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.   

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 ...

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 ...

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

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.

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.