Author Topic: Rejections are becoming absurd! (Read 20018 times)

wut · « **on:** June 07, 2012, 14:35 »

Since you had to mess up the thread it got locked http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss's-flatabsurd-rejections-is-is-that-time-of-the-year-again/ so I have to open a new one.

What I wanted to say, this is getting * ridiculous. I can't get anything accepted over there. Perfectly good images rejected all the time, accepted everywhere else, most batches at 100%! Atila the noun (or something like that) is supposed to be back, I couldn't stand her/him already in this forum and I didn't know he/she is a SS inspector. Their recent reviewing standards are the lowest, as in worst in the industry. Be strict, but don't reject the whole batch for focus issues since they're tack sharp at 100%. With such reviewing policy, they won't last long on the top, they'll simply run out of the best, new material, library will get old. From what I've heard they're deliberately letting only crap through. And it looks like that if you search by age. I'm so * pissed off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #1 on:** June 07, 2012, 17:36 »

Better to be pissed off then pissed on

And i didn't do anything everyone else did and Leaf locked it not me!

wut · « **Reply #2 on:** June 07, 2012, 17:41 »

Yeah at least something.

Well I just wanted to say why I opened a new thread, to not be asked why I'm opening another, constantly complaining or whatever. I'd prefer to post in the old, because there were many posts related to the problem there. But of course at the end there were many off topic posts and arguing and Leaf what he thought was best (perhaps deleting the posts and kicking troublemakers out of the thread would be better, but I don't think Leaf even has that option installed)

icefront · « **Reply #3 on:** June 07, 2012, 18:06 »

I have a strong feeling that "out of focus" is the first item in the dropdown list...

traveler1116 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 07, 2012, 18:10 »

http://www.microstockgroup.com/photo-critique/
Here is the photo critique section of the forum, post your images with 100% crops and maybe you can get some help.

MatHayward · « **Reply #5 on:** June 07, 2012, 18:12 »

We must be getting different reviewers because I would guesstimate my acceptance rate at well over 90% there. Why don't you post a couple of examples of rejected images here and we can give you some feedback.

I have found Shutterstock to be a very fair company. It's hard to look at your own work with impartial eyes. If you didn't think it was great you probably wouldn't have submitted it right?

wut · « **Reply #6 on:** June 07, 2012, 18:42 »

Indeed. Except for, I have an AR of 90% as well, for at least over a year at SS. And IS. And I guess it's around 95% at DT and FT. The problem is, the same thing is happening as last year, they started with unjust(ified) rejections, with no grounds whatsoever. The most reasonable explanation is that some students either without a clue or with some issues are doing it (could be, as I already said and some others have to, to reduce competition, rejecting good, selling files, no one will buy $hit anyway). I mean the time is right, summer time 2nd year in a row.

And I get your point about showing some samples. I'd be skeptical about taking someone's word, who I don't know if he's even a half decent tog, for granted. But what would be the point of being anonymous then? Anyone, or more importantly any agency can just image.google your a$$ . So you'll either have to believe me I'm half decent, at least that much to be able to tell if a photo is sharp at 100% or just dismiss me as a total wanker

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #7 on:** June 07, 2012, 19:23 »

Quote from: wut on June 07, 2012, 18:42

The problem is, the same thing is happening as last year, they started with unjust(ified) rejections, with no grounds whatsoever. The most reasonable explanation is that some students either without a clue or with some issues are doing it (could be, as I already said and some others have to, to reduce competition, rejecting good, selling files, no one will buy $hit anyway). I mean the time is right, summer time 2nd year in a row.

Absolutely true almost exactly one year ago to the day is when it started.

Quote from: wut on June 07, 2012, 18:42

And I get your point about showing some samples. I'd be skeptical about taking someone's word, who I don't know if he's even a half decent tog, for granted. But what would be the point of being anonymous then? Anyone, or more importantly any agency can just image.google your a$$ . So you'll either have to believe me I'm half decent, at least that much to be able to tell if a photo is sharp at 100% or just dismiss me as a total wanker

And i as well as others do most the critiquing over there and if it is OOF i will tell you plain and simple almost nothing that is OOF i cant see and i dont care about being anonymous because my avatar and username is the same here and there.

Here is what has been said about me.

Quote

God I am glad you are not a reviewer, we would never get anything accepted LOL.

Batman · « **Reply #8 on:** June 07, 2012, 20:24 »

Quote from: wut on June 07, 2012, 17:41

Yeah at least something.

Well I just wanted to say why I opened a new thread, to not be asked why I'm opening another, constantly complaining or whatever. I'd prefer to post in the old, because there were many posts related to the problem there. But of course at the end there were many off topic posts and arguing and Leaf what he thought was best (perhaps deleting the posts and kicking troublemakers out of the thread would be better, but I don't think Leaf even has that option installed)

Have a link to your ss photos? Oh wait you just want to complain and start threads. Ever notice how many of your threads get locked, there might be a hint in that. Show your pictures so we can see them or its all just complaining with no photos.

w7lwi · « **Reply #9 on:** June 07, 2012, 20:49 »

Actually Barry says everything is OOF. Almost as much as Jens used to say everything had noise.

wut · « **Reply #10 on:** June 08, 2012, 03:28 »

Quote from: Batman on June 07, 2012, 20:24

Quote from: wut on June 07, 2012, 17:41
Yeah at least something.

Well I just wanted to say why I opened a new thread, to not be asked why I'm opening another, constantly complaining or whatever. I'd prefer to post in the old, because there were many posts related to the problem there. But of course at the end there were many off topic posts and arguing and Leaf what he thought was best (perhaps deleting the posts and kicking troublemakers out of the thread would be better, but I don't think Leaf even has that option installed)

Have a link to your ss photos? Oh wait you just want to complain and start threads. Ever notice how many of your threads get locked, there might be a hint in that. Show your pictures so we can see them or its all just complaining with no photos.

Not a single one got locked because of me

. And also there weren't many of my threads locked at all. As I said, it's going to stay complaining without photos

Wim · « **Reply #11 on:** June 08, 2012, 03:58 »

Ya can't blame them for not trying

I reveal my identity only to Leaf and the Agency but I might put it up when I'm a more established contributor (in 25 years or so)

Leave it alone Wut, these kind of threads always seem to turn out the same way, no use because in the end it's a discussion (flaming) between us contributors instead of agency/contributors.

Take care and have a good weekend all!

ps. Wut, Leaf, where do you guys come up with these names anyway, I feel like a bloody kid replying to those names, WHY CAN'T PEOPLE USE NORMAL NICKNAMES!!! haha

heywoody · « **Reply #12 on:** June 08, 2012, 04:11 »

Quote from: icefront on June 07, 2012, 18:06

I have a strong feeling that "out of focus" is the first item in the dropdown list...

Yeah, if they are being accepted at IS it's unlikely there are actual technical issues - more likely a case of SS feeling they have the subject matter well covered

wut · « **Reply #13 on:** June 08, 2012, 04:17 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 08, 2012, 04:11

Quote from: icefront on June 07, 2012, 18:06
I have a strong feeling that "out of focus" is the first item in the dropdown list...
Yeah, if they are being accepted at IS it's unlikely there are actual technical issues - more likely a case of SS feeling they have the subject matter well covered

Well I guarantee you that my last batch isn't well covered, there's probably just a handful of shots of that type and the photos are not of that type that no one needs (but of course demand is not big either). It could be with my other batches, but I think they should reject bad shots of ppl on white, in fact most ppl on white, not to mention frutis and vegetables. And you can still see tons of those coming in, usually in batches of 30+, so at least 5x too many images in a batch. And no designers don't need so many angles, or else ppl with ports of 5k would be earning 10k+, instead of 1-2k or even less

Colette · « **Reply #14 on:** June 08, 2012, 04:44 »

Are you sure the rejection is only OOF?
To me it is always: “Your image is out of focus OR FOCUS IS NOT WHERE WE FEEL IT WORKS BEST.”
And this last part can mean everything. No matter if an image is made with F1.8 or with F16.

I believe you when you say your images are sharp, but if THEY FEEL that the focus is not where it works best….
“We feel” is so subjective that it can’t even be discussed.

ShadySue · « **Reply #15 on:** June 08, 2012, 05:01 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 08, 2012, 04:11

Quote from: icefront on June 07, 2012, 18:06
I have a strong feeling that "out of focus" is the first item in the dropdown list...
Yeah, if they are being accepted at IS it's unlikely there are actual technical issues.

OTOH, I've had camera club judges questioning the focus of images I've had accepted at iStock, sized down to 1400x1050 for projection

(But in fact in both cases, fellow club members have, unasked, told me they thought the focus was fine!)

One thing I will throw in. I thought I was having focus issues with all my equipment recently. Was totally cracking up. But I'm now pretty sure it was my change of glasses. I'd had my old ones for too long, and was sitting with my face about 9" away from the monitor. Rightin the 'bad for your back' position. When I got my new glasses, I was still sitting in that position, and I'm still finding it hard to fight the 'muscle memory', but that clearly isn't 'correct viewing distance'. When I sit back, the focus is correct. Or it may just be the different size/shape of the frames is shifting where the varifocal areas are.
So maybe Atilla the Reviewer is sitting too close, or too far away, for their eyes.

But as you won't post your pics, we'll never know.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #16 on:** June 08, 2012, 09:23 »

Here is a thread i started about soft focus issues and reviewers it really explains it and what a reviewer may be doing when he looks at an image and says OOF. Try it yourself and you will see it.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=122395&start=0

Microbius · « **Reply #17 on:** June 08, 2012, 09:43 »

What has that got to with reviewers? are you saying that they would be reviewing using a web browser set at a higher than 100% zoom?

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #18 on:** June 08, 2012, 10:43 »

Quote from: Microbius on June 08, 2012, 09:43

What has that got to with reviewers? are you saying that they would be reviewing using a web browser set at a higher than 100% zoom?

You got it what if they are reviewing at a larger resolution then 100% screen view which then makes the image go OOF or soft? We have no idea but it is a possibility.

JPSDK · « **Reply #19 on:** June 08, 2012, 10:53 »

Quote from: w7lwi on June 07, 2012, 20:49

Actually Barry says everything is OOF. Almost as much as Jens used to say everything had noise.

Everything does have noise!

Now to the OP. Stop whining or let us see a couple of 100% pictures.

w7lwi · « **Reply #20 on:** June 08, 2012, 10:57 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 08, 2012, 10:43

Quote from: Microbius on June 08, 2012, 09:43
What has that got to with reviewers? are you saying that they would be reviewing using a web browser set at a higher than 100% zoom?
You got it what if they are reviewing at a larger resolution then 100% screen view which then makes the image go OOF or soft? We have no idea but it is a possibility.

Several years ago it was pretty much accepted that IS was reviewing some images, particularly isolations, at greater than 100%. Whether that is still the case or not I don't know.

w7lwi · « **Reply #21 on:** June 08, 2012, 10:58 »

Quote from: JPSDK on June 08, 2012, 10:53

Quote from: w7lwi on June 07, 2012, 20:49
Actually Barry says everything is OOF. Almost as much as Jens used to say everything had noise.

Everything does have noise!

Now to the OP. Stop whining or let us see a couple of 100% pictures.

Hi Jens. Many of us still miss you on SS.

JPSDK · « **Reply #22 on:** June 08, 2012, 11:08 »

ja, and I miss SS, but they wont let me back.
Who are you!?

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #23 on:** June 08, 2012, 11:19 »

Quote from: JPSDK on June 08, 2012, 11:08

ja, and I miss SS, but they wont let me back.
Who are you!?

Not fair!

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #24 on:** June 08, 2012, 11:21 »

Jens are you allowed to read any of the threads or not?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Rejections are becoming absurd! (Read 20018 times)

wut

ruxpriencdiam

wut

icefront

traveler1116

MatHayward

wut

ruxpriencdiam

Batman

w7lwi

wut

Wim

heywoody

wut

Colette

ShadySue

ruxpriencdiam

Microbius

ruxpriencdiam

JPSDK

w7lwi

w7lwi

JPSDK

ruxpriencdiam

ruxpriencdiam

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors