Author Topic: Are the reviewers sniffing glue over there? (Read 12633 times)

Hoodie Ninja · « **Reply #25 on:** April 02, 2020, 18:23 »

Quote from: gnirtS on April 02, 2020, 05:51

Just guessing.... Noise and artifact rejection?

Wasn't sure if this as for me or someone else, but my rejection was for focus. The focus was on the waterfall at f/13, so not sure what more they wanted.

trabuco · « **Reply #26 on:** April 03, 2020, 01:19 »

Same here. Landscapes with f18.

Sometimes all accepted. Sometimes all rejected for focus and noise.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #27 on:** April 03, 2020, 09:34 »

Quote from: Hoodie Ninja on April 02, 2020, 18:23

Quote from: gnirtS on April 02, 2020, 05:51
Just guessing.... Noise and artifact rejection?

Wasn't sure if this as for me or someone else, but my rejection was for focus. The focus was on the waterfall at f/13, so not sure what more they wanted.

I know what you shoot and how nice it is, they are being stupid and rejecting water moving for focus, others have found the same. So flowing water gets rejected!

Quote from: trabuco on April 03, 2020, 01:19

Same here. Landscapes with f18.

Sometimes all accepted. Sometimes all rejected for focus and noise.

Same for yours. Although f/18 is a little over the top and you could be getting some diffraction, that's not going to be enough for a legitimate rejection.

I expect that both of you are smart enough and experienced enough to know that f/4 to f/8 is the sweet spot for most lenses and going higher could cause a problem. But... I doubt that either of you are getting rejections for that reason. Besides if you want to have everything from small objects close up to the distant, all in sharp focus, true f/## is the only way to get that.

I had a clear landscape with a flag, way in the back on the horizon, which got rejected for blur. Yeah, a flag blowing straight out in the wind and they expect it to be sharp, like it's standing still?

Tough to fight a reviewer who looks at what the software finds and just clicks reject, without using any sense.

By the way, they do look sometimes. I actually had one with intentional shallow focus and motion blur, accepted last month. How unusual and welcome. I had some that were rejected four years ago, I found them and though, hey maybe? All accepted. (except the similar of course)

Then yesterday I had a wide crop accepted, but the rotated square of the same close up, rejected for lighting.

Exposure: Content is underexposed, overexposed, or is inconsistently exposed. How's that possible? Not worth the time and I'm over caring. Fine rejected, it wasn't the best image in the world, or the only one, so I don't care.

Bottom line, we still have something out of our control and that's lazy reviewers who want to be fast and make money per click, who aren't actually looking at the images or using any sense.

Hoodie Ninja · « **Reply #28 on:** April 03, 2020, 16:21 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 03, 2020, 09:34

Quote from: Hoodie Ninja on April 02, 2020, 18:23
Quote from: gnirtS on April 02, 2020, 05:51
Just guessing.... Noise and artifact rejection?

Wasn't sure if this as for me or someone else, but my rejection was for focus. The focus was on the waterfall at f/13, so not sure what more they wanted.

I know what you shoot and how nice it is, they are being stupid and rejecting water moving for focus, others have found the same. So flowing water gets rejected!

Quote from: trabuco on April 03, 2020, 01:19
Same here. Landscapes with f18.

Sometimes all accepted. Sometimes all rejected for focus and noise.

Same for yours. Although f/18 is a little over the top and you could be getting some diffraction, that's not going to be enough for a legitimate rejection.

I expect that both of you are smart enough and experienced enough to know that f/4 to f/8 is the sweet spot for most lenses and going higher could cause a problem. But... I doubt that either of you are getting rejections for that reason. Besides if you want to have everything from small objects close up to the distant, all in sharp focus, true f/## is the only way to get that.

I had a clear landscape with a flag, way in the back on the horizon, which got rejected for blur. Yeah, a flag blowing straight out in the wind and they expect it to be sharp, like it's standing still?

Tough to fight a reviewer who looks at what the software finds and just clicks reject, without using any sense.

By the way, they do look sometimes. I actually had one with intentional shallow focus and motion blur, accepted last month. How unusual and welcome. I had some that were rejected four years ago, I found them and though, hey maybe? All accepted. (except the similar of course)

Then yesterday I had a wide crop accepted, but the rotated square of the same close up, rejected for lighting. Exposure: Content is underexposed, overexposed, or is inconsistently exposed. How's that possible? Not worth the time and I'm over caring. Fine rejected, it wasn't the best image in the world, or the only one, so I don't care.

Bottom line, we still have something out of our control and that's lazy reviewers who want to be fast and make money per click, who aren't actually looking at the images or using any sense.

Thanks.

With waterfalls, it depends on the light as to what f/# you can use. I was already at ISO 100 and my shutter speed has to be a specific number for the water to look correct (in my case, I like the slower shutter speeds). And using a circular polarizer is a must. Stacking on another filter could reduce sharpness as well, which is why I don't do it.
Since they took the "better" shot of the two (one was more visually appealing than the other), I am fine with them rejecting the other....even if I do think they were wrong. lol
You can definitely tell when you've gotten a lazy reviewer. And lately, it seems to be most of their employees.

angelawaye · « **Reply #29 on:** April 03, 2020, 21:15 »

Overall, I'm happy with them. Just a few issues here and there ...

Video-StockOrg · « **Reply #30 on:** April 05, 2020, 01:16 »

Rejection reasons (1)
Resolution / Aspect Ratio: Clip is a non-standard resolution or is pillarboxed, letterboxed, or matted.

if they can't find a reason to reject, just blame the software that made the file.... r3tards.

trabuco · « **Reply #31 on:** April 07, 2020, 00:15 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 03, 2020, 09:34

Same for yours. Although f/18 is a little over the top and you could be getting some diffraction, that's not going to be enough for a legitimate rejection.

I expect that both of you are smart enough and experienced enough to know that f/4 to f/8 is the sweet spot for most lenses and going higher could cause a problem. But... I doubt that either of you are getting rejections for that reason. Besides if you want to have everything from small objects close up to the distant, all in sharp focus, true f/## is the only way to get that.

I have this mental fight, my sweet spot is between 8 and 11 but I like the textures with high f numbers and I use to have grass, snow, wood or sand close to my lens. Maybe in architectural pictures I should use more this sweet spot, I use to shoot with high numbers in facades f.i.

I'm still learning, any advice is always welcome.

NixyJungle · « **Reply #32 on:** April 07, 2020, 05:18 »

Adobe stock declined whole set of pictures from "Iguazu waterfalls" saying it's "Intellectual Property Violation".

How waterfall can be an intellectual property?

Meanwhile, all pictures were accepted on shutterstock. There are no people on those pictures and they are not under editorial licence.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #33 on:** April 07, 2020, 08:41 »

Quote from: trabuco on April 07, 2020, 00:15

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 03, 2020, 09:34

Same for yours. Although f/18 is a little over the top and you could be getting some diffraction, that's not going to be enough for a legitimate rejection.

I expect that both of you are smart enough and experienced enough to know that f/4 to f/8 is the sweet spot for most lenses and going higher could cause a problem. But... I doubt that either of you are getting rejections for that reason. Besides if you want to have everything from small objects close up to the distant, all in sharp focus, true f/## is the only way to get that.

I have this mental fight, my sweet spot is between 8 and 11 but I like the textures with high f numbers and I use to have grass, snow, wood or sand close to my lens. Maybe in architectural pictures I should use more this sweet spot, I use to shoot with high numbers in facades f.i.

I'm still learning, any advice is always welcome.

To each their own. The whole diffraction thing is for pixel peepers. What I mean is, say I want really, REALLY, deep depth of field, so the grass at the foot of the camera, all the way back to the clouds, is all in focus. Sometimes the only answer is f/22 (I just made that number up it could be f/16) Give a little get a little.

Sometimes f/8 is right because the foreground isn't always necessarily perfectly in focus.

Easiest rule, which is a general guide, but pretty much standard and accurate. 1/3rd in front, 2/3rds in back of the point of focus. Depends on the lens, the length, and of course f number, but there you are. https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof

Look at hyperfocal distance, near limit and far limit. This isn't rocket science, you don't have to be precise. Just get an idea and mentally you can visualize for what lens in mm, what kind of depth of field you can expect.

I shoot most of the time with a telephoto, I don't expect much depth of field.

If I shut down, they I lose speed and get more blur. If I raise the ISO I don't like the way the grain and noise in the shadows looks. All about balance and decisions and deciding what you want. Or what you need?

Probably 1/100th of a second, f/14 ISO 100, maybe only 100mm, I didn't check. He's probably slowing down, maybe in the 100 - 120 MPH range. The nose and tale of the car, are not in focus. The background blur is from panning. The drivers head and hands are in focus. Sometimes it's fun to take on a challenge.

But that's how different anything can be from a waterfall at 400 yards?

Night, things get more difficult.

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #34 on:** April 07, 2020, 14:45 »

Quote from: skysense on April 02, 2020, 02:58

The real crap happens when you submit 10-15GB of video clips and they all get rejected for some i d i o t i c reason. Then you have to UPLOAD AGAIN, and it usually passes... Its just wonderful.

exactly what has happened to me. PLUS on top of that having to manually go through & title editorial captions following their way/style, + categories, etc...

trabuco · « **Reply #35 on:** April 09, 2020, 00:47 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 07, 2020, 08:41

Quote from: trabuco on April 07, 2020, 00:15
Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 03, 2020, 09:34

Same for yours. Although f/18 is a little over the top and you could be getting some diffraction, that's not going to be enough for a legitimate rejection.

I expect that both of you are smart enough and experienced enough to know that f/4 to f/8 is the sweet spot for most lenses and going higher could cause a problem. But... I doubt that either of you are getting rejections for that reason. Besides if you want to have everything from small objects close up to the distant, all in sharp focus, true f/## is the only way to get that.

I have this mental fight, my sweet spot is between 8 and 11 but I like the textures with high f numbers and I use to have grass, snow, wood or sand close to my lens. Maybe in architectural pictures I should use more this sweet spot, I use to shoot with high numbers in facades f.i.

I'm still learning, any advice is always welcome.

To each their own. The whole diffraction thing is for pixel peepers. What I mean is, say I want really, REALLY, deep depth of field, so the grass at the foot of the camera, all the way back to the clouds, is all in focus. Sometimes the only answer is f/22 (I just made that number up it could be f/16) Give a little get a little.

Sometimes f/8 is right because the foreground isn't always necessarily perfectly in focus.

Easiest rule, which is a general guide, but pretty much standard and accurate. 1/3rd in front, 2/3rds in back of the point of focus. Depends on the lens, the length, and of course f number, but there you are. https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof

Look at hyperfocal distance, near limit and far limit. This isn't rocket science, you don't have to be precise. Just get an idea and mentally you can visualize for what lens in mm, what kind of depth of field you can expect.

I shoot most of the time with a telephoto, I don't expect much depth of field. If I shut down, they I lose speed and get more blur. If I raise the ISO I don't like the way the grain and noise in the shadows looks. All about balance and decisions and deciding what you want. Or what you need?

Probably 1/100th of a second, f/14 ISO 100, maybe only 100mm, I didn't check. He's probably slowing down, maybe in the 100 - 120 MPH range. The nose and tale of the car, are not in focus. The background blur is from panning. The drivers head and hands are in focus. Sometimes it's fun to take on a challenge.

But that's how different anything can be from a waterfall at 400 yards?

Night, things get more difficult.

I have to experiment with my cam, a bit lazy sometimes. When I'm outdoor I'm with my wife sometimes so I don't have a lot of time and use to shoot in the way I feel comfortable (don't want my cam banned on our trips

). When I shoot landscapes I feel in a hurry for the light or the perfect picture that is in my mind and use to shoot too quickly.

But I need more time and calm.

The good thing of stock (the only one) is that my pictures are much much better now after one year and a half. So I'm happy about that. Maybe I need to think less in the commercial value and the things the costumer would need and more in my technique.

Thank you for the tips anyway, the calculators are amazing.

komikmiha · « **Reply #36 on:** April 09, 2020, 03:24 »

SS rejections are beyond my understanding of common sense. I uploaded some clips with graffiti on wall and put them under editorial. They got rejected with Not Editorial: Clip does not fall under one of our acceptable editorial categories or it may have been incorrectly tagged as editorial.. Then I resubmit clips and mark them as commercial. They got rejected because: Missing Artwork Property Release. Then I tried the third time, again under editorial and guess what, rejected because Not Editorial. Now let's see what will happened the forth time. And fifth time. And I don't think this is the work of AI, I would say there are some naive or greedy humans involved. And I hope SS goes down. My best seller right now is AD, just too bad they don't accept editorial. And I'm kinda disappointing with P5, sales are super low there.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #37 on:** April 09, 2020, 14:07 »

Quote from: trabuco on April 09, 2020, 00:47

I have to experiment with my cam, a bit lazy sometimes. When I'm outdoor I'm with my wife sometimes so I don't have a lot of time and use to shoot in the way I feel comfortable (don't want my cam banned on our trips ). When I shoot landscapes I feel in a hurry for the light or the perfect picture that is in my mind and use to shoot too quickly.

But I need more time and calm.

The good thing of stock (the only one) is that my pictures are much much better now after one year and a half. So I'm happy about that. Maybe I need to think less in the commercial value and the things the costumer would need and more in my technique.

Thank you for the tips anyway, the calculators are amazing.

Darn I was going to remove those, Oh well, now linked in a quote.

Here's what I've found. I worried so much about getting things right, that I stopped just having fun and doing experiments. Sure with film that cost me money, but digital? Click, it's gone, no one will see a poorly exposed, crooked, blurry shot of half of a car.

I don't carry a computer to figure hyperfocal distance, I bet it's available for people who care, on their phone. I think anyone here can estimate depth of field after a few years of experience and some learn faster.

What I mean is, have fun, take some intentionally with bracketed f stops and see what you see? How bad is it to shoot at f/8 instead of f/22? Is there some gain in the lighting?

I know what you mean. Fortunately my better half is pretty tolerant and will play candy crush or have a smoke, while I'm out with the tripod because "oh wait honey, I see a shot". She even came along for a couple of my Nature Walks, to the rail yards and tunnels, which she has no interest at all. Railfan photography is pretty much foamers and guy stuff?

And yes years ago I got so set for, will this sell, that I stopped having a good time. With the market down and we're getting mostly subs, I'm not that worried about 38-99 cents made or lost. I make more "not suitable for Microstock" (no commercial value) now than every before. Sometimes I actually make a shot that will sell, by accident?

I mean really? 14 downloads? Why? Who wants this? No I'm not going to be rich, but I will be amused.

Photobomb · « **Reply #38 on:** April 09, 2020, 23:19 »

Quote from: komikmiha on April 09, 2020, 03:24

SS rejections are beyond my understanding of common sense. I uploaded some clips with graffiti on wall and put them under editorial. They got rejected with Not Editorial: Clip does not fall under one of our acceptable editorial categories or it may have been incorrectly tagged as editorial.. Then I resubmit clips and mark them as commercial. They got rejected because: Missing Artwork Property Release. Then I tried the third time, again under editorial and guess what, rejected because Not Editorial. Now let's see what will happened the forth time. And fifth time. And I don't think this is the work of AI, I would say there are some naive or greedy humans involved. And I hope SS goes down. My best seller right now is AD, just too bad they don't accept editorial. And I'm kinda disappointing with P5, sales are super low there.

SS Doesn't accept any image or clip with any amount of graffiti.

komikmiha · « **Reply #39 on:** April 10, 2020, 06:40 »

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/search/graffiti?sort=relevant

Photobomb · « **Reply #40 on:** April 10, 2020, 07:21 »

Quote from: komikmiha on April 10, 2020, 06:40

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/search/graffiti?sort=relevant

From the Contributor Blog:
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/Known-Image-Restrictions-Objects-and-Subjects?l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle

Graffiti and Street Art

Graffiti and street art, including tags, are subject to copyright protection and require a valid property release from the artist for commercial use

Content containing graffiti or street art that is isolated or the main focus is unacceptable for editorial use

Graffiti/street art which appears to have been taken in San Francisco, CA is unacceptable for either commercial or editorial use

komikmiha · « **Reply #41 on:** April 10, 2020, 11:31 »

My content was not isolated. It was filmed in Slovenia, Europe. I did use the editorial, then commercial, then editorial and now again commercial. Rejected three times.

trabuco · « **Reply #42 on:** April 10, 2020, 13:22 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 09, 2020, 14:07

Quote from: trabuco on April 09, 2020, 00:47

I have to experiment with my cam, a bit lazy sometimes. When I'm outdoor I'm with my wife sometimes so I don't have a lot of time and use to shoot in the way I feel comfortable (don't want my cam banned on our trips ). When I shoot landscapes I feel in a hurry for the light or the perfect picture that is in my mind and use to shoot too quickly.

But I need more time and calm.

The good thing of stock (the only one) is that my pictures are much much better now after one year and a half. So I'm happy about that. Maybe I need to think less in the commercial value and the things the costumer would need and more in my technique.

Thank you for the tips anyway, the calculators are amazing.

Darn I was going to remove those, Oh well, now linked in a quote.

Here's what I've found. I worried so much about getting things right, that I stopped just having fun and doing experiments. Sure with film that cost me money, but digital? Click, it's gone, no one will see a poorly exposed, crooked, blurry shot of half of a car.

I don't carry a computer to figure hyperfocal distance, I bet it's available for people who care, on their phone. I think anyone here can estimate depth of field after a few years of experience and some learn faster.

What I mean is, have fun, take some intentionally with bracketed f stops and see what you see? How bad is it to shoot at f/8 instead of f/22? Is there some gain in the lighting?

I know what you mean. Fortunately my better half is pretty tolerant and will play candy crush or have a smoke, while I'm out with the tripod because "oh wait honey, I see a shot". She even came along for a couple of my Nature Walks, to the rail yards and tunnels, which she has no interest at all. Railfan photography is pretty much foamers and guy stuff?

And yes years ago I got so set for, will this sell, that I stopped having a good time. With the market down and we're getting mostly subs, I'm not that worried about 38-99 cents made or lost. I make more "not suitable for Microstock" (no commercial value) now than every before. Sometimes I actually make a shot that will sell, by accident?

I mean really? 14 downloads? Why? Who wants this? No I'm not going to be rich, but I will be amused.

I understand you well. I vave tried to get a solid port but I think that now It's more interesting for me to produce some "small art pieces" that tons of pictures, now when I have a lot of them in all companies. In fact, as you say, when I sell these ones with my vision of a monument It's really cool, not the typical tourist shoot.

I have a plan. To buy a good cam to my wife to get her vision for our trips (not the compact one that she uses now).

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #43 on:** April 11, 2020, 09:17 »

Quote from: trabuco on April 10, 2020, 13:22

I understand you well. I vave tried to get a solid port but I think that now It's more interesting for me to produce some "small art pieces" that tons of pictures, now when I have a lot of them in all companies. In fact, as you say, when I sell these ones with my vision of a monument It's really cool, not the typical tourist shoot.

I have a plan. To buy a good cam to my wife to get her vision for our trips (not the compact one that she uses now).

Sounds like fun. I'm not going to say, here, do this, but a good bridge camera or a good Sony with a fixed lens and APS sensor might be the answer, without getting all fancy and expensive? Two visions is an interesting way to see things. Fujifilm X100F for example, not an expensive or complicated option?

Years ago when it wasn't so difficult to get accepted as media, I applied for Valerie. She's not much into photography but what the heck, I was working, she was along for her interest in Indycar. (It was the IRL, 2011, that long ago) But there are rules and regulations, and a photographer standing out by the fences or in a corner with no camera is strictly forbidden. This isn't a free ticket or for connected spectators. (ps she has also worked safety team, corners and at the tracks, so not someone who doesn't lack the sense of how dangerous it can be) Anyway... Canon 20-D with the 70-200 f/4 L lens, nice setup.

She shot what she wanted, followed around Dario Franchitti and Danica, I shot everything, as that's what I need, everything I can get or everyone.

Nice idea though, both of you enjoying making photos of the travel.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Are the reviewers sniffing glue over there? (Read 12633 times)

Hoodie Ninja

trabuco

Uncle Pete

Hoodie Ninja

angelawaye

Video-StockOrg

trabuco

NixyJungle

Uncle Pete

SuperPhoto

trabuco

komikmiha

Uncle Pete

Photobomb

komikmiha

Photobomb

komikmiha

trabuco

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors