MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: it's frustrating  (Read 15365 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« on: March 14, 2012, 17:37 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 17:53 by stockastic »


RT


« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2012, 17:47 »
0
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.

« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2012, 17:49 »
0
With SS I don't know whether I should resubmit - not sure if that's 'cool' because there's no official appeal process.  I just resubmitted the 'focus' one with a note saying - politely - excuse me, but this is perfectly in focus.  

Will see what happens.  What more can I do?
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 17:58 by stockastic »

wut

« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2012, 18:20 »
0
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.

« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2012, 18:59 »
0
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?  ;D

wut

« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2012, 19:30 »
0
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?  ;D

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;)

« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2012, 19:59 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 20:03 by stockastic »

lagereek

« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2012, 01:04 »
0
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.

« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2012, 01:07 »
0
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.

RacePhoto

« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2012, 02:22 »
0
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?

« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2012, 03:15 »
0
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.

« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2012, 03:32 »
0
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...

« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2012, 03:48 »
0
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.

« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2012, 03:55 »
0
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.

Wim

« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2012, 04:13 »
0
To reply to the OP:

I've got one word to describe these editors: CORRUPTED

I'm way beyond frustrated, I'm thinking about leaving Micro and go Macro all the way (nothing like this happening there)
I hope agencies are not aware of the issues that are going on between us and their reviewers, if so, it's even worse then I thought.
Sales are great, support is good, reviewing system is corrupted.

Good luck to all who are affected by this mess! this excludes known photographers or friends of the firm/reviewer who could even send in snapshots of their dead goldfish and still get them accepted.

Now I need a really long break from this.

ps. Leaf, feel free to remove my post if you think it will be too offending. I have nothing but respect for you bro. And thanks for providing and maintaining the forum, I know I coudn't do it. What I hate to see here is contributors fighting amongst each other, instead we should be a tighter group so we could accomplish a thing or two. By going against each other we only promote agencies to go against us (commisions)
I never comment here because of this, almost every thread turns out into flaming each other and some of the most experienced photographers here are amongst the worst.

« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2012, 04:19 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 04:22 by gemmy12 »

« Reply #16 on: March 15, 2012, 04:24 »
0
Sales are great, support is good, reviewing system is corrupted
yes +1


« Reply #17 on: March 15, 2012, 04:52 »
0
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.

« Reply #18 on: March 15, 2012, 05:12 »
0
One was for "focus", the image is an isolated object at f/27 and is sharp as a tack from corner to corner.  

Sharp as tack at f/27? What lens do you use?

... and yes, reviews can be really frustrating, specially when images are selling really well at other agencies and then are rejected at shutterstock.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 05:46 by ruigsantos »

« Reply #19 on: March 15, 2012, 05:41 »
0
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.

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2012, 07:45 »
0
I think everyone takes rejections personally, after all it's our craft and our livelihood (for some more than others).

That's why I think this forum is here. It helps to know you're not the only one. It's helped me reading this thread.

I'm new to Shutterstock. I was dreamstime exclusive and got into shutterstock first try. I was very optimistic. Then i started submitting. I'm convinced there are 1 or 2 reviewers who are just miserable, burned out SOB's and if you happen to land on their desks, look out. I had submitted a batch of 50 images and was FURIOUS when only 12 were accepted. I became convinced there was something going on when 2 images, of the same subject, same settings, same lighting, same angle, same focus one was landscape and the other I flipped the camera up for a portrait version: The landscape was accepted and the portrait was rejected for focus. You either believe the focus was off or you believe someone really doesn't care about their job and just picks rejection reasons at random.

The next batch of 50 I had only 12 rejected. I must have landed on someone else's desk. The only thing that makes me feel better is knowing I'm not alone. Thanks to everyone who posts their frustrations.

« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2012, 08:07 »
0
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.

« Reply #22 on: March 15, 2012, 08:57 »
0
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.

The copyright issue was for a  piece of a USGS topographic map in the background.  USGS has a web page stating that the maps are public domain and may be freely copied.  I stated this in the note to the reviewer and included a link to that page; the description said "USGS topographic map in public domain".  If that isn't enough then yes, I do give up.   Let's see if other agencies accept it.

Like I said, the real problem is that SS is now the only place making me any acceptable return on an image.  If I can't deal with SS, that's it, I'm done in micro.  We desperately need some competition in this market and none of the small new agencies seem to have gotten any traction in the last year.  All that happened was that IS went dead for non-exclusives.

« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2012, 09:07 »
0
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 ;D

wut

« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2012, 09:35 »
0
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.

Regarding that, at that aperture settings, there's no real sharpness anymore, due to defraction ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
6665 Views
Last post November 26, 2007, 00:42
by Freezingpictures
60 Replies
21030 Views
Last post April 10, 2008, 13:46
by gborce
18 Replies
10918 Views
Last post July 17, 2012, 08:11
by MarkRyanDesigns
18 Replies
7956 Views
Last post March 21, 2019, 11:23
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors