MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Reviewers allergy or global trend?  (Read 18253 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 24, 2010, 23:09 »
0
For the last month my approval rate dropped at SS to 20% - I am submitting batches of 5, and pretty consistently get approved only 1. Approval rate on IS did not change. Is it me that cannot fit SS composition and lighting standards (majority of rejects), or others see something similar too?


« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2010, 23:26 »
0
Things are normal for me.  SS accepts everything, while IS accepts little more than half.  For what it's worth, the others seem to be the same as well... FT and DT taking about 90-95%, and the others taking everything (though that's hardly worth getting excited about considering the top 4 account for 90-95% of my sales).

« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2010, 01:56 »
0
For the last month my approval rate dropped at SS to 20% - I am submitting batches of 5, and pretty consistently get approved only 1. Approval rate on IS did not change. Is it me that cannot fit SS composition and lighting standards (majority of rejects), or others see something similar too?
Not at all. SS is 100-80% consistently, IS varies between 80-50%. It takes a while to find out what they want. In general it's clear (not necessarily high-key) in-focus shots with a simple and uncropped commercial concept. I still love to do other stuff, but I became very selective what to upload to microstock. Reviewers of both sites are strict, but they know their trade. With 20% acceptance on SS you should review your style, or better, post some examples of rejected shots.

lagereek

« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2010, 03:15 »
0
Nah,  its just crappy editing, summer-reviewers without the slightest know-how. I submitted an industrial shot with fog, smog, pollution, etc, etc, also blue toning for impact.
Reviewers comments:  poor lighting ( supposed to be since pollution) and this moron also tells me to WB a blue toning shot.
how about that?????????????????

« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2010, 04:11 »
0
Nah,  its just crappy editing, summer-reviewers without the slightest know-how. I submitted an industrial shot with fog, smog, pollution, etc, etc, also blue toning for impact.
Reviewers comments:  poor lighting ( supposed to be since pollution) and this moron also tells me to WB a blue toning shot.
how about that?????????????????

 The best laid plans o' mice and men often go awry.  . . . . . Robert Burns

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2010, 06:08 »
0
Nah,  its just crappy editing, summer-reviewers without the slightest know-how. I submitted an industrial shot with fog, smog, pollution, etc, etc, also blue toning for impact.
Reviewers comments:  poor lighting ( supposed to be since pollution) and this moron also tells me to WB a blue toning shot.
how about that?????????????????

This is a real problem on all agencies: I have the same issue with industrial pictures, brutalist/rationalist architecture, rainy days pictures... I came to the conclusion that microstock only wants positive, optimistic concepts and there's (almost) no room for the dark side which I like so much

apart from that - and apart from the occasional bad day (probably due to new reviewers) - I find SS reviews usually quite consistent and when they reject my photos I can accept there's a good reason

understanding rejections is a good way to improve for me
« Last Edit: June 25, 2010, 06:15 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2010, 07:23 »
0
Of the last 32 they took 7. I understood most of the rejects (old pics I have recently gotten around to keyword), but had expected to get maybe half of them approved.

« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2010, 07:37 »
0
I get some pretty puzzling rejections also from time to time from all the sites. Comments here are right about some reviewers not understanding the moodier lighted shots. In my case reviewers often reject perfectly exposed and white balanced shots in the direct Arizona sun. I don't think they've ever seen such intense light in that setting...so those rejections center around "improper lighting" reasons. So I tend not to even submit night, early morning, or mid day shots. And I think the "may not be proper white balance" is the catch-all rejection that is the easiest to cite to reject images they just don't like. I'd rather they say they are just not looking for that subject.

Best bet is to learn from all rejections and resubmit the same one from time to time in hopes of getting a better reviewer.

lagereek

« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2010, 08:52 »
0
Hell no!  in this age, pollution, toxic and global-warming sell like crazy!!  even within the RM sector, Ive had two really heavy industrial pollution shots thats sold, 11 times in the RM and thats within the last month and half.
For being RM, thats good.

Frankly, uploading during July and August just to bump into Mcdonald style reviewing,  no thanks.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2010, 08:55 by lagereek »

« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2010, 08:55 »
0
This is a real problem on all agencies: I have the same issue with industrial pictures, brutalist/rationalist architecture, rainy days pictures... I came to the conclusion that microstock only wants positive, optimistic concepts and there's (almost) no room for the dark side which I like so much

You are 100% right. I came to the same conclusion before, but even if they approve such an image it doesn't sell.


@UncleGene
Things are normal for me.

« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2010, 09:04 »
0
Best bet is to learn from all rejections and resubmit the same one from time to time in hopes of getting a better reviewer.

Personally I never resubmit the rejected image. If they don't like it...what is the point of resubmitting?
Also if you want to learn from the rejection why do you resubmit the same one?

« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2010, 09:20 »
0
Best bet is to learn from all rejections and resubmit the same one from time to time in hopes of getting a better reviewer.

Personally I never resubmit the rejected image. If they don't like it...what is the point of resubmitting?
Also if you want to learn from the rejection why do you resubmit the same one?

Exactly my point too... ;D

@ some previous participant in this discussion.. reviewers are human too.....i'm sure they work according to specified parameters set by the site... no point in insulting them... >:(

Patrick H.

« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2010, 11:05 »
0
For the last month my approval rate dropped at SS to 20% - I am submitting batches of 5, and pretty consistently get approved only 1. Approval rate on IS did not change. Is it me that cannot fit SS composition and lighting standards (majority of rejects), or others see something similar too?
Not at all. SS is 100-80% consistently, IS varies between 80-50%. It takes a while to find out what they want. In general it's clear (not necessarily high-key) in-focus shots with a simple and uncropped commercial concept. I still love to do other stuff, but I became very selective what to upload to microstock. Reviewers of both sites are strict, but they know their trade. With 20% acceptance on SS you should review your style, or better, post some examples of rejected shots.

See, that's the thing. If I upload people isolated on white, nothing "fancy", no shallow DOF, no special lighting, they snap it up. Objects, too. The problem with these is they don't sell this days - there are way too many of the same style and theme on every agency. You would think they would want to diversify their collections with more interesting shots - that, by the way, if you manage to get them through, sell like crazy. But no. They want the same stuff they have already crapload of. Why? - beats me, no logic here. They also lose customers looking for higher quality work to the "traditional" stock agencies. It's almost like they consciously decided they they will have only mundane, simple-to-shoot stuff, all-in-focus, straightforward lighting. I am getting more and more fed up with this myself - being selective what to upload to them is a good idea... Maybe I should concentrate on building up my Getty RM portfolio - never had a rejection there by the way, not even once. Plus you can get really creative with that, which is way more fun... Hmmm....

« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2010, 11:19 »
0

See, that's the thing. If I upload people isolated on white, nothing "fancy", no shallow DOF, no special lighting, they snap it up. Objects, too. The problem with these is they don't sell this days - there are way too many of the same style and theme on every agency. You would think they would want to diversify their collections with more interesting shots - that, by the way, if you manage to get them through, sell like crazy. But no. They want the same stuff they have already crapload of. Why? - beats me, no logic here. They also lose customers looking for higher quality work to the "traditional" stock agencies. It's almost like they consciously decided they they will have only mundane, simple-to-shoot stuff, all-in-focus, straightforward lighting. I am getting more and more fed up with this myself - being selective what to upload to them is a good idea... Maybe I should concentrate on building up my Getty RM portfolio - never had a rejection there by the way, not even once. Plus you can get really creative with that, which is way more fun... Hmmm....

See there's a reason why you are called the-wise. I couldn't agree more.

lagereek

« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2010, 11:20 »
0
For the last month my approval rate dropped at SS to 20% - I am submitting batches of 5, and pretty consistently get approved only 1. Approval rate on IS did not change. Is it me that cannot fit SS composition and lighting standards (majority of rejects), or others see something similar too?
Not at all. SS is 100-80% consistently, IS varies between 80-50%. It takes a while to find out what they want. In general it's clear (not necessarily high-key) in-focus shots with a simple and uncropped commercial concept. I still love to do other stuff, but I became very selective what to upload to microstock. Reviewers of both sites are strict, but they know their trade. With 20% acceptance on SS you should review your style, or better, post some examples of rejected shots.

See, that's the thing. If I upload people isolated on white, nothing "fancy", no shallow DOF, no special lighting, they snap it up. Objects, too. The problem with these is they don't sell this days - there are way too many of the same style and theme on every agency. You would think they would want to diversify their collections with more interesting shots - that, by the way, if you manage to get them through, sell like crazy. But no. They want the same stuff they have already crapload of. Why? - beats me, no logic here. They also lose customers looking for higher quality work to the "traditional" stock agencies. It's almost like they consciously decided they they will have only mundane, simple-to-shoot stuff, all-in-focus, straightforward lighting. I am getting more and more fed up with this myself - being selective what to upload to them is a good idea... Maybe I should concentrate on building up my Getty RM portfolio - never had a rejection there by the way, not even once. Plus you can get really creative with that, which is way more fun... Hmmm....

Yup!  I think its about time to concentrate on RM portfolios,  micro, RF, seems to be slipping, not much is working nowdays and as you say, any old generic rubbish is accepted almost as if the RM people are saying,  Look!  we want the creative stuff, you stick to the middle of the road.
might be a slight over the top but something fishy is going on.

« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2010, 15:10 »
0
This is a real problem on all agencies: I have the same issue with industrial pictures, brutalist/rationalist architecture, rainy days pictures... I came to the conclusion that microstock only wants positive, optimistic concepts and there's (almost) no room for the dark side which I like so much
Bingo! That's why I said in my earlier post I don't upload those on microstock any more.

« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2010, 15:30 »
0
See, that's the thing. If I upload people isolated on white, nothing "fancy", no shallow DOF, no special lighting, they snap it up. Objects, too. The problem with these is they don't sell this days - there are way too many of the same style and theme on every agency. You would think they would want to diversify their collections with more interesting shots - that, by the way, if you manage to get them through, sell like crazy. ... Maybe I should concentrate on building up my Getty RM portfolio - never had a rejection there by the way, not even once. Plus you can get really creative with that, which is way more fun... Hmmm....
But that was a bit the point. Give Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what's God's. My gloomy mystery stuff sells much better on iStock than on ShutterStock, by the way.


ap

« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2010, 16:23 »
0
My gloomy mystery stuff sells much better on iStock than on ShutterStock, by the way.

if they ever approve it.

since i've been uploading to zonar, which sells across three categories of micro, mid and macro with their partners, i've noticed they accept a lot more of the creative stuff i couldn't get through to the traditional micros. so, yes, plain old, boring, safe, vanilla stuff to micros and more interesting stuff to the macros. it's their loss.

« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2010, 16:30 »
0
Just had a batch where I had a 25% acceptance rate. Rather dismal I think.

« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2010, 17:58 »
0
Best bet is to learn from all rejections and resubmit the same one from time to time in hopes of getting a better reviewer.

Personally I never resubmit the rejected image. If they don't like it...what is the point of resubmitting?
Also if you want to learn from the rejection why do you resubmit the same one?

depends on the reason - i've been submitting India images of tribal markets and dawn on the ganges - mostly all editorial and accepted by SS; then a submission comes back with tthe same sort of images [very different shots], and they're rejected as being not editorial or not newsworthy.  these i definitely resubmit as they usually get accepted by the next reviewer.

for editorial in particular, there are many poorly trained reviewers who think the only editorial is breaking news

s

« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2010, 20:06 »
0
See, that's the thing. If I upload people isolated on white, nothing "fancy", no shallow DOF, no special lighting, they snap it up. Objects, too. The problem with these is they don't sell this days - there are way too many of the same style and theme on every agency. You would think they would want to diversify their collections with more interesting shots - that, by the way, if you manage to get them through, sell like crazy. ... Maybe I should concentrate on building up my Getty RM portfolio - never had a rejection there by the way, not even once. Plus you can get really creative with that, which is way more fun... Hmmm....
But that was a bit the point. Give Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what's God's. My gloomy mystery stuff sells much better on iStock than on ShutterStock, by the way.


Yeah, I know. I did get the point:) I wish I got it sooner tho. For some reason I kept expecting that with microstock industry maturing things will change - the prices would go up, they would have more qualified reviewers, they would want better and more creative images. I don't know why I expected that. The prices did go up just a tiny bit, but everything else remains the same. They stick with the same crowd-sourcing model that worked for them 5 years ago, and come to think of it, why wouldn't they. Ironically, on their best-seller list there are many artistic images that somehow got through - with color casts, lens flares, heavy processing. The buyers like them, but the average reviewer would never accept these. Why wouldn't they look at these and think - gee, this is actually selling well, maybe we should accept those too? I guess it's a limitation of this business model - if you pay reviewers too little, you have to give them very straightforward directions - color cast is bad, lens flare bad, blur is bad, etc. It takes a photography professional to see that image just "works". Considering that they receive loads of crap every day remaining a crowd-sourcing business and low image prices that even makes sense.
So ya, I agree, give them what they want if you don't want rejections. f/11 - f/16 is your friend, couple of softboxes for even lighting, simple of white background, nice pleasant-looking models - smiling and wearing pastel-colored clothes. You'll get these accepted. As to the sales, it's a different story:)

« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2010, 20:07 »
0
I've learned lots from rejections that has helped me in all my shooting. But after awhile you know that some rejections are pure subjective nonsense. Those that I've resubmitted with no change have been accepted nearly all of the time.



Best bet is to learn from all rejections and resubmit the same one from time to time in hopes of getting a better reviewer.

Personally I never resubmit the rejected image. If they don't like it...what is the point of resubmitting?
Also if you want to learn from the rejection why do you resubmit the same one?

lagereek

« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2010, 02:45 »
0
Im not interested in acceptance rate, etc, rejects goes with the territory. Admins in these Micros tend to take the reviewers decisions as final, i.e. they simply CANT be wrong, well imagine telling a contributor he has to adjust the White-Balance in a blue-toning conceptual shot???  i.e. he didnt like the toning, etc. I mean how crazy can it get?
I would be very interesting to know what formal training these guys have, if any?  they probably get thrown a bunch of softwares and programs and are told to "drag the pictures through these" and square-eyed they do, if the program says NO its a gonner, if the program says YES, even with cats, dogs and floiwers, its a YES!!!.
Bloody hell and this is what we invest our future in?

« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2010, 03:16 »
0
Im not interested in acceptance rate, etc, rejects goes with the territory. Admins in these Micros tend to take the reviewers decisions as final, i.e. they simply CANT be wrong, well imagine telling a contributor he has to adjust the White-Balance in a blue-toning conceptual shot???  i.e. he didnt like the toning, etc. I mean how crazy can it get? ...
Bloody hell and this is what we invest our future in?
Reality check. Those sites are not interested in your art, and not in you, and certainly not in your future. They are interested in sheer volume, 1-2-3 million extra per year, they are interested in their own future. They are interested in the commissions that come with it, the more, the merrier. If they lose great art that way, they don't care: it's just collateral damage, justified by a 1000 other plain well lit F16 shots that will make them more commissions.

Microstock is getting very conservative, it plays on proven concepts.
Try iStock: they became very open for more artsy creations and they promote those actively on their homepage. Not so surprisingly, they also pay their reviewers the best.
If that fails, get ready for RM.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2010, 03:19 by FD-regular »

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2010, 07:44 »
0
You would think they would want to diversify their collections with more interesting shots - that, by the way, if you manage to get them through, sell like crazy. But no. They want the same stuff they have already crapload of. Why? - beats me, no logic here. They also lose customers looking for higher quality work to the "traditional" stock agencies. It's almost like they consciously decided they they will have only mundane, simple-to-shoot stuff, all-in-focus, straightforward lighting.

Why? Pedantinc application of rules. I see the same issue every day in my other job (architect): the result is our cities are full of perfectly regular crappy buildings instead of great architecture.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2010, 07:49 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

lagereek

« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2010, 08:58 »
0
Im not interested in acceptance rate, etc, rejects goes with the territory. Admins in these Micros tend to take the reviewers decisions as final, i.e. they simply CANT be wrong, well imagine telling a contributor he has to adjust the White-Balance in a blue-toning conceptual shot???  i.e. he didnt like the toning, etc. I mean how crazy can it get? ...
Bloody hell and this is what we invest our future in?
Reality check. Those sites are not interested in your art, and not in you, and certainly not in your future. They are interested in sheer volume, 1-2-3 million extra per year, they are interested in their own future. They are interested in the commissions that come with it, the more, the merrier. If they lose great art that way, they don't care: it's just collateral damage, justified by a 1000 other plain well lit F16 shots that will make them more commissions.

Microstock is getting very conservative, it plays on proven concepts.
Try iStock: they became very open for more artsy creations and they promote those actively on their homepage. Not so surprisingly, they also pay their reviewers the best.
If that fails, get ready for RM.

Oh!  I know that, Im a sparkling Diamond at IS and an even more sparkling member of the Getty-RM since 93,  so frankly youre not telling me anything new but however I will give you that:
none of them is interested in quality, just volume, what a pitty and pretty strange there are any rejects at all really, considering " crap in, crap out".

best.

« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2010, 09:14 »
0
Not be an ass,  but i really can't relate to this thread... to me it always seemed reversed. My somewhat more 'special' stuff gets easier accepted than the typical stock things (which often come back as LCV, probably true these days too)  ???  I feel like now more than ever they ("they" being SS,iS, DT)  like the stuff that is a bit different.
My latest 4 accepted at SS are pretty dark and/or B/W stuff and you see enough others in newest too... strange everyone else seems to have such a different experience.


« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2010, 10:58 »
0
Not be an ass,  but i really can't relate to this thread... to me it always seemed reversed. My somewhat more 'special' stuff gets easier accepted than the typical stock things (which often come back as LCV, probably true these days too)  ???  I feel like now more than ever they ("they" being SS,iS, DT)  like the stuff that is a bit different.
My latest 4 accepted at SS are pretty dark and/or B/W stuff and you see enough others in newest too... strange everyone else seems to have such a different experience.

I think the point is people ARE trying to get non typical images through. They just can't get them past the reviewers. Most recently I had many rejections for not indicating a picture as an illustration. So the reviewer doesn't have the ability to distinguish a photograph from a illustration. Then there is the group of 4 images where the first two get rejected for noise and the second two get rejected for too many similars. Sorry I don't understand that at all. Many rejections for focus, on limited focus images where there is in fact a focal point and that focal point is where it should be. But the guy with the button went to the school of f/64 and couldn't image such a thing.

« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2010, 11:48 »
0
Most recently I had many rejections for not indicating a picture as an illustration. So the reviewer doesn't have the ability to distinguish a photograph from a illustration. Then there is the group of 4 images where the first two get rejected for noise and the second two get rejected for too many similars. Sorry I don't understand that at all. Many rejections for focus, on limited focus images where there is in fact a focal point and that focal point is where it should be. But the guy with the button went to the school of f/64 and couldn't image such a thing.

I hear you! SS is especially bad. I tried to complain, and they sent me snippets of the out-of-focus areas of the images (which all had a clearly defined focal point) and told me my images are blurry! I couldn't believe my eyes! Seriously -  how can you be in business for so long selling images and not understand  even the basic concepts of depth of field? Apparently, easy enough:)
Your example about "noise" and "too similar" rejections made me laugh out loud:)
I think we all see where this is all going... At some point I'll just stop submitting to some of the micros. You know what else is funny? I was invited to participate in a survey by SS as one of their best-selling photographers a little while ago. One of the main questions was "how can we attract more talented photographers to our site" and get more good images in their collection. I told them - identify people that are selling well and stop getting in their way. Train your reviewers to be photography professionals and to recognize good sellable images. So they spent money on that survey and are doing exactly opposite - turning people away. Money well spent!:) Well it's their choice.

« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2010, 11:52 »
0
Not be an ass,  but i really can't relate to this thread... to me it always seemed reversed. My somewhat more 'special' stuff gets easier accepted than the typical stock things (which often come back as LCV, probably true these days too)  ???  I feel like now more than ever they ("they" being SS,iS, DT)  like the stuff that is a bit different.
My latest 4 accepted at SS are pretty dark and/or B/W stuff and you see enough others in newest too... strange everyone else seems to have such a different experience.

We are talking here about the overall trend based on the reviews of thousands of images. Not to be an ass, but your "latest 4 accepted" does not statistically qualify:)

« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2010, 12:09 »
0
Not be an ass,  but i really can't relate to this thread... to me it always seemed reversed. My somewhat more 'special' stuff gets easier accepted than the typical stock things (which often come back as LCV, probably true these days too)  ???  I feel like now more than ever they ("they" being SS,iS, DT)  like the stuff that is a bit different.
My latest 4 accepted at SS are pretty dark and/or B/W stuff and you see enough others in newest too... strange everyone else seems to have such a different experience.

We are talking here about the overall trend based on the reviews of thousands of images. Not to be an ass, but your "latest 4 accepted" does not statistically qualify:)
Oh i know, and  never pretended they were, i usually also mention my port is small and not relevant for statistics (and thats why i also mentioned the newest too, as in newly accepted from others?). I can see what gets newly accepted on all sites and again, i can not relate to this thread. Especially iS seems very welcoming to 'different' stuff but i see it on SS as well, maybe less on DT.
I was merely pointing out i find it odd everyone seems to be agreeing on this. I can't,  so i posted my humble experience; i do NOT have the pretention, nor had the intention to say you're all wrong. I just assumed it would be ok to post how i see it, even if i'm "insignificant"?
« Last Edit: June 26, 2010, 12:12 by Artemis »

lagereek

« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2010, 12:49 »
0
Well to be fair, reviewers in the big 5 are in general good, cant complain really but theres got to be concistancy and know-how right across the board or else potential great sellers are lost at a loss for us and an even bigger loss for the agencies.
They have to look further then just technical stuff, etc or they will loose credibillity and once that happen the whole thing gets unsure and shakey.
I personally dont feel happy anymore uploading conceptual shots to SS and simply because these conceptuals have already been accepted by IS, FT, DT, etc.

They probably dont give a toss about threads like these but two years from now they would.

« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2010, 11:15 »
0
2/14 accepted on my last batch, annoying as it seems that they want all  the picture to be in focus.....
Will resubmit these pics in few months I guess.....

lagereek

« Reply #33 on: June 29, 2010, 12:43 »
0
2/14 accepted on my last batch, annoying as it seems that they want all  the picture to be in focus.....
Will resubmit these pics in few months I guess.....

Cant see the point in re-submitting really, once its a reject, thats it as far as Im concerned.

« Reply #34 on: June 29, 2010, 13:05 »
0
2/14 accepted on my last batch, annoying as it seems that they want all  the picture to be in focus.....
Will resubmit these pics in few months I guess.....

Cant see the point in re-submitting really, once its a reject, thats it as far as Im concerned.

Successive edits can go a couple of ways. If you took the selects of an edit and gave them to another editor then those selects to another editor etc. It's only a matter of time before no images were selected. Second way is to take the rejects of an edit and pass  those to another editor and then take those rejects and pass them to another etc. It is only a matter of time before all the images are selected. This guy is working the second method.

« Reply #35 on: June 29, 2010, 13:07 »
0
2/14 accepted on my last batch, annoying as it seems that they want all  the picture to be in focus.....
Will resubmit these pics in few months I guess.....

Cant see the point in re-submitting really, once its a reject, thats it as far as Im concerned.

Successive edits can go a couple of ways. If you took the selects of an edit and gave them to another editor then those selects to another editor etc. It's only a matter of time before no images were selected. Second way is to take the rejects of an edit and pass  those to another editor and then take those rejects and pass them to another etc. It is only a matter of time before all the images are selected. This guy is working the second method. I've known agencies to use the first and they are a real pain in the butt.

« Reply #36 on: June 29, 2010, 14:38 »
0
If you think that a picture has some sale potential at SS, then it is worth it, I am not talking about resubmitting everything although it is only a click with Isyndica:)


microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #37 on: June 30, 2010, 05:51 »
0
I'm sorry I have to disagree with my previous post - in which I basically said that  reviews were fair.

I had 100% rejections in my last 2 batches: either I became completely dumb - after 3 years and thousands of pictures accepted - or there's something going on; I can accept rejections but an entire batch rejected for the same reason (focus one time, composition the other time) is weird.

However, I am still confident that it's just a passing phase and things will return to normal, as it happened before.

Should it be a new, stricter policy instead... I would completely agree: quality over quantity would save us from submitting insane quantities of photos; but they should let us know in advance if this is the case
« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 06:34 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #38 on: June 30, 2010, 06:56 »
0
definitely something going on there....I am surprise not to see any thread about it on SS forum....

« Reply #39 on: June 30, 2010, 09:18 »
0
^^
I'll second that.
Something *is* happening and it affects both vectors and photos.
SS reviewers in summer holidays?

« Reply #40 on: June 30, 2010, 17:55 »
0
Last two batches of four photos were rejected 3/4...

All photos are approved on FT and IS...

Something is going on...

lagereek

« Reply #41 on: July 01, 2010, 01:23 »
0
Yep!  its called summer-stand-ins!  unqualified fellas, trainees,  who has great difficulty in separating a color-file from a B/W  shot.

It sure as hell gives a lot of confidance, doesnt it?

RacePhoto

« Reply #42 on: July 01, 2010, 12:44 »
0
Yep!  its called summer-stand-ins!  unqualified fellas, trainees,  who has great difficulty in separating a color-file from a B/W  shot.

It sure as hell gives a lot of confidance, doesnt it?

I thought it was just me. Now I have to try and make something decent, daylight, and see if it gets rejected for "artifacts at full size". I should know better than send in any Sunset image with silhouettes, they always get the boot.

« Reply #43 on: July 03, 2010, 09:31 »
0
As for me, I know something is wrong when IS accepts what SS rejects......
And that is whats been happening here....
Thinking of making a SS summer rejects folder and resubbing when things get back to normal....

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #44 on: July 04, 2010, 14:44 »
0
80% of my last two batches were approved - maybe a bit too early to draw statistical inference, but things may be returning to normal at SS

WarrenPrice

« Reply #45 on: July 04, 2010, 15:07 »
0
I was skeptical about this thread until my last batch.  WHAM!  Everything rejected???  It is being accepted at BigStock and at 123rf.  Still pending (of course) at Dreamstime. 

Maybe SS does have a summer allergy.   :P

lagereek

« Reply #46 on: July 05, 2010, 08:30 »
0
On a serious note!  from a business perspective, this is dreadful,  bad reviewing is liable to cost money, theres no time or place for dilletants that cant do their job properly.


« Reply #47 on: July 05, 2010, 11:55 »
0
There is one or more "phantom reviewers"...

Everything depend about his/their activity....

« Reply #48 on: July 05, 2010, 12:06 »
0
My theory:
If a reviewer rejects an image for whatever reason it is not likely to reflect badly on them with their bosses. Few submitters will challenge the rejection through normal channels even though they may re-submit it later unchanged and have it accepted by a different reviewer. So the rejections slither under the radar with management. From an employees point of view it's safer to have a higher reject rate rather than being called on the carpet for accepting an image that may have had some debatable flaw.

The other element is a reviewer's time. I bet rejections take less time to process thus earnings are higher with more rejections. Human nature being what it is. Again, my theory.

RacePhoto

« Reply #49 on: July 05, 2010, 14:02 »
0


Yup!  I think its about time to concentrate on RM portfolios,  micro, RF, seems to be slipping, not much is working nowdays and as you say, any old generic rubbish is accepted almost as if the RM people are saying,  Look!  we want the creative stuff, you stick to the middle of the road.
might be a slight over the top but something fishy is going on.

I started concentrating on Editorial two years ago and started cutting Micro RF sites as they reached payout. I'm still happy with SS and IS RF returns, the rest need to go. (personal view, some may do fine with RF people on white. I never shot any of those.)

« Reply #50 on: July 06, 2010, 11:35 »
0
Its a subjective game and always a crap shoot for me.  For example,  I had a couple of recent  shoots.  Whittled the 600 pics to about 20.  Cleaned them up and key-worded.  Split those into two folders of somewhat similar subjects so that each submission did not seem to duplicative.  Same Quality, Similar Composition, Same camera, same lenses, similar camera settings.  The first batch was 30% accepted, the second batch 100% accepted.  The only real difference was one was submitted on a weekday and the other on a weekend.

It used to bother me but I think that this is just the nature of microsctock and we need to get over it.   There are lots of reviewers and they have good days and bad days like the rest of us. 

lagereek

« Reply #51 on: July 06, 2010, 12:28 »
0
Good days and bad days??  doesnt sound very business like to me!  Its a business and bad days cost us money, even more for the agencies. I do dayrate shooting, funny if I were to present some shots to an Art-director explaining, sorry pal but I had a bad day but Im still invoicing.

« Reply #52 on: July 06, 2010, 19:39 »
0
Its a subjective game and always a crap shoot for me.  For example,  I had a couple of recent  shoots.  Whittled the 600 pics to about 20.  Cleaned them up and key-worded.

  Split those into two folders of somewhat similar subjects so that each submission did not seem to duplicative.  Same Quality, Similar Composition, Same camera, same lenses, similar camera settings.  The first batch was 30% accepted, the second batch 100% accepted.  The only real difference was one was submitted on a weekday and the other on a weekend.


So, 100% approval was on weekday or weekend?  The discrepancy ?

WarrenPrice

« Reply #53 on: July 08, 2010, 16:36 »
0
Incredible.  My images are being reviewed faster at BigStock and 123RF than at Shutterstock.  And, more are being approved.  Only Dreamstime is slower ... and, even their approval rate is higher.

Go figure?   ??? ???

« Reply #54 on: July 17, 2010, 15:44 »
0
Rejections continue kinda abusive I think... they've changed something.. probably like you said, summer time and all the regular reviewers are on vacation...

« Reply #55 on: August 03, 2010, 13:06 »
0
I've just had 14 pictures rejected on 16! that's the first time in three years. Usually I have 90% acceptation.
13 was rejected for out of focus, even the wide angle shots at f10 and more.
There's really a big problem among reviewers this summer, usually reviews take only one day in July/august for shutterstock, this year 3/4 days.

« Reply #56 on: August 05, 2010, 10:06 »
0
new batch and always the same!!
Now they don't accept any pictures with buildings, i've send photos with petronas tower and they say "Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement" !!!!!
Dreamstime accepted 99% of the same batches...
I think stopping uploading to shutter till september.
Nobody talk about that on shutter forum, all they can write is "thanks shutter, it's wonderful" ... :'( 


« Reply #57 on: August 05, 2010, 10:23 »
0
I've just started a post on shutterstock  forum, you can participate if you like:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1486465#1486465

« Reply #58 on: August 05, 2010, 13:48 »
0
new batch and always the same!!
Now they don't accept any pictures with buildings, i've send photos with petronas tower and they say "Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement" !!!!!
Dreamstime accepted 99% of the same batches...
I think stopping uploading to shutter till september.
Nobody talk about that on shutter forum, all they can write is "thanks shutter, it's wonderful" ... :'( 

I agree completely about their paranoia about trademark or copyright infringement. Anything made by man is, of its nature, a design of someone's. The easy way is to make editorial of it, EXCEPT . . . SS doesn't really know or appreciate what editorial is. They think it must be, in their opinion, NEWSWORTHY. So most of the great photojournalism of our time, commenting on social conditions and what have you, would not be accepted. Sorry, Gene Smith, sorry Mary Ellen Mark, your stuff just isn't newsworthy! If you want editorial accepted be sure to shoot sports or a train wreck.

« Reply #59 on: August 06, 2010, 00:42 »
0
It never ceases to amaze me which photos are accepted and which rejected by the various companies.

SS rejected my top 5 best selling images (on DT) - all for the same reason (focus not where they think it should be).   And DT surprised me by recently rejecting a couple of photos (for that same reason - focus and/or composition) - but SS accepted them.  And they've become top sellers for me on SS.  In fact, I just sold my very first EL today  ;D on SS, for one of those images DT rejected.
 
I've stopped trying to make sense of it.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
38 Replies
10965 Views
Last post June 13, 2007, 21:56
by Peiling
17 Replies
4898 Views
Last post February 03, 2008, 10:49
by epixx
11 Replies
5182 Views
Last post October 15, 2008, 22:15
by Lee Torrens
59 Replies
10332 Views
Last post May 28, 2009, 18:12
by m@m
4 Replies
1169 Views
Last post August 29, 2013, 20:01
by cathyslife

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results