that if someone is getting constant rejections, the cause might be the source, not the reviews.

If I personally don't upload marginal images, I don't get rejections. Pretty simple? But that's me and someone else has to decide on their own, how they select or don't from their own work. Sometimes I upload and see if I can sneak one past them.

« Reply #41 on: December 17, 2021, 13:22 »
0
I don't have a problem with having any photo's accepted at SS, as I haven't uploaded to this site since they cut the commission rates last year.

So no rejection at all in over a year.

I would like to delete all my images on SS until they come to their senses but when/if they do how to upload hundreds of images again? That's far too much work. Something needs to be done so that they get the drift that paying 10 cents is just not acceptable.

For Real

« Reply #42 on: December 17, 2021, 14:58 »
0
I don't have a problem with having any photo's accepted at SS, as I haven't uploaded to this site since they cut the commission rates last year.

So no rejection at all in over a year.

I would like to delete all my images on SS until they come to their senses but when/if they do how to upload hundreds of images again? That's far too much work. Something needs to be done so that they get the drift that paying 10 cents is just not acceptable.

Never will happen...

« Reply #43 on: December 17, 2021, 19:20 »
0
I don't have a problem with having any photo's accepted at SS, as I haven't uploaded to this site since they cut the commission rates last year.

So no rejection at all in over a year.

I would like to delete all my images on SS until they come to their senses but when/if they do how to upload hundreds of images again? That's far too much work. Something needs to be done so that they get the drift that paying 10 cents is just not acceptable.

deleting your images won't make any difference to SS policies, so your choice is to delete for your personal satisfaction or leave your images and make some passive income.

And but don't get hung up on the 10c sales - my SS port this year has had RPD of $.60-.80 each month - just a bit less than AS; actual income from SS is still double that from AS.  AS sales haven't changed much over the last 2 years, while SS are down about 30%

« Reply #44 on: December 18, 2021, 05:19 »
0
I don't have a problem with having any photo's accepted at SS, as I haven't uploaded to this site since they cut the commission rates last year.

So no rejection at all in over a year.

I would like to delete all my images on SS until they come to their senses but when/if they do how to upload hundreds of images again? That's far too much work. Something needs to be done so that they get the drift that paying 10 cents is just not acceptable.

deleting your images won't make any difference to SS policies, so your choice is to delete for your personal satisfaction or leave your images and make some passive income.

And but don't get hung up on the 10c sales - my SS port this year has had RPD of $.60-.80 each month - just a bit less than AS; actual income from SS is still double that from AS.  AS sales haven't changed much over the last 2 years, while SS are down about 30%

I had some really good sales on AS but my average SS sale is down to 0.27 cents per image. I have earned more money with AS this month than with SS. I have not got more than 19 cents for an image this month on SS. Mainly just 10 cents. Occasionally 17 cents and 19 cents.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2021, 05:21 by HappyBunny »

« Reply #45 on: December 18, 2021, 10:33 »
0
my SS port this year has had RPD of $.60-.80 each month ...
You create images and videos?
In SS account there is no way to see the downloads and income of pictures and videos separately? Or is there?
I have not found anything in my account.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2021, 10:47 by Findura »

« Reply #46 on: December 18, 2021, 13:32 »
0
my SS port this year has had RPD of $.60-.80 each month ...
You create images and videos?
In SS account there is no way to see the downloads and income of pictures and videos separately? Or is there?
I have not found anything in my account.

You can see it on the iphone app when a photo is sold. It shows you how many times it has sold and for how much.

You can also see it on the 'view all top performers page' but you may have to scroll through a lot of images to find a specific one.


« Reply #47 on: December 18, 2021, 13:38 »
0
I don't have a problem with having any photo's accepted at SS, as I haven't uploaded to this site since they cut the commission rates last year.

So no rejection at all in over a year.

I would like to delete all my images on SS until they come to their senses but when/if they do how to upload hundreds of images again? That's far too much work. Something needs to be done so that they get the drift that paying 10 cents is just not acceptable.

deleting your images won't make any difference to SS policies, so your choice is to delete for your personal satisfaction or leave your images and make some passive income.

And but don't get hung up on the 10c sales - my SS port this year has had RPD of $.60-.80 each month - just a bit less than AS; actual income from SS is still double that from AS.  AS sales haven't changed much over the last 2 years, while SS are down about 30%

I had some really good sales on AS but my average SS sale is down to 0.27 cents per image. I have earned more money with AS this month than with SS. I have not got more than 19 cents for an image this month on SS. Mainly just 10 cents. Occasionally 17 cents and 19 cents.

On SS, my average for 2021 is 36 cents an image. The first four months, when I was fighting my way through the levels, are what killed my RPD. May through December, my average RPD was 46 cents.

« Reply #48 on: December 18, 2021, 14:34 »
0
my SS port this year has had RPD of $.60-.80 each month ...
You create images and videos?
In SS account there is no way to see the downloads and income of pictures and videos separately? Or is there?
I have not found anything in my account.

both, but 99% images.
there's a breakdown in the 'earnings summary' for 'cart sales'

« Reply #49 on: December 18, 2021, 16:12 »
0
it was better last week, now this week everything gets declined again for crap reasons like noise.

I think I will just stop uploading with them, it is my main income agency with a 4 digit number every month but I cannot take this daily frustration anymore.
Wow you're lucky I only earn a few dollars per month on SS but it still much more than Alamy Abobe and DT but I only have a few 100 photos. I found out some time ago that if I clean up & downsize old pictures taken with my 10+ year old entry level Olympus & Samsung cameras they accept them on SS and one even sold 5 times despite being downsized just over 4mpix in size. It wasn't my idea but someone told me this method on the old ss forum.
Note: downsizing means that you can reduce noise & sharpen a photo from say 20 mpix to 10 or even smaller. useful for cheaper compact cams. If you have a DSLR or mirrorless & you shoot in jpeg in camera only & use a cheaper lens it can still sharpen up nicely. I started shooting in raw to get sharper cleaner photos but ss still rejected pictures with trees & foliage in so they can't be human reviewers. 

« Reply #50 on: December 18, 2021, 16:38 »
0
I always zoom in on my photos. If it's not quite sharp at 200%, I know I could have a problem.
Landscape photos without a foreground, where the foliage of trees is not sharp, is a problem.
Before shooting for Shutterstock, I thought I took nice photos, but almost all of them would be disapproved for sharpness.
Sometimes the question is whether that sharpness is necessary for certain photos, but that is the rule at Shutterstock.
Photos that are on the border are sometimes approved and rejected the other time. And sometimes, of course, photos completely unjustly rejected.
On the shutterstock forum. the rejected photos were often shown. Often it turned out to be justified according to the Shutterstock rules.
I found that educational. I rarely see pictures here. Just complaining doesn't help, of course.
I think a lot of the time people are shooting in camera jpeg photos only & not Raw then converting to jpg. on a RAW editor program. My brother who was a full time pro in the film era realised early on when he first started in stock photography (on Alamy, he won't do microstock) that his jpeg camera images weren't sharp enough so shot in RAW from then on

« Reply #51 on: December 19, 2021, 02:49 »
0
both, but 99% images.
there's a breakdown in the 'earnings summary' for 'cart sales'
Then you take the image sales and subtract the video sales out yourself, manually?
I was hoping to get a listing in SS's system that shows image and video downloads separately. So that I can see the RPD.

« Reply #52 on: December 19, 2021, 13:44 »
0
both, but 99% images.
there's a breakdown in the 'earnings summary' for 'cart sales'
Then you take the image sales and subtract the video sales out yourself, manually?....

how hard is it to subtract 1 number from the total?

« Reply #53 on: December 20, 2021, 06:19 »
0
how hard is it to subtract 1 number from the total?
;D
Quite simple, if you have to subtract only ONE video a month.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
5153 Views
Last post May 05, 2009, 09:14
by NitorPhoto
8 Replies
4996 Views
Last post July 22, 2012, 23:42
by ruxpriencdiam
9 Replies
3241 Views
Last post May 06, 2013, 19:14
by gillian vann
19 Replies
6418 Views
Last post April 09, 2016, 08:24
by PigsInSpace
3 Replies
3963 Views
Last post May 12, 2018, 07:38
by dragonblade

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle