MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Ridiculous rejections  (Read 55540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #25 on: December 03, 2010, 11:24 »
0

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.... ;)


« Reply #26 on: December 03, 2010, 11:52 »
0
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

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2010, 13:09 »
0
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 : )

« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2010, 13:20 »
0
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.

« Reply #29 on: December 03, 2010, 15:05 »
0
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

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #30 on: December 03, 2010, 15:40 »
0
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.

« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2010, 16:12 »
0
I have to agree...the word "or" needs to go away. It tells me that they aren't so sure either.

RacePhoto

« Reply #32 on: December 03, 2010, 21:27 »
0
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

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.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2010, 21:54 by RacePhoto »

KB

« Reply #33 on: December 03, 2010, 22:44 »
0
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).

« Reply #34 on: December 03, 2010, 23:47 »
0
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

« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2010, 01:52 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 01:55 by gbalex »

lagereek

« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2010, 03:51 »
0
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.

rubyroo

« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2010, 06:20 »
0
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.  
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 06:32 by rubyroo »

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2010, 06:39 »
0
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!

« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2010, 07:08 »
0
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!

CCK

« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2010, 07:09 »
0
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.

« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2010, 09:53 »
0
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


« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2010, 10:06 »
0
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.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #43 on: December 04, 2010, 11:47 »
0
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.

« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2010, 11:53 »
0
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

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2010, 12:03 »
0
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.

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2010, 13:13 »
0
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.

« Reply #47 on: December 28, 2010, 11:58 »
0
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  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

« Reply #48 on: December 31, 2010, 00:52 »
0
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

« Reply #49 on: December 31, 2010, 12:54 »
0
End of the month? It happens on all sites when reviewers want quickly clean their queues.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
4717 Views
Last post October 18, 2007, 19:01
by hatman12
22 Replies
7205 Views
Last post April 06, 2008, 10:55
by Peter
12 Replies
5509 Views
Last post July 17, 2009, 18:48
by Brian O'Shea
28 Replies
13714 Views
Last post March 27, 2011, 08:07
by digitalexpressionimages
19 Replies
3602 Views
Last post July 15, 2022, 13:51
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors