MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Phadrea on August 15, 2013, 03:32
-
I really don't understand SS's reviewing. You can send a whole batch and they all get accepted or a whole batch (like just now) that gets rejected. To me this depends who you get. To get images taken in decent light AND edited in Lightroom 4 to be rejected on the basis of poor lighting is quite ridiculous. What more are you meant to do ? At least IS are not over picky any more. Oh well, I will submit them a few weeks down the line and hope to get them in as I have done in the past.
-
As reviewers are not machines (I hope) they are subject to error. It can happen.
When it happens I answer to the rejection email asking a new review.
90% of the times the images are then accepted (if they are good).
-
To get images taken in decent light AND edited in Lightroom 4 to be rejected on the basis of poor lighting is quite ridiculous.
ROFL, that statement is quite ridiculous. It's the camera and Lightroom that make the image, huh?! Reminds me of that cartoon where the bird says to the photographer bird, "Your camera takes nice pictures" and the photographer bird says, "Your mouth makes really nice compliments."
-
To get images taken in decent light AND edited in Lightroom 4 to be rejected on the basis of poor lighting is quite ridiculous.
ROFL, that statement is quite ridiculous. It's the camera and Lightroom that make the image, huh?! Reminds me of that cartoon where the bird says to the photographer bird, "Your camera takes nice pictures" and the photographer bird says, "Your mouth makes really nice compliments."
LOL, good one! Reminds me of something that Eve Arnold said .. It is the photographer, not the camera, that is the instrument .. read here fascinating post
http://bintphotobooks.blogspot.se/2012/01/it-is-photographer-not-camera-that-is.html (http://bintphotobooks.blogspot.se/2012/01/it-is-photographer-not-camera-that-is.html)
-
I sent in a batch and had about 90% rejected. it was of isolated guns. Here's one. "We can't accept this due to copyright", but they can have thousands of competitive ones for sale that I am not allowed to compete against. So I contacted them because I shot a whole series on gun control. I pointed them to many examples of competitive images, although mostly isolations on white, as reference points. They came back and said do not reup. Today months later, their collection is still full of isolated gun shots. By the way, some of mine were also simple isolations on while as well. No luck. So like any agency, they do have a double standard. And if you fall into that double standard category you will get high rejections as well.
-
I had an image rejected for "poor lighting" that is a horizontal version of a vertical shot that sold twice on the first day it was uploaded, and was shot under the same conditions, 5 seconds after, processed the same, etc. So when i uploaded a few more from that series I put it back in... it was accepted and surprise, surprise, in 2 days has sold 7 times including an OD. I don't often do that but in this case I knew they were wrong.
You can always offer the files to DT exclusively. pity iS doesn't let us offer certain files as exclusives.
-
When I get a reject from SS I usually offer it to DT exclusively. It's worked out well. Some of those files have earned me a substantial amount.
Sometimes SS makes mistakes but it is weird how it will be a whole bunch that are rejected at once. I rarely get rejections from SS but I had three images - my entire submission - rejected last week for "poor lighting." They were sunset images (with interesting foregrounds, silhouettes, nice water reflecting the light, etc.). I may resubmit them in a couple of weeks. The point is though, the "lighting" was not poor. It was beautiful. I wonder sometimes if it's just a lazy reviewer who doesn't even bother to look at some in order to just get through their quota of images for the day.
-
Again, a whole batch all bar one rejected. Gutted. One was a beautifully lit flower that I can't see anything wrong with the lighting, composition etc. They do not know what they are doing and I am sorry but being a photographer for 28 years I think I have an idea about composition etc. I think they just have a quota to pass/reject and stick to it weather the image is good or not. I edit in Lightroom so I always fix anything in the lighting. IS sells much better for me than SS. I have manage to add a lot of images to SS this year (only recently getting mass rejections) and it still doesn't make a difference to the weedy 33 cents per image sales. As for sending rejections as exclusive to DT- forget it. DT sales are truly awful.
-
@herg - why not post the image fullsize but watermarked to, say, Dropbox and put the link to the image here? Maybe someone at this community here will spot what it is that you have missed or be able to make useful suggestions which will help improve your chances of getting stuff through inspection.
@mantis - I am guessing that the distinctive pattern on the stock of that shotgun counts as branding.
-
I'm a vector artist, but sometimes a whole batch of my jpg versions of vector files will be rejected while the eps files are accepted. Happened this week...all jpgs rejected for "rough edges" (I always export jpgs the same way), while the eps files were accepted. I think there's just a photo reviewer there who has his or her finger on the "reject" button.
I just resubmit them, and they're usually accepted the second time around when someone else looks at them.
-
Maybe they are testing out some sort of automatic pre-review... I had an out of focus sparkly background rejected for focus...
It should be obvious to anyone who has been submitting microstock for any time that reviews are not completely consistent.
I am guessing re: the guns they have tightened their criteria but they either don't want to or haven't removed the old content that wouldn't pass now. They did a similar thing with vehicles a while back if I remember correctly.
-
Happened to me with last batch. All pictures rejected with "poor lighting" reason... >:(
-
@herg - why not post the image fullsize but watermarked to, say, Dropbox and put the link to the image here? Maybe someone at this community here will spot what it is that you have missed or be able to make useful suggestions which will help improve your chances of getting stuff through inspection.
@mantis - I am guessing that the distinctive pattern on the stock of that shotgun counts as branding.
With all respect I have a pretty good idea of what I am doing and this issue is clearly affecting a lot more than myself. Istock did this a couple of years ago with almost 100% rejections which now results in 100% acceptance.
-
They did a similar thing with vehicles a while back if I remember correctly.
the same with green tractors and green agricultural machinery, because the green is associated to "john deere" brand. they don't accept anymore but have the catalog full of them.
-
I had 3 images of an ATM, with me and without me, same camera settings, manual focus, tripod, release cable, timer, etc. Tack sharp, image with me in at the ATM accepted, without me, rejected for focus, whilst the image is exactly the same only difference is me in the frame. All 3 images are tack sharp. Why accept one, and reject two, all identical quality? And I find they always get accepted second time around.
Another one, image of a rusty metal plate, in monochrome accepted, in color rejected for focus. Its the same image. If monochrome is sharp, then so is the color version. Or something has changed in Lightroom and conversion to monochrome now sharpens an image.
-
Maybe they don't want 3 of the atm or a colour / mono version of the same thing and just hit the focus button?
-
Maybe they don't want 3 of the atm or a colour / mono version of the same thing and just hit the focus button?
They have a similar button, and the ATM was one horizontal, one vertical, and one with me taking money. Its not overkill, its a normal edited series. Weird.
-
Funny how the rejections suddenly go up when the que starts getting lower.
Rejections that call for resubmission = double, triple, quadruple money for reviewers depending on how creative they get with finding reasons for rejections.
-
I don't resubmit anymore... too much work. Take it or leave it.
-
I had a file rejected with "this file was previously rejected. Do not resubmit". It was the first submission. I didn't resubmit this particular file, but sent an email to them, because I read this rejections could turn in warnings. One week and no answer...
-
I too, am trying to figure SS reviewers out.
A recent batch of 30 images and 25 were rejected, almost exclusively because of "poor focus or focus not where we feel it should be". Those same 30 images were all accepted by DP and 123RF (I'm waiting for DT's reaction).
Disappointing because I just bought a Sigma 18-250mm zoom lens and, in my opinion, its sharp as a tack replacing my 55-250mm Canon lens which is slightly soft when you're zoomed in all the way.
I don't bother resubmitting. I've adopted a "take it or leave it" attitude with SS. Hoop jumping isn't worth that $0.30 commission.
-
I too, am trying to figure SS reviewers out.
A recent batch of 30 images and 25 were rejected, almost exclusively because of "poor focus or focus not where we feel it should be". Those same 30 images were all accepted by DP and 123RF (I'm waiting for DT's reaction).
Disappointing because I just bought a Sigma 18-250mm zoom lens and, in my opinion, its sharp as a tack replacing my 55-250mm Canon lens which is slightly soft when you're zoomed in all the way.
I don't bother resubmitting. I've adopted a "take it or leave it" attitude with SS. Hoop jumping isn't 55-250worth that $0.30 commission.
18-250 is pushing the optics a bit more then the 55-250 and even then that is still pushing it a bit, and they are slow glass.
Also the canon lens is still much sharper then the sigma and has less fringing look at the two side by side comparisons.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=3&LensComp=490&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=3 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=3&LensComp=490&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=3)
-
We agree to disagree....regardless. SS rejected 90%
of my batch because of "poor focus" issues. That same
batch had a 100% acceptence from DP and 123RF.
Are DP and 123rf standards really that much lower?
-
We agree to disagree....regardless. SS rejected 90%
of my batch because of "poor focus" issues. That same
batch had a 100% acceptence from DP and 123RF.
Are DP and 123rf standards really that much lower?
no doubt there
-
Does anyone have Consistent Reviewing? :-\
-
We agree to disagree....regardless. SS rejected 90%
of my batch because of "poor focus" issues. That same
batch had a 100% acceptence from DP and 123RF.
Are DP and 123rf standards really that much lower?
Yes, Much lower.
-
Like the reviews the standards bounce all over as well. I heard of someone that had 2,000 images on Canstock and than submitted to GL where they took less that 150 of their images!
Bottom line- is that their is no across the board standard or review process and probably never will be...
-
that is quite low, what subjects are we talking about Tom?
-
mostly objects- too common for sure. Flowers, veggies and daily objects on white. GL is tough on these things! GL is okay on taking people shots...
-
.... I heard of someone that had 2,000 images on Canstock and than submitted to GL where they took less that 150 of their images! ....
Wondering why he bothered ;)
-
.... I heard of someone that had 2,000 images on Canstock and than submitted to GL where they took less that 150 of their images! ....
Wondering why he bothered ;)
guess he didn't knew lol
-
he knows now lol!
-
The "focus nazi" who popped up a few months ago seems to be back.
-
I'll be curious to see how DT responds to those same 30
images. Reviewing, of course, is a lot slower than DP and
123RF and they tend to be almost as critical as SS. Will they
too reject 95% of my batch because of focus issues? Stayed
tuned! :)
-
Are DP and 123rf standards really that much lower?
IS (May 2000) - 15.6 Million files
SS (July 2003) - 29 Million pictures - 163,407 pictures added this week
DT (2000 - 2004) - 18.6 Million files - 571,704 monthly pictures
123RF (June 2004) - 22 Million pictures - 205,468 files added this week
FT (November 2005) - 24 Million pictures
DP (November 2009) - 17 Million files - 167,609 files added this week
-
and also SS must get more submitted.
-
Again, almost a whole batch rejected. One was for focus and yet it was taken on a tripod ! Another for focus and yet it's a background close up as sharp as it needs to be. How utterly demoralizing. It doesn't pay to upload in batches because you might just get them all reviewed by someone who wants to ruin your day.
-
Yes Herg, me too...out of 30 submissions, 3 maybe accepted. I now submit no more than 5 pix. I wonder if SS is trying to reduce submissions. Lets face it they're the only agency still making money for contributers. I wonder if they're now inundated with submissions.
-
45/55 rejected - gutted
As if I can no longer take any photos.
Gutted, so much work went into that batch. Its like they rip your heart out.
-
Again, almost a whole batch rejected. One was for focus and yet it was taken on a tripod !
Saying nothing about your photo which I haven't seen, there is nothing about using a tripod that aids focussing.
It can help avoid camera shake, but that's a different issue; and does nothing to help subject movement.
So three reasons for a photo to look unsharp, and a tripod can only help with one of them.
Again, not referring to your particular photo.
-
Everyone: Why not upload a few full sized watermarked examples of the rejected images to, say, Dropbox and post the links here. Let the forum see if they can spot something which perhaps you have missed ?
Even very experienced photographers sometimes miss things. The iStock forums, for example, used to often have rejection complaints from time-served photographers.
-
Ja, let us see some pictures, else its kind of pointless and only a whining thread.
That said. Shutterstock has the "focus" rejection, but that could cover many things, such as placement of focus and sharpness, which is not the same.
A picture can be perfectly in focus and not sharp, fx fresh slimy fish or concrete structures in very diffused light.
Contrast in the focus area plays a role.
Fx I had some pictures of oiltanks, taken in diffused light, they were perfectly in focus, but did not look sharp because of low contrast, and the grass in the foreground was out of focus and such left the whole image with a blurry appearance.
Shutter rejected, others took them:
(http://www.dreamstime.com/oil-tanks-thumb32652206.jpg)
-
I'm just growing so sick of the rejections at SS. 2 identical images except 1 is portrait and 2 is landscape. 1 accepted. 1 rejected. Last month the IS partner program was my top earner. It would actually be nice if that trend continued, so I wouldn't have to feel so dependent on SS and their schizophrenic reviewers.
-
What was the rejection reason?
-
As reviewers are not machines (I hope) they are subject to error. It can happen.
When it happens I answer to the rejection email asking a new review.
90% of the times the images are then accepted (if they are good).
if that happens so consistently, it's not an error by the reviewer - it's incompetence!
-
• Acceptance criteria are set by the sites, not the reviewers – look what’s happened at IS
• The bar at SS is high
• Great images will be accepted, poor images will be rejected, those about the level of the bar (borderline) can get apparently inconsistent reviews based on individual judgement
• Mistakes happen, it’s a human process
• Sites do NOT lose money if images are rejected as there is virtually always something equally suitable in the database.
-
I am at a loss lately as all my last 3 batches have been rejected for the SAME reason -POOR LIGHTING and cropping even the illustrations when in the past they were accepted. Is the machine out of order or what t???Getting very fed up with the inconsistencies here .Need to review the review process.
-
The same thing happened to me twice in the last two weeks, and to a photographer friend of mine too. All photos rejected for POOR LIGHTING. Normally I have an acceptance rate of 75-80% on SS...
Very disappointing.
-
• Acceptance criteria are set by the sites, not the reviewers – look what’s happened at IS
• The bar at SS is high
• Great images will be accepted, poor images will be rejected, those about the level of the bar (borderline) can get apparently inconsistent reviews based on individual judgement
• Mistakes happen, it’s a human process
• Sites do NOT lose money if images are rejected as there is virtually always something equally suitable in the database.
For the most part in MS we are all a commodity now.
-
Today I have got a rejection for "Dust and Scratches" for a perfectly clean image…
I never seen this reason for a rejection before.
And if my sensor was dirty for this image why it was clean for other images of the series?
:D (I prefer to laugh about it…)
-
Does anyone have Consistent Reviewing? :-\
You mean any site? I get 100% acceptance at Alamy and Canstock. That's pretty consistent. My percentages at DT move in a very narrow band and most of the time I get near total acceptances on SS, but once in a while they drop a bombshell on me.
-
22/26 rejected :( cant say I agree with all rejections. Even images critiqued and found in order before submitting were rejected.
-
Today I have got a rejection for "Dust and Scratches" for a perfectly clean image…
I never seen this reason for a rejection before.
And if my sensor was dirty for this image why it was clean for other images of the series?
:D (I prefer to laugh about it…)
Whether dust is visible depends on the aperture. Something shot at f/2.8 can be as clean as a whistle, but stop down to f/22 and it can look like you've squashed a swarm of flies on your windscreen.
That's not just true of sensor dust, I've shot straight through a chain-link fence at 2.8 and blurred it out of existence (it was just about touching the front of a 200mm lens).
-
Today I have got a rejection for "Dust and Scratches" for a perfectly clean image…
I never seen this reason for a rejection before.
And if my sensor was dirty for this image why it was clean for other images of the series?
:D (I prefer to laugh about it…)
Whether dust is visible depends on the aperture. Something shot at f/2.8 can be as clean as a whistle, but stop down to f/22 and it can look like you've squashed a swarm of flies on your windscreen.
That's not just true of sensor dust, I've shot straight through a chain-link fence at 2.8 and blurred it out of existence (it was just about touching the front of a 200mm lens).
Yes I think that here we all know what is dust and the effect it has on the images at different apertures.
Btw it is well to remind it.
The fact is that this photo rejected for "Dust and Scratches" has absolutely not this kind of problem or similar.
I could say that it is smooth as the bottom of a newborn…
-
Today I have got a rejection for "Dust and Scratches" for a perfectly clean image…
I never seen this reason for a rejection before.
And if my sensor was dirty for this image why it was clean for other images of the series?
:D (I prefer to laugh about it…)
Whether dust is visible depends on the aperture. Something shot at f/2.8 can be as clean as a whistle, but stop down to f/22 and it can look like you've squashed a swarm of flies on your windscreen.
That's not just true of sensor dust, I've shot straight through a chain-link fence at 2.8 and blurred it out of existence (it was just about touching the front of a 200mm lens).
Yes I think that here we all know what is dust and the effect it has on the images at different apertures.
Btw it is well to remind it.
The fact is that this photo rejected for "Dust and Scratches" has absolutely not this kind of problem or similar.
I could say that it is smooth as the bottom of a newborn…
Fair enough, I just thought you were inquiring about how it was possible. People come here with all sorts of different levels of skill and experience. I don't go trying to check out who knows what.
-
Today I have got a rejection for "Dust and Scratches" for a perfectly clean image…
I keep telling you guys: this is the work of bots. Software, applying lightly researched heuristics and crude algorithms as a first pass inspection, before a human even sees the image - because the earlier an image is rejected, the less money has been spent on it.
Submit it again, with a polite note. It will be accepted. That won't prove my theory, but does tend to support it.
-
Today I have got a rejection for "Dust and Scratches" for a perfectly clean image…
I keep telling you guys: this is the work of bots. Software, applying lightly researched heuristics and crude algorithms as a first pass inspection, before a human even sees the image - because the earlier an image is rejected, the less money has been spent on it.
Submit it again, with a polite note. It will be accepted. That won't prove my theory, but does tend to support it.
And who will read the note, a bot?
;)
The best way is to contact [email protected]
They are very gentle and efficient. In general, you will get an answer within 24 hours.
If they agree that the rejection is inconsistent they will give you a code to put as note to the editor and the image will be reviewed by an editor of higher level.
Sometime they give you some good advice to help you to have the image accepted (it can be a real plus).
In most cases, your image will be accepted (of course your complaint has to be justified).
Shutterstock relation with contributors is probably the best that you can find in the microscocks world.
You have no limit of mail/message with them (unlike iStock)
They always answer fast and in friendly way (unlike Fotolia, iStock…)
If there are professionals working with professionals it is them (and not others).
-
I don't think the incompetent reviewers argument holds water, SS are simply more picky than the other mainstream sites and can afford to be.
-
I don't think the incompetent reviewers argument holds water, SS are simply more picky than the other mainstream sites and can afford to be.
I agree that they are more picky, however, it still doesnt explain why some contributors get so many rejections when their work is impeccable, and its hard to believe that with a portfolio of 2000 images and being a 5 year contributor to SS, all of a sudden you produce crap.
I dont believe in an automated process either, so it must be the reviewer then?
I have been thinking about this. Laurin Rinder has been a reviewer at SS and he says he would judge the image as a whole, i.e. if it had shadows but it added to the composition or story, he would pass it. I think if you have a young inexperienced reviewer, he would reject that same image, because it has shadows, not understanding that the shadows are part of the composition.
Just my two cents.
-
I dont believe in an automated process either, so it must be the reviewer then?
From your interview with Shutterstock:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/my-meeting-with-shutterstock/msg352498/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/my-meeting-with-shutterstock/msg352498/)
"I asked if they use technology to review the images, yes they do, but a human makes the decision."
So maybe the decision of the human consists to accept the decision of the "technology" without to think about it.
He just presses the magic button and everything is okay…
http://make-everything-ok.com (http://make-everything-ok.com)
-
You and a few others keep taking that quote out of context. I have explained that a few times now. Last time.
Why would I say they use technology and then go onto saying I dont think the process is automated? Because its not, thats what they told me. Technology is used to make the reviewing process quicker, technology is not used to review images. A human reviews the images and hits the button.
-
I don't think the incompetent reviewers argument holds water, SS are simply more picky than the other mainstream sites and can afford to be.
You assert, then, that bebbe grillo's image does in fact have "dust and scratches"?
-
One person told that if you submit a so-so image (say your trying something new and know it isn't your best work compared to things that you do regularly) and the reviewer sees that image first that it can have a snowball effect on the entire batch to include real good images! Sort of like taking a first bite of bad food and assuming the entire dinner is bad!
-
I don't think the incompetent reviewers argument holds water, SS are simply more picky than the other mainstream sites and can afford to be.
You assert, then, that bebbe grillo's image does in fact have "dust and scratches"?
I haven't seen it so don't know, maybe it didn't and maybe there was something else that the reviewer wasn't happy with. I had 2 noise rejections a while back that turned out to be the high degree of skin texture I used (images accepted everywhere else) so just a bit more picky, slight change in workflow and no problems since.
-
I don't think the incompetent reviewers argument holds water, SS are simply more picky than the other mainstream sites and can afford to be.
You assert, then, that bebbe grillo's image does in fact have "dust and scratches"?
I haven't seen it so don't know, maybe it didn't and maybe there was something else that the reviewer wasn't happy with. I had 2 noise rejections a while back that turned out to be the high degree of skin texture I used (images accepted everywhere else) so just a bit more picky, slight change in workflow and no problems since.
But if the reviewer was unhappy with something else, why reject for "dust and scratches"?
-
22/26 rejected :( cant say I agree with all rejections. Even images critiqued and found in order before submitting were rejected.
actually that's pretty consistent.
-
consistent can be good or bad as I found on my last job evaluation- a long as I am bad across the board that's all that counts for being at least consistent :(
-
But if the reviewer was unhappy with something else, why reject for "dust and scratches"?
No idea, haven't seen the image. At the end of the day, does pressing the wrong rejection reason really matter in the scheme of things?
-
But if the reviewer was unhappy with something else, why reject for "dust and scratches"?
No idea, haven't seen the image. At the end of the day, does pressing the wrong rejection reason really matter in the scheme of things?
I'd say yes, if it causes me to spend time looking for "dust" that isn't there.
-
But if the reviewer was unhappy with something else, why reject for "dust and scratches"?
No idea, haven't seen the image. At the end of the day, does pressing the wrong rejection reason really matter in the scheme of things?
I'd say yes, if it causes me to spend time looking for "dust" that isn't there.
You should already have known that "dust wasn't there" by having inspected your images at 100% prior to submission.
SS are currently accepting more than 180k new images per week. That suggests a fairly low barrier to entry for new content, both technically and commercially.
-
just had all my images accepted thus proving the 'low barrier' for new images is in effect ;)
-
Ok, I'll open up myself once more for abuse.
This image was rejected for composition. I disagree with that decision
(http://semmickphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/symbiostock_rf_content/5595-colored-balloons-attached-to-old-furniture.jpg)
-
^^^
For composition?
If it was for dust & scratches I would have less surprised ;D
––
The only thing about composition: the upper line of the two hearts on the left is just aligned (coincides) with the top line of the window.
If you were 5 cm upper it was surely better.
But I don't think that we can consider this as an error of composition.
-
Ok, I'll open up myself once more for abuse.
This image was rejected for composition. I disagree with that decision
([url]http://semmickphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/symbiostock_rf_content/5595-colored-balloons-attached-to-old-furniture.jpg[/url])
Can easily sell as a greeting card. May be resubmit or ask for feedback.
Personally I like the composition
-
^^^
For composition?
If it was for dust & scratches I would have less surprised ;D
––
The only thing about composition: the upper line of the two hearts on the left is just aligned (coincides) with the top line of the window.
If you were 5 cm upper it was surely better.
But I don't think that we can consider this as an error of composition.
I can take any image from the 2 trillion images on the stock sites and find a flaw. But I guess the reviewer was right then, and I was wrong.
Thanks for pointing out that error. I am not going to reshoot though. I have put it up on Zazzle and FAA.
-
Hello everyone,
If someone experienced an unjust review, we are ready, willing and able to help correct the issues directly with everyone. We are here to help guide, correct and admit the mistake, whenever applicable (and if warranted).
Should you want to re-submit images that you feel were incorrectly reviewed or you feel that they may cause review issues for you of some kind (if a submission of new content), please feel free to add a custom note to the review team to let the team know some background on what you are submitting for review consideration (i.e.: this is a resubmission due to XYZ issue with image#1234567. Issue has been resolved.) (Of course, if a resubmission, make sure the issue has been resolved -- do not resubmit without explaining or correcting the main issue first. Also, excessive re-submissions will not be tolerated by the review team.) If in doubt, email us at [email protected].
Custom Note (a note that you create)
Using a scenario of an image of our moon, the custom note should simply reference that the image is your creation, not from any third party (i.e.: NASA); Reference that it is your own creation.
Alternate Idea (custom note that we issue to you before you submit)
You may also write in to us via [email protected] to request a custom note for the review team at any time for any image you feel may not be reviewed correctly (yes, before you submit! Simply send us a low-res version which will help us assess the image before you submit (keep the file attachments to under 20MBs, please)) or, if already reviewed/was not reviewed correctly (already rejected so, need to explain for a 2nd review consideration). You may consider this a pre-screening of your content to ensure a seamless review process. (Note: Some images may not be acceptable at all so, we may actually write back saying no custom note will be issued because the image is not acceptable due to XYZ reason. This will save time for everyone involved and help with the processing of images through review which is great for everyone involved.)
Finally, should anyone ever have any difficulties, please reach out to us via [email protected]. We are here to help everyone be successful.
Sincerely,
Anthony Correia
Director, Contributor Success
Shutterstock|Bigstock
-
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.
-
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.
-
4
-
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 :D :D
-
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..
-
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.
-
Rejected for poor lighting or WB. Lately all my night shots are rejected for poor lighting or WB anyways
(http://semmickphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/symbiostock_rf_content/5713-panorama-of-dublin-quays-skyline-and-docklands.jpg)
-
^^^
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
-
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.
-
It seems like in general, the micros don't want anything dark. Maybe because they think no one ever clicks on a dark thumbnail.
-
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.
-
True - should be LCV if that's the real reason.
-
I'm sure someone posted last week or thereabouts that SS don't reject for lcv any more.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-135303479/stock-photo-brooklyn-bridge-and-manhattan-with-reflections-night-scene.html)
Berlin, landmarks with visual interest, naturalistic lighting in the sky (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-154974824/stock-photo-berlin-germany-rooftop-view-on-television-tower-berlin-cathedral-rotes-rathau-and-the-river.html)
Rooftops with some graphical lines and color contrast (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-138874379/stock-photo-zadar-rooftops-night-aerial-view-dalmatia-croatia.html)
Saturated color casts that add to the image (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-145968761/stock-photo-paris-july-view-of-typical-paris-cafe-on-july-in-paris-montmartre-area-is-among-most.html)
Unique and exceptional subject, but interesting symmetry example #2 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-94177885/stock-photo-paris-december-louvre-museum-in-paris-france-at-night-on-december-louvre-is-the.html)
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
-
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 ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-135303479/stock-photo-brooklyn-bridge-and-manhattan-with-reflections-night-scene.html[/url])
Berlin, landmarks with visual interest, naturalistic lighting in the sky ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-154974824/stock-photo-berlin-germany-rooftop-view-on-television-tower-berlin-cathedral-rotes-rathau-and-the-river.html[/url])
Rooftops with some graphical lines and color contrast ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-138874379/stock-photo-zadar-rooftops-night-aerial-view-dalmatia-croatia.html[/url])
Saturated color casts that add to the image ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-145968761/stock-photo-paris-july-view-of-typical-paris-cafe-on-july-in-paris-montmartre-area-is-among-most.html[/url])
Unique and exceptional subject, but interesting symmetry example #2 ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-94177885/stock-photo-paris-december-louvre-museum-in-paris-france-at-night-on-december-louvre-is-the.html[/url])
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! :)
-
"Tightening up" as in - a vise. Art gallery standards for 35 cent sales.
-
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 ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-135303479/stock-photo-brooklyn-bridge-and-manhattan-with-reflections-night-scene.html[/url])
Berlin, landmarks with visual interest, naturalistic lighting in the sky ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-154974824/stock-photo-berlin-germany-rooftop-view-on-television-tower-berlin-cathedral-rotes-rathau-and-the-river.html[/url])
Rooftops with some graphical lines and color contrast ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-138874379/stock-photo-zadar-rooftops-night-aerial-view-dalmatia-croatia.html[/url])
Saturated color casts that add to the image ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-145968761/stock-photo-paris-july-view-of-typical-paris-cafe-on-july-in-paris-montmartre-area-is-among-most.html[/url])
Unique and exceptional subject, but interesting symmetry example #2 ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-94177885/stock-photo-paris-december-louvre-museum-in-paris-france-at-night-on-december-louvre-is-the.html[/url])
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.
-
4
-
Listen to Scott Braut, he's right.
Mom? Is that you? I know what he is talking about, dont worry.
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/952942/163918409/stock-photo-the-m-motorway-is-a-motorway-in-ireland-running-in-a-c-shaped-ring-around-the-north-eastern-163918409.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/952942/162197426/stock-photo-dublin-october-failte-ireland-works-with-trinity-college-and-the-ida-to-develop-high-impact-162197426.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/952942/150524750/stock-photo-loopline-bridge-dublin-connecting-north-and-south-dublin-150524750.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/952942/137461961/stock-photo-poolbeg-power-station-and-dublin-port-at-night-137461961.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/952942/118647619/stock-photo-silhouette-of-trees-against-dublin-city-light-pollution-118647619.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/952942/119022379/stock-photo-man-with-photo-equipment-taking-night-shots-of-the-river-liffey-in-dublin-119022379.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/952942/137041934/stock-photo-custom-house-and-international-financial-services-centre-at-blue-hour-137041934.jpg)
-
6
-
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.
-
High standards are fine. The real problem IMHO is the one-size-fits-all pricing.
-
High standards are fine. The real problem IMHO is the one-size-fits-all pricing.
not on On Demand sales, regarding "subs" we have no idea what size buyers are getting
-
True wisdom comes from listening and then asking yourself the questions to see then how you answer them!
Look at the Shaolin and Buddhist Monks.
-
True wisdom comes from listening and then asking yourself the questions to see then how you answer them!
Look at the Shaolin and Buddhist Monks.
You should be the last person in the universe to have something to say about listening to people.
-
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.
Hi Ron,
Thanks. Makes total sense. Putting aside the technical and aesthetic considerations for a moment, I think the right thing to do is to look at the image from the customer's perspective (or the customer value perspective).
If it's a commercial image, what context would it be used in? If it was used in a travel context, then the customer is going to be looking for something aspirational and exciting and possibly a clearly distinguished and identifiable sense of place. For those uses, saturated color can add excitement to the image. Many contributors will shoot timelapse-style images of cityscapes with slow shutter speeds to add visual excitement and a sense of bustling, city motion. Travel buyers want something that looks exciting and dynamic.
If it's a documentary image used in an educational or newsworthy context, then the customer is probably looking for something a little more realistic, but again - with a strong sense of something unique and identifiable about the location. I.e., the architecture, the city layout. Unfortunately, color casts in digital images aren't always realistic as you would see them with the naked eye - they're sometimes an artifact of a camera's inability to capture different color temperatures from different light sources accurately in a simultaneous way, or simply a matter of the image being set to the wrong white balance.
If the image was to be used in a decorative or artistic context, then the image could be all about the graphic elements. Strong lines, impossible perspectives (i.e., shooting from the top of the Brooklyn Bridge looking down, etc...).
I think the skyline is definitely worthy subject matter with commercial and editorial value, but I think you'd have a more successful image commercially (or editorially) if you were down on the street shooting detail of the unique architecture OR up very high focusing on compositional elements that may be unique to the city - grid layouts of streets, for example, or just the opposite - random layouts in European cities. The perspective of this image splits the difference.
Again - just my 2c based on what customers respond well to. The image was rejected for white balance - I'm just putting myself in the shoes of the reviewer who made that determination.
In terms of resubmission and acceptances, it's important to keep in mind that some images are neither perfect nor imperfect (and therefore, not images that are subject to black-and-white reviews), but fall in-between. It's important to think about the ROI on your time, but your goal shouldn't be to focus on the acceptance - your goal should be to focus on creating images that have the highest commercial and editorial value from the customer's perspective. If the white balance looks like a flaw, then the customer is going to pick the next image.
We can look at two images on the site shot with the same exact subject matter, the same exact equipment, similar models, etc..., and -- given the same opportunity -- one image will get thousands of downloads and the other image will get less than 100. It's all about paying attention to these kinds of details: styling, composition, room for text, color.
Even if you ask for reconsideration and a reviewer decides that they can be more forgiving of a perceived flaw, our ultimate goal isn't to just get you accepted - it's to teach you how to maximize your earnings and get the most sales. There's always more for us to do in that regard.
Best,
Scott`
-
Scott, I agree with every letter you wrote. I honestly do. I also think there is a place and time for that particular image on Shutterstock. Anyhoo, I hope we can let the buyer decide on that one :)
Thank you.
-
Usually I don't have many rejections on SS. Of course some files are rejected but hey no complaint that's part of the game.
Inspectors are humans and they do make mistakes (except Lobo) but recently got a nice surprise, mail from SS Contributor Success Representative and I didn't ask for a second review:
"Thank you for your latest submission.
Please resubmit the images from batch xxxxxxxxx. The images in question were incorrectly reviewed and they should not have been rejected.
For your next submission, add the following Note To Review "ATTN REVIEWER: See an Admin about this batch (re:case #xxxxxxxx)"
It's called professional and respectful way of doing business!
GOOD JOB Shutterstock
-
^^ so why didn't they just accept them rather than making you resubmit?
-
^^ so why didn't they just accept them rather than making you resubmit?
....
-
^^ so why didn't they just accept them rather than making you resubmit?
rejected files at SS are deleted after a week or so, you do need to resubmit, no other way I guess
-
^^ so why didn't they just accept them rather than making you resubmit?
rejected files at SS are deleted after a week or so, you do need to resubmit, no other way I guess
Ah, they don't keep them in a File of Shame for all eternity. :)
-
[…]
Unfortunately, color casts in digital images aren't always realistic as you would see them with the naked eye - they're sometimes an artifact of a camera's inability to capture different color temperatures from different light sources accurately in a simultaneous way, or simply a matter of the image being set to the wrong white balance.
Realistic?
What means realistic?
It is not very objective “realistic”
Who says that all lights must give a white color?
Realistically they are not the same color, so it is normal that they appear different colors.
Personally if I look out of the window at night, with my eyes, I see lights of many different colors: yellow tungsten lights, green, blue and pink neons, yellow/red sodium vapor lamps, cyan/green mercury lamps, etc.
This is realistic for my eyes.
In the Ron's photo most of the lights seems to be tungsten or sodium vapor lamps, so the general yellow cast is normal. And it is realistic, it is like this.
Then if some customer needs a realistic view of the docks of Dublin this image will give him something as close as possible to the reality.
If you want less yellow cast you can do it pushing the white balance to the blue.
Maybe it will be more pleasant for the eyes, but it will simply not correspond to the reality and will completely change the mood of the place.
Ah, they don't keep them in a File of Shame for all eternity. :)
lol
+1
-
Three more rejected for WB. Three studio object shots with white backgrounds. Reviewed in less than 24 hours. I think someone is trying to make some money for Christmas shopping.
-
Rejected for poor lighting or WB. Lately all my night shots are rejected for poor lighting or WB anyways
([url]http://semmickphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/symbiostock_rf_content/5713-panorama-of-dublin-quays-skyline-and-docklands.jpg[/url])
Scenery like that should be shot in the blue hour. That should ba basic knowledge if you are involved in photography for more than 15 minutes. If you do that, you just have to set WB so the sky is a rich purplish blue, and it's gonna be all ok.
-
In all my life, I've never seen any evening around here that looks remotely like 'Blue Hour' photos - must be a lot of Photoshopping going on!
-
Rejected for poor lighting or WB. Lately all my night shots are rejected for poor lighting or WB anyways
([url]http://semmickphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/symbiostock_rf_content/5713-panorama-of-dublin-quays-skyline-and-docklands.jpg[/url])
Scenery like that should be shot in the blue hour. That should ba basic knowledge if you are involved in photography for more than 15 minutes. If you do that, you just have to set WB so the sky is a rich purplish blue, and it's gonna be all ok.
Mr. Perfect,
Please correct your grammar. You get an F.
-
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/little-reindeer-christmas-card-edward-fielding.html (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/little-reindeer-christmas-card-edward-fielding.html)
If there is a wb problem on this, I certainly don't see it.
-
[url]http://fineartamerica.com/featured/little-reindeer-christmas-card-edward-fielding.html[/url] ([url]http://fineartamerica.com/featured/little-reindeer-christmas-card-edward-fielding.html[/url])
If there is a wb problem on this, I certainly don't see it.
Neither do I.
-
I would think (hope) that agencies monitor their reviewers statistics and would be able to catch lazy reviewers based on a high rate of reviewing and amount of rejections. No doubt for a lazy reviewer it is safer to reject than accept.
-
Rejected for poor lighting or WB. Lately all my night shots are rejected for poor lighting or WB anyways
([url]http://semmickphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/symbiostock_rf_content/5713-panorama-of-dublin-quays-skyline-and-docklands.jpg[/url])
Scenery like that should be shot in the blue hour. That should ba basic knowledge if you are involved in photography for more than 15 minutes. If you do that, you just have to set WB so the sky is a rich purplish blue, and it's gonna be all ok.
Mr. Perfect,
Please correct your grammar. You get an F.
"I correct mistypes grammar on teh internet. It's my duty!" ::)
-
[…]
Unfortunately, color casts in digital images aren't always realistic as you would see them with the naked eye - they're sometimes an artifact of a camera's inability to capture different color temperatures from different light sources accurately in a simultaneous way, or simply a matter of the image being set to the wrong white balance.
Realistic?
What means realistic?
It is not very objective “realistic”
Who says that all lights must give a white color?
Realistically they are not the same color, so it is normal that they appear different colors.
Personally if I look out of the window at night, with my eyes, I see lights of many different colors: yellow tungsten lights, green, blue and pink neons, yellow/red sodium vapor lamps, cyan/green mercury lamps, etc.
This is realistic for my eyes.
In the Ron's photo most of the lights seems to be tungsten or sodium vapor lamps, so the general yellow cast is normal. And it is realistic, it is like this.
Then if some customer needs a realistic view of the docks of Dublin this image will give him something as close as possible to the reality.
If you want less yellow cast you can do it pushing the white balance to the blue.
Maybe it will be more pleasant for the eyes, but it will simply not correspond to the reality and will completely change the mood of the place.
Ah, they don't keep them in a File of Shame for all eternity. :)
lol
+1
Yeah, that line didn't sound right to me either. The problem is the camera does capture the color of the different lights correctly and the eye doesn't. So we usually try to tweak things to make it look like you think it looks when you see it with your eyes. This is what we all expect and most of the reason why there is a WB setting in the first place.
While I don't always agree with the rejections or the reasons for them, it is interesting and useful to get more insight into what they are looking for and what they think will sell.
-
Scenery like that should be shot in the blue hour. That should ba basic knowledge if you are involved in photography for more than 15 minutes. If you do that, you just have to set WB so the sky is a rich purplish blue, and it's gonna be all ok.
I would like to dispute your perspective (which IMO sounds like the sort of thing people might say at a camera club TBH). How a picture looks is utterly subjective. And suppose I need a picture which is about the effect of light pollution - which typically does have that nasty orange caste.
FWIW I come from the pre digital world of film, and am completely used to the idea of using gels and filters to balance the effects of different sorts of artificial lights. I also used to be good at color printing in the darkroom back even before RA-4 came along.
If there is a problem with Ron's picture, perhaps it is that the sky could maybe be somewhat darker. But for what it is I don't see that it matters terribly. I think they should leave it for the customers to decide if it works for them or not.
-
Scenery like that should be shot in the blue hour. That should ba basic knowledge if you are involved in photography for more than 15 minutes. If you do that, you just have to set WB so the sky is a rich purplish blue, and it's gonna be all ok.
I would like to dispute your perspective (which IMO sounds like the sort of thing people might say at a camera club TBH).
Not in any camera club judging I've ever been at, presumably because it doesn't exist here.
-
Scenery like that should be shot in the blue hour. That should ba basic knowledge if you are involved in photography for more than 15 minutes. If you do that, you just have to set WB so the sky is a rich purplish blue, and it's gonna be all ok.
I would like to dispute your perspective (which IMO sounds like the sort of thing people might say at a camera club TBH).
Not in any camera club judging I've ever been at, presumably because it doesn't exist here.
You keep saying that, what is the matter with Blue Hour in Scotland then? Blue hour is a common phenomenon right after sunset where the night is not black but still has colors that camera sensor picks up using a long shutter speed. I am sure you know this, thats why I dont understand your comments.
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/952942/135717017/stock-photo-rare-image-of-tower-bridge-in-london-fully-open-at-night-135717017.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/952942/135728948/stock-photo-rusty-davit-and-green-and-red-lighthouse-against-a-purple-orange-sky-135728948.jpg)
-
I've heard it a lot, I've even seen some allegedly 'blue hour' photos from Glasgow; but the only way I can get that sort of effect is by intensive manipulation. I have never seen it and I've never heard it mentioned around here. In fact, I specifically looked for it in both Memphis and San Diego, because I'd only heard about it from the US, but didn't see it there either (bad luck with sky conditions, probably).
A bit like 'sunny f16'. For years I wondered why no camera that I ever had or borrowed exposed properly with the sunny f16 and its equivalents, then I discovered that it was a rule made near New York, on a similar latitude to Madrid. We don't have the same intensity of light. In Baja I discovered that on a heavy overcast morning, the quantity of light was much more (totally different camera readings) than on a similar morning here, even if the quality / end result wasn't any different/better.
-
I've heard it a lot, I've even seen some allegedly 'blue hour' photos from Glasgow; but the only way I can get that sort of effect is by intensive manipulation. I have never seen it and I've never heard it mentioned around here. In fact, I specifically looked for it in both Memphis and San Diego, because I'd only heard about it from the US, but didn't see it there either (bad luck with sky conditions, probably).
A bit like 'sunny f16'. For years I wondered why no camera that I ever had or borrowed exposed properly with the sunny f16 and its equivalents, then I discovered that it was a rule made near New York, on a similar latitude to Madrid. We don't have the same intensity of light. In Baja I discovered that on a heavy overcast morning, the quantity of light was much more (totally different camera readings) than on a similar morning here, even if the quality / end result wasn't any different/better.
I just searched google and shutterstock for Glasgow night, and there were nice blue hour shots.
-
Scenery like that should be shot in the blue hour. That should ba basic knowledge if you are involved in photography for more than 15 minutes. If you do that, you just have to set WB so the sky is a rich purplish blue, and it's gonna be all ok.
I would like to dispute your perspective (which IMO sounds like the sort of thing people might say at a camera club TBH). How a picture looks is utterly subjective. And suppose I need a picture which is about the effect of light pollution - which typically does have that nasty orange caste.
FWIW I come from the pre digital world of film, and am completely used to the idea of using gels and filters to balance the effects of different sorts of artificial lights. I also used to be good at color printing in the darkroom back even before RA-4 came along.
If there is a problem with Ron's picture, perhaps it is that the sky could maybe be somewhat darker. But for what it is I don't see that it matters terribly. I think they should leave it for the customers to decide if it works for them or not.
Sure, I'm not saying this 100% the only way to do it. But facing the mechanical-technical judgement you get on microstock sites, this probably is the safest way to go. In my opinion it also really does get you the aesthetically most pleasing result with night cityscapes in the vast majority of cases.
-
I've heard it a lot, I've even seen some allegedly 'blue hour' photos from Glasgow; but the only way I can get that sort of effect is by intensive manipulation. I have never seen it and I've never heard it mentioned around here. In fact, I specifically looked for it in both Memphis and San Diego, because I'd only heard about it from the US, but didn't see it there either (bad luck with sky conditions, probably).
A bit like 'sunny f16'. For years I wondered why no camera that I ever had or borrowed exposed properly with the sunny f16 and its equivalents, then I discovered that it was a rule made near New York, on a similar latitude to Madrid. We don't have the same intensity of light. In Baja I discovered that on a heavy overcast morning, the quantity of light was much more (totally different camera readings) than on a similar morning here, even if the quality / end result wasn't any different/better.
I just searched google and shutterstock for Glasgow night, and there were nice blue hour shots.
That's what I said above: I've seen the photos online, but I've never seen anything like that in real life. (I don't live in Glasgow, it's my nearest city, but I've been there, waiting at the 'right' time of day often.)
BTW, we had a talk a few weeks back at the CC from a multi-award-winning local photographer with many stunning landscape shots from our area, and everyone said, "when does he ever see that?" Even the people who actually live on the coast said they'd never seen light like that in his pics. Turned out later he mentioned he's dual colour-blind, so he must be cranking up the saturation like crazy, though the pics didn't actually look 'over-saturated', just 'unreal' in an undefined manner. Very lovely in their own way.
-
Scenery like that should be shot in the blue hour. That should ba basic knowledge if you are involved in photography for more than 15 minutes. If you do that, you just have to set WB so the sky is a rich purplish blue, and it's gonna be all ok.
I would like to dispute your perspective (which IMO sounds like the sort of thing people might say at a camera club TBH). How a picture looks is utterly subjective. And suppose I need a picture which is about the effect of light pollution - which typically does have that nasty orange caste.
FWIW I come from the pre digital world of film, and am completely used to the idea of using gels and filters to balance the effects of different sorts of artificial lights. I also used to be good at color printing in the darkroom back even before RA-4 came along.
If there is a problem with Ron's picture, perhaps it is that the sky could maybe be somewhat darker. But for what it is I don't see that it matters terribly. I think they should leave it for the customers to decide if it works for them or not.
Sure, I'm not saying this 100% the only way to do it. But facing the mechanical-technical judgement you get on microstock sites, this probably is the safest way to go. In my opinion it also really does get you the aesthetically most pleasing result with night cityscapes in the vast majority of cases.
-
I've heard it a lot, I've even seen some allegedly 'blue hour' photos from Glasgow; but the only way I can get that sort of effect is by intensive manipulation. I have never seen it and I've never heard it mentioned around here. In fact, I specifically looked for it in both Memphis and San Diego, because I'd only heard about it from the US, but didn't see it there either (bad luck with sky conditions, probably).
A bit like 'sunny f16'. For years I wondered why no camera that I ever had or borrowed exposed properly with the sunny f16 and its equivalents, then I discovered that it was a rule made near New York, on a similar latitude to Madrid. We don't have the same intensity of light. In Baja I discovered that on a heavy overcast morning, the quantity of light was much more (totally different camera readings) than on a similar morning here, even if the quality / end result wasn't any different/better.
I just searched google and shutterstock for Glasgow night, and there were nice blue hour shots.
That's what I said above: I've seen the photos online, but I've never seen anything like that in real life. (I don't live in Glasgow, it's my nearest city, but I've been there, waiting at the 'right' time of day often.)
BTW, we had a talk a few weeks back at the CC from a multi-award-winning local photographer with many stunning landscape shots from our area, and everyone said, "when does he ever see that?" Even the people who actually live on the coast said they'd never seen light like that in his pics. Turned out later he mentioned he's dual colour-blind, so he must be cranking up the saturation like crazy, though the pics didn't actually look 'over-saturated', just 'unreal' in an undefined manner. Very lovely in their own way.
The sensors picks up light in long exposure that you dont see with the naked eye
-
I've heard it a lot, I've even seen some allegedly 'blue hour' photos from Glasgow; but the only way I can get that sort of effect is by intensive manipulation. I have never seen it and I've never heard it mentioned around here. In fact, I specifically looked for it in both Memphis and San Diego, because I'd only heard about it from the US, but didn't see it there either (bad luck with sky conditions, probably).
A bit like 'sunny f16'. For years I wondered why no camera that I ever had or borrowed exposed properly with the sunny f16 and its equivalents, then I discovered that it was a rule made near New York, on a similar latitude to Madrid. We don't have the same intensity of light. In Baja I discovered that on a heavy overcast morning, the quantity of light was much more (totally different camera readings) than on a similar morning here, even if the quality / end result wasn't any different/better.
I just searched google and shutterstock for Glasgow night, and there were nice blue hour shots.
That's what I said above: I've seen the photos online, but I've never seen anything like that in real life. (I don't live in Glasgow, it's my nearest city, but I've been there, waiting at the 'right' time of day often.)
BTW, we had a talk a few weeks back at the CC from a multi-award-winning local photographer with many stunning landscape shots from our area, and everyone said, "when does he ever see that?" Even the people who actually live on the coast said they'd never seen light like that in his pics. Turned out later he mentioned he's dual colour-blind, so he must be cranking up the saturation like crazy, though the pics didn't actually look 'over-saturated', just 'unreal' in an undefined manner. Very lovely in their own way.
The sensors picks up light in long exposure that you dont see with the naked eye
Well, that's my 'something new' learned today. Tx!
-
I've heard it a lot, I've even seen some allegedly 'blue hour' photos from Glasgow; but the only way I can get that sort of effect is by intensive manipulation. I have never seen it and I've never heard it mentioned around here. In fact, I specifically looked for it in both Memphis and San Diego, because I'd only heard about it from the US, but didn't see it there either (bad luck with sky conditions, probably).
A bit like 'sunny f16'. For years I wondered why no camera that I ever had or borrowed exposed properly with the sunny f16 and its equivalents, then I discovered that it was a rule made near New York, on a similar latitude to Madrid. We don't have the same intensity of light. In Baja I discovered that on a heavy overcast morning, the quantity of light was much more (totally different camera readings) than on a similar morning here, even if the quality / end result wasn't any different/better.
I just searched google and shutterstock for Glasgow night, and there were nice blue hour shots.
That's what I said above: I've seen the photos online, but I've never seen anything like that in real life. (I don't live in Glasgow, it's my nearest city, but I've been there, waiting at the 'right' time of day often.)
BTW, we had a talk a few weeks back at the CC from a multi-award-winning local photographer with many stunning landscape shots from our area, and everyone said, "when does he ever see that?" Even the people who actually live on the coast said they'd never seen light like that in his pics. Turned out later he mentioned he's dual colour-blind, so he must be cranking up the saturation like crazy, though the pics didn't actually look 'over-saturated', just 'unreal' in an undefined manner. Very lovely in their own way.
The sensors picks up light in long exposure that you dont see with the naked eye
Well, that's my 'something new' learned today. Tx!
you knew it already Sue, imagine you shooting some animal and leave the shutter open for a second, how will it look? next to white ;D the more you let it open the more light will enter!
-
(Re: Blue Hour) The sensors picks up light in long exposure that you dont see with the naked eye
Well, that's my 'something new' learned today. Tx!
you knew it already Sue, imagine you shooting some animal and leave the shutter open for a second, how will it look? next to white ;D the more you let it open the more light will enter!
Yes of course, but I had no idea that that was what the Blue Hour was (something I've only heard of on stock forums, AFICR).
I honestly thought that the Blue Hour was something that would be visibly apparent if the light was 'right on the night' and I was 'there' at the right time. Just like we almost never have sunrises here (it usually just gets paler and paler grey), but if the sky is clear, we get a 'bit' of a sunrise (our sunsets tend to be much better when conditions are right).
Now that I've learned it, will I remember?
-
I've heard it a lot, I've even seen some allegedly 'blue hour' photos from Glasgow; but the only way I can get that sort of effect is by intensive manipulation.
Budapest by night. No Photoshop, no manipulation, straight from the Gopro 3 black. 9pm
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1453396_10200289042427103_1861354395_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/1469810_10200289063467629_127319421_n.jpg)
-
man that building is going to fall ;D
-
Looks like, but the building is made 150-200 years ago (guess) and it's still there and will be :)
By the way rejected for....... whatever reason but somehow I'm glad not being accepted. Means it's good photo :) at least for my standards.
-
In all my life, I've never seen any evening around here that looks remotely like 'Blue Hour' photos - must be a lot of Photoshopping going on!
http://www.bluehoursite.com (http://www.bluehoursite.com)
-
And all this while I thought everyone knew about the Blue Hour and when to shoot it!?
Guess not!?
-
That's what I said above: I've seen the photos online, but I've never seen anything like that in real life.
That's mostly because the brain does very sophisticated and pretty strong WB correction even on parts of the image locally, very much like local correction you might do in photoshop. Same applies to contrast and brightness even more heavily. It actually builds a detailed mask for color and brightness correction, you can actually see it if you quickly close-open-close your eyes while looking at something with strong color and brightness variances. That's why what some 'supposed-to-be-purists' are saying that the unedited image is "the real repesentation" of what you see is pure uneducated nonsense.
-
And all this while I thought everyone knew about the Blue Hour and when to shoot it!?
Guess not!?
If I went up the street and canvassed people I met, I'd be surprised if even one person had heard of it; and since I've never seen it in local or national camera club competitions, only on stock and occasionally on Flickr, and I've never read about it other than on stock forums, I'm supposing (and could be wrong) it's more of an American fancy (nothing wrong with that, vive la difference).
I had heard of it and knew when to shoot it, but like I said, I'd thought it was like sunrise here, but much more so - you'd have to be really lucky to get the condititions to shoot it; I didn't realise it was like a 'flowing' waterfall or river, it was all down to camera settings.
One more thing to stop puzzling over. :)
-
Blue hour is quite a common thing as far as I understand it. Its not only restricted to photography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_hour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_hour)
-
I didn't knew it was called blue hour but I guess it exists - at least in photography - even without photoshopping.
These are my involuntary blue hour shots (colours unmodified - although a bit of editing could make them a lot more dramatic):
London, England - September 12, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Duesseldorf, Deutschland - August 2, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Now I'll have to add 'blue hour' to the keywords on all sites...
-
I agree that Rons image would have benifited from being taken during the blue hour.
And sue... you have blue hour in Scotland as well, in fact you have more the further north you get.
But the blue hour may be later than what you expect, maybe an hour after sunset in summer and earlier in winter.
There are blue hour tables so you can look it up, I never use them, as I more like to trust my senses.
Here is an image taken late in the blue our, almost too late, its almost dark and the image is not as vibrant as could be:
(http://www.fotostart.dk/usergallery/fullsize/7901-20100725010017.jpg)
and here is one taken too late, its too dark:
(http://www.fotostart.dk/usergallery/fullsize/7901-20131007052719.jpg)
Thes elves were hungry and came out early, to fourage in the garbage.
Early blue hour:
(http://www.fotostart.dk/usergallery/fullsize/7901-20121206111335.jpg)
-
Maybe the image I took looks better during blue hour, that doesnt mean the WB is off when its shot at a later time. It also cant be that ALL night time images have to shot at blue hour for them be acceptable. Its nonsense.
I will shoot it at sunset and blue hour, since everyone is raving about it, including me. It was always my intention to shoot the image at sunset, its just that when I visited my friend and had my cam with me, it was night, and it looked like good panorama to me. Regardless of the blue hour.
-
you should rather go down in the streets and get an object of interest in the main foreground, or hire a goodyear airship to pass through the foreground.
-
you should rather go down in the streets and get an object of interest in the main foreground, or hire a goodyear airship to pass through the foreground.
Yeah, people keep saying that, but the whole point of the image is the unique elevated view point.
If someone wants to take a photo of a rose, you dont tell him to shoot horses.
-
customers, Ron, customers.
-
customers, Ron, customers.
How do you know if that image wont sell? :) Images of singled out architecture cant even be sold as commercial, it would have to be editorial.
-
customers, Ron, customers.
How do you know if that image wont sell? :) Images of singled out architecture cant even be sold as commercial, it would have to be editorial.
I think he is just stating what Scott has already said way above in his large post.
Chit run it through Topaz or NIk whichever one you have and make a few minor adjustments and resubmit it.
-
Right, this is where I step out. We are now going round in circles, I cant explain myself any further. And when I get into a discussion with you it drains me completely because you have a 5 inch concrete wall in front of you.
-
Maybe the image I took looks better during blue hour, that doesnt mean the WB is off when its shot at a later time. It also cant be that ALL night time images have to shot at blue hour for them be acceptable. Its nonsense.
I will shoot it at sunset and blue hour, since everyone is raving about it, including me. It was always my intention to shoot the image at sunset, its just that when I visited my friend and had my cam with me, it was night, and it looked like good panorama to me. Regardless of the blue hour.
I think that much of the time people get stuck on the "rules" a bit too much. Cityscapes need to be shot at the blue hour, everything must fit in the rule of thirds, all that stuff. I tend to agree that these make for pleasing images but seriously, is it truly forbidden to create an image that breaks those rules? Especially for less than $1?
What if Ron's image is a generally accurate rendition of how the sky above that place actually looks? Does every landscape have to look like it was taken with once in a lifetime lighting? Or has been processed in photoshop for an hour?
Again, why not let the buyers decide? Most people are pretty happy with cell phone pictures. Some clients even want that look. Why not work just slightly outside the box occasionally?
-
Maybe the image I took looks better during blue hour, that doesnt mean the WB is off when its shot at a later time. It also cant be that ALL night time images have to shot at blue hour for them be acceptable. Its nonsense.
I will shoot it at sunset and blue hour, since everyone is raving about it, including me. It was always my intention to shoot the image at sunset, its just that when I visited my friend and had my cam with me, it was night, and it looked like good panorama to me. Regardless of the blue hour.
I think that much of the time people get stuck on the "rules" a bit too much. Cityscapes need to be shot at the blue hour, everything must fit in the rule of thirds, all that stuff. I tend to agree that these make for pleasing images but seriously, is it truly forbidden to create an image that breaks those rules? Especially for less than $1?
What if Ron's image is a generally accurate rendition of how the sky above that place actually looks? Does every landscape have to look like it was taken with once in a lifetime lighting? Or has been processed in photoshop for an hour?
Again, why not let the buyers decide? Most people are pretty happy with cell phone pictures. Some clients even want that look. Why not work just slightly outside the box occasionally?
Very we'll stated.
-
Maybe the image I took looks better during blue hour, that doesnt mean the WB is off when its shot at a later time. It also cant be that ALL night time images have to shot at blue hour for them be acceptable. Its nonsense.
I will shoot it at sunset and blue hour, since everyone is raving about it, including me. It was always my intention to shoot the image at sunset, its just that when I visited my friend and had my cam with me, it was night, and it looked like good panorama to me. Regardless of the blue hour.
I think that much of the time people get stuck on the "rules" a bit too much. Cityscapes need to be shot at the blue hour, everything must fit in the rule of thirds, all that stuff. I tend to agree that these make for pleasing images but seriously, is it truly forbidden to create an image that breaks those rules? Especially for less than $1?
What if Ron's image is a generally accurate rendition of how the sky above that place actually looks? Does every landscape have to look like it was taken with once in a lifetime lighting? Or has been processed in photoshop for an hour?
Again, why not let the buyers decide? Most people are pretty happy with cell phone pictures. Some clients even want that look. Why not work just slightly outside the box occasionally?
Maybe it does, to sell on microstock
-
^^^ I always think you are Me
/OT
-
...I tend to agree that these make for pleasing images but seriously, is it truly forbidden to create an image that breaks those rules? Especially for less than $1?
Again, why not let the buyers decide? Most people are pretty happy with cell phone pictures. Some clients even want that look. Why not work just slightly outside the box occasionally?
In a nutshell.
The thread started with a "lighting" rejection and quickly turned into a discussion of the aesthetics of twighlight cityscapes. But Microstock didn't get started as an art school project.
I just did a skyline shot of Minneapolis, in the middle of the day, and got it accepted. I hope to make a few dollars if I'm lucky. Sorry, but at 35 cents per sale I didn't feel I could rent a crane, or a helicopter, or pursue building owners for rooftop access, or spend 90 minutes waiting for that perfect light, or an hour in Photoshop. Maybe it's just me.
Who is going to lavish all this time, attention and skill on producing gallery quality shots for these pathetic returns? I think the answer is: lots of people, now, but fewer and fewer over time.
-
I don't think the incompetent reviewers argument holds water, SS are simply more picky than the other mainstream sites and can afford to be.
I agree that they are more picky, however, it still doesnt explain why some contributors get so many rejections when their work is impeccable, and its hard to believe that with a portfolio of 2000 images and being a 5 year contributor to SS, all of a sudden you produce crap.
I dont believe in an automated process either, so it must be the reviewer then?
I have been thinking about this. Laurin Rinder has been a reviewer at SS and he says he would judge the image as a whole, i.e. if it had shadows but it added to the composition or story, he would pass it. I think if you have a young inexperienced reviewer, he would reject that same image, because it has shadows, not understanding that the shadows are part of the composition.
Just my two cents.
Rinder did/does not review at SS. I agree new reviewers may reject images that a more seasoned reviewer would accept. And they may also reject imgaes that a bot would flag when a more seasoned reviewer would find them acceptable.
Some sites pay more for rejections, the premise being that the reviewer should take more time to examine the image before rejecting it.
-
Laurin reviewed for 3 years, and I believe it was at SS. Where did he review then?
-
Found this, but no answer
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/what-site-does-rinder-review-at/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/what-site-does-rinder-review-at/)
-
you should rather go down in the streets and get an object of interest in the main foreground, or hire a goodyear airship to pass through the foreground.
Yeah, people keep saying that, but the whole point of the image is the unique elevated view point.
If someone wants to take a photo of a rose, you dont tell him to shoot horses.
I buy many images from specific locations. If your image fit the location I was looking for I would not rule it out for color balance issues.
I would pick the best images based on perspective and clean technical quality and then adjust the red color channel. You keep getting rejections for over saturated reds. I would hazard to guess you shoot with a canon which has a sensor that tends to over saturate reds.
If your reviewer has a preference for desaturated reds you have the option to accommodate in post.
-
From my own experience, yes, Shutterstock does mess up on occasion. I submit on average 30-50 images per day with around 99% acceptance rate. But once every month, some overzealous reviewer rejects the entire batch for some "focus" issue when in reality, there was no "focus" issue to begin with. When I resubmit the images (I don't leave an extra note for the reviewer), they all get accepted. And they sell the very same day that they are accepted. So in my opinion, SS loses money every time Attila the Hun reviews. It just doesn't make sense.
On Dreamstime, their ridiculous "you have excessive white space" rule just drives me crazy. If copy space sells so well on SS, why Dreamstime do you think your customers don't want and can add their own space? Even then, they accept copy space on 80% of the images I submit. AND their customers buy it with that "excessive space". If DT didn't pay out credits as often as they do, I would have stopped submitting a long time ago.
-
...I tend to agree that these make for pleasing images but seriously, is it truly forbidden to create an image that breaks those rules? Especially for less than $1?
Again, why not let the buyers decide? Most people are pretty happy with cell phone pictures. Some clients even want that look. Why not work just slightly outside the box occasionally?
In a nutshell.
The thread started with a "lighting" rejection and quickly turned into a discussion of the aesthetics of twighlight cityscapes. But Microstock didn't get started as an art school project.
I just did a skyline shot of Minneapolis, in the middle of the day, and got it accepted. I hope to make a few dollars if I'm lucky. Sorry, but at 35 cents per sale I didn't feel I could rent a crane, or a helicopter, or pursue building owners for rooftop access, or spend 90 minutes waiting for that perfect light, or an hour in Photoshop. Maybe it's just me.
Who is going to lavish all this time, attention and skill on producing gallery quality shots for these pathetic returns? I think the answer is: lots of people, now, but fewer and fewer over time.
An hour in photoshop?? Blue hour and similar ****scape shots are some of the easiest to process. Apply some partial noise reduction if needed, and that's it. 1.5 minutes. Most of the time you don't even need that, since shooting long with the lowest iso. I had a pleasant walk in the beautiful historic part of the city with one the gals, planted my tripod at a few places, enjoyed the view meanwhile, we had nice walk back & some fancy street food. What's so horrific about that? I was surrounded by tourists who even payed thousands of $ for the same thing. I would have done it even without taking shots. Ohh, I uploaded the shots to stocksy instead of SS, so instead of making 0.38... they made nothing. They come from spring, so several months now.
-
The secret is to buy a poodle and shoot it every which way, without worrying if it looks grey or blown out or in need of a bath.
-
Laurin reviewed for 3 years, and I believe it was at SS. Where did he review then?
I know where, and it wasn't SS...........it's not in any of the top tier.
-
Laurin reviewed for 3 years, and I believe it was at SS. Where did he review then?
I know where, and it wasn't SS...........it's not in any of the top tier.
Ok thanks for clearing that up Mantis !
-
Yeah, my rejections are increasing and frustrating too. Up and down. What SS rejects, another takes...and vice-a-versa :P
Hang on to them, make some changes and resubmit at a later date.
I really don't understand SS's reviewing. You can send a whole batch and they all get accepted or a whole batch (like just now) that gets rejected. To me this depends who you get. To get images taken in decent light AND edited in Lightroom 4 to be rejected on the basis of poor lighting is quite ridiculous. What more are you meant to do ? At least IS are not over picky any more. Oh well, I will submit them a few weeks down the line and hope to get them in as I have done in the past.
-
It goes on as before…
Always rejections for absurd and inconsistent reasons…
Just ask an another review and the images are all accepted…
This is absolutely not normal
Shutterstock has a real problem I think…
And it is becoming our problem
Here I pay for each bit that I upload (no unlimited internet forfait), and for each bit that I re-upload.
I agree to pay for my errors.
But I don't agree to pay for the mistakes of somebody else.
-
I had one entitled "Vintage Christmas cookie cutters" rejected because the title wasn't in English LOL 8)
Guess the reviewer just went eeney, meeney, miney, mo to pick a reason.
-
Just had a whole batch of jpgs rejected for "excessive noise," though they're just the jpg versions of my accepted vectors. No noise, of course. Just a cranky photo reviewer. Maybe photo reviewers need more coffee in the morning? I'm cranky without my caffeine.
-
4 editorials rejected for model release and trademark.
-
4 editorials rejected for model release and trademark.
That's a poor review if submitted correctly as editorial, not to mention a waste of your time.
PS. At least you had a review. Your mate Barry will be a fossil by the time he gets his stuff looked at - apparently.
-
It goes on as before…
Always rejections for absurd and inconsistent reasons…
Just ask an another review and the images are all accepted…
This is absolutely not normal
Shutterstock has a real problem I think…
And it is becoming our problem
Here I pay for each bit that I upload (no unlimited internet forfait), and for each bit that I re-upload.
I agree to pay for my errors.
But I don't agree to pay for the mistakes of somebody else.
I agree; I don't see why they can't keep them, at least for e.g. a month, to give you a chance to sort out their mistakes.
-
It goes on as before…
Always rejections for absurd and inconsistent reasons…
Just ask an another review and the images are all accepted…
This is absolutely not normal
Shutterstock has a real problem I think…
And it is becoming our problem
Here I pay for each bit that I upload (no unlimited internet forfait), and for each bit that I re-upload.
I agree to pay for my errors.
But I don't agree to pay for the mistakes of somebody else.
I agree; I don't see why they can't keep them, at least for e.g. a month, to give you a chance to sort out their mistakes.
It could be a good idea, yes.
Even if a month is maybe too much.
I think that they reject more photos that they accept, so they could fill they HDs very fast :)
-
LOL just had a full batch of shallow DOP rejected for excessive noise reduction. Nice work SS bot!
-
I just had 2 out of 6 images rejected for focus.
The reviewer was perfectly right.
-
5 images with warm morning winter light, little fog and horizontal shadows…
Try to guess?
Rejected for incorrect white balance!…
(These images have been accepted by any other site, of course)
-
Beppe.
They are middlemen.
Imagine them driving around (in an old vauxhall) and visit customers, they bring a portfolio with them to show.
Of course they want to spook the costumers with state of the art ( and all that BS) imagery so the costumer is impressed.
Beppe... they are just middlemen with a concept, let them live their life.
-
Ok, can someone explain this!
Rejection Reason:
"Trademark--Image potentially infringes on intellectual property rights."
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/1601202_708940995783277_1718933042_n.jpg)
-
Beppe.
They are middlemen.
Imagine them driving around (in an old vauxhall) and visit customers, they bring a portfolio with them to show.
Of course they want to spook the costumers with state of the art ( and all that BS) imagery so the costumer is impressed.
Beppe... they are just middlemen with a concept, let them live their life.
lol
Probably you are right…
-
Got this rejection today for jpg versions of my vectors:
"Title--Titles must be in English, may not contain unnecessary information and must relate to the image."
The title in question: "Funny clown behind a whiteboard. Jpg"
It's a drawing of a funny clown behind a whiteboard. And it's a jpg.
-
I am sure the jpg part is unnecessary and shouldnt be in the title.
-
Ok, can someone explain this!
Rejection Reason:
"Trademark--Image potentially infringes on intellectual property rights."
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/1601202_708940995783277_1718933042_n.jpg)
What makes up the coloured squares in the text? Other photographs?
-
I am sure the jpg part is unnecessary and shouldnt be in the title.
Yet thousands of my images have been accepted with jpg in the title.
-
"Yet thousands of my images have been accepted with jpg in the title."
Have you ask Shutter review team about the .jpg part?
-
No, because this is the first time I've ever gotten this rejection reason. Usually it's for "noise" or "rough edges" that don't exist.
-
Maybe include jpg in the sentence and not as .jpg (dot jpg may be the problem)
-
I am sure the jpg part is unnecessary and shouldnt be in the title.
Yet thousands of my images have been accepted with jpg in the title.
Fair enough, Maybe they changed their rules again. Happens from time to time. If not, then its a weird rejection.
-
I don't think it was the .jpg addition ... I got the same rejection today : 12 out of 20 images rejected for the same "Title should be in English ...." reason. I don't have dots in my titles or the word JPG, just English words. Example : "Young pear trees in Belgium" and "Beagle puppy". And yes, these images were of pear trees and a Beagle puppy.
-
Try
"Young Pear Trees in Belgium"
"Beagle Puppy"
And if you still have problems send and email here [email protected] with the reference number of the images
-
I had a title rejection today, just after SHelma posted her comment, and it turned out I had the wrong title. Maybe something got switched up, but I made a mistake in the IPTC
-
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014 (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014)
Like any of these photos would ever get accepted.....riteeeee
-
I don't think it was the .jpg addition ... I got the same rejection today : 12 out of 20 images rejected for the same "Title should be in English ...." reason. I don't have dots in my titles or the word JPG, just English words. Example : "Young pear trees in Belgium" and "Beagle puppy". And yes, these images were of pear trees and a Beagle puppy.
Rogue photo inspector on the loose!
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014[/url])
Like any of these photos would ever get accepted.....riteeeee
I just glanced at it but saw several photos that would likely be rejected for 'lighting' or 'white balance'.
Oh, and now they want photos of 'real life' situations. LOL. I think that translates as plastic-y model shots from iPhones, with Polaroid filter.
-
Today, I just had all 20+ images rejected for poor light, composition, and focus where all these images are money makers on other sites. I guess 2014 won't be such a new beginning as I had planned. Fellow photographers what's happening here?
-
me too! All rejected...
-
Me three.
The reasons are getting stranger and stranger. Some of the images sold instantly at 2 other agencies.
I don't request for a 2nd review, which is such a waste of my time.
-
Some batch is still inconsistent as of now. Must be a rogue editor. I'm only sending smaller batches for now.
-
Quote from: zeamonkey on Yesterday at 12:30
<quote> http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014 (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014)
" Like any of these photos would ever get accepted.....riteeeee"<quote/>
I have a fair number of manipulated mixed media retro vintage filtered images on shutterstock - natural backgrounds and some travel scenes where I've uploaded both the straight shot and the highly filtered one and both kinds seem to sell nicely - so they do take them - even some where the white balance came from my imagination.
Here are some I sold in the past two weeks - most of these have sold multiple times this month:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=151115285 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=151115285)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=139227917 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=139227917)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=142493347 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=142493347)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=85973638 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=85973638)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=143983312 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=143983312)
All is not rosy though, I had Valentine's candies rejected for trademark, meanwhile the same pix have been selling on the other micros for two years - & even SELLING as greeting cards on FAA, so no real worries. I thought I'd neglected to upload them and was berating myself for being so late, but I guess they were probably rejected 2 years ago - meanwhile 2 photos rejected for purported trademark issues on buildings in a city skyline shot by iS and DT are happily on SS having been accepted the same day I uploaded them. The great thing about being an indie is that someplace will always take my rejects - and they usually end up selling quite well. :-\ Meanwhile I cloned them out for DT and hit resubmit.
Of all the sites, I actually think SS is the most consistent, they take most of my stuff and usually have a reasonable explanation when they don't. Though I do get the occasional flaky reason from time to time. DT seems to take 20 and then reject the next 18. If I'm having a good run I expect to get rejections because "it's already well covered in the catalog" - one I've gotten from them a couple times this today, so I finally switched tactics and uploaded a bunch of stuff to redbubble and FAA where they "take" everything. 8)
Just sold one of those highly filtered photos as an iPod case on redbubble too. I love playing with images that way and am really happy that they are currently in vogue. I know the trend will fade but I'm having fun while it lasts. There's a former painter in me yearning to get out I guess.
-
The last couple weeks SS has been really good accepting lots of my bird images some of which I had doubts were good enough. I am pleased by this as the rejections were almost 100% before. Hope it improves for everyone else. I must admit I have been very caerful in post processing in Raw so guess that might help.
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014[/url])
Like any of these photos would ever get accepted.....riteeeee
Ha, you were right. I just had two 'instagram-esque' (their word), rejected for white balance and focus. I don't buy the hype they send us.
-
How about we send all rejection threads to: http://submit.shutterstock.com/contact/ (http://submit.shutterstock.com/contact/) ??? I just sent one.
-
I wonder if it is more profitable to employ such insufficient inspectors than loosing money maker images that will sell for years. I wonder what the shareholders think about this insufficient management policy.
-
Unbelievable. It's pretty much a whole batch rejected or accepted. The latest batcjh being rejected. One image i just cant get accepted and yet another image of the same shoot which sells very well on SS keeps gettting turned down and it is a better image than the one accepted. They don' t have a clue really. I have re-submitted better versions of files already in my port as there is no way of updating the image once accepted. They were of course rejected. I also had a note with all images rejected in this last batch saying "Not Approved
Please delete approved image. Include a detailed note describing the resubmission reason" how can i delete images there were not accepted ? Talk about not making sense.
-
It sounds to me as if they have recognised that you already have the image in your portfolio and they want you to delete the original before uploading the replacement. Which risks ending up with neither of them there.
-
Exactly but many times before they have accepted images I already have in my port. I did put a note with the re-submitted images when I sent them explaining they are better edits than the ones in my catalog. This seems to prove too much for them to accommodate. next time I will just re-submit and say nowt. Then, if accepted I will delete the image already there. Just shows how inconsistent they are if they might refuse an already accepted image.
-
I wonder if it is more profitable to employ such insufficient inspectors than loosing money maker images that will sell for years. I wonder what the shareholders think about this insufficient management policy.
The site would only lose money if the work is so unique that there isn't an alternative for the buyer - I'd reckon SS shareholders are just fine with SS's management policy.