Author Topic: Shutterstock Approval Frustrations (Read 15492 times)

FiledIMAGE · « **on:** July 21, 2015, 19:40 »

Anyone else having wildly differing approvals on SS lately. Its driving me nuts. Id say im a medium level contributor. Have over 1000 images with probably about 75% approval rating generally. Last few loads I get 0 out of 20 images approved. I resubmit and then then they all go thru. Today 20 images got excessive noise, and excessive noise reduction applied. Driving me nuts. These are images shot at ISO 200 in middle of the day on a 5D Mark 3. Insane

Hildegarde · « **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2015, 19:58 »

I am a newbie in stock photography but have been a photographer for decades.

I am completely frustrated by Shutterstock. They reject images accepted at every other site often for reasons that are not appropriate. I look at my images 1:1. Then I look at what they HAVE accepted for similar images and am disgusted--- poor exposures, wrong color balance, poor lighting way worse than the supposed reason for my rejections-- images that I would reject even as a snapshot to post on FB. Perhaps they are older images and thus passed before whatever their reviewers are doing now. A couple were rejected for "composition" and all I think is that some of these reviewers have no clue about photography as an art.

Sales on Shutterstock are much lower than any other site, even the low earners with no number ratings here because of their erratic review standards. No surprise. I am starting to feel like Shutterstock might be a waste of my time. I will give it a bit more time but my sales elsewhere are better without the hassle of re-uploading.

noodle · « **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2015, 20:46 »

the review process at SS has been in a shambles for awhile now

just about every photographer - pro to amateur- has had to deal with inconsistent and downright frustrating reviews

SS has remained silent and it lookslike things will go on as status quo for the foreseeable future - but hey ho! they just spent time and resources to fix up the forums!!

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** July 21, 2015, 20:47 »

Quote from: FiledIMAGE on July 21, 2015, 19:40

Anyone else having wildly differing approvals on SS lately. Its driving me nuts. Id say im a medium level contributor. Have over 1000 images with probably about 75% approval rating generally. Last few loads I get 0 out of 20 images approved. I resubmit and then then they all go thru. Today 20 images got excessive noise, and excessive noise reduction applied. Driving me nuts. These are images shot at ISO 200 in middle of the day on a 5D Mark 3. Insane

Presumably you've read this long-running thread:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-reviewers-beating-me-up-anyone-else

FiledIMAGE · « **Reply #4 on:** July 21, 2015, 21:39 »

Good and bad to hear. Gets me fairly down I must admit. Problem for me is I submit to 12 or so libraries and SS is 60% of sales. iStock is maybe another 20% but super smooth uploading and approving thru DeepMeta.

Its just taking so much time to submit to SS now. I get their need for quality and sure sometimes my images might not be perfect. No one is. But the ups and downs are rediculous. I had 15 bird images rejected. Resubmit and all 15 approved on thee weekend.

Ill check out that thread in detail

hairybiker777 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2015, 21:41 »

Yep, driving me mad at the moment... I normally get nearly all my images through but I've been getting mass rejections, and it's not as if I'm submitting different or lower-quality stuff all of a sudden. Some made me wonder if software rejected them without a human ever slapping eyes on them... rejected for focus/sharpness when I'd shot on a tripod at f/22, focusing at 10x in live view. The images also contained some light trails which were a bit fluffy as you might expect, but anything that possibly could be sharp was pin-sharp.

The more that time goes by - and this goes for all of them, not just SS - the more I come round to the idea that they'll slap any old rejection reason on an image if they perceive low commercial value or they already have lots of similar images. My best one this week was from iStock, who rejected an abstract nighttime long exposure with a couple of blurry human silhouettes because it didn't have a model release.

Hongover · « **Reply #6 on:** July 21, 2015, 21:57 »

I wonder how new photographers are able to get into SS with such high rejection rates. It's extremely hard to get 7/10 images approved these days.

Mantis · « **Reply #7 on:** July 21, 2015, 22:27 »

Quote from: Hongover on July 21, 2015, 21:57

I wonder how new photographers are able to get into SS with such high rejection rates. It's extremely hard to get 7/10 images approved these days.

I think its because they want newbie content because they pay less commission.

Hildegarde · « **Reply #8 on:** July 21, 2015, 23:25 »

I did not have problems getting 7/10 accepted as newbie -- it is the afterwards that is so frustrating. Same quality or better getting rejected on SS but accepted everywhere else (and selling there).

What I find so frustrating is to see the pure junk that is online -- really bad stuff technically and not all that interesting in terms of the image either. Even small the quality is very bad. If they wanted quality, they should remove some of the ones already there. How did those images get accepted? Are those images just that old that at the time SS was desperate for images? Are they images of reviewers? Something is very wrong with their review process.

Rinderart · « **Reply #9 on:** July 21, 2015, 23:36 »

Huge and Old issue. maybe a year now. Stand up and fight * It. write and tell them.

Dumc · « **Reply #10 on:** July 22, 2015, 01:14 »

Sharpness can be very bad at f/22.

FiledIMAGE · « **Reply #11 on:** July 22, 2015, 03:49 »

Thanks for responses. So out of interest do people just simply resubmit or do they attempt some basic edits such as luminance?

grace · « **Reply #12 on:** July 22, 2015, 04:16 »

For me is sometimes I submitted like 8 photos, will rejected 8 photos straight away,all same reason. then I resubmit , after that approved 8 photos,depends on reviewer. But this two days,like mon and tues, afternoon submitted , all approved same day. Dunno why just few like Mon and Tues is more easy to approve the photos.

BikeTourist · « **Reply #13 on:** July 22, 2015, 06:07 »

I you're an experienced photographer I don't think you can gain much information of value from the reviewer's comments. They have a limited number of canned responses from which to choose. For whatever reason they decide to reject an image they have to choose at least one response, which may not be at all relevant.

I have had editorial pictures of a unique event, made in a split second, rejected for composition! It would be funny to submit some of the great iconic images of photojournalism to a SS reviewer and see what happens.

As others have said, just accept the inconsistencies and idiocies and move on or resubmit or protest.

langstrup · « **Reply #14 on:** July 22, 2015, 06:21 »

It´s not something I can recognize! I have about 98 - 100 % images accepted at all uploads.

Bauman · « **Reply #15 on:** July 22, 2015, 06:47 »

I have two Canon camera full frame: the new 5ds R and a 5d mk III

I shot landscape, architecture and travel photography only on tripod and 50/100 ISO.

I use only prime lens (24 tse II, 16-35 f/4, 24/70 f/2,8, 70-200 f/2,8 ...).

I shot f/5,6 - f/6,3 - f/7,1 to avoid diffraction ...

My monthhly RPI on SS is 0,90-1,00 $ (i have a small portfolio > 1000 images but great quality).

Last years my acceptance rate on SS was 93-96% ...

In 2015 is 60% and this July 20% ... and i'm sure that my 2015 images are better than previous year.

I search in SS new approved images and there is plenty of images much worse than mine ...

Very, very frustrating ...

Sorry for my english ...

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #16 on:** July 22, 2015, 06:47 »

Quote from: langstrup on July 22, 2015, 06:21

It´s not something I can recognize! I have about 98 - 100 % images accepted at all uploads.

Same here.

What is the subject matter of all these rejected images?

Bauman · « **Reply #17 on:** July 22, 2015, 07:09 »

If i upload boring texture or studio still life, my approval rate is 100% ... But these images don't sell as my landscape ... But reviewers at SS don't know landscape photography natural light condition ... They love only artificial light.

Buyers want images that SS don't approve, and SS want images that buyers don't buy ...

panicAttack · « **Reply #18 on:** July 22, 2015, 07:15 »

I also do not have problems with rejection (other then trademark or similar) but I am mostly studio shooter so it is expected. (ISO 100, sharp prime lens at f/8-f/11)

kmlPhoto · « **Reply #19 on:** July 22, 2015, 14:13 »

Any SS issue I have with noise where the pic looks good, I just reduce by 5-10% and resub. It usually works. If they hit you on lighting and I feel good about the exposure , I generally increase exposure by a quarter stop. This is purely a numbers game the more higher quality images you can get out the better off you will be. I set up macros to do the canned adjustments quickly so I don't waste too much time There is an old book out there "Taking Stock" by Rob Sylvan. The chapter on handling rejections is worth the price of the book. Might keep you out of therapy

Good Luck

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #20 on:** July 22, 2015, 14:59 »

SS has a few reviewers that need to be retrained or fired (they can earn more money, by just rejecting photos—and illustrations—with lame excuses than to take time to actually examine them). You, unfortunately, have been stuck with these reviewers. It seems if you report the problem, receive a case ID and resubmit with case ID, you don't get stuck with those reviewers. It might be a way SS uses to zero in on reviewers that are giving you a headache. Reject the thoughts that you are not skilled. It is the reviewer. Not you.

Rinderart · « **Reply #21 on:** July 22, 2015, 15:19 »

Quote from: FiledIMAGE on July 22, 2015, 03:49

Thanks for responses. So out of interest do people just simply resubmit or do they attempt some basic edits such as luminance?

OOF is OOF. nothing can fix that. you can downsize. But what you have is a smaller OOF Picture. try it. Your call.

heywoody · « **Reply #22 on:** July 22, 2015, 17:45 »

Quote from: Mantis on July 21, 2015, 22:27

Quote from: Hongover on July 21, 2015, 21:57
I wonder how new photographers are able to get into SS with such high rejection rates. It's extremely hard to get 7/10 images approved these days.

I think its because they want newbie content because they pay less commission.

No, they want the content that they want

Mantis · « **Reply #23 on:** July 22, 2015, 17:56 »

Quote from: heywoody on July 22, 2015, 17:45

Quote from: Mantis on July 21, 2015, 22:27
Quote from: Hongover on July 21, 2015, 21:57
I wonder how new photographers are able to get into SS with such high rejection rates. It's extremely hard to get 7/10 images approved these days.

I think its because they want newbie content because they pay less commission.

No, they want the content that they want

If they were consistent I could buy that, but they aren't.

De · « **Reply #24 on:** July 23, 2015, 02:39 »

Quote from: heywoody on July 22, 2015, 17:45

Quote from: Mantis on July 21, 2015, 22:27
Quote from: Hongover on July 21, 2015, 21:57
I wonder how new photographers are able to get into SS with such high rejection rates. It's extremely hard to get 7/10 images approved these days.

I think its because they want newbie content because they pay less commission.

No, they want the content that they want

You upload 3D figures right? nice work btw, must take a lot of time. Something that is rare (I think) on stock but do you actually sell them well? No use in having a niche and brag about no rejections if it won't sell. ART has it's own place in the market and it isn't microstock. That is exactly why you don't get rejections in the first place, reviewers see no competition in you, same with the weed guy.
"THEY" is not the agency, "THEY" are the reviewers and they seem to be on an agenda of their own. Do you think the agency wants 10k images of weed in one portfolio? not to mention the other LCV "niches"?
I rarely get rejections anymore on SS but that doesn't make me blind either. HCV images getting rejected to make room for LCV?

gbalex · « **Reply #25 on:** July 23, 2015, 05:27 »

Quote from: Mantis on July 21, 2015, 22:27

Quote from: Hongover on July 21, 2015, 21:57
I wonder how new photographers are able to get into SS with such high rejection rates. It's extremely hard to get 7/10 images approved these days.

I think its because they want newbie content because they pay less commission.

Lets take a look at the new content coming in these days using the commonly used keyword food. www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=food&sort_method=newest&page=1

As you can see the shutterstock reviewers are consistently letting in plenty of LCV images with questionable content and quality. I opened around 30 of these new images and then navigated to the photographers portfolios. Without exception they were all new contributors who had started submitting in 2015.

Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.

Sebastian Radu · « **Reply #26 on:** July 23, 2015, 05:39 »

Quote

Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.

You have right. But, also, I think we need also to ask why sales are dropping and, for all microstock sites, why there are so many subs than other types of licenses.... $:-\$

gbalex · « **Reply #27 on:** July 23, 2015, 05:58 »

Quote from: Sebalos on July 23, 2015, 05:39

Quote
Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.

You have right. But, also, I think we need also to ask why sales are dropping and, for all microstock sites, why there are so many subs than other types of licenses.... $:-\$

Completely agree

dirkr · « **Reply #28 on:** July 23, 2015, 07:01 »

Quote from: gbalex on July 23, 2015, 05:27

Quote from: Mantis on July 21, 2015, 22:27
Quote from: Hongover on July 21, 2015, 21:57
I wonder how new photographers are able to get into SS with such high rejection rates. It's extremely hard to get 7/10 images approved these days.

I think its because they want newbie content because they pay less commission.

Lets take a look at the new content coming in these days using the commonly used keyword food. www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=food&sort_method=newest&page=1

As you can see the shutterstock reviewers are consistently letting in plenty of LCV images with questionable content and quality. I opened around 30 of these new images and then navigated to the photographers portfolios. Without exception they were all new contributors who had started submitting in 2015.

Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.

Just out of curiosity, I clicked on the link you provided, looked randomly at around 10 different portfolios (I clicked on some more images, but several were from the same contributor).
Out of these portfolios one was from 2015, one from 2014, the others from 2008 - 2012. Some of them with 10.000 - 40.000 images.

Not exactly the same as you experienced.

I do have the same issues with inconsistent and strange rejections lately, so I fully agree there is something wrong with the review process. But I don't believe the explanation is so simple (that strange rejections are only an issue for established portfolios and that they are only done to promote "cheaper" content). I think it's rather an issue of Shutterstock not training and controlling their reviewers good enough - because that would cost money and they don't believe they lose too much by not investing that money.

gbalex · « **Reply #29 on:** July 23, 2015, 07:44 »

Try looking at more than one page, I looked at aprox 30/40 pages and picked the lowest quality content and quality from each page.

dirkr · « **Reply #30 on:** July 23, 2015, 08:10 »

Quote from: gbalex on July 23, 2015, 07:44

Try looking at more than one page, I looked at aprox 30/40 pages and picked the lowest quality content and quality from each page.

So you're saying the lowest quality new submissions do come from new contributors?
That's not really a surprise. And does not prove anything else.

gbalex · « **Reply #31 on:** July 23, 2015, 09:01 »

Quote from: dirkr on July 23, 2015, 08:10

Quote from: gbalex on July 23, 2015, 07:44
Try looking at more than one page, I looked at aprox 30/40 pages and picked the lowest quality content and quality from each page.

So you're saying the lowest quality new submissions do come from new contributors?
That's not really a surprise. And does not prove anything else.

No it is not rocket science, my images were not so hot when I started submitting. What I was speaking to, is the fact that shutterstock routinely accepts LCV images with questionable image quality.

And they also routinely reject images of much higher quality. The review process has issues and shutterstock chooses ignore this. We know why they want new contributors and it is understandable they would not want to discourage new contributors with high rejection rates.

However for those who are experiencing poor reviews, the inequities found in the review process must be discouraging.

FlowerPower · « **Reply #32 on:** July 23, 2015, 09:22 »

Quote from: Hongover on July 21, 2015, 21:57

I wonder how new photographers are able to get into SS with such high rejection rates. It's extremely hard to get 7/10 images approved these days.

I'm in and making more sales then many other low earners got me in a year. Some reveiwers are just rejecting everything others not rejecting things that should be. You can't judge the whole review system by the extremes or some flawed reviews.

heywoody · « **Reply #33 on:** July 25, 2015, 07:26 »

Quote from: Desree on July 23, 2015, 02:39

Quote from: heywoody on July 22, 2015, 17:45

Quote from: Mantis on July 21, 2015, 22:27

Quote from: Hongover on July 21, 2015, 21:57
I wonder how new photographers are able to get into SS with such high rejection rates. It's extremely hard to get 7/10 images approved these days.

I think its because they want newbie content because they pay less commission.

No, they want the content that they want

You upload 3D figures right? nice work btw, must take a lot of time. Something that is rare (I think) on stock but do you actually sell them well? No use in having a niche and brag about no rejections if it won't sell. ART has it's own place in the market and it isn't microstock. That is exactly why you don't get rejections in the first place, reviewers see no competition in you, same with the weed guy.
"THEY" is not the agency, "THEY" are the reviewers and they seem to be on an agenda of their own. Do you think the agency wants 10k images of weed in one portfolio? not to mention the other LCV "niches"?
I rarely get rejections anymore on SS but that doesn't make me blind either. HCV images getting rejected to make room for LCV?

Actually they sell just ok, not near as well as the folks that are really professional / successful but probably a lot better than equivalent standard photos and you are 100% correct that my acceptance rate is most likely because I’m doing material with less competition. Not bragging BTW, just stating facts.
The thing is that you are completely missing the point as to what constitutes HCV / LCV for the agencies. If one of my images sell 100 times it means the agency probably gets 70 sales they wouldn’t have got otherwise. Another guy may get 10,000 sales with something more mainstream (HCV for the contributor) but, if the image wasn’t there, the agency would probably still get the 10,000 sales because there are tons of very similar alternatives available (so LCV for the agency).
At the end of the day, it’s all about supply and demand.

ShadySue · « **Reply #34 on:** July 25, 2015, 08:02 »

Quote from: Sebalos on July 23, 2015, 05:39

I think we need also to ask why sales are dropping and, for all microstock sites, why there are so many subs than other types of licenses.... $:-\$

It's hardly surprising:
1. Buyers want bargains.
2. Sites heavily promote subs; they want to lock in buyers so that they have a guaranteed income going forward.

Hongover · « **Reply #35 on:** July 25, 2015, 11:01 »

Quote from: Sebalos on July 23, 2015, 05:39

Quote
Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.

You have right. But, also, I think we need also to ask why sales are dropping and, for all microstock sites, why there are so many subs than other types of licenses.... $:-\$

Every company wants consistency revenue, especially a public one. On demand and single downloads are unstable and inconsistent, so they actively encourage subscriptions. Imagine if you have customers who pays you a monthly fee to pay to use your images and you acquire new customers every month. Your revenue graph would have no dips...just a consistent curve upward.

memakephoto · « **Reply #36 on:** July 25, 2015, 12:24 »

Quote from: Hongover on July 25, 2015, 11:01

Quote from: Sebalos on July 23, 2015, 05:39
Quote
Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.

You have right. But, also, I think we need also to ask why sales are dropping and, for all microstock sites, why there are so many subs than other types of licenses.... $:-\$

Every company wants consistency revenue, especially a public one. On demand and single downloads are unstable and inconsistent, so they actively encourage subscriptions. Imagine if you have customers who pays you a monthly fee to pay to use your images and you acquire new customers every month. Your revenue graph would have no dips...just a consistent curve upward.

Complete nonsense.

Agencies still have to pay subscription royalties to contributors which means the amount of money they make from a subscription depends on how much of the subscription the buyer uses during the month. Which is unpredictable and creates the little dips in your revenue graph.

Every company that sells products or services of any kind, public or not, is at the mercy of buyer demand. That is susceptible to economic variations, seasonal variations, trends, and about ten thousand other factors. Luckily when you market on an international level to millions of users it smooths out the dips.

Subscriptions are popular with agencies not because of some noobie notion of consistent revenue, but because of the dirty little secret which is that any portion of the subscription that goes unused by the end of the month goes into the agency's pocket. Since very few subscription buyers use the entire subscription quota, the agency gets a lot of extra cash. They tend to like that little perk.

heywoody · « **Reply #37 on:** July 25, 2015, 13:03 »

Quote from: memakephoto on July 25, 2015, 12:24

Quote from: Hongover on July 25, 2015, 11:01

Quote from: Sebalos on July 23, 2015, 05:39

Quote
Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.

You have right. But, also, I think we need also to ask why sales are dropping and, for all microstock sites, why there are so many subs than other types of licenses....

Every company wants consistency revenue, especially a public one. On demand and single downloads are unstable and inconsistent, so they actively encourage subscriptions. Imagine if you have customers who pays you a monthly fee to pay to use your images and you acquire new customers every month. Your revenue graph would have no dips...just a consistent curve upward.

Complete nonsense.

Agencies still have to pay subscription royalties to contributors which means the amount of money they make from a subscription depends on how much of the subscription the buyer uses during the month. Which is unpredictable and creates the little dips in your revenue graph.

Every company that sells products or services of any kind, public or not, is at the mercy of buyer demand. That is susceptible to economic variations, seasonal variations, trends, and about ten thousand other factors. Luckily when you market on an international level to millions of users it smooths out the dips.

Subscriptions are popular with agencies not because of some noobie notion of consistent revenue, but because of the dirty little secret which is that any portion of the subscription that goes unused by the end of the month goes into the agency's pocket. Since very few subscription buyers use the entire subscription quota, the agency gets a lot of extra cash. They tend to like that little perk.

Obviously, the fact that buyers do not use their quota (not a dirty secret but a well known fact) forms part of the pricing calculation and the resulting consistent revenue. On what planet does your point in any way counter what hongover said even without the condescending “noobie" comment?

memakephoto · « **Reply #38 on:** July 25, 2015, 13:17 »

Quote from: heywoody on July 25, 2015, 13:03

Quote from: memakephoto on July 25, 2015, 12:24
Quote from: Hongover on July 25, 2015, 11:01

Quote from: Sebalos on July 23, 2015, 05:39

Quote
Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.

You have right. But, also, I think we need also to ask why sales are dropping and, for all microstock sites, why there are so many subs than other types of licenses....

Every company wants consistency revenue, especially a public one. On demand and single downloads are unstable and inconsistent, so they actively encourage subscriptions. Imagine if you have customers who pays you a monthly fee to pay to use your images and you acquire new customers every month. Your revenue graph would have no dips...just a consistent curve upward.

Complete nonsense.

Agencies still have to pay subscription royalties to contributors which means the amount of money they make from a subscription depends on how much of the subscription the buyer uses during the month. Which is unpredictable and creates the little dips in your revenue graph.

Every company that sells products or services of any kind, public or not, is at the mercy of buyer demand. That is susceptible to economic variations, seasonal variations, trends, and about ten thousand other factors. Luckily when you market on an international level to millions of users it smooths out the dips.

Subscriptions are popular with agencies not because of some noobie notion of consistent revenue, but because of the dirty little secret which is that any portion of the subscription that goes unused by the end of the month goes into the agency's pocket. Since very few subscription buyers use the entire subscription quota, the agency gets a lot of extra cash. They tend to like that little perk.

Obviously, the fact that buyers do not use their quota (not a dirty secret but a well known fact) forms part of the pricing calculation and the resulting consistent revenue. On what planet does your point in any way counter what hongover said even without the condescending “noobie" comment?

Condescension was the point. Have you read any of his posts?

To be serious, his point seemed to be that agencies push subscriptions for consistent revenue. Anyone who's ever been in business knows there is no such thing when you sell any kind of product. That's the risk of being in business. Otherwise there would be no need to advertise and most of the microstock business would dry up. Just sell a subscription for something and stable income is sure to follow. That's fantasy.

I realize that the true value of subscription sales is not a secret to anyone who's been in the industry for more than a few months but obviously it's still a secret to some.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #39 on:** July 25, 2015, 13:29 »

Quote from: gbalex on July 23, 2015, 05:27

As you can see the shutterstock reviewers are consistently letting in plenty of LCV images with questionable content and quality. I opened around 30 of these new images and then navigated to the photographers portfolios. Without exception they were all new contributors who had started submitting in 2015.

Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.

i had the same impression when i went to ss forum to see them cheering on their latest sales ...
most what sjlocke call (in the other thread here) as " .... pictures that won't sell ". i can't remember sean's exact words but those are exactly the pictures that are on those pages of cheering for their latest sales. no doubt newbies too.

back to your final statement. i too cannot figure out why LCV from newbies are getting in while many experienced images are being mass rejected (not my words, but according to the thread here and in ss forum).

only thing i can draw comparision is someone is letting in alot of their friends or children cousins cousins... a long time ago, in the days of govt service nepotism heydays before the crash ,
the same thing flooded the offices . many graduates and mid managers were laid-off to be replaced by absolute morons to run the govt offices. it still going on, in fact , in brasil, there is a custom where you keep your 4,5 surnames to identity yourself and get hired in the govt office. not by merit but by surnames.

this is the only possible explanation i can give for ss letting in LCV from newbies while rejecting many experienced work as OOF and wrong WB. shareholders speak loud , as they say, money talks and bs walks.

what do you think, gbalex? any other possible explanation why suddenly my colleagues have developed disability to WB and focus properly???

Hongover · « **Reply #40 on:** July 25, 2015, 16:14 »

Quote from: memakephoto on July 25, 2015, 12:24

Quote from: Hongover on July 25, 2015, 11:01
Every company wants consistency revenue, especially a public one. On demand and single downloads are unstable and inconsistent, so they actively encourage subscriptions. Imagine if you have customers who pays you a monthly fee to pay to use your images and you acquire new customers every month. Your revenue graph would have no dips...just a consistent curve upward.

Complete nonsense.

Agencies still have to pay subscription royalties to contributors which means the amount of money they make from a subscription depends on how much of the subscription the buyer uses during the month. Which is unpredictable and creates the little dips in your revenue graph.

Every company that sells products or services of any kind, public or not, is at the mercy of buyer demand. That is susceptible to economic variations, seasonal variations, trends, and about ten thousand other factors. Luckily when you market on an international level to millions of users it smooths out the dips.

Subscriptions are popular with agencies not because of some noobie notion of consistent revenue, but because of the dirty little secret which is that any portion of the subscription that goes unused by the end of the month goes into the agency's pocket. Since very few subscription buyers use the entire subscription quota, the agency gets a lot of extra cash. They tend to like that little perk.

