MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: NitorPhoto on January 11, 2010, 04:56

Title: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: NitorPhoto on January 11, 2010, 04:56
I am shocked. I got these images rejected at SS by Limited Commercial Value. What????!!!

Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: Microbius on January 11, 2010, 05:08
yep, looks like a mistake to me. Those shots are microstock bread and butter. I would probably just resubmit them.
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: Ploink on January 11, 2010, 05:11
yep, looks like a mistake to me. Those shots are microstock bread and butter. I would probably just resubmit them.
What he said - someone definitely clicked the wrong button :o
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: NitorPhoto on January 11, 2010, 05:16
I don't think he did. While my rejection at SS is about 0% he rejected a lot of other images by artifacts (1dsmk3) poor ligting, purple fingering... etc. This is very subjective so I am not showing that images here, but of course I checked all the rejected images again. No artifacts, no purple fingering. He seems to be a moron or maybe just drunk?
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: Xalanx on January 11, 2010, 05:17
Attila is at SS right now, that's whats happening. A friend of mine just had some studio images rejected for focus. He's a long time photographer and is using 1Ds3 and only L glass.
I also have some files under review right now and I can say I'm a little nervous...
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: Microbius on January 11, 2010, 05:34
I don't think he did. While my rejection at SS is about 0% he rejected a lot of other images by artifacts (1dsmk3) poor ligting, purple fingering... etc. This is very subjective so I am not showing that images here, but of course I checked all the rejected images again. No artifacts, no purple fingering. He seems to be a moron or maybe just drunk?

That could be another explanation
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: adimage on January 11, 2010, 05:35
I'm the friend and this came as a big surprise to me, probably I will resubmit those.

The rejected shots are made in the studio, at f/8 - f/11, perfectly focused, and the message is "Focus--Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best.". Yeah, sure...
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: borg on January 11, 2010, 06:12
It must be the work of phantom reviewer on SS...

Someone there sometimes reject everything...
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: sharpshot on January 11, 2010, 06:43
Reviews are so quick at the moment, upload them while Attila is sleeping it off and they should go through.  I find most of the SS reviewers are very lenient.  The main problem I have with them is that they don't like shallow focus, even if it works well.  "Purple fingering" made me LOL, never had one rejected for that before :)
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: Xalanx on January 11, 2010, 07:27
My photos went thru, 100%. Sweet dreams, Attila...
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 11, 2010, 09:38
I never believe claims about focus being spot on, without an example posted :) .
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: Giuseppe Parisi on January 11, 2010, 09:53
Well that review is completely out of this world... those DO have a high commercial value. That reviewer should be "reviewed" for sure!
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: willie on January 11, 2010, 11:54
YET ANOTHER BLATANT EXAMPLE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST and why contributors should not be reviewers .

what the reviewer actually meant is :

if i approved these awesome shots, you will be LIMITing my own COMMERCIAL
earnings of my own portfolio. This is a big threat to me, as you will affect the VALUE of my future earning.

so, yes, they do have LIMITED COMMERCIAL VALUE...  ;)

p.s.
if i were you, i'd raised one helluva stinker on SS. and maybe get them to fire this reviewer, and any others doing the same abuse of power.
failing that, if SS think it's not COI, i'd drop SS like a hot brick, no matter how much money they make for me.

Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: KB on January 11, 2010, 12:38
Yeah, I've got to agree.

I've seen a lot of rejections posted, and received my own fair share of odd ones, but these are the most outrageous ever.

Limited commercial value?  What a joke! Honestly, the most ridiculous example of reviewer idiocy I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: Digital66 on January 11, 2010, 12:46
YET ANOTHER BLATANT EXAMPLE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST and why contributors should not be reviewers .


SS reviewers are also contributors?    Do all agencies do that?

Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: Digital66 on January 11, 2010, 12:47
I am shocked. I got these images rejected at SS by Limited Commercial Value. What????!!!

That's ridiculous!   Resubmit them.
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: willie on January 11, 2010, 21:00
YET ANOTHER BLATANT EXAMPLE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST and why contributors should not be reviewers .
SS reviewers are also contributors?    Do all agencies do that?

yes, and yes. 
in most cases, there is no problem of COI . but as much as we all hate to admit, or is too afraid to do so, in this case, it's obvious that we have a rogue reviewer who cannot be objective.
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: Agnesh on January 12, 2010, 04:21
SS reviewers are also contributors?    Do all agencies do that?

yes, and yes. 

Are you absolutely sure? - I never came across such information. Or is it only your suspicions?

And in general, is there any way of changing SS decisions about images but resubmitting them?
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: sgcallaway1994 on January 12, 2010, 07:53
I don't understand and am so very frustrated.  I keep getting EVERY image reviewed DENIED because of focus!!!!  This has never happened before.  I look at all my photos at 100%.  I just don't see it.  These are portrait pictures, headshots, etc.  Some photos of animals, where I always take care to place the focus on the eyes.  Geez!  I'm dying here, please, someone, anyone, let me know when does Atilla sleep, I need to get some photos approved!!!!???

Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: willie on January 12, 2010, 10:22
SS reviewers are also contributors?    Do all agencies do that?

yes, and yes. 

Are you absolutely sure? - I never came across such information. Or is it only your suspicions?

And in general, is there any way of changing SS decisions about images but resubmitting them?

it's no secret that there are contributors who moonlight as reviewers.
as i said, in most cases, i don't have any objections to this loophole of Conflict of Interest, as most reviewers are able to set aside their own interest when they do their job as reviewers.
but there are times when we see something like this happening when a rejection judgement is glaringly one of conflict of interest, any idiot will know it has to be due to the fact that the reviewer is either a contributor or related to a contributor with such a portfolio.

if i am wrong, feel free to consider me an idiot.
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: Danicek on January 12, 2010, 10:30
This really sounds like too wild a theory to me. The above shots are very well covered subject. I doubt any reviewer would reject them to protect their portfolio when there are hundreds, thousands other competing image. It would not make any difference.

Wrong button or some other reason (like being in bad mood) sound much more realistically to me. Obviously the reason given for the rejection is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: willie on January 12, 2010, 10:35
I don't understand and am so very frustrated.  I keep getting EVERY image reviewed DENIED because of focus!!!!  This has never happened before.  I look at all my photos at 100%.  I just don't see it.  These are portrait pictures, headshots, etc.  Some photos of animals, where I always take care to place the focus on the eyes.  Geez!  I'm dying here, please, someone, anyone, let me know when does Atilla sleep, I need to get some photos approved!!!!???



there is a certain reviewer who will reject you for "out of focus" in images with selective focus;
"lens flare" in images for highkey; and "noise and artifact" or "damaged pixels"(lol) in images of materials like velcro, corduroy, wool.
i've had some rejections in the past with such reviewers.
i don't bother trying to appeal, as it takes more energy out of my to appeal then to simply
ignore that site, and upload those images to the other Big 6.
and yes, in many cases, they get approved by the other Big 6 because a reviewer knew better.

the only time i would "appeal" a rejection is with IS when the reviewer specifies a certain condition in my rejected image. i correct that condition, and RESUBMIT. this almost always get me an approval rather quickly.

but that's not to say there are no COI reviewers in Istock. hell, yes, there is one there too,  you can't keep away those rogue reviewers, they're everywhere, and will continue to proliferate until someone points them out.

i know Achilles is highly adamant to ensure that no rogue reviewers work for him. so  i think , at least, with DT in 2010, we can be confident the reviewers will be less inclined to abuse with conflict of interest there.
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: Dook on January 12, 2010, 12:08
I am shocked. I got these images rejected at SS by Limited Commercial Value. What????!!!

That's ridiculous!   Resubmit them.
Resubmitting to SS is not very good idea. You can get warning9 or something) for that, if they find out.
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: willie on January 12, 2010, 12:13
I am shocked. I got these images rejected at SS by Limited Commercial Value. What????!!!

That's ridiculous!   Resubmit them.
Resubmitting to SS is not very good idea. You can get warning9 or something) for that, if they find out.
not if you make some slight changed to the shot.
cc. or even cropping, or even flipping them   ;)

the idea being that this could end up in the hands of another reviewer the next time, one who is not  bias  ;)
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: NitorPhoto on January 18, 2010, 05:05
The story continues.  All of the images below have been rejected with the same reason. Composition--Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition.

... and more but I can't attach more. I am thinking on to contact SS support.
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: RT on January 18, 2010, 05:35
You've clearly upset someone in the SS reviewing dept.
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: NitorPhoto on January 18, 2010, 05:56
What is strange because I never complained there or posted anything on their forum. But very soon I will.
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: RT on January 18, 2010, 06:37
You should definitely contact support because I can't believe that even the most inexperienced reviewer on SS would think these are LCV, which only means there's some technical issue involved. Mind you I contacted SS support last week over a rejection which was down to the reviewers lack of knowledge and I haven't heard back from them.

The only worthy site I know that allows their reviewers the option to add a personalised message is iS, shame the others only allow their reviewers simple one button presses it must create a lot more work for their support staff.

Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: cathyslife on January 18, 2010, 07:28
Rather than just complain here and turn this into a pimping thread, just contact support.

One batch of 6 or 7 I submitted a month or so ago all got rejected for the focus thing. I went back and reviewed them all. Focus was exactly where I intended and I wrote support. They wrote back and apologized and said that even reviewers are human. They sent them back to the reviewer and approved them all.

Limited commercial value...it could just be the same problem. New reviewer. Contact support and explain why you think they should be approved.

Another option is to just stop uploading for a while until the dust settles. Basic Microstock Strategies 101.
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: RT on January 18, 2010, 08:11
Rather than just complain here and turn this into a pimping thread, just contact support.

I think that's a bit unfair, I wouldn't describe it as pimping they've given some examples to support the thread they've started and the images don't link to a portfolio they just show the site name which is in the thread title anyway and the OP doesn't post any referral links, I guarantee you that if the thread had been started without an example of the images involved there would have been numerous requests to post examples.

And should this be the result of a new reviewer thinking images like this are LCV that is something I would definitely like to hear about!
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: cathyslife on January 18, 2010, 09:06
Quote
I think that's a bit unfair, I wouldn't describe it as pimping

I guess my opinion is that a couple of examples would have gotten the message across. In fact the first four posted got the message across. Everyones opinion, including mine, is that they ARE of commercial value, but 4 more similars got posted. And the poster said he was going to attach more, but was limited.

No one here can do anything about it but confirm that we agree they are definitely of commercial value. It would be better to post them on the shutterstock forum for critiques, too, and as a couple of people said, including me, contact support, there is obviously a mistake.

Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 18, 2010, 09:19
You can't really "pimp" what isn't on a site for sale.

Agreed, those last four are pretty good!
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: cathyslife on January 18, 2010, 09:25
Quote
You can't really "pimp" what isn't on a site for sale.

I beg to differ. They aren't for sale here, but people can certainly follow his trail to find them.
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: cdwheatley on January 18, 2010, 09:31
Just ignore the rejection and re-upload. It's obvious someone has some personal issues.
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: melking on January 18, 2010, 10:02
Just re-upload with a note and contact support

[email protected]

Melissa
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: NitorPhoto on January 18, 2010, 10:33
Rather than just complain here and turn this into a pimping thread, just contact support.

One batch of 6 or 7 I submitted a month or so ago all got rejected for the focus thing. I went back and reviewed them all. Focus was exactly where I intended and I wrote support. They wrote back and apologized and said that even reviewers are human. They sent them back to the reviewer and approved them all.

Limited commercial value...it could just be the same problem. New reviewer. Contact support and explain why you think they should be approved.

Another option is to just stop uploading for a while until the dust settles. Basic Microstock Strategies 101.

It is not really clear why and how could I get any extra profit from pimping and having my portfolio found and viewed by other photographers. Do you really think I fall back on technics like that?

The reason why I posted more images is simple. Everyone can have a bad day, even the reviewers, but some time has passed and the reviewer is still rejecting images he shouldn't. These are completely different kind of images and it tells the story I think. I don't contact support yet, I don't want to make a case or hurt anyone, before I can know it for sure it is not my fault. But first I try to reupload them all. If he/she rejects them again I'll contact support.
By the way, I reuploaded one of the original 4 and he rejected it again.
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: cathyslife on January 18, 2010, 10:37
Quote
I don't contact support yet, I don't want to make a case or hurt anyone, before I can know it for sure it is not my fault.

You can't just keep uploading without contacting support. If you keep doing that, they will not allow you to upload any more.

<sigh>I give up.<sigh>
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: NitorPhoto on January 18, 2010, 18:05
I already have near 7000 images uploaded to SS with a virtually 100% acceptance rate so I do not think some rejections will hurt my account there :) These strange rejections are a very new phenomenon, and it is annoying, but they still accept most of my submissions.  I started reuploading the rejected images to get a second opinion from a hopefully different reviewer. Let's see what happens. If they will be rejected again I'll know enough to complain by email.
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: Artemis on January 18, 2010, 18:18
...

The only worthy site I know that allows their reviewers the option to add a personalised message is iS, shame the others only allow their reviewers simple one button presses it must create a lot more work for their support staff.


I don't think that's correct. I've had personal messages more than once on Shutterstock as well :) Admitted it is rather rare, but it definitely happens there.
(a little while ago there was a post in the forums there about a comment one of the reviewers added, dont recall exactly but it was like "thanks for the laugh, made my day" or something in that nature.)
Title: Re: Limited Commercial Value
Post by: willie on January 18, 2010, 18:22
you already have many helpful comments here and from even one astute top seller.
i think it's also not a good idea to simply re-upload again without at least contacting support, as some sites do penalize you for re-uploading a rejected image that is not set for CAN RESUBMIT. 
furthermore, this is not IS, so i am not even sure if you will get any recourse from Support either, as i remember once a long time ago i got something like "we don't get involved with a reviewer's decision", or words to that effect.

it's a pity though, as these images do have CV and i too feel you got the short end , probably by some reviewer who had a personal vendetta on you. (ok, maybe not, as i don't want to bring up the conspiracy theory).

maybe it was the xmas help, as i did receive some truly ununsual rejections during the christmas hols, which i simply ignore as just that.  the evidence to my support of this being, i no longer get any more such rejections as soon as the hols were over.

lastly, it sounds like maybe you're trying to beat a dead horse.
maybe just leave it, chill, and after a few months, try a resubmit.
hopefully the rogue reviewer may be more trained to recognize the CV  by then  ;)