Quote from: tab62 on September 08, 2013, 16:35
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.

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on November 22, 2013, 19:31
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?
(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).

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 23, 2013, 16:57

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on November 22, 2013, 19:31
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?
(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...

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on November 23, 2013, 17:33

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 23, 2013, 16:57

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on November 22, 2013, 19:31
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?
(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.

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on November 22, 2013, 19:31
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.

Quote from: stockastic on November 24, 2013, 02:04

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on November 22, 2013, 19:31
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. 

Quote from: heywoody on November 24, 2013, 11:31
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.

Quote from: Ron on November 24, 2013, 12:42


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/

"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

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.

Quote from: heywoody on November 24, 2013, 11:31
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!

Quote from: stockastic on November 24, 2013, 15:31

Quote from: heywoody on November 24, 2013, 11:31
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.

Quote from: heywoody on November 24, 2013, 16:51

Quote from: stockastic on November 24, 2013, 15:31

Quote from: heywoody on November 24, 2013, 11:31
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"?

Quote from: Ron on November 23, 2013, 14:50
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   

Quote from: stockastic on November 24, 2013, 20:12
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?

Quote from: heywoody on November 24, 2013, 22:59

Quote from: stockastic on November 24, 2013, 20:12
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.   

Quote from: stockastic on November 24, 2013, 23:17

Quote from: heywoody on November 24, 2013, 22:59

Quote from: stockastic on November 24, 2013, 20:12
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

^^^
For composition?

If it was for dust & scratches I would have less surprised 

––
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.

Quote from: Ron on November 25, 2013, 08:36
Ok, I'll open up myself once more for abuse.

This image was rejected for composition. I disagree with that decision

Can easily sell as a greeting card. May be resubmit or ask for feedback.
Personally I like the composition

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on November 25, 2013, 10:20
^^^
For composition?

If it was for dust & scratches I would have less surprised 

––
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.