I just had three shots rejected for shadows.

The photos deliberately had shadows as they were shot in the late evening sunshine !! I even included shadows as part of the description.
I'm gobsmacked sometimes that agencies employ reviewers that clearly don't know the first thing about photography.

Me too, I got a warning over a year ago and since then I've resubmitted just a handful of images, with a note of course. I just don't want to loose half of my income over a couple of photos. Not worth the risk.

ss have gone hardcore. They do this from time to time. I really wonder if it's regular reviewers holiday time or something, last time I remember it being like this was last summer. I'm sending files last to ss these days, seeing how well the images do in other places first and sending only images which are broadly accepted. Makes no difference. One image which was accepted on BS, DT and 123rf got this..

Composition--Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition.

Noise--Noise, film grain, over-sharpening, or artifacts at full size.

Focus--Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best.

Overuse--Overuse of noise reduction software.

What should I write in the note when I send it back? 

Looks like they perfected their rejection reasons (up to a degree you don't even dare to resubmit or get so confused that you dismiss the idea;)

The real problem is that I'm just about down to the point where the only significant money I make is at SS.   All the others put together don't generate enough sales to make it worthwhile.    So if SS becomes impossible to deal with, I'm done.

Yes but why dont you just forget about this file and move on, pointless, sending them back unless youre 100% sure. Imagine all the thousands of files they have to review and along comes re-submissions they have once rejected,  then they will get irritated.

I have very few rejects but when I do, I find the reasons to be fair. The SS, editors are tough and well, they should be.

best.

I just need to vent my frustration.

I just submitted a handful of images and had 3 rejections, all for different reasons, none of which made sense.  

One had to do with a public domain item included in the photo, which I clearly explained in a note to the reviewer, which I have to assume wasn't even read.

One was for "focus", the image is an isolated object at f/27 and is sharp as a tack from corner to corner.  

One was for "lighting/shadows" and I am absolutely clueless on this one, I thought the shot was perfect.

I've had very few problems with rejections at SS in the past.  But it seems like things are changing. Maybe they're outsourcing inspection like other agencies have admitted to doing.  

It's totally frustrating   There is no point doing these carefully set up object shots if the reviewers just don't get it.

Thanks for listening.  You can all just nod and move on.

Please don't take any of this personally but the rejection doesn't say "focus" it says... "Focus--Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best. " not where they think it's best? And f/27? Really? Have you ever heard of diffraction? Above f/8 and eventually at f/11 you start to lose quality when you stop down more. Maybe you should post a link to the image so people can see what the problem might be or maybe see that there is no problem and you got a bad review? Words on a forum don't cover it.

Shadows: don't bother. I get this for shots where there should be shadows. I don't know what they want or think, yes the Sun casts a shadow. Inside a fish, on a plate, there is a shadow!  LOL I had one refused for a shadow until I lightened under the subject and explained that it was a reflection. I don't know which one did the trick. SS hates all shadows, anywhere, any time.

Public Domain doesn't make it an automatic they need supporting data. Since I've been refused before and have a nice collection of informative rejections, here's the best one that explains it. This is what you need to include in the Caption - and a note to the reviewer that you added the necessary data, so they know it was rejected before and you made a correction:

"When submitting public domain images, submit them for commercial use and provide us with the source name, country, year, and creator and a property release."

I don't understand the property release part? Property release for a PD image, from whom?

Quote from: gemmy12 on March 15, 2012, 01:07

i dont take risk with resubmission in SS. I only resubmit just once that too if the images are selling satisfactory elsewhere. As far as acceptance is concerned my acceptance rate has increased in fact. But i have other issue with SS which is causing frustration. The review time. From the start of February my images are reviewed in 5 to 6 days though i send small batches of not more than 6 to 7 files. This is new thing for me in SS. Earlier they used to review my images within hours. From Feb i could submit only 4 batches of just 5 to 6 images. Even now a batch of 5 images is pending there for last 4 days. Do any of you facing same problem? But definitely some changes are going on in SS.

Yes they review very slowy now for a few weeks at least, maybe a couple of months. It makes sense that the higher than normal rejection rates that many of us are experiencing may have something to do with this. They may have a large backlog, the same as I think they had last summer maybe when lots of reviewers were on breaks. I'm speculating of course and I may be completely wrong. But long review times coinciding with high rejection rates. Maybe reviewers are under pressure to clear a backlog.

Thanks for confirming.. i thought it was only me facing delay in review as most of others were reporting quick review...

Quote from: gemmy12 on March 15, 2012, 03:32

Thanks for confirming.. i thought it was only me facing delay in review as most of others were reporting quick review...

Not sure about that. I haven't checked in a while, but I think there are 1 or 2 threads in the ss forum about contributors experiencing long review times. I was always impressed in the past about how quick they review, no fast reviews for me anymore, even editorial images which used to be super fast are taking ages to be reviewed now.

Uploaded two batches of editorial images yesterday -both reviewed within a couple of hours (which is my normal experience). Regards, David.

Not sure about that. I haven't checked in a while, but I think there are 1 or 2 threads in the ss forum about contributors experiencing long review times. I was always impressed in the past about how quick they review, no fast reviews for me anymore, even editorial images which used to be super fast are taking ages to be reviewed now.

Uploaded two batches of editorial images yesterday -both reviewed within a couple of hours (which is my normal experience). Regards, David.
[/quote]
So one can say its all about luck.

I just need to vent my frustration.

I just submitted a handful of images and had 3 rejections, all for different reasons, none of which made sense.  

One had to do with a public domain item included in the photo, which I clearly explained in a note to the reviewer, which I have to assume wasn't even read.

One was for "focus", the image is an isolated object at f/27 and is sharp as a tack from corner to corner.  

One was for "lighting/shadows" and I am absolutely clueless on this one, I thought the shot was perfect.

I've had very few problems with rejections at SS in the past.  But it seems like things are changing. Maybe they're outsourcing inspection like other agencies have admitted to doing.  

It's totally frustrating   There is no point doing these carefully set up object shots if the reviewers just don't get it.

Thanks for listening.  You can all just nod and move on.

regarding the public domain issue:

for images submitted  in public domain you must provide all the information about the subject in the DESCRIPTION not in the box to the reviewer.

those information must be:

- name of the subject/art/ painting drawing or what the subject represents.
- source of the subject ( book, publication,museum etc.)
- year of creation/ publication
- country of origin
- name of the author

if the author is unknown ( and the other mandatory information's are known) you must write in the box to the reviewer that the author is unknown and why ( ex, the books and/or publication is not specifying who drew the sketch, drawing).

i have hundreds of public domain pictures with SS and i have not encounter any problem with them if i filled the description with all the required information.

I don't understand the property release part? Property release for a PD image, from whom?

I'm not sure what they mean, but I can think of examples where you need property release for a PD image: You get access to shoot an extremely rare book at a museum. The book is in public domain, but it can still be property of the museum.

Quote from: Microstock Posts on March 15, 2012, 03:48

Quote from: gemmy12 on March 15, 2012, 03:32

Thanks for confirming.. i thought it was only me facing delay in review as most of others were reporting quick review...

Not sure about that. I haven't checked in a while, but I think there are 1 or 2 threads in the ss forum about contributors experiencing long review times. I was always impressed in the past about how quick they review, no fast reviews for me anymore, even editorial images which used to be super fast are taking ages to be reviewed now.

Uploaded two batches of editorial images yesterday -both reviewed within a couple of hours (which is my normal experience). Regards, David.

I see Newsfocus , just 2 hours. My unimportant editorial images of Asia haven't been waiting ages yet, just 24 hours, but already 12 times longer than yours. It is amazing how contributors' experiences can be so far apart at times.

Quote from: Newsfocus1 on March 15, 2012, 03:55

Quote from: Microstock Posts on March 15, 2012, 03:48

Quote from: gemmy12 on March 15, 2012, 03:32

Thanks for confirming.. i thought it was only me facing delay in review as most of others were reporting quick review...

Not sure about that. I haven't checked in a while, but I think there are 1 or 2 threads in the ss forum about contributors experiencing long review times. I was always impressed in the past about how quick they review, no fast reviews for me anymore, even editorial images which used to be super fast are taking ages to be reviewed now.

Uploaded two batches of editorial images yesterday -both reviewed within a couple of hours (which is my normal experience). Regards, David.

I see Newsfocus , just 2 hours. My unimportant editorial images of Asia haven't been waiting ages yet, just 24 hours, but already 12 times longer than yours. It is amazing how contributors' experiences can be so far apart at times.

Well, my latest batch just passed the two hour mark - so I guess they are busy poring over yours right now

Well, my latest batch just passed the two hour mark - so I guess they are busy poring over yours right now

Lol! This is so exciting, I'm warming up my inbox as we speak. 

Quote from: Microstock Posts on March 15, 2012, 09:42

Quote from: Newsfocus1 on March 15, 2012, 09:07

Well, my latest batch just passed the two hour mark - so I guess they are busy poring over yours right now

Lol! This is so exciting, I'm warming up my inbox as we speak. 

Err.. you might want to make yourself a cup of coffee or something -just got approved (right on three hours)

Coffee cup in one hand, middle finger extended with the other. 

It is well known that SS reviews are all over the map.  They accept the most god awful stuff from some well known submitters and reject pristine work from others.

For a very long time I had close to 100% acceptance then suddenly I ran into a reviewer or possible a script that was rejecting my work at close to 90% for about 4 months. I kept submitting images to get a good understanding of what was up. My conclusion was either the reviewer was making more for rejections, they were malicious or they were completely blind.

Now for the kicker, suddenly that reviewer seems to have moved on to new prey, because once again I have close to 100% acceptance.

Quote from: Newsfocus1 on March 15, 2012, 10:24

Quote from: Microstock Posts on March 15, 2012, 09:42

Quote from: Newsfocus1 on March 15, 2012, 09:07

Well, my latest batch just passed the two hour mark - so I guess they are busy poring over yours right now

Lol! This is so exciting, I'm warming up my inbox as we speak. 

Err.. you might want to make yourself a cup of coffee or something -just got approved (right on three hours)

Hey Newsfocus.. how many images/files do you submit in one batch ?

I keep it to around 3-6 images per batch (though might have several batches up  for review at the same time). I learned my lesson early on when a single batch of 20 or so got slaughtered   Do small batches maybe get reviewed faster? No idea, but I suppose it is possible. Don't forget, though, that I am just talking editorial images here which get reviewed faster anyway. Regards,David.

It is well known that SS reviews are all over the map.  They accept the most god awful stuff from some well known submitters and reject pristine work from others.

For a very long time I had close to 100% acceptance then suddenly I ran into a reviewer or possible a script that was rejecting my work at close to 90% for about 4 months. I kept submitting images to get a good understanding of what was up. My conclusion was either the reviewer was making more for rejections, they were malicious or they were completely blind.

Now for the kicker, suddenly that reviewer seems to have moved on to new prey, because once again I have close to 100% acceptance.

I find that doubtful, because I doubt reviewers are assigned to certain people... I figure they probably just pick batches from the top of the queue, but thats just a guess.

That being said, I also HOPE you are wrong, because my trends are somewhat similar.  I started off with a high acceptance rate, then it dwindled, then it rose and is very high right now.  I like my explanation (for me), better than yours... when I first left iS, I was submitting my very best work to SS first, so most of it got accepted.  Then, stuff started becoming rejected because I had to learn exactly what SS wanted, if the shots didnt scream "accept me!!!".  Then I learned, and now I am having almost everything accepted.  That is my explanation, becuase it's what I want to believe

Anyone have insight on whether reviewers cherry-pick certain photogs, or get assigned to certain photogs?  Or do they just get a batch ID in their inbox

Regarding the f/27, it was a Nikon 60mm 'micro' lens and I'd been doing a couple of macro shots of small objects.  SS had already accepted 3 or 4 with the same setup.  All were more than adequately sharp at 100%.   All were just as sharp as many others SS has already accepted.

Check out this page http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/394-nikkor_60_28?start=1 to see in the chart how rapidly image sharpness degrades when you push the aperture beyond f/11. I don't know if the way they calculate it takes account in some way of the diffraction limits of the sensor or not, different sensor pixel densities and sizes give different diffraction limits - you can calculate those for your camera here http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

I'm surprised Nikon make an f/32 lens for a crop sensor camera. f/32 is OK for 4x5 film cameras but no digital camera will make sharp images at that aperture.

Odd things are happening. Had a complete batch refused, all for non technical reasons (to my surprise as I was sure that the content was quite in the site's line). Somehow, someone went back and approved a few images afterwards  Ever happened to any of you? 

Quote from: stockastic on March 15, 2012, 08:57

Regarding the f/27, it was a Nikon 60mm 'micro' lens and I'd been doing a couple of macro shots of small objects.  SS had already accepted 3 or 4 with the same setup.  All were more than adequately sharp at 100%.   All were just as sharp as many others SS has already accepted.

Check out this page http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/394-nikkor_60_28?start=1 to see in the chart how rapidly image sharpness degrades when you push the aperture beyond f/11.

Guess I will have to delete all the  photos I've made using that f-stop that have already been approved.  Too bad :-)

But seriously, the image is sharp enough.  And there is the tradeoff between DOF and sharpness; if you take an extreme point of view, you can't produce a frame-filling 'microstock quality' image that's a closeup of a small object; either your overall focus will be slightly soft or there will be some areas not in focus.  This is one of the dumb things about microstock - these robo-reviewers apply landscape standards to macro photos.  This photo, for example, shows a small hand tool (wire cutter) in use.  I could open the f-stop and have just cutting jaws in focus, and SS would reject that too.

And this isn't a magazine cover photo.  No one wants a wall size print of a wire cutter.  The image is more than sharp enough for any purpose for which it might be bought.  But there I go again with the common sense...

Just for you, BT, I'm going to shoot the photo again with a larger aperture and see if I can get an image that is significantly - meaningfully - sharper.

  >>>>>>
"When submitting public domain images, submit them for commercial use and provide us with the source name, country, year, and creator and a property release."

I don't understand the property release part? Property release for a PD image, from whom?
 >>>>>

yes, that property release for a public domain image is oxymoronic

even sillier, i've provided  public domain images from 19th atlases, old US govt publications, and given complete details of the source - they were rejected BECAUSE i included the words 'public domain' - i had to resubmit without those words, no other changes and they were accepted

Oh nice tip, thanks if I ever go there again. I've had my fill of the four PD images I wanted to get online, moving on to some video and banging my head against the wall with that now.

If they assign reviewers that would explain how some people are faster. Or if they stack the submissions by acceptance ratio, that would be a reason too.

Video for me, new contributor, took about two weeks. Photos for me take about a week on average, including the weekend.

The only reason I don't think I have the same reviewer is my editorial shots have been all over the map on rejections and acceptance. I had to write in and ask why some were rejected for Caption information, when it was identical to the required format and I used my template, filled in the blanks. Funny thing, a week or so later, they were marked accepted. One that shouldn't have been Editorial was accepted as that?

If I had the same person doing my reviews, he/she would be getting it right, not changing every two weeks.

And my waiting period of recent batch has crossed 1 week.

Quote from: stockastic on March 17, 2012, 09:52

Just for you, BT, I'm going to shoot the photo again with a larger aperture and see if I can get an image that is significantly - meaningfully - sharper.

No need to do it for me, but you might like to do it for yourself

I think a lot of us use f16/f22 more for dof rather than sharp focus.  Isn't that really what the "big numbers" are for?

Where I am and if it's on acceptance, or if it's for the USA, my normal, everyday, RF images are taking a week currently.

Oh does your review time is in week ? is it normal review period in SS now ?

Quote from: gemmy12 on March 19, 2012, 00:09

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 18, 2012, 22:21

Where I am and if it's on acceptance, or if it's for the USA, my normal, everyday, RF images are taking a week currently.

Oh does your review time is in week ? is it normal review period in SS now ?

My last batch was reviewed in an hour.  I think we are assigned to a small group of reviewers, maybe based on location or server. I think there have been some delays because they are making changes to the site/servers.

I think you are correct and I believe that's what I was trying to say. All except mine would say one week, instead of one hour... 

Maybe they read the forum and saw all the messages where I said, I don't care? I only took the photo yesterday afternoon, what's the rush? 

Hi I'm the OP.  DT accepted all these images, no problems.   Yeah I know that doesn't really prove anything.  Well it proves I'm not completely crazy 

Have you contacted SS about these rejections? I feel we need to do that more. They can't fix the problem with reviewers if they don't know about it. A polite and to the point email to them including maybe some fragments of 100% resolution of the images in question can surely do no harm, but might help. If all of us take it to them when rejections don't make any sense maybe it will improve their process in the future.

Quote from: stockastic on March 21, 2012, 09:29

Hi I'm the OP.  DT accepted all these images, no problems.   Yeah I know that doesn't really prove anything.  Well it proves I'm not completely crazy  

Have you contacted SS about these rejections? I feel we need to do that more. They can't fix the problem with reviewers if they don't know about it. A polite and to the point email to them including maybe some fragments of 100% resolution of the images in question can surely do no harm, but might help.  If all of us take it to them when rejections don't make any sense maybe it will improve their process in the future.

I agree with you especially if you are a long time submitter and you are certain your work is well above average.

@ruxpriencdiam: I sure hope you're not serious. If the process has flaws of course it makes sense to slow it down to fix it. Reviewers are people and sometimes they can make mistakes and respectable agencies like SS have dedicated staff to deal with things like that.

@stockastic: If you sure about quality of your images, why not try contacting them? You might be surprised. There is really nothing to lose. We can all participate in making this business better:)