MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: sarah2 on May 08, 2017, 02:15
-
Well - after months with 100% acceptance, and years of 80% plus, I've just had 2 batches 100% rejected for under exposure! What the heck? They are NOT under exposed. I KNOW this! Assorted pics from assorted places in different light situations.
Maybe they have a newbie reviewer with a dodgy screen or something? Or a glitch on their auto software? MEGA irritating. And to really rub salt, each rejection came not once but 4 times!
It's a shambles.
The sales are barely worth submitting - let alone resubmitting.
Grrrrrr
Happy Monday!
Grrrrrr
-
Maybe you're suffering from an affliction that affects your ability to judge if images are under exposed or not. You never know!
-
paste them on here?
-
Just resubmit, they'll be accepted. Don't take rejections personally, or you'll go nuts ;D
-
I've stopped uploading but when I did, I never uploaded more than 3-4 in one batch because of strange reviewers. It was too risky.
-
Same here, 10 photos rejected for under or overexposed pics ??!! Never had this issue so far.
-
Same here, 10 photos rejected for under or overexposed pics ??!! Never had this issue so far.
Must be the same reviewer. I would just re-submit with no changes.
-
Will resubmit bit by bit.....but what a waste of time!
Herrumph.
Onwards!
-
Will resubmit bit by bit.....but what a waste of time!
Herrumph.
Onwards!
Before you do just check there are no blown high lights or clipped shadows.
I've had rejections for a few blown pixels before now
-
I wonder if the reviewers make more money if they issue more rejections? Hummm
-
Is this over or under exposed?
-
Well - after months with 100% acceptance, and years of 80% plus, I've just had 2 batches 100% rejected for under exposure! What the heck? They are NOT under exposed. I KNOW this! Assorted pics from assorted places in different light situations.
Maybe they have a newbie reviewer with a dodgy screen or something? Or a glitch on their auto software? MEGA irritating. And to really rub salt, each rejection came not once but 4 times!
It's a shambles.
The sales are barely worth submitting - let alone resubmitting.
Grrrrrr
Happy Monday!
Grrrrrr
Thre review process is not perfect due to crazy reviews criteria or reviewers just clicking (acepting/rejecting) randomly after some times... it is not SS falut at all, because if they really want to process (review) the big number of images they are processing now the quality of review process will be poor...
Reupload the images, i promise you it will be accepted ;)
-
Is this over or under exposed?
It has clipped highlights so QED it is over exposed
-
Well - after months with 100% acceptance, and years of 80% plus, I've just had 2 batches 100% rejected for under exposure! What the heck? They are NOT under exposed. I KNOW this! Assorted pics from assorted places in different light situations.
Maybe they have a newbie reviewer with a dodgy screen or something? Or a glitch on their auto software? MEGA irritating. And to really rub salt, each rejection came not once but 4 times!
It's a shambles.
The sales are barely worth submitting - let alone resubmitting.
Grrrrrr
Happy Monday!
Grrrrrr
Thre review process is not perfect due to crazy reviews criteria or reviewers just clicking (acepting/rejecting) randomly after some times... it is not SS falut at all, because if they really want to process (review) the big number of images they are processing now the quality of review process will be poor...
Reupload the images, i promise you it will be accepted ;)
"It is not SS fault at all"
Of course it is they opened the flood gates to all sorts of rubbish they reduced the entry criteria to allow any chimp with a camera to submit
So yes it is entirely their fault they did not put in place the resources to cope with the unending sea of cr-ap that they allowed in.
-
So I should lower that white water surface I guess, Sammy the cat thanks for noting there is something wrong I will try the other way..
-
Is this over or under exposed?
Yeah, I'd say it was over a bit. The water and probably the footpath. The framing is a tiny bit tight as well, and it's not level.
-
Doesńt SS train their reviewers on the live queue?
So I would expect this to happen whenever they take on new people.
I would resubmit without changes.
Personally I never submit a full series, always a mix from different projects.
So I dońt get blanket rejections.
-
Well - after months with 100% acceptance, and years of 80% plus, I've just had 2 batches 100% rejected for under exposure! What the heck? They are NOT under exposed. I KNOW this! Assorted pics from assorted places in different light situations.
Maybe they have a newbie reviewer with a dodgy screen or something? Or a glitch on their auto software? MEGA irritating. And to really rub salt, each rejection came not once but 4 times!
It's a shambles.
The sales are barely worth submitting - let alone resubmitting.
Grrrrrr
Happy Monday!
Grrrrrr
Thre review process is not perfect due to crazy reviews criteria or reviewers just clicking (acepting/rejecting) randomly after some times... it is not SS falut at all, because if they really want to process (review) the big number of images they are processing now the quality of review process will be poor...
Reupload the images, i promise you it will be accepted ;)
"It is not SS fault at all"
Of course it is they opened the flood gates to all sorts of rubbish they reduced the entry criteria to allow any chimp with a camera to submit
So yes it is entirely their fault they did not put in place the resources to cope with the unending sea of cr-ap that they allowed in.
Well, i just work in information processing and i know how difficult is to non-automaticatly process this big volume of infromation without losing quality in the process, it is almost imposible...
I have no intention of defending them...
-
Is this over or under exposed?
Check the histogram. I always make sure that the whites aren't blown out, or the blacks crushed. As for rejections, I haven't gotten any rejections, except for one batch ("out of focus") which when resubmitted were all accepted.
-
Eventually I did resubmit all ten photos without changes and they were all accepted.. There was nothing clipping in histogram which I allways check, so it seems it was just a reviewer who needs to get laid :-D thanks for your comments guys
-
Is this over or under exposed?
overexposed
poor composition
washed out colors
incorrect white balance
-
Is this over or under exposed?
Over
To be gentle let's call it "high-key"!
-
I wonder if the reviewers make more money if they issue more rejections? Hummm
I believe they are paid per image, so yes, taking a quick look and hitting the reject button takes way less time than actually inspecting the image at 100%. So the faster they go, the more images they inspect, the more $$ they make.
-
Well - after months with 100% acceptance, and years of 80% plus, I've just had 2 batches 100% rejected for under exposure! What the heck? They are NOT under exposed. I KNOW this! Assorted pics from assorted places in different light situations.
Maybe they have a newbie reviewer with a dodgy screen or something? Or a glitch on their auto software? MEGA irritating. And to really rub salt, each rejection came not once but 4 times!
It's a shambles.
The sales are barely worth submitting - let alone resubmitting.
Grrrrrr
Happy Monday!
Grrrrrr
Thre review process is not perfect due to crazy reviews criteria or reviewers just clicking (acepting/rejecting) randomly after some times... it is not SS falut at all, because if they really want to process (review) the big number of images they are processing now the quality of review process will be poor...
Reupload the images, i promise you it will be accepted ;)
Of course its their fault they own the process it is theirs and no one elses.
-
I believe they are paid per image, so yes, taking a quick look and hitting the reject button takes way less time than actually inspecting the image at 100%. So the faster they go, the more images they inspect, the more $$ they make.
5 cents per image
-
I wonder if the reviewers make more money if they issue more rejections? Hummm
I believe they are paid per image, so yes, taking a quick look and hitting the reject button takes way less time than actually inspecting the image at 100%. So the faster they go, the more images they inspect, the more $$ they make.
Although of course its even easier to hit the accept button......I think there is a severe QC control problem....experienced inspectors should be inspecting a sample depending on the "rating" of the inspector to keep them in line. I suspect 1,000s of images have been waved through by "rogue" inspectors. I expect a modern IT company is too hip to understand Statistical Control Charts and the like which have been around in manufacturing industry for about a century ;-)
-
I believe they are paid per image, so yes, taking a quick look and hitting the reject button takes way less time than actually inspecting the image at 100%. So the faster they go, the more images they inspect, the more $$ they make.
5 cents per image
We should all become inspectors. It pays more per image than some of the sites do! :)