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

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.   

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!!

Quote from: FiledIMAGE on July 22, 2015, 01:40
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

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

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.

Quote from: Hongover on July 22, 2015, 03:57
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.

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.

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

Sharpness can be very bad at f/22.

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

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.

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.

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

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 ...

Quote from: langstrup on July 22, 2015, 12:21
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?

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 ...

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)

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

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. 

Quote from: FiledIMAGE on July 22, 2015, 09:49
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.

Quote from: Mantis on July 22, 2015, 04:27

Quote from: Hongover on July 22, 2015, 03:57
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

Quote from: heywoody on July 22, 2015, 23:45

Quote from: Mantis on July 22, 2015, 04:27

Quote from: Hongover on July 22, 2015, 03:57
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.

Quote from: heywoody on July 22, 2015, 23:45

Quote from: Mantis on July 22, 2015, 04:27

Quote from: Hongover on July 22, 2015, 03:57
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?