Author Topic: Inconsistent reviewing (Read 34674 times)

Ron · « **Reply #76 on:** November 25, 2013, 15:09 »

Thanks Anthony, thats good information.

However my personal experience is that adding a note doesnt really work. I have added notes, even with admin reference, and still get rejections. And I am sure the images can be accepted, I post them in the critique forum when I need feedback before submitting. But the reviewers still seem to disagree.

Anyhoo, I have contacted support, waiting for a reply now.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #77 on:** November 25, 2013, 15:38 »

Hello Anthony,

Thank you for answering here.

But I think that the problem should be solved at the base.

I make a simple example:
I take 10 photos of walnuts, one walnut on each photo, on a white background.
The pictures are all shot with the same camera, with the same settings, with the same light, from the same points of view. If there is some post-production the same post-production is applied to all the photos.
So the result is the same identical quality.
The only thing that changes is the walnut and position.
Then I submit these 10 photos and wait the result of the inspection…

In a similar case sometime it could happen anything.
01 - All the photos are accepted because they are good
02 - All the photos are accepted even if they are bad (this happens very rarely I think)
03 - All the photos are rejected because they are bad
04 - All the photos are rejected even if they are good (this happens too).

So far we have some consistency, even if there could be some errors, all decisions are made by applying one and the same criterion

05 - 5 photos are accepted and 5 are rejected.

In this fifth case there is a serious problem because as the 10 photos are exactly the same quality, the result of the inspection should be identical for all 10 photos: or 10 accepted or 10 rejected.

Reading the comments of other contributors I have the impression that this fifth situation is happening more and more often (half batches accepted - half batches rejected for some obscure/unreal reasons).
From this it appears a certain inconsistency from the part of the inspectors, or they don’t understand what they are doing, or they just don’t do their work as they should do it, perhaps because they are not focused on their work, perhaps because they are tired, I don’t know, but this should not be a problem of the contributors, this is a problem that Shutterstock should solve upstream with the inspectors.

tickstock · « **Reply #78 on:** November 25, 2013, 15:42 »

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #79 on:** November 25, 2013, 16:00 »

Quote from: tickstock on November 25, 2013, 15:42

Maybe after the fifth picture of an almost identical walnut the inspector decided enough is enough?

So the rejection should be for "similar image", not for some reason as "out of focus", "noise", "bad white balance" or other…

Don't be dumber than you are not

heywoody · « **Reply #80 on:** November 25, 2013, 16:10 »

Quote from: tickstock on November 25, 2013, 15:42

Maybe after the fifth picture of an almost identical walnut the inspector decided enough is enough?

Id imagine after the 5th almost identical anything they'd be sticking toothpicks in their eyes..

DF_Studios · « **Reply #81 on:** November 25, 2013, 20:47 »

I just had a batch of four rejected for wrong light balance. I shot with a studio flash and selected flash in Lightroom. Waiting to see if any other agency has a problem with them.

Ron · « **Reply #82 on:** November 26, 2013, 03:09 »

Rejected for poor lighting or WB. Lately all my night shots are rejected for poor lighting or WB anyways

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #83 on:** November 26, 2013, 03:49 »

^^^
I see nothing really bad with your photo, and surely not in the light.
The alternation of highlight and deep shadows is normal for a night scene.
The color, maybe they expect some less yellow cast, and they want it more blueish, but for me it corresponds to the result that we got when we used films, and the color of light at night is very subjective when you have so many different kind of color temperatures mixed together.

I have noticed that in american movies, most of the time, the night is blue…
So for photography it should be the same.
This is a completely wrong vision that is accepted by most of the people.
Night has never been blue!

I think that some inspectors do not understand well what is light, what is concept, what is composition, what is a photography…

But what is sure is that
If you don't respect the basic scholastic rules you are out

Ron · « **Reply #84 on:** November 26, 2013, 04:02 »

I know, its a mixed bag of lighting when you shoot a city. There is orange street light, florescent street lights, skyline, light pollution. Its a night shot of the docklands area and the skyline at the quays in the back.

stockastic · « **Reply #85 on:** November 26, 2013, 10:20 »

It seems like in general, the micros don't want anything dark. Maybe because they think no one ever clicks on a dark thumbnail.

Ron · « **Reply #86 on:** November 26, 2013, 10:35 »

Its a pretty unique image, I dont think there are a lot photographers living in that apartment block on the 5th floor submitting to stock. But if they dont like it they should reject if for LCV or whatever it is these days, not for lighting. If there is no issue with the image, then it was an inconsistent review, which this thread is about. I have emailed SS to see what they think.

stockastic · « **Reply #87 on:** November 26, 2013, 10:43 »

True - should be LCV if that's the real reason.

ShadySue · « **Reply #88 on:** November 26, 2013, 10:45 »

I'm sure someone posted last week or thereabouts that SS don't reject for lcv any more.

Ron · « **Reply #89 on:** November 26, 2013, 10:52 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 26, 2013, 10:45

I'm sure someone posted last week or thereabouts that SS don't reject for lcv any more.

I know, thats why I dont get it. I posted the image on SS for critique and people are guessing what the problem could be. If the problem was obvious, I would know by now.

DF_Studios · « **Reply #90 on:** November 27, 2013, 15:51 »

As suspected - the four rejected by SS for WB issues have been accepted on Fotolia and Deposit Photos.

Two more WB rejects from SS today.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #92 on:** November 27, 2013, 16:47 »

Quote from: scottbraut on November 27, 2013, 16:13

Hey guys,

I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of an individual reviewer's determination, but looking at the example that Ron provided, it's pretty clear that Beppe's feedback was correct in calling attention to the mixed lighting sources and the color temperature. The sky has a clear and inconsistent red / yellow color cast that could be improved in Photoshop. The oversaturated yellows in the city are relatively normal for a nighttime image with mixed lighting sources, but also could be color-corrected or more purposefully executed. It's a reasonable rejection.

We do get cityscapes that are highly stylized and saturated in terms of color, but your image doesn't look as intentional as some of those.

It's worth noting the composition of the image as well. Typically, cityscapes that get high downloads either have strong graphical lines, notable landmarks, a strong center of interest, or some sort of obvious narrative or contrast (old vs. new) etc... The church on the right is interesting, but the composition doesn't seem to focus on any of those aforementioned elements. The roof / terrace on the left is a bit distracting.

For example, consider these images:

Symmetry, graphical lines
Berlin, landmarks with visual interest, naturalistic lighting in the sky
Rooftops with some graphical lines and color contrast
Saturated color casts that add to the image
Unique and exceptional subject, but interesting symmetry example #2

Sorry, not trying to be critical, but hopefully this will serve as some constructive feedback and insight into what might have been going on in the reviewer's mind at the time of rejection.

As mentioned by Anthony - we do entertain requests for a second review if you feel strongly that the rejection was done in error.

Best,

Scott

Tightening up!

stockastic · « **Reply #93 on:** November 27, 2013, 17:12 »

"Tightening up" as in - a vise. Art gallery standards for 35 cent sales.

Ron · « **Reply #94 on:** November 27, 2013, 17:32 »

Quote from: scottbraut on November 27, 2013, 16:13

Hey guys,

I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of an individual reviewer's determination, but looking at the example that Ron provided, it's pretty clear that Beppe's feedback was correct in calling attention to the mixed lighting sources and the color temperature. The sky has a clear and inconsistent red / yellow color cast that could be improved in Photoshop. The oversaturated yellows in the city are relatively normal for a nighttime image with mixed lighting sources, but also could be color-corrected or more purposefully executed. It's a reasonable rejection.

We do get cityscapes that are highly stylized and saturated in terms of color, but your image doesn't look as intentional as some of those.

It's worth noting the composition of the image as well. Typically, cityscapes that get high downloads either have strong graphical lines, notable landmarks, a strong center of interest, or some sort of obvious narrative or contrast (old vs. new) etc... The church on the right is interesting, but the composition doesn't seem to focus on any of those aforementioned elements. The roof / terrace on the left is a bit distracting.

For example, consider these images:

Symmetry, graphical lines
Berlin, landmarks with visual interest, naturalistic lighting in the sky
Rooftops with some graphical lines and color contrast
Saturated color casts that add to the image
Unique and exceptional subject, but interesting symmetry example #2

Sorry, not trying to be critical, but hopefully this will serve as some constructive feedback and insight into what might have been going on in the reviewer's mind at the time of rejection.

As mentioned by Anthony - we do entertain requests for a second review if you feel strongly that the rejection was done in error.

Best,

Scott

Hi Scott, thanks for chiming in. Just wondering, how can it be inconsistent light in the sky, if its in the image I shot? I didnt photoshop it to become inconsistent light, its just there. The skyline and the city centre behind the skyline has a lot more light pollution than the part to the right in the image, where the light dims, because its just housing in the dark and the M1 going out of the city. Furthermore, its a panorama of Dublin city, showing the docklands and the skyline at the quays, it is what it is,. Its shot from an apartment block on the 5th floor, it gives a look of the city of Dublin you normally dont see. You want me to photograph Dublin and photoshop it into a different city? But I emailed Shutterstock and they gave me an admin note to resubmit. Inconsistent? I am confused now.

tickstock · « **Reply #95 on:** November 27, 2013, 17:35 »

Ron · « **Reply #96 on:** November 27, 2013, 17:41 »

Quote from: tickstock on November 27, 2013, 17:35

Listen to Scott Braut, he's right.

Mom? Is that you? I know what he is talking about, dont worry.

tickstock · « **Reply #97 on:** November 27, 2013, 17:44 »

Ron · « **Reply #98 on:** November 27, 2013, 17:48 »

Quote from: tickstock on November 27, 2013, 17:44

Yep those look better and surprise they were accepted. You got a personal critique by one of the Shutterstock high ups, you should probably listen him.

My dad taught me to ask questions, it got me where I am today. Why cant I have a dialogue with Scott? I am sure he is a nice guy and can handle difficult persons like me. I respect his vision, and like to offer my take on the matter. Thats all.

stockastic · « **Reply #99 on:** November 27, 2013, 18:04 »

High standards are fine. The real problem IMHO is the one-size-fits-all pricing.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Inconsistent reviewing (Read 34674 times)

anthonycorreia

Ron

Beppe Grillo

tickstock

Beppe Grillo

heywoody

DF_Studios

Ron

Beppe Grillo

Ron

stockastic

Ron

stockastic

ShadySue

Ron

DF_Studios

scottbraut

ruxpriencdiam

stockastic

Ron

tickstock

Ron

tickstock

Ron

stockastic

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors