MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Phadrea on December 02, 2010, 14:51

Title: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 02, 2010, 14:51
Ok, I thought a few images might get through the approval but all 10 were rejected !!!!! Soul destroying. Some on focus, the wrong type of focus, some not even a reason. Basicly a waste of time and I haven't the time to waste working out why AND I have to wait 30 days. I thought IS was bad enough. I know most are good images so I will try not to let it get to me. In fact, some they said were not saleable are my best selling on IS.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: traveler1116 on December 02, 2010, 14:55
No reason means they were accepted.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 02, 2010, 14:58
Next to them all it says "not approved"
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Danicek on December 02, 2010, 15:03
That's because your application was not approved. 7 out of the 10 have to be accepted for you to be accepted as contributor. If the reviewer gets to the 4th he would reject, he may not even look further. Conclusion - those without reason may or may not get accepted next time around.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: click_click on December 02, 2010, 15:06
Next to them all it says "not approved"

If 4 or more reason for rejections are given all other images might have been ok but your application is denied since you didn't make the 70% approval rate.

7 images out of ten have to have "no reason" to get you approved as a contributor.

It happens quite often that one image too much (4 images altogether) is the reason for a failed application. Simply pick new images for the ones with a rejection reason and re-upload the others without a reason next time.

Also, it could be of great help to post your initial ten images here in the critique forum. This way you can get some "damage control" by getting some feedback.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: click_click on December 02, 2010, 15:08
That's because your application was not approved. 7 out of the 10 have to be accepted for you to be accepted as contributor. If the reviewer gets to the 4th he would reject, he may not even look further. Conclusion - those without reason may or may not get accepted next time around.

OK, I might not be on top of this one but has this been confirmed that images without a reason have not been inspected?

Are only 4 images rejected without looking at the rest?

If so, that would be awfully complicated for new contributors to figure out what the issue is with their images in case they were never reviewed assuming they are ok.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 02, 2010, 15:10
Ok, It's perhaps not that bad then but the images do sell over yonder. The first 4 images in succession were rejections but lower down reasons were given for further rejections if that helps.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: click_click on December 02, 2010, 15:23
In many cases it helps a lot when new applicants just show theit initial images here in the critique forum or on the Shutterstock critique forum. This will save a lot of time and frustration.

I suggest you do the same to prevent a second rejection.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 02, 2010, 15:28
I don't know how to do that here.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: sc on December 02, 2010, 16:50
That's because your application was not approved. 7 out of the 10 have to be accepted for you to be accepted as contributor. If the reviewer gets to the 4th he would reject, he may not even look further. Conclusion - those without reason may or may not get accepted next time around.

That statement is wrong, They still review all the images. However even those that would have been approved by this reviewer may not be approved the 2nd time around by another reviewer. Best to submit 10 new images.
And you should post them either here or on the SS critique forum.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: heywoody on December 02, 2010, 17:33
I'm just astonished that stuff accepted on IS was rejected  :o
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: ShadySue on December 02, 2010, 17:40
I'm just astonished that stuff accepted on IS was rejected  :o
'twere ever thus. Even when I started on iStock, people were saying that each would accept material the other rejected.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: littleny on December 02, 2010, 22:08
i've had several rejections on my mission to get accepted as a contributor at SS.   had no problem at DT or Fotolia..
so this week i tried to put my attention on what exactly am i doing wrong and what exactly are they looking for.
i began randomly browsing people portfolios, sorting from the oldest to most recent.  i am AMAZED at some of the stuff thats in there.  those brilliantly set up shots we see on the front pages were no where to be found.  for the most part, i found drab images that i cant believe have any commercial value.  i found soooo many shots with horrid lighting mistakes..awful shadows and highlights.  i found tons of shots with shallow dof in annoying areas;  meanwhile i've been having my work critiqued and have become obsessive with getting perfect dof/focus.  i saw a shot of an undramatic sky with a powerline not cloned out...
soooo what????????????? 
apparently the bar has been raised in the last year or so.. because a lot of this older stuff is shameful.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Blufish on December 02, 2010, 22:16
The bar has been raised considerably over the past few years. The older images were ok in their day I suppose. It has been talked about having the sites "clean house" but it doesn't happen. And contributors don't do it either. So here we are.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: shiyali on December 02, 2010, 23:48
The bar has been raised considerably over the past few years. The older images were ok in their day I suppose. It has been talked about having the sites "clean house" but it doesn't happen. And contributors don't do it either. So here we are.

Funny thing is, the old stuff sells, and not just once but again and again. Apparently it is good enough for the buyers.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: microstockphoto.co.uk on December 03, 2010, 01:59
The bar has been raised considerably over the past few years. The older images were ok in their day I suppose. It has been talked about having the sites "clean house" but it doesn't happen. And contributors don't do it either. So here we are.

Funny thing is, the old stuff sells, and not just once but again and again. Apparently it is good enough for the buyers.

Not everything accepted by a site is good, not everything rejected is bad.
There are technically perfect useless pictures which nobody buys, and slightly noisy pictures which are perfectly useable.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Blufish on December 03, 2010, 03:37
I had that thought in my mind when I typed, but my fingers didn't follow through :P
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 03, 2010, 03:54
Thats my point exactly. If you have a good shot that isn't 100% sharp but works as an image on an artistic level, that should be the criteria. Like I mentioned above, the images they rejected sell well on IS so I am not going to beat myself up about it. Perhaps they want you to jump through a few hoops before they let you in to filter out the half hearted and dejected. The pain is I can't re-submit until 30 days. Whats that all about ?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: littleny on December 03, 2010, 06:43
i feel your pain Herg..
and sorry if this is turning into the rejects piss and moan thread but not only is the 30 day wait time annoying but it bugs me that you can resubmit something that go a '7 out of 10 must be approved' only to have the next reviewer shoot it down.  really a mixed message when you're trying to understand what they're looking for.  the keywording/categorizing is so labor intensive.  i've actually read (i think somewhere in this forum) that someone resubmitted a '7 out of 10' and when they came back rejected the 2nd time he/she contacted support and they approved them. 
well... keep at it.  if nothing else, its helping me fine tune my skills and turning me into a maniac
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: FD on December 03, 2010, 09:03
There is no point of nagging about rejections anywhere until we can see the images. What's the point of this thread without the images?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: molka on December 03, 2010, 09:07
... Soul destroying. ...

You really should seperate your photo's general / artistic value from getting accepted at these place. Being rejected by a microstuck site doesn't say anything about the quality of your shots.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Blufish on December 03, 2010, 09:08
I've seen littleny images on another thread and they are really spectacular. I'm sure you will get in next time.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: jm on December 03, 2010, 09:10
Ridiculous rejection is when reviewer rejects my vector illustration because of incorrrect white balance.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: FD on December 03, 2010, 09:18
Being rejected by a microstuck site doesn't say anything about the quality of your shots.
That's what the brother of Van Gogh kept telling him.  ;)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: jcpjr on December 03, 2010, 10:28
I see many new contributors complaining about the 30 day waiting period to re-submit. I think they want to give you some time to research and make corrections. If there were no waiting period, you can bet they would be blasted with people with little skills trying to dump their snapshots to make a few penny's. Those that are serious about photography will endure. It's separating the grain from the chaff.

When I started at SS the waiting period was 90 days, needless to say, I was rejected the first time, and 3 months was a long time to wait...made it on the second try.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: donding on December 03, 2010, 11:24

When I started at SS the waiting period was 90 days, needless to say, I was rejected the first time, and 3 months was a long time to wait...made it on the second try.

I was thinking it was 90 days too when I first applied, not 30 days....I thought maybe my memory had failed me....lol. It took me three times and I had the same problems many of you speak of. What was accepted the first time around was rejected the second time. I just about gave up. I ended up contacting support and told them that the rejects and accepted ones were different each time and the submitted images had all been accepted at iStock and were selling. Then the third time I made it through....I don't know if it had any thing to do with the e-mail I sent them or not, but I know how frustrating it was. I just about gave up and that may be why they do it like that....they only want serious photographers and if you don't pass the test and give up, that says a lot about how serious you are.....now this is just my opinion.... ;)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Smiling Jack on December 03, 2010, 11:52
Hi-a little bit off the subject -  But I get a lot of rejections for " focus not wher we think it should be or the white balance is off" Now I can understand a "either or" rejection but not both together. If they can't tell which is which how can I? 

thanks for any help
Smiling Jack
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: molka on December 03, 2010, 13:09
Hi-a little bit off the subject -  But I get a lot of rejections for " focus not wher we think it should be or the white balance is off" Now I can understand a "either or" rejection but not both together. If they can't tell which is which how can I? 

thanks for any help
Smiling Jack

They push buttons, and one ofthem says that : )
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: djpadavona on December 03, 2010, 13:20
The rejection reasons are likely not ridiculous.  The hard truth is almost all of these threads end up finding problems with the uploads when examples are posted.  But until we see some images, nobody can help you fix the problems. 

And the point about the "bar being raised."  The bar has been continuously raised every year I've been involved in microstock, and many of the posters here who have been in 2-3 years longer than me will concur it has always been that way.  FWIW my acceptance ratio at Shutterstock hasn't changed from what it was 2 years ago prior to me going exclusive with iStockphoto.  You need to continuously evaluate your work and improve.  That's just the way it is if you want to sell through the major sites.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Smiling Jack on December 03, 2010, 15:05
Hi-I was not questioning the rejection. I was just wondering why they could not say "the focus was not where we think it should be"or "the white balance was off".It just seems to me those are two different reasons. I would even understand if they said the the focus and the balance weren't right.
Smiling Jack
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: donding on December 03, 2010, 15:40
Hi-I was not questioning the rejection. I was just wondering why they could not say "the focus was not where we think it should be"or "the white balance was off".It just seems to me those are two different reasons. I would even understand if they said the the focus and the balance weren't right.
Smiling Jack

It is had both those reasons for the rejection then it was rejected because of both...not one or the other.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: jcpjr on December 03, 2010, 16:12
I have to agree...the word "or" needs to go away. It tells me that they aren't so sure either.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RacePhoto on December 03, 2010, 21:27
Ok, I thought a few images might get through the approval but all 10 were rejected !!!!! Soul destroying. Some on focus, the wrong type of focus, some not even a reason. Basicly a waste of time and I haven't the time to waste working out why AND I have to wait 30 days. I thought IS was bad enough. I know most are good images so I will try not to let it get to me. In fact, some they said were not saleable are my best selling on IS.


And you were worried about being accepted before you cleared it with the other site? :D

That problem is solved?

There is no point of nagging about rejections anywhere until we can see the images. What's the point of this thread without the images?


I can see your point?  :)

Here's an actual rejection from SS. Not that I agree, but I wanted to display the exact wording. I'm not showing the picture, but I can tell you, it's for sale on Alamy. ;)

Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.

"or, or, may be" Yeah, thanks.

Link to the in depth explanation which shows examples that aren't anything like my image. Lets just say, it's a button, not someone writing a real reply. They click, the computer pastes it in, we're done and so are they. Not very informative, but that's the way it is.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/58/article1.html (http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/58/article1.html)

Please don't get me wrong, I like SS and they are pretty reasonable about what they accept from me, but sometimes the rejections are absurd and ridiculous:

Model Release--Commercial images with recognizable individuals require a model release

The image is from 1912 and is not a commercial image. The description said that Public Domain Circa 1912. It was submitted editorial by the way. It's a personal family photo (from someone else's family) but the point is, it's not copyrighted, it never was, it is unprotected now, except by me as the person who owns it and scanned the old photo. Fairly simple legal issue?

Here's a rejection I can understand. Simple and straight to the point.

Limited Commercial Value--We do not need this image at this time.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: KB on December 03, 2010, 22:44
Please don't get me wrong, I like SS and they are pretty reasonable about what they accept from me, but sometimes the rejections are absurd and ridiculous:

Model Release--Commercial images with recognizable individuals require a model release

The image is from 1912 and is not a commercial image. The description said that Public Domain Circa 1912. It was submitted editorial by the way.

I got this rejection once under similar circumstances. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) the reviewer was trying to say that they felt this was NOT appropriate for editorial and should be submitted for commercial (but requires a release).
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Smiling Jack on December 03, 2010, 23:47
Thanks everbody for the help understanding the rejections. I misread the "or". What they are saying is "both". This how i learn.Since some body asked the last photo that Shutterstock rejected for those reasons is in DT under jackA.
Smiling Jack
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gbalex on December 04, 2010, 01:52
The elephant in the room @ SS which no one really talks about is the extreme variation in the quality of images that some reviewers accept and reject @ SS.

It must be terribly frustrating for the new and for that matter old submitters to see newly accepted images of very poor quality continuously displayed on the SS boards.

You know the SS review process has significant issues when you see multiple shooters of very high caliber complaining about ridiculous rejections and at the same time you have to endure a never ending stream of absolute crap which makes you want to scratch your eyes out.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: lagereek on December 04, 2010, 03:51
SS, is the leader of "trade-marks" rejections, even when there isnt the slightest trademark showing, anything that remotely looks like a car, boat, train, etc, will be rejected even if all logos, trademarks are removed.
This is by no means standard practice within the stock-world. Something must have happend down the line with SS, maybe copy complaints or something.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: rubyroo on December 04, 2010, 06:20
The elephant in the room @ SS which no one really talks about is the extreme variation in the quality of images that some reviewers accept and reject @ SS.

It must be terribly frustrating for the new and for that matter old submitters to see newly accepted images of very poor quality continuously displayed on the SS boards.

I have to agree with this.  I love Shutterstock to bits for their sales volumes, but it's very tiresome and disheartening to occasionally receive rejections on time-consuming high quality, carefully-considered and constructed images that all the other top agencies (including iStock and Alamy) have welcomed into their collections, only to see some poor quality images that you know all those agencies would reject seemingly passing through under the radar.  Inexplicable.  
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Carl on December 04, 2010, 06:39
I've tried six times to get accepted on SS, and I'm a week away from my seventh.  My sixth attempt included only photos that were approved in the previous five attempts, but apparently they changed their mind.  It seems to be a moving target, changing directions randomly, and approval depends more on luck than anything else.  My luck seems to be what it usually is, which is why I don't bother playing the lottery -  :D  I, too, had no problem getting accepted on DT, FT, Alamy (approved on my third attempt), BS, and others, but so far nothing with SS and IS.  (Although with the recent shakeup at IS, I chose not to continue my efforts there.)  Maybe on SS the seventh time will be a charm.

Rejections are the norm among the sites, but what will really bake your noodle is that they never reject the same photos.  One will approve what the other rejects and vice-versa, so between them I get my entire catalog online.  Go figure!
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Perry on December 04, 2010, 07:08
I just got a batch of old book illustrations rejected. Book printed in 1880 and is in public domain in every possibly way. Still they want to see "property release", they seem to have a hard time understanding that "public domain" means nobody isn't able to to sign a property release because it's not anybody's property anymore. Aaaargh!
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: CCK on December 04, 2010, 07:09
Its worth the effort to keep on trying at SS. With my first try all ten were rejected, and a month later all 10 accepted. The mass rejection on my first attempt forced to go back to the drawing board, and I just knew so much more when I tried again. Today SS is by far my best earner. I submit to 11 agencies, and get about 90% of my income from SS.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: a.k.a.-tom on December 04, 2010, 09:53
I've been with SS for many years....   and I sell my fair share of pix.....    yet after uploading 3 batches this week...........
ALL OF THEM  were rejected for      poor lighting  or  balance off..          ALL OF THEM  and not any two from the same shoot...   ....and ALL OF THEM having pix from a same shoot already online and selling on SS.  That's why I uploaded them.

That kind of raises an eyebrow on me..     oh well,  it's their site, their loss...    cause ALL OF THEM  are selling on IS.      8)=tom
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: cathyslife on December 04, 2010, 10:06
I've been with SS for many years....   and I sell my fair share of pix.....    yet after uploading 3 batches this week...........
ALL OF THEM  were rejected for      poor lighting  or  balance off..          ALL OF THEM  and not any two from the same shoot...   ....and ALL OF THEM having pix from a same shoot already online and selling on SS.  That's why I uploaded them.

That kind of raises an eyebrow on me..     oh well,  it's their site, their loss...    cause ALL OF THEM  are selling on IS.      8)=tom

You might want to send a message to support and maybe they will take a second look? I have done that before and they did take another look and they got approved. But I haven't uploaded for awhile, so maybe they don't do that anymore.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: donding on December 04, 2010, 11:47
I, too, had no problem getting accepted on DT, FT, Alamy (approved on my third attempt), BS, and others, but so far nothing with SS and IS.  (Although with the recent shakeup at IS, I chose not to continue my efforts there.)  Maybe on SS the seventh time will be a charm.

Ummm....I think you have the wrong link for BigStock. And you show in your link to iStock that you have shots on iStock but there are none on Dreamstime. I don't know if the links are messed up or what but you might want to go back and check them out.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: heywoody on December 04, 2010, 11:53
I, too, had no problem getting accepted on DT, FT, Alamy (approved on my third attempt), BS, and others, but so far nothing with SS and IS.  (Although with the recent shakeup at IS, I chose not to continue my efforts there.)  Maybe on SS the seventh time will be a charm.

Ummm....I think you have the wrong link for BigStock. And you show in your link to iStock that you have shots on iStock but there are none on Dreamstime. I don't know if the links are messed up or what but you might want to go back and check them out.

Possibly his profile is set to hide address - this causes the profile to be invisible to lookups
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: donding on December 04, 2010, 12:03
I, too, had no problem getting accepted on DT, FT, Alamy (approved on my third attempt), BS, and others, but so far nothing with SS and IS.  (Although with the recent shakeup at IS, I chose not to continue my efforts there.)  Maybe on SS the seventh time will be a charm.

Ummm....I think you have the wrong link for BigStock. And you show in your link to iStock that you have shots on iStock but there are none on Dreamstime. I don't know if the links are messed up or what but you might want to go back and check them out.

Possibly his profile is set to hide address - this causes the profile to be invisible to lookups

That may be true but the big stock portfolio belongs to someone by the name of Andres Rodriguez. I think he may have the wrong link.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Carl on December 04, 2010, 13:13
I, too, had no problem getting accepted on DT, FT, Alamy (approved on my third attempt), BS, and others, but so far nothing with SS and IS.  (Although with the recent shakeup at IS, I chose not to continue my efforts there.)  Maybe on SS the seventh time will be a charm.

Ummm....I think you have the wrong link for BigStock. And you show in your link to iStock that you have shots on iStock but there are none on Dreamstime. I don't know if the links are messed up or what but you might want to go back and check them out.

Possibly his profile is set to hide address - this causes the profile to be invisible to lookups

That may be true but the big stock portfolio belongs to someone by the name of Andres Rodriguez. I think he may have the wrong link.

We can only enter our user ID information, and the microstock system creates the link.  My BigStock user name is correct, so I have no idea why it's linking to Andres' portfolio.  I had not entered any information for DT, but that's no longer the case.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Autumnleaves on December 28, 2010, 11:58
this site pisses me off! They reject bunches of very different pictures all for lighting, or all for focus. Seems like their lazy rev only choose one rejection button and then reject all bunch  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Imagecom on December 31, 2010, 00:52
Hi Everybody,
 Sorry just venting out.

About 2 mounts ago all changed.  I have newer been a   "100 % acceptance rated guy"  but did O.K. all the time with  SS  - until know (I mean 2 mount ago)  I did reach 99.99 %  rejection rate !    Big achievement overnight ( I bet no body managed to achieve that) !  I was down so in desperation I wrote to SS  admin and ask why ? 
They were fast and polite  with the answer - to make it short  the inspector agreed with the review - big slap on my face.
I use the same gear (5D II with all "L" series glass), and with the post production C.S. 4) spending  more and more time to make the image better.
I do not know what I'm doing wrong ??
Well just keep trying. Like somebody said in this tread  "There loss" and as well as mine since until 8 weeks ago SS and I did fine since 2007.
I wish i know what I'm doing wrong ?

Tks to listen to me.

Have a Fantastic New Year Everybody.

Imagecom
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: melastmohican on December 31, 2010, 12:54
End of the month? It happens on all sites when reviewers want quickly clean their queues.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Autumnleaves on January 01, 2011, 14:15
Hi Everybody,
 Sorry just venting out.

About 2 mounts ago all changed.  I have newer been a   "100 % acceptance rated guy"  but did O.K. all the time with  SS  - until know (I mean 2 mount ago)  I did reach 99.99 %  rejection rate !    Big achievement overnight ( I bet no body managed to achieve that) !  I was down so in desperation I wrote to SS  admin and ask why ? 
They were fast and polite  with the answer - to make it short  the inspector agreed with the review - big slap on my face.
I use the same gear (5D II with all "L" series glass), and with the post production C.S. 4) spending  more and more time to make the image better.
I do not know what I'm doing wrong ??
Well just keep trying. Like somebody said in this tread  "There loss" and as well as mine since until 8 weeks ago SS and I did fine since 2007.
I wish i know what I'm doing wrong ?

Tks to listen to me.

Have a Fantastic New Year Everybody.

Imagecom

I perfectly understand you!! I'm almost in your shoes, recently I have been sending bucnhes of 10 pictures with only 1 or 2 accepted every time. Pictures than sell well on other agencies! I don't understand their staff. They reject all for lighting or focus problems, I also spend a lot of time on PS editing and fixing problems, removing noise, removing artifacts... I'm tired and more demotivated as the time goes by... Maybe this is the 1st agency and blahblablah, but I don't like their staff
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on January 18, 2011, 09:04
Well, over a month since I last got my initial rejection. I have had an email from SS since then but how on earth can I read it when it's IN GERMAN !!! Unbelievable.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: robggs on January 18, 2011, 11:55
Well, over a month since I last got my initial rejection. I have had an email from SS since then but how on earth can I read it when it's IN GERMAN !!! Unbelievable.

I went through the same thing. Persevere with it and you will be rewarded.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Maui on January 18, 2011, 12:41
Well, over a month since I last got my initial rejection. I have had an email from SS since then but how on earth can I read it when it's IN GERMAN !!! Unbelievable.

Post it here. We can translate it for you.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: rinderart on January 18, 2011, 12:54
We keep telling you guys to post your stuff in the critique section at SS..Before you submit. Some of us were reviewers for years and most of us are working Pros. We can and do help you. Remember guys Getting accepted  is the easy Part, having Images that sell is very difficult. Give us a try. We won't tell you what you wanna hear but, What you need to hear. And, it's usually just one simple adjustment your missing.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on January 31, 2011, 05:50
I am going to have another shot at submitting but before I do, is it worth getting in at SS ? I mean, I am exclusive with IS BUT my sales are dropping like a lead balloon and I can't get images accepted anymore. is SS harder to get images accepted/sell than IS ? If so, then I can't afford to waste the time. I would like to take more editorial shots that don't require model releases. Thats the thing that initially attracted me to SS.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: robggs on January 31, 2011, 07:59
I am going to have another shot at submitting but before I do, is it worth getting in at SS ? I mean, I am exclusive with IS BUT my sales are dropping like a lead balloon and I can't get images accepted anymore. is SS harder to get images accepted/sell than IS ? If so, then I can't afford to waste the time. I would like to take more editorial shots that don't require model releases. Thats the thing that initially attracted me to SS.

The initial batch of 10 at SS is subject to a lot of scrutiny. It led me to believe that it will be difficult once I was accepted. But once your in I would say that its significantly easier to get an image accepted at SS than at IS. And you will sell far more images on SS than IS, at a much lower royalty obviosuly, but it won't be a waste of time. Your likely to make at least one sale on the images that have never had any sales on IS.

I don't know what the potential is for editorial sales on SS.

FEED THE BEAST!
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: BikeTourist on January 31, 2011, 08:21
Two things occur to me . . .

Rejection reasons can't always be taken literally. If the reviewer mentions focus, composition or some other specific reason, it may be because there are only so many canned answers available. Maybe the reviewer just doesn't like the image.

SS is at over 14 million and climbing. It's likely they will get more and more picky with acceptances.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Karimala on January 31, 2011, 08:38
I am going to have another shot at submitting but before I do, is it worth getting in at SS ? I mean, I am exclusive with IS BUT my sales are dropping like a lead balloon and I can't get images accepted anymore. is SS harder to get images accepted/sell than IS ? If so, then I can't afford to waste the time. I would like to take more editorial shots that don't require model releases. Thats the thing that initially attracted me to SS.

Take up Rinderart's suggestion and post your photos to SS's critique section before you submit.  They'll do everything they can to help you get in.  It's definitely worth it.  SS has been #1 among MSG folks for three years now, and there's plenty of good reasons why.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on January 31, 2011, 12:37
Have I got to post all these images to a host so they can be viewed by people here ? Having said that, surely everyone's opinion will be different to the admin at SS.

Where do I post them ?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Ellerslie on January 31, 2011, 13:59
Hi, I was accepted at first attempt on shutterstock and I sell very well there (I love Shutterstock  ::)) but I can tell "ridiculous rejections" and "soul destroyed" about IS. I've tried a lot of time my submission but they don't want my works even if Fotolia, dreamstime and shutterstock accept and sell them very well...What can I do? Nothing. Each microstock agengy has its personal standard and what is good for one often isn't good for another one. the criteria are subjective, I'm sure about this. It' s a personal agengy choise it doesn't mind that your work isn't good...maybe they are looking for something different (different subjects, for exemple).

p.s. I hope you can understand me, I'm not english ;)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Ellerslie on January 31, 2011, 14:01
Have I got to post all these images to a host so they can be viewed by people here ? Having said that, surely everyone's opinion will be different to the admin at SS.

Where do I post them ?

p.s. you can post your works here.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Karimala on January 31, 2011, 15:29
Have I got to post all these images to a host so they can be viewed by people here ? Having said that, surely everyone's opinion will be different to the admin at SS.

Where do I post them ?

p.s. you can post your works here.

Either here (in the Critique forum) or SS.  The folks who offer critiques at SS are not admins...they are fellow contributors like you and me.  A few of them have also been reviewers at other sites, so they know exactly what the micros require.

You can either upload the images to a hosting site like Photobucket, or attach them to your posts.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: visceralimage on January 31, 2011, 21:00
My first batch of 10 was rejected (actually, three were rejected which made the whole initial batch rejected).  I carefully read the instructions and advice on this forum; reworked the images and submitted as my second batch.  10 of 10 were accepted on the second try.

The advice here is solid with years of experience.  It is a total waste of time not to heed the advice and take advantage of the support offered here.  I know some that have submitted 7 or 10 times, that is 7 to 10 months without sales on SS; expensive in lost revenue.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: pancaketom on January 31, 2011, 23:12
It is my understanding that SS and IS want the opposite types of editorial material. IS wants (maybe eventually?) stocky images that you don't have a model or property release for - Times Square crowds, recognizable products, that sort of thing. SS wants news related editorial - current events, famous people, and so on.

I haven't tried submitting either of them, but if you aren't going to be exclusive and you aren't anti-subscription then you really want to be on SS.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on February 01, 2011, 03:27
I have tried posting direct from my PC to here but it gives me img italics and no way to browse to my folder.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: sharpshot on February 01, 2011, 04:29
I just use alamy for editorial photos.  They don't reject anything I upload.  It takes a long time to get sales going but their prices are higher and they can make a nice amount with just 1 sale.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Ellerslie on February 01, 2011, 04:47
I have tried posting direct from my PC to here but it gives me img italics and no way to browse to my folder.


Have your Shutterstock uploads on IS? If it's so you can copy the image adress to upload here (right click on the image: copy address and then here (http://address) but, of course, someone alse it's able to explain better than me.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on February 01, 2011, 12:25
How about 10 of these ?


(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9759648/2/istockphoto_9759648-broken-glass.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/10223700/2/istockphoto_10223700-bunting.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/5972031/2/istockphoto_5972031-oriental-lily.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/11159724/2/istockphoto_11159724-entertainers.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/10874866/2/istockphoto_10874866-war-medals.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/10089849/2/istockphoto_10089849-echinacea-flowers.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9778533/2/istockphoto_9778533-the-way-forward.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/11358457/2/istockphoto_11358457-wine-beside-the-fireplace.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9620180/2/istockphoto_9620180-vinyl-record.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12292048/2/istockphoto_12292048-viaduct.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12442041/2/istockphoto_12442041-tulips.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9522557/2/istockphoto_9522557-rooster.jpg])
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9610263/2/istockphoto_9610263-crack-in-wall.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2500896/2/istockphoto_2500896-fast-food.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/10014652/2/istockphoto_10014652-potatoes.jpg)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: cascoly on February 01, 2011, 17:35
it's the reviewers that are unpredictable on SS - some dont know that editorial is not a synonym for newswoerthy - i just had a large batch rejected for npot newsworthy - looks like reviewer didnt even bother to look at most.   many of these were similar to other images that other SS reviewers had accepted
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: melastmohican on February 01, 2011, 18:31
It seems like they have hired new reviewers. I got a feeling that blanket rejections happen from time to time at every agency. One day they accept most of your images then next day 100% rejections. I am sending same stuff to every agency, except IS cause they do not support FTP. In result I cannot tell a single photo that is accepted universally at every agency. What a great way to randomize my portfolio :-) Last year I experienced waves of rejections at 123RF, DT, FT and right now I got problems at SS. Agencies just have too many images.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Ellerslie on February 01, 2011, 18:37
It seems like they have hired new reviewers. I got a feeling that blanket rejections happen from time to time at every agency. One day they accept most of your images then next day 100% rejections. I am sending same stuff to every agency, except IS cause they do not support FTP. In result I cannot tell a single photo that is accepted universally at every agency. What a great way to randomize my portfolio :-) Last year I experienced waves of rejections at 123RF, DT, FT and right now I got problems at SS. Agencies just have too many images.

I agree with you, really there isn't a realistic reason for a lot of rejections, only the agency is looking for another kind of subject. I'm an illustrator so I can give you a technical opinion but I like your photoes, especially the first one but maybe it's too abstract for SS. I think that in this moment they are looking for not aboundant categories and your tulips or your wild flowers, for example (even if they're nice photoes), aren't a good choise to attempt the submission, there're too many flowers...
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on February 02, 2011, 10:08
Can anyone else give me any advice on some of these images ? I don't intend to submit more than one flower shot, I am just giving examples here. Do they want the more unusual type of subject ?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: robggs on February 02, 2011, 14:23
Can anyone else give me any advice on some of these images ? I don't intend to submit more than one flower shot, I am just giving examples here. Do they want the more unusual type of subject ?

I like all 10 of those photos. I'm impressed. Personally the weakest photo is the 2nd down - its the least interesting subject and had the least colour. Maybe if you showed more of the flowers and the record. SS doesn't seem to like a cropped shot of an object.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on February 03, 2011, 03:30
I am still not sure what images are right here. Is anyone here an ex SS moderator ? I don't want to have to wait yet another 30 days if they don't pass. I need to get earning :-)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Ellerslie on February 03, 2011, 03:48
I think that on SS forum there're some ex moderators.
Good luck, I'm sure that you'll be approved next time.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on February 03, 2011, 10:01
The trouble is they don't just review the images on technical quality but also if they think they will sell. One of my last batch that was rejected was for this reason but that images sells well on IS.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on February 03, 2011, 14:48
I have decided to submit these 10. Just wanted to check here before I send them.

Thanks for the help.

(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/10223686/2/istockphoto_10223686-bunting.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/11159724/2/istockphoto_11159724-the-entertainers.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9610263/2/istockphoto_9610263-structural-failure.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9522557/2/istockphoto_9522557-rooster.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/10874866/2/istockphoto_10874866-war-medals.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9759648/2/istockphoto_9759648-broken-glass.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12442041/2/istockphoto_12442041-red-tulips.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9947089/2/istockphoto_9947089-tools.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12292048/2/istockphoto_12292048-old-and-new-structures.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9778533/2/istockphoto_9778533-the-way-forward.jpg)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: microstockphoto.co.uk on February 03, 2011, 15:04
All posted pictures are technically good. Many are somehow at risk of "low commercial value" - they use this reason a lot lately - but it's worth trying imo.

Just do not send the medals: pictures of the Queen are no longer accepted at SS - although there are many old pictures online. Maybe it's acceptable as editorial? But I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Ellerslie on February 03, 2011, 17:11
I'm afraid about "limited commercial value" (especially the last two) but I hope in other opinions for you.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on February 03, 2011, 17:26
Isn't it the technical and compositional quality that counts ? Surely how much demand for a subject is subjective. Anyway, they are unusual. Isn't that what a library wants rather than over stocked similar subject matter?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Ellerslie on February 03, 2011, 18:11
Quality is real important but they are interested in commercial value too. For example when I had my examination I had 3 rejected images (all abstract works) and the reason was "limited commercial value". Currently I have 90-100% accepted images but when they refused a work it's often for "limited commercial value" and always they're abstract works or texture but I'm an illustrator, I think that can be different for you so I'd like to hear a photographer opinion.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Xalanx on February 03, 2011, 18:39
I wouldn't recommend you to submit any of those shots in the first ten. They're not good. Maybe the photo with those 2 guys (with reservations).
I'm not going to explain why, it'll take too much time. But there are several people on SS forum who dedicate part of their lives helping newbies get in. Some of us don't really understand why.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on February 04, 2011, 04:09
There not good ? Very blunt. Quite rude in fact. It's a matter of opinion as I think they are and so do others here. There are people out there that actually like to help others. This is the trouble with having a critique forum is you get more confused than you started out. Too many mixed messages.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gostwyck on February 04, 2011, 08:09
There not good ? Very blunt. Quite rude in fact. It's a matter of opinion as I think they are and so do others here. There are people out there that actually like to help others.

The only 'good' stock image is the tools and maybe the singers but I don't know who they are. The others all have either technical flaws or low commercial potential (or both). That bridge shot for instance __ who is going to buy that and what are they going to use it for? Honestly, if you don't understand why that shot is so pointless then you are not yet ready. Brick walls and flowers? Do me a favour. With 14M images online they need to be truly exceptional. SS is a commercial stock agency not your local camera club.

You should follow Xalanx's and others advice and get your critique from the SS forum.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Ellerslie on February 04, 2011, 08:58
Really Herg, show your images here: http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/ (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/)
I understand you can be confused and here there're great photographers that can help you with your first submission and tell you an opinion about each photo.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Perry on February 04, 2011, 10:07
The images generally lack commercial appeal. I like these two the best, maybe submit these two and find/shoot replacements for the other ones. Maybe some really clean and airy images?

([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9759648/2/istockphoto_9759648-broken-glass.jpg[/url])
([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9947089/2/istockphoto_9947089-tools.jpg[/url])

The glass image may be "overfiltered", difficult to see from such small image.

This one might not get trough if not submitted editorial: (I'm amazed that this is for sale at IS :)) NOTE: I'm not saying there is copyrighted stuff in the image, but a shot like this is like waving a red flag at a reviewer.
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/10874866/2/istockphoto_10874866-war-medals.jpg)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on February 04, 2011, 10:52
There not good ? Very blunt. Quite rude in fact. It's a matter of opinion as I think they are and so do others here. There are people out there that actually like to help others.

The only 'good' stock image is the tools and maybe the singers but I don't know who they are. The others all have either technical flaws or low commercial potential (or both). That bridge shot for instance __ who is going to buy that and what are they going to use it for? Honestly, if you don't understand why that shot is so pointless then you are not yet ready. Brick walls and flowers? Do me a favour. With 14M images online they need to be truly exceptional. SS is a commercial stock agency not your local camera club.

You should follow Xalanx's and others advice and get your critique from the SS forum.

Again, quite rude. I understand what you say but the tone is not polite. Camera club ? I didn't study Photography for 4 years and get a HND in specialising in editorial images for nothing. Please do not patronise me. As for the brick wall, if you look properly you can see it has a dirty great crack down the middle. Do me a favour, that image has sold over on IS. Think about Insurance ads, Surveying, cowboy builders etc etc.

This is exactly why I have been reluctant to post in these forums. There has been some helpful advice, some PM's telling me it's good enough for SS but the minority tend to give sardonic remarks.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gostwyck on February 04, 2011, 11:08
Again, quite rude. I understand what you say but the tone is not polite. Camera club ? I didn't study Photography for 4 years and get a HND in specialising in editorial images for nothing. Please do not patronise me.

I thought your opening gambit, in titling this thread 'Ridiculous Rejections', was extremely rude and patronising to the SS reviewers. I just carried on in the tone you had started.

As it happens I think the SS reviewers do a fine job other than that they should probably reject rather more than they do. I didn't 'study photography for 4 years and get an HND in editorial images' so I must yield to your superior knowledge __ but I do make my living from microstock.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on February 04, 2011, 11:10
Again, quite rude. I understand what you say but the tone is not polite. Camera club ? I didn't study Photography for 4 years and get a HND in specialising in editorial images for nothing. Please do not patronise me.

I thought your opening gambit, in titling this thread 'Ridiculous Rejections', was extremely rude and patronising to the SS reviewers. I just carried on in the tone you had started.

As it happens I think the SS reviewers do a fine job other than that they should probably reject rather more than they do. I didn't 'study photography for 4 years and get an HND in editorial images' so I must yield to your superior knowledge __ but I do make my living from microstock.

Good for you. So do I as well as music and Sound recording.

So carrying on in the same tone makes it right to be rude ? My initial post wasn't intending to be rude.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gostwyck on February 04, 2011, 11:25
So do I as well as music and Sound recording.

Glad to hear it. You carry on sitting in classrooms and collecting your fancy bits of paper __ and we'll carry on doing the job and earning the money.

When anyone starts referring to their 'qualifications' it becomes immediately obvious that they don't know what they are talking about.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on February 04, 2011, 11:34
The last time I sat in a lecture room (most time was spent shooting) was 1989. Granted, I might not know as much as you about microstock photography but at the same time don't call what I do "Camera club".
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: luissantos84 on February 04, 2011, 11:53
Still here Herg? upload them! (approved or not) microstockgroup isn´t the place to this kind of topics, actually it is just a weird place were negativism and bullying RULE!

wish you the best Herg
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on February 04, 2011, 12:04
Yea I will. It's not only me then  :D

Don't worry, I don't get intimidated by bullies in ivory towers, especially when their work isn't itself exceptional.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: briciola on February 04, 2011, 12:12
I liked your earlier shot of the person cooking sausages, and from the little I know it seems to me SS like people shots - and they don't seem to like shallow dof (for me at least).  Good luck! 
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: kingjon on February 04, 2011, 12:20
Herg, I've been with SS for 4-5 year now so my advice may no longer be current. Before I upgraded my camera to a 5dMark II, I was running noise reduction software on all my SS submissions (I had a separate workflow just for SS). They don't want to see noise in your pictures. I now downsize my images instead of using noise reduction. You may also consider reducing the photos to the minimum size the site will accept. Many have indicated they were accepted that way. As for what files to upload, I agree with other comments about the medals being risky (whether or not they are allowed - a reviewer may decide not to take a chance). I do very little post production on my images as I'm not very good with photoshop. This works for me (and many others who are similarly challenged). If you have more people pictures with releases that could be used for stock that would be a good thing - sites tend to like good people shots. I also liked the food prep (sausage) photo.

Good luck!
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: kingjon on February 04, 2011, 12:22
^ meant post processing of course
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on February 04, 2011, 12:36
Thanks for the advice, much appreciated. I won't submit the medals shot to be safe. Unfortunately I don't have many people shots.

BTW-How do you downsize an image. I use Raw Shooter and The Gimp.

(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/11181548/2/istockphoto_11181548-water-sports.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3212834/2/istockphoto_3212834-circles-in-the-sand-2.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/10082613/2/istockphoto_10082613-craftsperson.jpg)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Xalanx on February 04, 2011, 12:45
Excuse me, you studied photograhy 4 years and you don't know how to downsize an image?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on February 04, 2011, 14:44
Excuse me, you studied photograhy 4 years and you don't know how to downsize an image?

I know it's ridiculous isn't it. I mean, fancy not teaching us that in the late 80's even though we only used film.  ::) Don't worry, I am sure I will work it out on my own. It's not rocket science. Thanks for your help  ::) It's obvious here that there are some who just don't want new members joining SS.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: jamirae on February 04, 2011, 15:20
Excuse me, you studied photograhy 4 years and you don't know how to downsize an image?

I know it's ridiculous isn't it. I mean, fancy not teaching us that in the late 80's even though we only used film.  ::) Don't worry, I am sure I will work it out on my own. It's not rocket science. Thanks for your help  ::) It's obvious here that there are some who just don't want new members joining SS.

I dont know how to do it in GIMP but with Photoshop you simple go to "Image/Size" and resize down.  I'm sure there's something similar in GIMP.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gostwyck on February 04, 2011, 17:41
It's obvious here that there are some who just don't want new members joining SS.

No, if you ask in the right way you'll get plenty of help here. However starting a thread with the title 'Ridiculous Rejections' suggests that you've already decided that you know more than any 'stupid reviewer' does __ and probably anyone else here too. But quite clearly you don't.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: luissantos84 on February 04, 2011, 17:53
It's obvious here that there are some who just don't want new members joining SS.

No, if you ask in the right way you'll get plenty of help here. However starting a thread with the title 'Ridiculous Rejections' suggests that you've already decided that you know more than any 'stupid reviewer' does __ and probably anyone else here too. But quite clearly you don't.

my days wouldn´t be the same without reading your comments (not vice versa I know :P)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on February 04, 2011, 19:31
It's obvious here that there are some who just don't want new members joining SS.

No, if you ask in the right way you'll get plenty of help here. However starting a thread with the title 'Ridiculous Rejections' suggests that you've already decided that you know more than any 'stupid reviewer' does __ and probably anyone else here too. But quite clearly you don't.

Don't flatter yourself Joe. I don't need your help . I have plenty of Photographic experience.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Colette on February 04, 2011, 19:55
Most people are friendly and helpful. So why not be a little more patient?

These days you can find nearly everything you want to know on the internet.
For example:
Typing in Google: "resizing images in photoshop"
answer:
about 3.000.000 results(0,19 seconds)

-Ad useful pages to a map in your Favorites.
-Copy and paste what you find useful and save it in Word, pdf (or whatever you want) for later use and in no time you build up a workflow.
-the "old fashioned way" is buying a book. I have a lot myself. Is useful too.
-you can find also a lot of info on stocksites, forums and in blogs.

No one can guarantee you that you will be accepted the next time.
You are unlucky if the reviewer has a headache or a 'bad-hairday' or something.
You can't take a rejection serious when it is accepted at 12 sites and the got a rejection at the 13th for 'your image is not in focus', for example...
But you have to live with that and try again...no other way...
Every agency has its own rules and people try to help you the best they can with this particular agency.
You have the best chance with: no artistic look, colorful and bright, sharp, no noise and dustspots and a collection of different subjects that has not be cropped to much.
Your super artistic images where you are (rightly) proud of, are propably not the bestsellers at stocksites!
On the SS forum you can find indeed good help. They are experienced with the site.

And by the way: when you are accepted as a contributor, you can try to submit what you want and find out by yourself what will be accepted or not and what sells or not.
But for now you must have 7 of the 10 accepted. And so for now you have to be better safe than sorry. That is why people write what you obvious don't like to read! ;D
 
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: dnavarrojr on February 24, 2011, 17:42
If I might ask, why would Shutterstock think this has "little" commercial value?

(http://www.dreamstime.com/hole-in-one-thumb15379284.jpg)

It has sold on Dreamstime and other sites.  So I'm not sure why they would think that.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RT on February 24, 2011, 19:57
Just my opinion but I'd say it's probably because the sky is too dark considering the shadows you've applied and the grass rim doesn't look realistic.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: dnavarrojr on February 24, 2011, 20:03
Just my opinion but I'd say it's probably because the sky is too dark considering the shadows you've applied and the grass rim doesn't look realistic.

That's the DT preview causing lighting issues...  I'm wondering why people keep buying it on DT, CanStock, Deposit Photos and other sites if it's that bad...
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: sc on February 24, 2011, 20:47
If I might ask, why would Shutterstock think this has "little" commercial value?

([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/hole-in-one-thumb15379284.jpg[/url])

It has sold on Dreamstime and other sites.  So I'm not sure why they would think that.


Lighten it a little and resubmit.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: dnavarrojr on February 25, 2011, 01:24
Lighten it a little and resubmit.

As I said, it looks dark because of the DT process of creating preview images.  The actual image is not anywhere near that dark.

That said, if it were a lighting issue... Wouldn't ShutterStock say "too dark" or something.  Typically my rejections are for reasons like noise, or the reviewer doesn't actually like the way I lit a scene and says so.  Why the "No commercial value" rejection?  That's the part I don't understand.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RacePhoto on February 25, 2011, 05:31
If I might ask, why would Shutterstock think this has "little" commercial value?

It has sold on Dreamstime and other sites.  So I'm not sure why they would think that.

Seriously, I can't see why they would reject it and the people who do, are getting the same tight ass, absurd attitudes that the reviewers have on some sites. Come on it's a good concept and good execution and it would sell!

Now for my usual humorous view. It's a Wilson golf ball and the truncated dimples are protected!  :o
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gbalex on February 25, 2011, 06:17
We keep telling you guys to post your stuff in the critique section at Shutterstock..Before you submit. Some of us were reviewers for years and most of us are working Pros. We can and do help you. Remember guys Getting accepted  is the easy Part, having Images that sell is very difficult. Give us a try. We won't tell you what you wanna hear but, What you need to hear. And, it's usually just one simple adjustment your missing.

Could you post a link to your professional portfolio, we would love to see your professional work outside of microstock?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: lagereek on February 25, 2011, 06:50
I think its because it looks like a Tennis ball falling down a drainage hole on a tennis court.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: sc on February 25, 2011, 09:13
Lighten it a little and resubmit.

As I said, it looks dark because of the Dreamstime process of creating preview images.  The actual image is not anywhere near that dark.

That said, if it were a lighting issue... Wouldn't ShutterStock say "too dark" or something.  Typically my rejections are for reasons like noise, or the reviewer doesn't actually like the way I lit a scene and says so.  Why the "No commercial value" rejection?  That's the part I don't understand.

Nobody can ever know exactly what the reviewer was thinking - maybe they checked the wrong box.

I only say lighten it so you have made a slight change to justify the resubmission - and then resubmit. I've found that LCV rejections usually pass  review the 2nd time around.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Elenathewise on February 25, 2011, 13:01
I just posted a new blog entry on reviewers and rejections.... http://blog.elenaphoto.com/?p=100 (http://blog.elenaphoto.com/?p=100)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: rinderart on February 25, 2011, 15:36
OK Guys, let me straiten a few things out. First off, what sells on one site and not on another means nothing and what gets accepted on one and not the other also means nothing. I have had a camera in My Hand for 50+ years, That means nothing when It comes to stock, I've co-authored 3 Photo Books,Done workshops around the world,and lectures on commercial Photography, Shot for major National Clients. All of this means nothing about understanding stock. Stock photography is not art But, It is an art unto itself when done correctly. It's about helping a buyer/designer sell a concept,idea or service by using the whole image or elements of an Image. Thats it, Nothing More, It's not about pretty pictures, That went away in the late 80's. To sell......And to get accepted you MUST be unique period. I have nearly 27,000 posts on SS alone and 24,500 just in the critique section alone, I reviewed for 3+ years until I couldn't stand it anymore.

I have heard every excuse,every whine,every complaint,every ego and every lame comment as to why Your Fantastic Images were refused. This business isin't flicker guys, It's commercial stock photography and believe it or not, not for everyone just because they own a camera. if you knew how many times I've heard "I just bought a 5DMK2 and L Glass" and still get rejected it would shock you. That also means nothing. There are folks with 500 Images that makes them enough to live on and, there are some with 15,000 that just squeak by, Quality High commercial value images and Quanity is the ticket. Always has been. The pics posted here by our friend suffer from the anyone can take those syndrome and exposure, maybe 5 years ago they would fly But not Now. They are just simply Not Unique enough and owning a $45,000 80MP hasselblad will not help. After looking at a gazillion Images and the reasons they were rejected I must say without a doubt that the reviewers were 99.9% correct. The biggest issue is focus, Most folks have no clue as to the sharpness needed in stock, 90% haven't done any work whatsoever understanding the principles of DOF,Composition,Exposure and WB as it relates to "Stock" Photography. Most just Buy a camera,a cheap kit lens,put it on auto and blast away. Thats not going to cut it friends. You MUST be a photographer first then a stock photographer, You must do the work and learn your craft or you will always be very disappointed in your performance in this business. Thats the truth.

The biggest Players here get rejections Guys, Probably Not many because they figured it out and most have a standard formula. Like said what I see mostly is LCV, Focus,composition in stock terms,overprocessing by people that don't have the tech skills to do it,noise reduction which is 90% caused By exposure. And on and on to infinity.

I invite you to Please come into the critique forum for an Honest evaluation of your work, but, Remember, were not going to hold your hand,Tell you what you want to hear as your friends do, it's gonna be straight talk, Do not take anything personal and if Ya listen....Really Listen and leave the ego at the door with a good attitude we will help you if you really want this and I/we will know if you do. I have helped hundreds if not thousands get approved and go on to sell But Ya gotta do the work.


A quick tip..How do you be unique instead of shooting stuff thats been done to death many years ago? You search your soul and you shoot what turns YOU On, Not what you think someone else would do or what you've seen on a site. then...if you have what it takes tech wise and can think commercially also the buyers will find you, They really will and they will bookmark you, thats called style. I can search and see images and just know who took them because they are unique. No artist is pleased, The true way is keeping the channel open and making it yours in any art form ever conceived from Dance,music,drama and Image making in all it's forms. Also, If your not ready to upload 10/20 good Images every week 52 weeks a year, Don't bother and take up golf. theres way to many now that just want a place to park there pictures killing sales for the rest of us. And before you submit think of 5 things your image could be used for and keyword it properly. keywords are one of the most Important things you can do. many fail badly at this.

Good Luck and If ya want help we are there for you.If ya don't, keep flopping around sites like this bitching and moaning. If there was one topic in all forum posts done more it would be this and #2 Sales. Both could be fixed by you.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RT on February 25, 2011, 16:23
Good Luck and If ya want help we are there for you.If ya don't, keep flopping around sites like this bitching and moaning.

Anybody would get a better evaluation of their work here than they would on Shutterstock any day of the week because some of the biggest names in microstock come here, the biggest problem with the Shutterstock forum is that there's no way to establish whether the person who's giving critique knows what they're talking about or just trying to bump up their own ego.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: pancaketom on February 25, 2011, 17:14
I have a feeling that if you took your best seller and posted it in the critique forums saying it just got rejected and how could they do that etc. etc. at least some of the people would defend the reviewers and point out all the problems with your best seller image. They might even be right, for the most part the technical requirements are not as critical as the others as far as getting sales. That doesn't mean that the technical requirements don't matter, but especially for small size images and web use it is not as critical as the microstocks would make you think.

Getting rejections is part of this business. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes it happens with an image you have high hopes for. Tweak it and resubmit it or don't bother. It can be frustrating and demotivating, but if you can't handle that occasionally happening this isn't the business for you.


One of the best things about being at a number of sites is usually by the time the image gets rejected it has already been accepted elsewhere and perhaps even had sales.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: dnavarrojr on February 25, 2011, 18:19
I have no problem with rejections and I understand it's part of the process.  I get them for various correctable issues occasionally, and I correct the issues and resubmit, typically with success.

The head-scratcher is the "we don't think it will sell" rejection.  Especially on something that's a proven seller elsewhere.  I already plan to re-submit, but I was more curious as to why that would get that kid of rejection.

And I've read the reviews in the ShutterStock Critique forum and the overwhelming majority of them are crap from people who believe there job is to discourage everyone else from uploading anything that might compete with them.  It's mostly self-serving BS, not actual useful information.  I agree that I'd get much more realistic and useful critiques here.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: fritz on February 25, 2011, 21:15
 shutterstock Not Approved:
Composition--Limited commercial value
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/15823620/2/istockphoto_15823620-stolen-credit-card.jpg)

Approved:(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/496243/496243,1298040051,42/stock-photo-stolen-credit-card-report-71483566.jpg)


comment is not necessary
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RacePhoto on February 25, 2011, 23:56
"theres way to many now that just want a place to park there pictures killing sales for the rest of us."

Can you expand on this? Did I read it right?

Please go away and leave the work for the professionals. You're not welcome here?


Or am I misunderstanding? Has micro become a private club, members only for the insider artists?

+ on the rest of it.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: borg on March 02, 2011, 05:31
SS driving me crazy lately...  :-[ :-[ :-[
SS rejected all my photos what are approved on IS,FT and other picky sites... They approved rejected photo on another sites...
Quite opposite!
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: cascoly on March 02, 2011, 13:38
i've had same results recently withSS -  rejections of entire batches all with same reasons - "not newsworthy", or "it wont sell", etc   where usually they would accept similar.  the editorials are the worst - resubmitting gets many of them accepted, but it's a waste of everryone's time having to play this 'guess who's reviewing' game
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: graficallyminded on March 02, 2011, 21:29
Shutterstock is the best selling agency for many of us, unfortunately at the same time, it is the most inconsistent with reviewing standards.  It's like a catch 22.  The last few batches, I reported to support - I never do that.  It's getting really bad over there, and we all need to start letting them know we're noticing the change, or nothing is ever going to be consistent.  Maybe there's a new Atilla the reviewer or someone new that isn't fully trained? Who knows.

I still say those of us with a certain level of all time earnings should be able to get automatic approvals, or something of that nature.  Sort of like a rewards program.  I'd take that over another raise, just for the peace of mind.  I've got a batch of 57 images in the cue right now, and I'm seriously nervous about the outcome. 
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: tab62 on March 03, 2011, 14:03
I was told if it states - "7 out of 10 must be approved" that that photo was accepted. This information came right from SS itself when I asked the question. I had submitted 10 photos that were approved by fotolia, dreamstime, big stock but were rejected by SS. Now you want to see or experience high requirements- put in your photos with CRE and see how well you fare. They are very strict on their photo selections...
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on March 10, 2011, 05:16
Since my sales have picked up on Istock and reading some of the comments about SS being hard to get accepted images I will stay put. Istock have also started to take editorial shots which is the reason I wanted to join SS in the first place.

The seasoned self preserving stock pros here who have commented have clearly given off the "Leave it to the big boys and go away and play with your dolls" vibe.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: visceralimage on March 10, 2011, 05:44
put in your photos with CRE and see how well you fare. They are very strict on their photo selections...

heard alot of complaints about Crestock, no problems with their reviews, running at 100%
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: visceralimage on March 10, 2011, 05:48
The seasoned self preserving stock pros here who have commented have clearly given off the "Leave it to the big boys and go away and play with your dolls" vibe.

Oh, that was just Rinder spouting off, he was having a bad day or needed a martini, or something;  if  you read his entire post, it is pretty spot on-microstock is a professional business; there are lots of folks that just want to sell a few images to impress their family or friends.

I don't see a problem with the casual user; if my stuff is good enough, it will rise to the top soon enough.  Hopefully I have not starved to death by the time it starts to rise so I can enjoy some of the monetary rewards; if not, then my children will enjoy the rewards of my hard work :o

Then again, I am in a pretty specialized field; not to many casual snappers out here in Tiger country (Far East Russia);  now if the SS reviewers will just understand the lighting is not always perfect in the wild I will be happy.  They want studio lighting out here in the naked outdoors; I am lucky to see an animal once a week, much less have it in perfect light.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: luissantos84 on March 10, 2011, 05:48
put in your photos with CRE and see how well you fare. They are very strict on their photo selections...

heard alot of complaints about Crestock, no problems with their reviews, running at 100%

not what they used, myself tried a few and all got in too, maybe a change in plans there  (still all 0.25$)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on September 21, 2011, 13:36
I'm going in again for another try. Cover me ;-)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: luissantos84 on September 21, 2011, 13:40
delete plz
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on September 21, 2011, 14:01
delete plz

?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on September 22, 2011, 07:00
Yep, another rejection. This time I got 6 out of ten BUT one was rejected just for the wrong caption !!!! That's really annoying because the image was right.

They say that I should not submit the same images again but why not ? I submitted them before and they got passed so I would be stupid not too. If I submit a whole new load of images it's a new lottery. One was rejected this time that was passed the time before so it isn't foolproof.

30 days wait.....sigh  :P
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: heywoody on September 22, 2011, 08:45
Yep, another rejection. This time I got 6 out of ten BUT one was rejected just for the wrong caption !!!! That's really annoying because the image was right.

They say that I should not submit the same images again but why not ? I submitted them before and they got passed so I would be stupid not too. If I submit a whole new load of images it's a new lottery. One was rejected this time that was passed the time before so it isn't foolproof.

30 days wait.....sigh  :P

When I did it I just based my selection for the “exam” on the very few accepted by IS & all 10 went through.  I assumed that IS are so tough that anything accepted there would pass on SS technically but notice some folks have problems with well covered subject matter so am curious if any technical aspect was cited? 
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on September 22, 2011, 09:02
A lot of my accepted and best selling files on IS were rejected by SS.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RacePhoto on September 22, 2011, 10:01
Yep, another rejection. This time I got 6 out of ten BUT one was rejected just for the wrong caption !!!! That's really annoying because the image was right.

They say that I should not submit the same images again but why not ? I submitted them before and they got passed so I would be stupid not too. If I submit a whole new load of images it's a new lottery. One was rejected this time that was passed the time before so it isn't foolproof.

30 days wait.....sigh  :P

3 D and you will pass

1) Diversity - different lighting, different subjects, different settings, variety! One good isolation wouldn't hurt. Show your skills.

2) Downsize - reduce the images to just above minimum so there's no chance of artifacting and flaws will be less viewable. (for application only, before someone starts disagreeing again. This is about APPLYING not after being accepted.)

3) Don't Give Up...  ;D

There you go!

There's one more, use my link and have me as your referral, that ads ten points. (OK that's a lie and I made it up, but what the heck?)

Just do the first three and you'll pass. That's assuming you have good quality images, know how to use a camera, and interesting Microstock type subjects. If you shoot your cat, flowers in the garden and out of focus, underexposed fields of grass, of course, no one will pass!
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: pancaketom on September 22, 2011, 13:03
...

They say that I should not submit the same images again but why not ? I submitted them before and they got passed so I would be stupid not too. If I submit a whole new load of images it's a new lottery. One was rejected this time that was passed the time before so it isn't foolproof.

...

I think the acception/rejection is really pretty arbitrary with borderline pics. If you submit the pics again there is a very good chance that accepted pics will be rejected. This makes them look bad, so they suggest you don't do it.

Agree w/ the 3 D suggestion above. Also go with bright colors and light images and don't do shallow depth of field. - and of course make sure your captions and other stuff is spot on. I had one of my initial 10 rejected because of a problem w/ the model release. Luckily 7 others were accepted.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Carl on September 22, 2011, 16:28
I'm having a real challenge getting any night-time cityscapes accepted on SS.  The first batch was done well after dark...

(http://upload1.shutterstock.com/uploads/thumb_large/130012/130012,1315915170,1.jpg)

I figured they don't like cityscapes in actual darkness, so the next batch was more twilight...

(http://upload1.shutterstock.com/uploads/thumb_large/130012/130012,1316636640,1.jpg)

I get the canned, "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect." reason for all of them.

I did a search on "cityscape night" which returned just over 200 shots, the vast majority of which are anything but night.  Most are barely dusk.  Other sites are accepting them.  Anyone else have any experience with night-time cityscapes?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: corepics on September 22, 2011, 16:53
[snip]  did a search on "cityscape night" which returned just over 200 shots, the vast majority of which are anything but night.  Most are barely dusk.  Other sites are accepting them.  Anyone else have any experience with night-time cityscapes?

When I do a search on "cityscape night" I get over 23.000 results... Did you use any other search options? I'd agree on the vast majority being dusk or dawn, though.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: pancaketom on September 22, 2011, 17:01
my last batch got 100% rejected. I got a keywords rejection on 2 of them which was a first. I re-checked my keywords and there weren't any way off base - unless you didn't actually read them and split them up (which I don't think SS does anymore). (for example "Jack-o-lantern mushroom") - clearly it is a mushroom, not a carved pumpkin. oh well. Since new images don't seem to get seen either, I guess it doesn't hurt much except my motivation.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Carl on September 22, 2011, 17:33
When I do a search on "cityscape night" I get over 23.000 results... Did you use any other search options? I'd agree on the vast majority being dusk or dawn, though.
[/quote]

Yeah, I re-ran the search and got the same thing.  Maybe I had other search options marked unknowingly.  But when I ran a search for "cityscape night orlando florida" (which is where my photos were taken) I got exactly ten, two of which I think are similar to mine.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RacePhoto on September 26, 2011, 14:31

Agree w/ the 3 D suggestion above. Also go with bright colors and light images and don't do shallow depth of field. - and of course make sure your captions and other stuff is spot on. I had one of my initial 10 rejected because of a problem w/ the model release. Luckily 7 others were accepted.

Yes, and there are probably another ten good pieces of advise, but the idea of 3D is KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid. :)

If someone had posted sample of the rejections and there were shallow depth of field shots, I would have jumped on that too. Then the whole "real" isolations, in camera, done with lighting, not photoshop. I love the bright colors suggestion, seems like Micro is very much about high contrast and optical, especially bright, attractive colors. (with the exception possibly of IS which appears to lean more towards natural)

I often think the entry exam is more about proving you can use a camera, edit and aren't just shooting one thing, with common and average results. Unless of course someone would submit a set of stunning food photos, or something that they were very good at, then it might be different.

What's funny for me is now and then I'll see something or have an idea, and I make one shot for SS. I don't do whole sessions of the same thing and try to submit multiples anymore. Two is the limit and I think the last one I did like that was two green things on St. Patrick's Day, or maybe two Fall photos with colors? But I'm one of those "less is more" people, so 90% of the people should ignore me and the other 10% already do.  8)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: heywoody on September 26, 2011, 16:08
If you've got 800 past the IS inspectors you should have no problem technically - suggest using your most unusual subject matter as SS seems to like offbeat (stockwise) subjects that are not competing with thousands of almost the same thing.  As least once you're in you're in and don't have to resubmit the exam images and have most of them rejected  :)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on September 29, 2011, 02:25
If you've got 800 past the IS inspectors you should have no problem technically - suggest using your most unusual subject matter as SS seems to like offbeat (stockwise) subjects that are not competing with thousands of almost the same thing.

And they reject it saying there is limited commercial value. I submitted a nice shot of old vintage traction engines (that has sold a few times at IS) at an English rally and it was rejected. You can't win.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on November 08, 2011, 08:23
Again, rejection on 4th attempt. I absolutely cannot fathom SS at all. Images that were accepted last time have been turned away.

It's a lottery and a waste of time waiting yet another 30 days. One shot with people needs a "proper caption" I have no idea what that means other than describing the image and what they are doing which is what I did. Technically I have submitted many images accepted BUT one reviewer's view is always going to be different making it inconsistent.

As reviewers are all different there are too many variables to know what is going to pass ???
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Paulo M. F. Pires on November 08, 2011, 09:05
Again, rejection on 4th attempt. I absolutely cannot fathom SS at all. Images that were accepted last time have been turned away.

It's a lottery and a waste of time waiting yet another 30 days. One shot with people needs a "proper caption" I have no idea what that means other than describing the image and what they are doing which is what I did.

Gutted  ???


I failed 1st SS test subm. ( 6 out 10 ) and I remember that was cleary to send 10 "new" images on next submission. I keep that 6 images, and after being accepted, they gone with first or second batch.

About "proper caption", is when You submit as Editorial ( or they assume as editorial when U haven't model release )

See : http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/creating-the-perfect-editorial-caption (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/creating-the-perfect-editorial-caption)

I do editorial captions with SS rules and they are almost accepted on major agnecies, exception made to IS, where i remove part of caption. 
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on November 08, 2011, 09:09
I sent them last time with model releases but I think I forgot this time DOH ::) Shame, as they failed last time on caption but had model releases. The funny thing is these images are accepted on Istock as sell.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Metsafile on November 08, 2011, 09:44
I gathered my 10 best selling photos for submission to SS only three made the grade.
Made me wonder what next? So I tried 10 vectors - all approved. Most of these vectors have
had 0 sales on other sites but at SS it's a different story. I'm glad I got in!
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: wut on November 18, 2011, 10:15
Not Approved    
Image is too violent/explicit, potentially objectionable content.

Wow, that's a first :) . Well at least they don't BS with low commercial value :)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gemmy12 on November 30, 2011, 03:08
I have sympathy with Herg... do let us know when your images are finally approved in SS... al the best
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RT on November 30, 2011, 03:50
Don't know about anybody else but I've been getting quite a few "image is not in focus........etc" rejections recently, and all of the files are perfectly in focus and have been accepted at every other agency, I'm wondering if the reviewers are allowing enough times for the files to load.

Sent an email to support but got the usual response i.e. none.  ::)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 30, 2011, 05:40
Don't know about anybody else but I've been getting quite a few "image is not in focus........etc" rejections recently, and all of the files are perfectly in focus and have been accepted at every other agency, I'm wondering if the reviewers are allowing enough times for the files to load.

Sent an email to support but got the usual response i.e. none.  ::)

They HATE shallow DoF, it's rarely "where we like it to be". They're also very strict about focus in general - I recently submitted some five-year-old shots which were a tiny bit soft, they were good enough for IS and DT but flunked SS. I could see why even though they were perfectly usable. Maybe if your glass is not either a decent prime or an absolutely top-end zoom you could run into trouble.

I've also noticed that they seem to be a lot less keen on heavily saturated stuff than they were, preferring a more natural look.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RT on November 30, 2011, 05:58
^ No they weren't shallow DoF and the I only use the best Canon glass available, call me old fashioned but when you submit a photo with a person in it and that person is the focal point I was always lead to believe the eyes were the focus point,  on the shots in question the whole head of the person is within the DoF as is the body.
 Another example is where I've submitted a photo with a person in the background that is deliberately and obviously OOF but the purpose of the shot is the item in the foreground that is perfectly in focus and it's obvious that's the focal point of the shot because it's an item with a giant word on it.
 And my most recent rejections are for some still life shots with a candle, one candle, the candle is in focus with the focal point being the flame, shot at f11.

More worrying is the fact that the majority of the shots from the same series have been accepted.

Years ago I had a go at reviewing, I only did six batches and hated it but the one thing I did learn is that images containing a lot of information take time to load and at first they look OOF but then when the whole file loads things appear correctly, I'm concerned that because of the amount of extra files SS are getting these days (maybe all the iS exclusives!) the reviewers are rushing things, or even worse the standards of the reviewers is not what it should be.
 It wouldn't bother me so much if the support on SS answered emails.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Tabimura on November 30, 2011, 06:38
Don't know about anybody else but I've been getting quite a few "image is not in focus........etc" rejections recently, and all of the files are perfectly in focus and have been accepted at every other agency, I'm wondering if the reviewers are allowing enough times for the files to load.

Sent an email to support but got the usual response i.e. none.  ::)

They HATE shallow DoF, it's rarely "where we like it to be".

That's absolutely not true. They accept shallow dof even at very wide aperture settings and I only had problems when the supposedly sharp zone was fuzzy (camera shake or something - I also have only good primes). However, a resize to 12 or 8 MP and a bit of smart sharpen on the dof area could be helpful.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Dark_Angel on November 30, 2011, 08:25
Don't know about anybody else but I've been getting quite a few "image is not in focus........etc" rejections recently, and all of the files are perfectly in focus and have been accepted at every other agency, I'm wondering if the reviewers are allowing enough times for the files to load.

Sent an email to support but got the usual response i.e. none.  ::)


I have noticed an increase of these rejections as well. And the images are perfectly in focus and accepted everywhere else.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: rubyroo on November 30, 2011, 09:24
I did a test once (YMMV on this).

I had a theory that the shallow DOFs I had accepted all had their focus on the area that was farthest in the foreground.

I sent in two images of the same scene.  One with focus farthest in the foreground, and one with focus on the area I thought was of primary interest.

Focus in the foreground was accepted.  Primary interest was rejected on the basis that focus wasn't where they wanted it.  

You all might want to try that test too and see what happens.  

ETA:  I find it really strange that agencies don't actually state these rules (if indeed that is a rule).  FT is the worst in this regard, but if they actually clarified these things, the reviewers wouldn't be wasting time on images they can't add to the library.  It's in their interest to make these things clearer, and yet they choose not to.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: lagereek on November 30, 2011, 09:31
You might all wanna go back to the drawingboard and try to get it right in-camera and from the very start. There are photo-schools and colleges, something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy. Spending thousands of bucks on high-res cams, just to downsize to a point/shoot cam is not to recommend.
Take the rough with the smooth boys. Tisk, tisk, tisk.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: rubyroo on November 30, 2011, 09:32
Cheeky.  ;)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gemmy12 on November 30, 2011, 09:35
[quote author=rubyroo link=topic=11825.msg230178#msg230178 date=132266306
ETA:  I find it really strange that agencies don't actually state these rules (if indeed that is a rule).  FT is the worst in this regard, but if they actually clarified these things, the reviewers wouldn't be wasting time on images they can't add to the library.  It's in their interest to make these things clearer, and yet they choose not to.
[/quote]
 Very much correct
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RT on November 30, 2011, 10:36
You might all wanna go back to the drawingboard and try to get it right in-camera and from the very start. There are photo-schools and colleges, something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy. Spending thousands of bucks on high-res cams, just to downsize to a point/shoot cam is not to recommend.
Take the rough with the smooth boys. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

Camera, tripod - Ah now I see, I was using my phone sellotaped to a table  :P
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gostwyck on November 30, 2011, 10:44
You might all wanna go back to the drawingboard and try to get it right in-camera and from the very start. There are photo-schools and colleges, something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy. Spending thousands of bucks on high-res cams, just to downsize to a point/shoot cam is not to recommend.
Take the rough with the smooth boys. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

You forgot one __ take the lens cap off before you shoot. Classic armature (to use Lagereek's language) mistake.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: pancaketom on November 30, 2011, 10:45
You might all wanna go back to the drawingboard and try to get it right in-camera and from the very start. There are photo-schools and colleges, something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy. Spending thousands of bucks on high-res cams, just to downsize to a point/shoot cam is not to recommend.
Take the rough with the smooth boys. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

Camera, tripod - Ah now I see, I was using my phone sellotaped to a table  :P

sellotape and table = genius. That should work a lot better than using gum to stick it to my dog
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: rubyroo on November 30, 2011, 10:56
 :D

Ah yeah, try gum on a cat.  Smoother mover.

(Sellotape/phone... LOL)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gemmy12 on November 30, 2011, 11:05
ok
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: lagereek on November 30, 2011, 11:20
You might all wanna go back to the drawingboard and try to get it right in-camera and from the very start. There are photo-schools and colleges, something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy. Spending thousands of bucks on high-res cams, just to downsize to a point/shoot cam is not to recommend.
Take the rough with the smooth boys. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

You forgot one __ take the lens cap off before you shoot. Classic armature (to use Lagereek's language) mistake.

Dead right!  forgot that one, although Im surprised someone like RT, forgot the cap, arent you? :D
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gbalex on November 30, 2011, 13:46
Don't know about anybody else but I've been getting quite a few "image is not in focus........etc" rejections recently, and all of the files are perfectly in focus and have been accepted at every other agency, I'm wondering if the reviewers are allowing enough times for the files to load.

Sent an email to support but got the usual response i.e. none.  ::)

Think it boils down to the reviewer and while many of us have complained SS does nothing to correct the situation.  Do some threshold testing, I am sure you can use your review experience to extrapolate!
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 30, 2011, 16:40
something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy.

So does something called "flash".
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RT on November 30, 2011, 16:55
something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy.

So does something called "flash".

You better explain that one to him, wouldn't want him to get the wrong idea and set an oil rig up in flames   :o
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gostwyck on November 30, 2011, 17:21
something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy.

So does something called "flash".

You better explain that one to him, wouldn't want him to get the wrong idea and set an oil rig up in flames   :o

Oh I dunno __ I think he'd welcome the stock opportunity of an oil rig fire.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: stockastic on November 30, 2011, 19:12
What I think is happening is that over the last year, SS (and others) have tried to raise their standards, and have changed the guidelines for reviewers.  But they probably haven't been totally clear, and have issued new or changed guidelines from time to time, and reviewers have come and gone.  So they've ended up with reviewers all over the place in terms of what they see as the current guidelines and how to apply them.

In short, I don't think they know what they really want any more.

Maybe this will sort itself out over time.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Karimala on November 30, 2011, 19:24
You might all wanna go back to the drawingboard and try to get it right in-camera and from the very start. There are photo-schools and colleges, something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy. Spending thousands of bucks on high-res cams, just to downsize to a point/shoot cam is not to recommend.
Take the rough with the smooth boys. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

You forgot one __ take the lens cap off before you shoot. Classic armature (to use Lagereek's language) mistake.

Dead right!  forgot that one, although Im surprised someone like RT, forgot the cap, arent you? :D

Reminds me of when I was reviewing and someone submitted a photo of black.  That's it.  Just black.  Keyworded and described as a conceptual image.   ::)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: pancaketom on November 30, 2011, 21:00
You might all wanna go back to the drawingboard and try to get it right in-camera and from the very start. There are photo-schools and colleges, something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy. Spending thousands of bucks on high-res cams, just to downsize to a point/shoot cam is not to recommend.
Take the rough with the smooth boys. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

You forgot one __ take the lens cap off before you shoot. Classic armature (to use Lagereek's language) mistake.

Dead right!  forgot that one, although Im surprised someone like RT, forgot the cap, arent you? :D

Reminds me of when I was reviewing and someone submitted a photo of black.  That's it.  Just black.  Keyworded and described as a conceptual image.   ::)

Was it "blacker than all the others"? I hope you rejected it for "white balance".  ha
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: lagereek on December 01, 2011, 02:18
something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy.

So does something called "flash".

You better explain that one to him, wouldn't want him to get the wrong idea and set an oil rig up in flames   :o

Damned right I would! just imagine, a shot like that would sell its guts out, danger, environmental damage, etc, etc. As it happens, a few years back I actually missed one, outside the Norwegian cost, North Sea, one of the smaller Trolls, had caught fire. Missed it by a day or so.

Oh I dunno __ I think he'd welcome the stock opportunity of an oil rig fire.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: maigi on December 04, 2011, 17:25

Reminds me of when I was reviewing and someone submitted a photo of black.  That's it.  Just black.  Keyworded and described as a conceptual image.   ::)

Was it "blacker than all the others"? I hope you rejected it for "white balance".  ha

LOL Reminds me that I saw somewhere a totally white conceptual image. I guess it's white balance was correct. :D
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gostwyck on December 04, 2011, 17:56
Reminds me of when I was reviewing and someone submitted a photo of black.  That's it.  Just black.  Keyworded and described as a conceptual image.   ::)

That was me! So it was you who rejected it. I'm sure it would have been a best-seller __ but then lots of others would have copied it  ;)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RacePhoto on December 05, 2011, 18:39
First time I saw a Mondrian I said "that's art?" and the lady was very indignant, said he was famous and it was in the balance and colors. That was almost 50 years ago and I'm still seeing just as mystifying images all the time. Hey, nice scam, paint some lines and boxes on a canvas and claim it's some inside art movement piece.

(http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/artsheaven_2187_2763041272)
1920  Composition A

For sale at a discount, reproductions $175 marked down from $530. We should be so lucky to become "IN".

My vote for most rediculous rejection anywhere is LCV, like the reviewer is psychic and knows what a buyer might want. We've been through pizza pans which had pathetic coverage, in my case it was John Glen Astronaut on DT. Answer? Too many like this, "these don't sell well" and if you go search you'll see why. There aren't any!  :o FT same thing, a subject that they have NONE of, refused for too many and they don't sell well. LCV in other words.

In the whole world of the Internet, not one person wants to buy an image of John Glen?

IS two from EdStock. SS has one postage stamp, and for some reason, the same image comes up on all of them "Historic Corral at Lonely Dell Ranch"  ???

Sure not a best seller with a blue flame, but, not one on the other top sites?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: zrmedia on December 12, 2011, 14:12
I conducted an experiment after reading some negative comments about ShutterStock to see if it was worth my time to contribute: I uploaded 10 images. 4 were rejected for very vague reasons (they claim to make these reasons clear so that newcomers can learn from their mistakes, but no such luck). In addition, they make submitters wait an entire month before they can submit another 10 photos. This makes absolutely no sense and totally justifies all the negative things I’ve read about the site. So a month later, I submitted the exact same 10 photos. This time, 5 were rejected and 3 of the accepted ones had been rejected the first time! This proves that they have no set standards and whether you get accepted or not depends entirely on which reviewer you get and his/her mood on that day. This, plus the total arrogance of their sign-up processs (seriously, my credit card number???) and other requirements that NO other sites have (no spaces in file names, what are we, back in the nineties???) make shutterstock the worst stock site on the internet. shutterstock (it doesn't deserve capitalization) is a completely dishonest and arrogant company and doesn't deserve to make one penny from someone else's hard work. They'll certainly never make a penny from any of mine.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: pancaketom on December 12, 2011, 16:05
If SS rejects 4 out of the first 10, they don't necessarily look at the others, so perhaps they would be rejected too.

I completely agree that rejection reasons often are not particularly helpful - like "isolation border is too feathered or too sharp" - well, which one?

I would say that reviews are somewhat arbitrary and capricious - AT ALL SITES (at least all that I have submitted to). It does suck if you have to wait to try again, but in the meantime you should learn a bit about what SS likes and doesn't like - at least for the first 10. I sometimes found that what SS accepted IS would reject and vice versa to some extent.

I don't think I ever gave SS my credit card number - that is a new one to me.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: stockmarketer on December 12, 2011, 16:14
I conducted an experiment after reading some negative comments about ShutterStock to see if it was worth my time to contribute: I uploaded 10 images. 4 were rejected for very vague reasons (they claim to make these reasons clear so that newcomers can learn from their mistakes, but no such luck). In addition, they make submitters wait an entire month before they can submit another 10 photos. This makes absolutely no sense and totally justifies all the negative things I’ve read about the site. So a month later, I submitted the exact same 10 photos. This time, 5 were rejected and 3 of the accepted ones had been rejected the first time! This proves that they have no set standards and whether you get accepted or not depends entirely on which reviewer you get and his/her mood on that day. This, plus the total arrogance of their sign-up processs (seriously, my credit card number???) and other requirements that NO other sites have (no spaces in file names, what are we, back in the nineties???) make shutterstock the worst stock site on the internet. shutterstock (it doesn't deserve capitalization) is a completely dishonest and arrogant company and doesn't deserve to make one penny from someone else's hard work. They'll certainly never make a penny from any of mine.

Wow, where to begin?

they make submitters wait an entire month before they can submit another 10 photos. This makes absolutely no sense and totally justifies all the negative things I’ve read about the site.

SS gets a lot of new contributors trying to sign up everyday.  Most simply don't have what it takes.  The 30-day period makes sure that rejected contributors can't simply try again every single day.  SS would get nothing done if that happened.  The hope is that the applicants will review their skills, figure out why they got rejected, get educated about what SS really wants, and be very careful about what they submit again.  30 days is appropriate to take all those steps.

So a month later, I submitted the exact same 10 photos. This time, 5 were rejected and 3 of the accepted ones had been rejected the first time! This proves that they have no set standards and whether you get accepted or not depends entirely on which reviewer you get and his/her mood on that day.

News flash?  People are subjective and everyone is different.  What would you have SS do?  Hire robots to review images?  These people aren't grading tests with answers that are right or wrong.  They do their best, and they don't always agree.  Again, what better process would you suggest?



This, plus the total arrogance of their sign-up processs (seriously, my credit card number???) and other requirements that NO other sites have (no spaces in file names, what are we, back in the nineties???) make shutterstock the worst stock site on the internet.

When you're one of the best sites, with tons of customers and contributors, you earn the right to ask for things the way you want them.  Credit card number helps make sure you're a real person, and serious about wanting to be a contributor.  

shutterstock (it doesn't deserve capitalization) is a completely dishonest and arrogant company and doesn't deserve to make one penny from someone else's hard work. They'll certainly never make a penny from any of mine.

I'm glad to help make SHUTTERSTOCK (deserves every cap) a LOT of money.  They treat me very fairly, and the relationship has been very lucrative for both of us.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: reckless on December 12, 2011, 16:17
The OP must have Shutterstock confused with some other site. Most of my file names have multiple words with spaces between them. Both the file name and file title.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: reckless on December 12, 2011, 16:20
I didn't mean to refer to RacePhoto, my comment was directed towards zrmedia.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: jcpjr on December 12, 2011, 16:32
When I joined them in 2005, after the second try, you had to wait 90 days to try again. I have no complaints...I get a payout every month from my meager port.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: zrmedia on December 12, 2011, 18:00
My point is, I get a much fairer commission at Alamy and Fotolia (and do great there each month), and their sign-up requirements didn't spit in my face. Therefore, Alamy and Fotolia earned my business. I am currently visiting review sites and informing new artists where the real money is and where the corporate greed and lack of ethics are. I and others remember that we, the artists, control the success or failure of these sites, not the other way around. By informing people, we will see to it that fair and ethical sites succeed and greedy, dishonest sites get edged out. I've steered several people away from SS in favor of the truly profitable sites and they have thanked me and are spreading the word themselves. This will result in more sign-ups at other sites, which in turn will mean more profit for those sites. This will result in better ratings and reviews, resulting in still more sign-ups, which will ultimately snowball. Pond5 has left its stock video market competitors in the dust and the gap is only growing. This is due to positive word of mouth, which in turn is due to fair commissions and an easy, non-nazi sign-up procedure. I and others are the reason for this, because we constantly post on the review sites and report who's screwing us artists over and who isn't. You SS fanboy hoop-jumpers that don't mind making $20 a month for weeks of work can save your keystrokes, I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to people that value their time and trouble and remember how much time they spent studying and how much they spent on their gear. I'm talking to people that don't enjoy a constant corporate erection in their anus. The rest of you should just stay bent over and save some wear and tear on your keyboard. That is all.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on December 12, 2011, 18:28
I understand that you are bitter about not making the grade for SS, ZR, but it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that "the money" is at Fotolia rather than Shutterstock.

Shutterstock is way ahead of Fotolia in both earnings and in business ethics, whether it is about cutting commissions for suppliers - which Fotolia does repeatedly but SS has never done - or about unreasonable delays running into months in making payments to artists, which Fotolia has routinely done and Shutterstock has never, to my knowledge, done.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: wut on December 12, 2011, 18:47
SS isn't perfect. Not even close. But it's the best place we can upload to. And that's all there's to it. We can't realistically expect more in this situation the industry and economy is in, overall the climate is bad. Especially because of sites like IS and FT. FT IMO is worse than IS. Not only they've cut comissions twice, they can't deliver decent earnings for most ppl (according to polls, comments etc). Low volume, mostly subs and really low prices made me stop uploading over there months ago
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: heywoody on December 12, 2011, 18:51
I understand that you are bitter about not making the grade for SS, ZR, but it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that "the money" is at Fotolia rather than Shutterstock.

Shutterstock is way ahead of Fotolia in both earnings and in business ethics, whether it is about cutting commissions for suppliers - which Fotolia does repeatedly but SS has never done - or about unreasonable delays running into months in making payments to artists, which Fotolia has routinely done and Shutterstock has never, to my knowledge, done.

This is true and, fundementally, how can you make any kind of earnings comparison between a site where you have a presence and one where you don't?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RacePhoto on December 13, 2011, 05:00
I conducted an experiment after reading some negative comments about ShutterStock to see if it was worth my time to contribute: I uploaded 10 images. 4 were rejected for very vague reasons (they claim to make these reasons clear so that newcomers can learn from their mistakes, but no such luck). In addition, they make submitters wait an entire month before they can submit another 10 photos. This makes absolutely no sense and totally justifies all the negative things I’ve read about the site. So a month later, I submitted the exact same 10 photos. This time, 5 were rejected and 3 of the accepted ones had been rejected the first time! This proves that they have no set standards and whether you get accepted or not depends entirely on which reviewer you get and his/her mood on that day. This, plus the total arrogance of their sign-up processs (seriously, my credit card number???) and other requirements that NO other sites have (no spaces in file names, what are we, back in the nineties???) make shutterstock the worst stock site on the internet. shutterstock (it doesn't deserve capitalization) is a completely dishonest and arrogant company and doesn't deserve to make one penny from someone else's hard work. They'll certainly never make a penny from any of mine.

Did you ever get accepted?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: markrhiggins on December 13, 2011, 06:04
It is easy to get accepted at SS. Put ten good images in. If you put in average to poor images you will probably get rejected. The average images may get accepted or rejected depending on the images. Alamy is much easier with acceptance and inspection standards. Yeah they pay more per image but you sell much less. Why would you think people here are making $20 per month at SS? Credit card? ID? - They are careful, would you rather have the IS frauds? OK ZRmedia what gives you the right to bag out SS you have not even got ten images that can pass initial inspection (subsequent inspection is harder)?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 14, 2011, 13:58
Just sent my 10 submissions in and I will await the rejection.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 14, 2011, 17:17
Oh, no...hang on. I have got in. Excellent :-) At last.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: pancaketom on December 14, 2011, 17:23
Oh, no...hang on. I have got in. Excellent :-) At last.

congrats - I hope it proves as worthwhile for you as it did to me.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 14, 2011, 17:26
All 9 images bar one were accepted. That's a good result.

Now then, I have just applied for dropping my exclusivity with istock. The images I have just had passed with SS, how do I stop them becoming live on the site before exclusivity expires ?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: heywoody on December 14, 2011, 18:37
On your account page there are buttons to opt in or out of various types of selling - guess you can just opt out of everything until you're ready (never tried this myself so no promises).  Need to be quick as you probably have sales already  ;)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RacePhoto on December 15, 2011, 01:33
All 9 images bar one were accepted. That's a good result.

Now then, I have just applied for dropping my exclusivity with istock. The images I have just had passed with SS, how do I stop them becoming live on the site before exclusivity expires ?


Actually here's the complete answer, on SS:  http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/control-your-portfolio-opt-in-or-opt-out (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/control-your-portfolio-opt-in-or-opt-out)

Don’t let a soon-to-expire exclusivity agreement with another stock image agency hold you back from uploading images or footage clips to Shutterstock. Shutterstock’s “Opt Out” feature lets you upload your images or footage clips whenever it’s most convenient for you, and still respect your exclusivity obligations to other agencies. Put your exclusive images or footage clips on hold until your exclusivity contract runs out, at which point you’re free to distribute your content on Shutterstock without missing a day of sales.

Even if you are under an exclusive contract, we invite you to create a contributor account with Shutterstock. Once you’ve created an account and you’ve been accepted as a contributor, opting out of Shutterstock sales is as simple as clicking a button. Here’s how to do it:


SS started this with the obvious knowledge that people needed a way to control accepted images until they were clear of some other exclusive site. Nice move.

http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/control-your-portfolio-opt-in-or-opt-out (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/control-your-portfolio-opt-in-or-opt-out)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 15, 2011, 02:31
That's great. Thanks for the tip off :-) I like the way you can upload more than one image at a time with easy key wording. Much quicker and less painful than IS. Now for some serious uploading. Not sure which is my home page though as it doesn't show all my accepted images. I need a landing home page where I can see everything.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: dirkr on December 15, 2011, 05:31
Therefore, Alamy and Fotolia earned my business. I am currently visiting review sites and informing new artists where the real money is and where the corporate greed and lack of ethics are.

Putting Fotolia and "corporate greed" and "lack of ethics" into one sentence makes a lot of sense.
Only the way you do that and the conclusions you draw from that makes me think you have lived in a different world than me in the last years. ???
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: YadaYadaYada on December 15, 2011, 19:59
Therefore, Alamy and Fotolia earned my business. I am currently visiting review sites and informing new artists where the real money is and where the corporate greed and lack of ethics are.

Putting Fotolia and "corporate greed" and "lack of ethics" into one sentence makes a lot of sense.
Only the way you do that and the conclusions you draw from that makes me think you have lived in a different world than me in the last years. ???

He doesn't make any sense and claiming ft as ethical is a tale thet he's a total dope. Can't pass at SS so he's crying on all of us. No photos on SS lying troll. Cut and paste the same words on everywhere.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 16, 2011, 14:17
Well, after a couple of days uploading and keywording I thought I would update on my progress. I have had 76 images rejected and 39 accepted. To me that's pretty bad going and at this rate I will be finding it hard to match the numbers I have in IS. Or, is this pretty normal, are they very picky once you are in ?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: briciola on December 16, 2011, 14:54
Well, after a couple of days uploading and keywording I thought I would update on my progress. I have had 76 images rejected and 39 accepted. To me that's pretty bad going and at this rate I will be finding it hard to match the numbers I have in IS. Or, is this pretty normal, are they very picky once you are in ?
I initally found them easier than IS, now it's probably the other way round for me at least.  What are the rejection reasons?  If it's focus, I usually try a resubmit with a downsized image and a note to the inspector saying that I'm resubmitting.

Sorry if this is stating the obvious, but it's probably worth uploading any IS rejections you think could sell too.  I've had a few that didn't make the cut on IS but are on SS.  Congrats anyway and I hope they start accepting more.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 16, 2011, 15:45
Do you think even though I will have less files at SS they will still earn me better money than IS ? I did notice when my initial 9 were accepted, before I had chance to disable them (still exclusive at IS) I had already made a sale of 25c. If that is the case with only 9 files in such a short space of time the future looks very good :-)

Rejections were vague (focus/composition/lighting/WB/not needed) At least I have some of my best sellers at IS in there but sadly a few that didn't make it which is a shame because there is proof they do sell, even at IS :-(
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: ShadySue on December 16, 2011, 16:12
I did notice when my initial 9 were accepted, before I had chance to disable them (still exclusive at IS) I had already made a sale of 25c. If that is the case with only 9 files in such a short space of time the future looks very good :-)
Don't go buying that Ferrari  ;) I got my first sale on iStock very soon after my first batch went live.  8)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 17, 2011, 08:19
A Ferrari is the last thing I would buy, even if I could afford one. cars are not my thing, even overpriced ugly ones like a Ferrari.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RacePhoto on December 17, 2011, 20:18
A Ferrari is the last thing I would buy, even if I could afford one. cars are not my thing, even overpriced ugly ones like a Ferrari.


Sour grapes? You wouldn't want an Enzo (http://i732.photobucket.com/albums/ww328/deneton/Cars/Ferrari-Enzo.jpg) only 399 made, originally sold for $ 659,330 but since there's more demand than supply, you might get a real buy just under One Million. (if you could find one for sale, and I happened to know where there is one in IL.) OK a little excessive, I agree.

or maybe a nice F360, under $90,000 used? (http://img.vast.com/128x96/-7327684436770178270) I think it's a great looking car.

How about a Porsche or maybe a Lotus? Keep in mind I'm around fancy cars, antiques, vintage and highly prized racers, including a nice paddock full of Ferrari's now and then, but I still drive a Honda. Two reasons. Gas Mileage, and I'm cheap!  :D

(Winters in Wisconsin mean anyone with any sense would have a Summer car and park it from Nov. until about May, so it wouldn't get rusted from the salt on the roads.)

I can take my monthly earnings from SS and buy a used Dinky Toy car for the collection. I'm happy with that.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 18, 2011, 05:25
Like I said, cars are not my thing. I like simpler things in life like growing veg, nature, music, walking i the countryside etc etc. Most that are free :-)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RT on December 18, 2011, 05:44
I'm not a car person either, a neighbour of mine bought a Ferrari testarossa once, it was the most uncomfortable car I've ever been in, and very basic inside, he kept it a week!
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 18, 2011, 07:14
Its costly enough running a car. It gets you from a to b. That's it.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: microstockphoto.co.uk on December 18, 2011, 07:30
I don't like cars either, and use public transport whenever I can.
The few times I need to drive, I use my father's 20 years old car.

However there are some very nice cars from a design point of view, but it's not Ferrari (or any other sport car) imo: if I had money to burn, I'd go for a Bentley. Or a relatively "inexpensive" BMW which is more stylish in a wonderfully understated way.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 18, 2011, 12:06
My ideal car would be something like a new Golf that is well built, safe and economical. Even so, the cost of petrol dictates how often we have days out now. At the moment I have a 1.2 2002 petrol Polo which is good though not as good on fuel as I thought. I upgraded from a 19991.6 Focus which was costly on fuel.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: ShadySue on December 18, 2011, 14:05
I'm not a car person either, a neighbour of mine bought a Ferrari testarossa once, it was the most uncomfortable car I've ever been in, and very basic inside, he kept it a week!

I once went out with a bloke (i.e. only once) who had some sort of Porsche and it was so horribly low it felt as though your bum was scraping along the road. Yuck.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: rubyroo on December 18, 2011, 17:14
I have a soft-spot for old vee-dub beetles and camper-vans... but that's just because they have a bit of character.  To me a car is just something that gets a person reliably from 'A' to 'B'.  New cars, 'flashy' cars, sports cars... they're a complete turn-off to me.  I used to date a guy who was obsessed with cars... it just bored me to death.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Smiling Jack on December 18, 2011, 18:18
Hi
Cars are just to get you to the airport.  Although i parked my airplane in my back yard, for a time. My airplane cruises 95 mph and get about 24 mpg. It is 65 yrs old and still going strong.
Smiling Jack
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gemmy12 on December 19, 2011, 01:17
Oh, no...hang on. I have got in. Excellent :-) At last.
hey Congrats Herg. Finally this long thread came to a fruitful happy end  :-) Good luck. Now its my turn to wait as my waiting period gonna end at the end of this year :-)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 19, 2011, 09:32
Yep but at this rate I won't have nearly as many files up on SS as I do on IS because of the high number of rejections. The reviewer yesterday passed a lot. TOday's reviewer was the opposite. Will it be worth being on SS with much less files ? I don't know but it won't hurt to try.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RacePhoto on December 20, 2011, 01:07
I'm not a car person either, a neighbour of mine bought a Ferrari testarossa once, it was the most uncomfortable car I've ever been in, and very basic inside, he kept it a week!

They are fine for other people, and all the way down I agree, mini van would be best for me, easy to get in and out of, good cargo handling, nice visibility.

Fancy sports cars, too hard to get in and out, plus a tune-up or new set of tires would break me. No room for a tent and cooler.

I never said practical, just that they look nice. I like the styling of the F360, but I also like an old Porsche 356 from the 50s and 60s. Beats all the look alike jelly bean cars we get now.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: briciola on December 20, 2011, 05:01
Yep but at this rate I won't have nearly as many files up on SS as I do on IS because of the high number of rejections. The reviewer yesterday passed a lot. TOday's reviewer was the opposite. Will it be worth being on SS with much less files ? I don't know but it won't hurt to try.
I just resubmitted some rejections - for focus - I resized them down a bit, unsharp mask and they mostly got through (just to be clear, I don't think the focus was off, they were all accepted across IS,DT,etc.).  For the lighting rejections try brightening them up a bit, bit of contrast with curves - put a note saying that you're resubmitting them.  I've found you can push files a bit more in post for SS, whereas in IS you'd get an overfiltered rejection.
Anyway, it's got to be worth a try resubmitting your favourites at least once, you've already done the work of keywording, etc.

(On cars - I've driven (not mine!) a few ferrari,jaguar...but the Aston Martin Vantage took my breath away.  How can anybody not love these cars? :) )
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: ShadySue on December 20, 2011, 05:39
  I used to date a guy who was obsessed with cars... it just bored me to death.
Yeah, rubbish for a date, but great as a colleague if you have any problems or questions. And they just love helping you choose your new/second-hand car.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 20, 2011, 06:33
Sigh....a load more rejections and sadly the files sell well on IS. One was turned away for not being in focus when it is pin sharp. I don't get it but at this rate there won't be much in my folio.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gaja on December 20, 2011, 12:36
Sorry for the stupid question, but have you uploaded the files that IS rejected? What is accepted and saleable on one site is very different from good sellers on the other.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: wut on December 20, 2011, 12:43
I'm not a car person either, a neighbour of mine bought a Ferrari testarossa once, it was the most uncomfortable car I've ever been in, and very basic inside, he kept it a week!

You've missed the point so obviously, that it really shows ;D ;)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RT on December 20, 2011, 13:09
I'm not a car person either, a neighbour of mine bought a Ferrari testarossa once, it was the most uncomfortable car I've ever been in, and very basic inside, he kept it a week!

You've missed the point so obviously, that it really shows ;D ;)

Actually I haven't missed the point, I just don't value the point in a Ferrari - but like I said I'm not a car person
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: lagereek on December 20, 2011, 14:27
SS, dont make ridicuolous rejections,  they simply dont need the stuff or classify it as generic rubbish, keeping their files clean from irrelevant material and thats it. Anybody that has a problem with that?  join IS. :)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 21, 2011, 05:34
SS, dont make ridicuolous rejections,  they simply dont need the stuff or classify it as generic rubbish, keeping their files clean from irrelevant material and thats it. Anybody that has a problem with that?  join IS. :)

If you are trying to provoke with sardonic remarks (something in abundance here) forget it. Anyway, I am in now  ;D
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gemmy12 on December 21, 2011, 10:10
seems SS (and few other sites) have been more strict with new regulations and categories of 'no more such images' for entries,particularly for test photographs. May be because they have surplus of almost all kind of photographs.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 22, 2011, 06:40
What I find strange with SS is the fact they turn down a distant tractor crop spraying in a field,  plastic toy robot, a distant herd of cows, a traction steam engine , for copyright or trademark reasons, and thats just a few. There are no logos or names on any of these shots. And yet things like statues get through no problem. One building was turned down on the basis of a logo but it's got no logo. It's a different ball game I suppose I must get used to. IS accepted all these and they are very picky about logos. I think we are a bit more relaxed in England.

Anyway, I am still glad to be and and getting images accepted because I want a reason to get out there and shoot editorial images which is more my thing. IS has earned me $1100 less than last year. That's a huge loss and I can't afford it.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gemmy12 on December 22, 2011, 09:05
ya thats quite strange but true about SS. Even though one photo has no visible logo,mark or any symbol still they are not accepting. There are very few things or categories mentioned in shutterbuzz including building interior exterior any pattern. In fact SS contributors say SS now does not accept any of the factory made items. In my 1st test they rejected a locally made toy with no logo or word written on it. Now i am quite cautious about my 2nd test. Will not submit any factory made item or any abandoned building as well.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 22, 2011, 10:28
It's getting ridiculous and is killing the enjoyment of taking photographs.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 29, 2011, 02:00
So far I am finding my experience uploading to SS very positive. Ok, I had a few initial rejections but on the whole I am experiencing good results getting images into the collection, especially ones IS rejected over and over. I can't wait until I can flick the switch and get them all live to start earning. Only 15 days to go !
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gemmy12 on December 29, 2011, 09:52
So far I am finding my experience uploading to SS very positive. Ok, I had a few initial rejections but on the whole I am experiencing good results getting images into the collection, especially ones IS rejected over and over. I can't wait until I can flick the switch and get them all live to start earning. Only 15 days to go !

are the IS rejected shots being accepted by SS ?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: w7lwi on December 29, 2011, 11:35
So far I am finding my experience uploading to SS very positive. Ok, I had a few initial rejections but on the whole I am experiencing good results getting images into the collection, especially ones IS rejected over and over. I can't wait until I can flick the switch and get them all live to start earning. Only 15 days to go !

are the IS rejected shots being accepted by SS ?

Mine have been, almost universally.  And several have sold in the 100's and have had EL's.  The usual rejection at IS ... look too Photoshopped.  Another reason I stopped uploading to IS earlier this year.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: gemmy12 on December 29, 2011, 11:55
So far I am finding my experience uploading to SS very positive. Ok, I had a few initial rejections but on the whole I am experiencing good results getting images into the collection, especially ones IS rejected over and over. I can't wait until I can flick the switch and get them all live to start earning. Only 15 days to go !

are the IS rejected shots being accepted by SS ?

Mine have been, almost universally.  And several have sold in the 100's and have had EL's.  The usual rejection at IS ... look too Photoshopped.  Another reason I stopped uploading to IS earlier this year.

Okay. I will try my IS rejected photos in SS the.. who knows they might get selected.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: w7lwi on December 29, 2011, 12:00
You never know unless you try.  And what's the absolute worst that can happen?  They get rejected.  Hardly the end of the world.  Not like you'll be thrown into prison or something.   ;D
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RacePhoto on December 29, 2011, 15:27
So far I am finding my experience uploading to SS very positive. Ok, I had a few initial rejections but on the whole I am experiencing good results getting images into the collection, especially ones IS rejected over and over. I can't wait until I can flick the switch and get them all live to start earning. Only 15 days to go !

Oh by then they will all be "old" files and go to the back. (just kidding!)  :o

I uploaded a shot yesterday that I figured had less than a 20% chance of getting accepted. It has shadows! (oh no, the Sun casts a shadow...) Got the accepted email this morning. Now if it sells, that's even better!
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: cascoly on December 29, 2011, 15:41
i thought rejections couldnt get any sillier but today i  got several rejections from SS because the images were taken in a national park! [in this case gettysburg]


 a search for national park gives 138,000 images and gettysburg alone gives 708!  not to mention all the nature and scencis taken in grand canyon, yosemite, acadia, rainier et al, which often doet have national park in the desc!

per usual, no reponse as yet from SS 'support'
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: KB on December 29, 2011, 17:26
i thought rejections couldnt get any sillier but today i  got several rejections from SS because the images were taken in a national park! [in this case gettysburg]


 a search for national park gives 138,000 images and gettysburg alone gives 708!  not to mention all the nature and scencis taken in grand canyon, yosemite, acadia, rainier et al, which often doet have national park in the desc!

per usual, no reponse as yet from SS 'support'

From http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?urlarea=permits (http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?urlarea=permits)

The National Park Service permits commercial filming and still photography when it is consistent with the park’s mission and will not harm the resource or interfere with the visitor experience.

When is a permit needed?
All commercial filming activities taking place within a unit of the National Park system require a permit. Commercial filming includes capturing a moving image on film and video as well as sound recordings.

Still photographers require a permit when
1.      the activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed; or
2.      the activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities; or
3.      Park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity.


So it seems to me that unless you're shooting models or bringing props, commercial photography is allowed, and without a permit.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on December 29, 2011, 17:37
What I find strange with SS is the fact they turn down a distant tractor crop spraying in a field, 

Would that be a distant green tractor, by any chance? John Deere have, apparently, managed to copyright the colour green on tractors.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RacePhoto on December 30, 2011, 02:59
i thought rejections couldnt get any sillier but today i  got several rejections from SS because the images were taken in a national park! [in this case gettysburg]


 a search for national park gives 138,000 images and gettysburg alone gives 708!  not to mention all the nature and scencis taken in grand canyon, yosemite, acadia, rainier et al, which often doet have national park in the desc!

per usual, no reponse as yet from SS 'support'

Just can't wait for the answer on this one. You are correct, it's free to shoot, we own those parks, as long as none of the things KB pointed out are going on.

Yes you discovered part of it. Don't put National Park in the description and they might get accepted. Someone in review land may be confusing the National Trust and Heritage of the UK that claim to own rights to almost everything, including a mountain in Australia.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Phadrea on December 30, 2011, 08:04
Can you imagine John Deere suing because one of their tractors is in a shot ? It's free advertising for a start.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RacePhoto on December 30, 2011, 13:09
Can you imagine John Deere suing because one of their tractors is in a shot ? It's free advertising for a start.

Yes we can. You need to know that if a company doesn't defend and protect their trademark, it potentially becomes public domain and generic. One of the most aggressive is Coke!

They go to places that sell other products (usually syrup dispensers) and order a "Coke" is they get a Royal Crown, Pepsi, or something else brown cola, they slap a notice on them. Usually they go to small shops and places that are never going to go to court, and then when the retailer admits to their error and promise not to do it again, Coke drops the lawsuit. This shows the courts that they are defending their Trademark.

The reason Ford came out against the use of their images, is they are defending and protecting their copyrights, designs and trademark.

A trademark is said to be genericized when it began as distinctive but has changed in meaning to become generic. Some examples: Aspirin, Butterscotch, Escalator, Kerosene,Thermos, Yo-yo, Zipper.

OK so we know it's just some green and yellow, but it's actually the specific green, not Any Green tractor. (that doesn't mean the reviewer is trained on this legal point)

Many times you can use an image of something and sell it, but you can't use the name of the company in the keywords or description.

Gas Lighter may get through, but if you use Zippo, they should reject it. Oh I hope I'm not giving the agencies more ideas? You can't use brand names in keywords or descriptions. Don't bother.

On the other hand a green and yellow tractor in the distance of a photo, is not the subject and shouldn't be cause for rejection? Oh well, here we are again. If they would give a specific reason on the rejection, we'd know?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: ShadySue on December 30, 2011, 13:12
Can you imagine John Deere suing because one of their tractors is in a shot ? It's free advertising for a start.
It would depend totally on how the image was used whether it would be regarded as free advertising, which is why they have to jump on even a tiny infraction otherwise precedents are established.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: ShadySue on December 30, 2011, 13:16
What I find strange with SS is the fact they turn down a distant tractor crop spraying in a field, 


Would that be a distant green tractor, by any chance? John Deere have, apparently, managed to copyright the colour green on tractors.


Absolutely not, it's their specific green with their specific yellow:
http://www.deere.com/wps/dcom/en_US/footer/legal.page? (http://www.deere.com/wps/dcom/en_US/footer/legal.page?)
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 15:24
What I find strange with SS is the fact they turn down a distant tractor crop spraying in a field, 


Would that be a distant green tractor, by any chance? John Deere have, apparently, managed to copyright the colour green on tractors.


Absolutely not, it's their specific green with their specific yellow:
[url]http://www.deere.com/wps/dcom/en_US/footer/legal.page?[/url] ([url]http://www.deere.com/wps/dcom/en_US/footer/legal.page?[/url])

Oh, I stand corrected then.

I can't help wondering, though, whether a slightly incorrect colour balance would get round this. Or what if the tractor is photographed in coloured light or a warming or cooling PS filter was applied? In any of those cases it would not be their specific green and yellow, but I bet the lawyers would still want to sue (fees being colour blind, an' all).
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: cascoly on December 30, 2011, 20:09
i thought rejections couldnt get any sillier but today i  got several rejections from SS because the images were taken in a national park! [in this case gettysburg]


 a search for national park gives 138,000 images and gettysburg alone gives 708!  not to mention all the nature and scencis taken in grand canyon, yosemite, acadia, rainier et al, which often doet have national park in the desc!

per usual, no reponse as yet from SS 'support'

Just can't wait for the answer on this one. You are correct, it's free to shoot, we own those parks, as long as none of the things KB pointed out are going on.

Yes you discovered part of it. Don't put National Park in the description and they might get accepted. Someone in review land may be confusing the National Trust and Heritage of the UK that claim to own rights to almost everything, including a mountain in Australia.

 yep, that quoted text was familiar -- i remember now specifically looking at the NP site some years ago when I was planning to use some images in an online Civil War  game I was designing.  All my NP images in the batch i mentioned easily meet the standard

re including 'NP' in the description i've always seen that as a tradeoff - lighting some dim, but wrong, memory of a reviewer - versus helping buyers  who are looking for site specific images.  eg just sold a coupla editorial images of the  Steamboat Cowboy Downhill where 'skiing steamboat' was the search used
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RacePhoto on January 01, 2012, 14:30
I suppose this one would get rejected too?  ;D For any number of reasons.

(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2518/enzotestgoogle.jpg)

Just another Enzo, with strange lines in the sky?
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: Mantis on January 01, 2012, 19:41
I suppose this one would get rejected too?  ;D For any number of reasons.

([url]http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2518/enzotestgoogle.jpg[/url])

Just another Enzo, with strange lines in the sky?


That would be accepted by SS from some individuals.
Title: Re: Ridiculous rejections
Post by: RacePhoto on January 03, 2012, 01:24
I suppose this one would get rejected too?  ;D For any number of reasons.

Just another Enzo, with strange lines in the sky?

That would be accepted by SS from some individuals.

I really don't think so. Copyright, poor composition. The sky is scrod. Color balance off. Soft and lacking definition and I'm sure there are more. ;) It was just something I found from 2009 while I was backing up photos. Joke about the Enzo's which are going up in value because every time one has an accident there are less in the world.

The Enzo can accelerate to 100 km/h (62.5 mph) in 3.7 seconds and can reach 100 mph in 6.6 seconds. The ¼ mile (0.4 km) time is 10.8 seconds and the top speed is estimated at 225 mph.

The Enzo was initially announced at the 2002 Paris Motor Show with a limited production run of 349 units and priced at US$643,330. The company sent invitations to existing customers, specifically, those who had previously bought the Ferrari F40 and Ferrari F50. All 349 cars were sold in this way before production began. Later, after numerous requests, Ferrari decided to build 50 more Enzos, bringing the total to 399.

On November 8, 2005, Ferrari announced that it would build one additional Enzo, bringing the total to 400. The car, chassis #ZFFCZ56B000141920, was auctioned by Sotheby's Maranello Auction on June 28, 2005 to benefit survivors of the 2004 Tsunami for €950,000 (US$1,274,229), almost twice its list price. This sum was presented to Pope Benedict XVI, while Formula One driver Michael Schumacher gave the Pope a steering wheel to commemorate the donation. This wheel included a plaque which read, "The Formula 1 World Champion's steering wheel to His Holiness Benedict XVI, Christianity's driver."

Enzos typically trade above $1,000,000 at auction.


Maybe Editorial?  :D