My previous post was hardly condescending. I think the tables have turned my friend. The dirty little secret is hardly a secret. When I had a personal subscription on SS, I made it a point to download 25 images per day to maximize my value and cancelled my account before the end of the month so they didn't charge me again. My company subscription on the other hand download 1-3 images a day, allowing SS to pocket the rest on a consistent monthly basis.

Plenty of companies in Silicon Valley use that revenue model because the dips are hardly noticeable, and each new customer makes it invisible. The only thing they have to worry about is churn, which cause real visible dips on the graph.

heywoody · « **Reply #41 on:** July 25, 2015, 17:06 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on July 25, 2015, 13:29

Quote from: gbalex on July 23, 2015, 05:27
As you can see the shutterstock reviewers are consistently letting in plenty of LCV images with questionable content and quality. I opened around 30 of these new images and then navigated to the photographers portfolios. Without exception they were all new contributors who had started submitting in 2015.

Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.

i had the same impression when i went to ss forum to see them cheering on their latest sales ...
most what sjlocke call (in the other thread here) as " .... pictures that won't sell ". i can't remember sean's exact words but those are exactly the pictures that are on those pages of cheering for their latest sales. no doubt newbies too.

back to your final statement. i too cannot figure out why LCV from newbies are getting in while many experienced images are being mass rejected (not my words, but according to the thread here and in ss forum).

only thing i can draw comparision is someone is letting in alot of their friends or children cousins cousins... a long time ago, in the days of govt service nepotism heydays before the crash ,
the same thing flooded the offices . many graduates and mid managers were laid-off to be replaced by absolute morons to run the govt offices. it still going on, in fact , in brasil, there is a custom where you keep your 4,5 surnames to identity yourself and get hired in the govt office. not by merit but by surnames.

this is the only possible explanation i can give for ss letting in LCV from newbies while rejecting many experienced work as OOF and wrong WB. shareholders speak loud , as they say, money talks and bs walks.

what do you think, gbalex? any other possible explanation why suddenly my colleagues have developed disability to WB and focus properly???

Again with the "newbies" - I have to say this is as incoherent a post as I've seen. Many folks have offered explanations for the review process but we still have this paranoid insistence on conspiracy theories from those (oldies???) who have some unfounded sense that anything meeting a certain technical standard should be accepted.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #42 on:** July 25, 2015, 20:15 »

Quote from: heywoody on July 25, 2015, 17:06

Again with the "newbies" - I have to say this is as incoherent a post as I've seen. Many folks have offered explanations for the review process but we still have this paranoid insistence on conspiracy theories from those (oldies???) who have some unfounded sense that anything meeting a certain technical standard should be accepted.

correction . conspiracy is when one person use the word many folks and incoherent in the same paragraph , while still pretending he did not see how many pages were in shutterstock forum re this issue.

many pages of complaints on both shutterstock and here re the review process is not conspiracy theory, it's evidence.

get your fact straight.

heywoody · « **Reply #43 on:** July 26, 2015, 05:52 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on July 25, 2015, 20:15

Quote from: heywoody on July 25, 2015, 17:06

Again with the "newbies" - I have to say this is as incoherent a post as I've seen. Many folks have offered explanations for the review process but we still have this paranoid insistence on conspiracy theories from those (oldies???) who have some unfounded sense that anything meeting a certain technical standard should be accepted.

correction . conspiracy is when one person use the word many folks and incoherent in the same paragraph , while still pretending he did not see how many pages were in shutterstock forum re this issue.

many pages of complaints on both shutterstock and here re the review process is not conspiracy theory, it's evidence.

get your fact straight.

The only evidence is that there are complaints and that the rejection reasons need work. The idea that there are rogue reviewer tails wagging the corporate dog is ridiculous. The idea that folks get accepted because the know someone or that “newbies” are favoured is equally ridiculous, why would they do that?
What the evidence does suggest is that technical quality is no longer a guarantee of acceptance at SS. They do need to clarify what material the do want and to make the rejections reasons more realistic as, clearly, white balance and focus are not the reasons.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #44 on:** July 26, 2015, 10:34 »

The reviews are incredibly inconsistent. Nothing to do with reasons needing work. They worked fine up untill this whole inconsistency started.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #45 on:** July 26, 2015, 10:56 »

Quote from: heywoody on July 26, 2015, 05:52

The only evidence is that there are complaints and that the rejection reasons need work. The idea that there are rogue reviewer tails wagging the corporate dog is ridiculous. The idea that folks get accepted because the know someone or that “newbies” are favoured is equally ridiculous, why would they do that?

the evidence that 38cts earners suddenly find their port earning drop by 40% and approval drop the same with mass-rejections of unjustified reasons of WB,focus is not where we think it should be...
imagine suddenly all these 38 centers forgot how to make photos for stock after some 5 to 10 or even more in micro.
favoring newbie is ridiculous you say? do your arithmetic,... take the number of new images multiply for 6 cents commission . this is not ridiculous, it's less money paid out to the newbies
and the shifting of search images of top sellers all account to the bottom line.
it's done all the time before the big sell-off like istock before they sold out their best contributors and pushed their top selling exlcusives away.

why add numbers with newbies cheering for them, you say? it's much like landlords prior to dumping their buildings needing an overhaul of plumbing, balcony, stairs,etc... filling their apartments so it looks like there is always full tenancy.
it's the dirty business that go past ppl like you who thinks the world is fine and nothing is missing with your coffee like those exclusives for istock who did the same until the bottom fell out

Hongover · « **Reply #46 on:** July 26, 2015, 12:41 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on July 26, 2015, 10:56

Quote from: heywoody on July 26, 2015, 05:52
The only evidence is that there are complaints and that the rejection reasons need work. The idea that there are rogue reviewer tails wagging the corporate dog is ridiculous. The idea that folks get accepted because the know someone or that “newbies” are favoured is equally ridiculous, why would they do that?

the evidence that 38cts earners suddenly find their port earning drop by 40% and approval drop the same with mass-rejections of unjustified reasons of WB,focus is not where we think it should be...
imagine suddenly all these 38 centers forgot how to make photos for stock after some 5 to 10 or even more in micro.
favoring newbie is ridiculous you say? do your arithmetic,... take the number of new images multiply for 6 cents commission . this is not ridiculous, it's less money paid out to the newbies
and the shifting of search images of top sellers all account to the bottom line.
it's done all the time before the big sell-off like istock before they sold out their best contributors and pushed their top selling exlcusives away.

why add numbers with newbies cheering for them, you say? it's much like landlords prior to dumping their buildings needing an overhaul of plumbing, balcony, stairs,etc... filling their apartments so it looks like there is always full tenancy.
it's the dirty business that go past ppl like you who thinks the world is fine and nothing is missing with your coffee like those exclusives for istock who did the same until the bottom fell out

I had 6 of my 7 photo submissions rejected recently, so it's across the board for everyone. SS's image technical standards are getting higher right before our eyes. Server cost isn't cheap when you're at SS's size. They cost millions a year to maintain.

Admittedly, I can't say I'm surprised by the rejections because my camera is old. Despite that fact that it's at 20 Megapixel, the sensor isn't big enough and I don't have a very good lens. Many new contributors have new cameras and I know for a fact they have a better one than mine.

Almost everyone's earnings fall in a saturated market. We can't expect earnings to keep consistent as more and more competitors jump into the market. Nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

heywoody · « **Reply #47 on:** July 26, 2015, 12:54 »

So...

1. Virtually anyone who has done this for a few years has seen a drop in RPI - good old supply & demand
2. As I and many others have said, it's pretty clear that focus, WB etc is not the issue - points made about communication, better reject reasons etc.
3. Complaints about rejections are not limited to 38c shooters, in fact, they are probably a minority,
4. Most of the big guns don't seem to have a problem - presumably they are adapting by either doing different material or, from what I can see, doing something fresh and original with the more trad stock subjects.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #48 on:** July 26, 2015, 13:24 »

Quote

Admittedly, I can't say I'm surprised by the rejections because my camera is old. Despite that fact that it's at 20 Megapixel, the sensor isn't big enough and I don't have a very good lens. Many new contributors have new cameras and I know for a fact they have a better one than mine.

Poppycock! If you took the time to read all rejection posts, you would learn that many unjustified rejections are dished out even to experienced photographers who shoot with 5Ds, 810's and expensive prime lenses in a studio from steady tripods and triggered by remotes.
The image quality is definitely not the culprit.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock Approval Frustrations (Read 15492 times)

Hongover

Rinderart

langstrup

Rinderart

De

FlowerPower

Hongover

memakephoto

memakephoto

Hongover

Hongover

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors