MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: KerinF on April 11, 2014, 01:24
-
Hello all, quite new to all this and would welcome some input. I am trying (second time) to get accepted at Shutterstock. The first time, I submitted full-size images (from Canon 60D and 6D) and there were a number of rejections for focus and/or noise. Since then, I have uploaded to a number of other sites and am trying with a fresh set of images - to the extent it helps, selected from those which have been accepted by the other top 3 - hoping odds are with me ;)
A question: Shutterstock's guidelines say not to upsize or downsize, yet I seem to have read lots of posts where people seem to do this. I gather for two main reasons: 1. to minimise technical rejections and 2. because subscription means all sold for same price no matter size so leave larger sizes with other agencies.
I was planning to downsize my 60D and 6D to about 6MP, bigger than the minimum, but relatively small. Thoughts? What do others do?
-
That's what I would do. The only reason I don't always downsize when submitting to SS is that it means the bother of having two differently sized files to upload to different agencies. I wasn't even aware that they said anything about not downsizing, it makes no sense that they would be happy with a shot from a 5MP camera at 5MP but would have a problem with a 20MP image downsampled to the same size.
20MP images are at far greater risk of being rejected for "focus is not where we like it" than 5MP ones are.
However, if they do have a rule about not downsizing, they might object to you doing it on the entrance test - though they would have no way of knowing it was a downsize rather than a crop.
-
I downsize many files from 24 Mp to 6 MP only for SS. It stopped all those rejections for focus. I use shallow DOF a lot and SS doesn´t seem to like it. So now they get nearly everything downsized.
I´d rather have a small file online, then a large file rejected.
-
I resize almost all my 25 Mpix images to 12 Mpix > better (apparent) focus, less noise/artifacts, etc…
They don't deserve to have 25 Mpix images if then the revenue is $0,38 for one sale…
-
I have a different opinion on this. Looking from the buyers perspective - the probably want the highest resolution they can get. So if they buy some images from KerinF and realize that all the images they get from him are too small - the might remember that and go for another contributor next time (if they have the choice). I think you should strive to make the image buyers happy.. A happy customer is likely to return!
A couple of months ago I sold 8 extended licenses from a specific shoot on one day. It was sold to a beauty magazine because they loved the series of images that much. I don't think that would have happened if all the files wasn't high res.
On the other hand - if a good image gets rejected due to focus issues then I think it's worth trying to downsize and reupload. But only on rejections!
-
thank you all - some interesting viewpoints. At this stage, I'm trying to get past the initial admission hurdle with these 10, so will go for around the 6mp mark for these ones and see how I go. Such a steep learning curve trying to understand what each agency will accept and what they won't, and best approach.
-
I agree that having high resolution files is better for the customer. So with new work I often shoot two versions, a boring one that has a lot of things in focus for ss and fotolia and one image that I like with shallow dof. I still often downsize to 12mp. I really have no time to reupload things for them, it is too confusing to always check what got accepted where.
For the micros I am really not going to fiddle on single images, I need to produce volume.
-
I have a different opinion on this. Looking from the buyers perspective - the probably want the highest resolution they can get. So if they buy some images from KerinF and realize that all the images they get from him are too small - the might remember that and go for another contributor next time (if they have the choice). I think you should strive to make the image buyers happy.. A happy customer is likely to return!
A couple of months ago I sold 8 extended licenses from a specific shoot on one day. It was sold to a beauty magazine because they loved the series of images that much. I don't think that would have happened if all the files wasn't high res.
On the other hand - if a good image gets rejected due to focus issues then I think it's worth trying to downsize and reupload. But only on rejections!
I understand your point of view and in part I agree with it.
But consider that a 12 Mpix image is enough big to print a double page @300dpi in most of the magazines (how many times do you see photos on double page in magazines?).
Giving a bigger image can give the possibility to use only a part of it, and this could be a valid reason to upload/download bigger images, but not all images are made to be cropped/reframed then (probably most of them).
The 25 Mpx image, if not cropped, will be in most of the cases resized (reduced) automatically by the software who will generate the pdf for printing. This will lead to a lack of quality (generally a lose sharpness/details), because it is better to resize the image correctly and acurately in Photoshop before to insert it in InDesign of other DTP software, and most of the “designers” in magazines don’t do it because they have not the time to do it…
But obviously bigger can be better in the sense that "he who can do more, can do less"
-
I downsize all my files from 20mp to 12 mp and when rejected I downsize further to get accepted.
-
Maybe you shoot under tough conditions, but my suggestion is to try and limit the need for resizing by adopting techniques to minimize noise and increase sharpness in your original image capture.
Generally, if you keep ISO to 100, or no more than 200, or 250 tops, and use good glass with a properly focusing camera, and either a tripod or faster shutter to minimize camera shake, you shouldn't have to resize the majority of your images. In some conditions this might be difficult withiut adding light, such as a reflector or speedlights.
Also helps to shoot raw and use a good raw processor. Lightroom is great at getting rid of minor noise in the raw to tif conversion.
Good photo capture should really eliminate the need to resize most of your images to get them accepted.
-
For the initial application, downsize as much as you need to, so the flaws are gone. But I suggest you keep a couple of photos in full size, so they can see you can do it.
For me. I downsize if I have to, if there are flaws I need to cover up, else not, and I do not make special sizes for different agencies, - they all get the same.
-
lisa
shutter refuses my 24mp images, tripod, 2sec self timer, iso 100, +0,7ev, f8, noise rejection, jpeg especially
-
lisa
shutter refuses my 24mp images, tripod, 2sec self timer, iso 100, +0,7ev, f8, noise rejection, jpeg especially
Strange. Without seeing images its hard to understand the problem. I dont think SS automatically rejecting images because they are 24mp. They accept 5D2 images unresized all the time.
-
studio shots with SS are not a problem, but for outdoor (non people) shots they are really strange and inconsistent. Coming from iStock exclusivity back to SS I had them reject shots (beach, landscape) that were in flames on IS for focus or composition or incorrect white balance (usually that would be sunrise or sunset shots when the light isn't neutral).
These were 21MP shots from L glass and they were in focus, well composed and with correct white balance. I can't explain what SS's review process is or why they do what they do.
I sometimes resubmit with a note - recently pointed out that a shot was pre-sunrise, hence the color and they accepted it. But it wasn't any sort of mystery that required an explanation.
I don't complain because they don't seem to have any interest in changing anything they do.
-
By the way, SS doesnt say anything about downsizing not being allowed
https://submit.shutterstock.com/guidelines.mhtml
Images
Images must be at least 2.5MP (2.5 Megapixels/2.5 Million Pixels). To calculate the number of pixels in a photo - multiply the width by the height. For example - a photo that's 1700x1300 is 2.21 million pixels. The minimum size for new photographers is now 4.0MP.
Images may not be upsized more than 5% -- we perform an interpolated upsize to sell the 'supersized' version - if you upload upsized images, you risk your account being suspended.
Images should be correctly exposed and in-focus.
Images can be submitted in digital form only. If you would like to submit film/negatives, you must scan them into a digital format before you submit them. Modern scanners can scan both negatives and positives at a very low price. Do not send physical negatives or positives to Shutterstock.
DON'Ts:
Don't send images with date stamps or copyright notices.
Don't "frame" your work. We don't take any framed images.
Don't send snapshots. We do not accept photos with heavy shadows from the on-camera flash. Make sure your images have a clear topic and focus.
Don't send 10 pictures of your family pet.
Don't send dark or muddy travel pictures.
Don't send the same image with slight variations on the angle.
Don't send the same image in color, black and white, sepia, and blue tone. Color is enough. If any variation on color actually enhances the image, then you may submit it separately, but we do not want a batch of photos where each is submitted in four different ways.
Don't send similar shots when only one is your favorite. Edit on your own. Keep batch sizes of similar subjects down to the bare minimum.
Don't send flower pictures labeled "Flower" or "Spring Scene". We only accept photos of flowers that are labeled with the scientific or common name. Labeling plants and animals with their scientific names may increase your sales (*Please avoid sending images that we already have a lot of such as sunsets, flowers, nature, etc.*).
Don't submit photos taken from inside an airplane or moving automobile. Consider your composition carefully.
-
I guess if they didn't offer a "supersized" version they wouldn't need to be so iffy about "focus is not where we like it" etc. I see one of my latest uploads is being offered as a 47MP version, from an original which is about 12MP in size, so if you upload a 6MP file they will resize it to 24MP. In effect, that means that what you and I see at 72MP has to be pristine if resized to 300MP.
Now I've got to go and resize a batch of landscape shots they just rejected for "focus is not where we like it".
-
I always thought they doubled the size from originals up to 15mp or so, and for larger than 15mp they dont
-
It looks as if they double both dimensions producing a four-fold multiplication.
It's odd to think they would turn a 4MP image into a 16MP one, but leave a 15MP one unchanged but if that's what they are doing then you give the customer the maximum size choice if you upload at 14MP to provide a 56MP "supersize" download. A 22MP original would be at a disadvantage in comparison (at a disadvantage against anything of 6MP or more, come to that).
-
You should be able to get a noise free tack sharp image at full resolution, and if you are not you need to work on your technique.
And for those who missed it.
Hi everyone,
Just to chime in on this one point: downsizing will only hurt your sales and the overall community. I'll explain why.
Shutterstock has over 550,000 customers, ranging from freelance graphic designers working with a variety of clients to high-end advertising agencies and publishers who buy images in volume. Some of those customers buy individual images, some buy image packs and others buy images via the subscription model.
The point of uploading large (or your original) file sizes is to make sure that your images are suitable for the widest variety of customers and widest variety of uses, irrespective of how the image was purchased.
For example, some advertising agencies will buy images under agreements that allow for a royalty of up to $120 per download. If you upload smaller images that fail to meet an advertising agency's requirements, you'll either leave them frustrated or turn them off to your portfolio.
As others have pointed out, it's in your interest to try to capture the widest variety of sales from customers already transacting at Shutterstock, which means providing high quality files suitable for the widest variety of end uses.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 12:26 by scottbraut »
-
A downsized photo that is selling is better than a rejected photo sitting on your hard drive.
-
You should be able to get a noise free tack sharp image at full resolution, and if you are not you need to work on your technique.
Enlighten me Barry, how do you shoot noise free at a concert when flash is not allowed?
PS: CanStockPhoto has a zoom option, dont use it, because you might find out you want to downsize some images of yours.
-
You should be able to get a noise free tack sharp image at full resolution, and if you are not you need to work on your technique.
Enlighten me Barry, how do you shoot noise free at a concert when flash is not allowed?
PS: CanStockPhoto has a zoom option, dont use it, because you might find out you want to downsize some images of yours.
Very easy! Set iso 100-200-400 use tripod,fast prime lens and wait for good light than press the button and camera will do the rest.
-
Does SS pay the same regardless of the image size? Cause i seem to be getting. 0.25$ a pop on all downloads.
I'm such a case why would i upload hi res files to them?
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
-
When you're working for authenticity, things like tripods and total perfection get in the way. If I have to downsize from 36 mp to 18 or 12 or even 6, I'm going to do it. My current hottest seller that has sold more than 1,400 times on just Shutterstock in the past 10 months was downsized from 16 to 6 megapixels because getting a 5 year old kid and a dog in a perfect pose at the same time is really, really hard. Capturing the right moment is a higher priority. If I hadn't downsized it, it would have been rejected and I would have lost about $1,000 and counting.
-
You should be able to get a noise free tack sharp image at full resolution, and if you are not you need to work on your technique.
Enlighten me Barry, how do you shoot noise free at a concert when flash is not allowed?
PS: CanStockPhoto has a zoom option, dont use it, because you might find out you want to downsize some images of yours.
Very easy! Set iso 100-200-400 use tripod,fast prime lens and wait for good light than press the button and camera will do the rest.
tripod at a concert? Wait for good light? Sorry that's just silly.
-
You should be able to get a noise free tack sharp image at full resolution, and if you are not you need to work on your technique.
Enlighten me Barry, how do you shoot noise free at a concert when flash is not allowed?
PS: CanStockPhoto has a zoom option, dont use it, because you might find out you want to downsize some images of yours.
Very easy! Set iso 100-200-400 use tripod,fast prime lens and wait for good light than press the button and camera will do the rest.
using a tripod on a gig? ;D
-
When you're working for authenticity, things like tripods and total perfection get in the way. If I have to downsize from 36 mp to 18 or 12 or even 6, I'm going to do it. My current hottest seller that has sold more than 1,400 times on just Shutterstock in the past 10 months was downsized from 16 to 6 megapixels because getting a 5 year old kid and a dog in a perfect pose at the same time is really, really hard. Capturing the right moment is a higher priority. If I hadn't downsized it, it would have been rejected and I would have lost about $1,000 and counting.
Granted there are situations where going to a high iso is unavoidable, and your example is one of them. Unless I'm misreading the OP, though, their question was about routinely downsizing all their images to 6mp because supposedly that is the only way to get anything accepted. That is demonstrably untrue, and we even have a quoted post from a ss admin saying they not only accept high rez images, but prefer them.
It's perfectly reasonable to downsize occasionally when shooting a difficult subject or situation. But if ALL your images require drastic downsizing, as the OP seems to suggest, then it is time to explore ways to improve technique.
-
They may prefer large sizes as a company policy but I am far from convinced that the inspectors take into account the effect of size.
By that I mean that a 20MP image may get the "not where we like it" focus rejection whereas downsized to 6MP it will not run into this problem. That is despite the fact that it is going to be offered supersized at 24MP..... so where is the sense in that? The difference is what the inspector is seeing on screen, not what the final version seen by the end-user will be.
Also, why prefer a full-size 20MP image that you won't upsize instead of a 12MP image that you will resize to 48MP? How is that persuading the user that they are getting a greater choice? And if they upsize 12MP to 48MP, why not upsize 20MP to 80MP?
It all makes very little sense to me.
-
When you're working for authenticity, things like tripods and total perfection get in the way. If I have to downsize from 36 mp to 18 or 12 or even 6, I'm going to do it. My current hottest seller that has sold more than 1,400 times on just Shutterstock in the past 10 months was downsized from 16 to 6 megapixels because getting a 5 year old kid and a dog in a perfect pose at the same time is really, really hard. Capturing the right moment is a higher priority. If I hadn't downsized it, it would have been rejected and I would have lost about $1,000 and counting.
Granted there are situations where going to a high iso is unavoidable, and your example is one of them. Unless I'm misreading the OP, though, their question was about routinely downsizing all their images to 6mp because supposedly that is the only way to get anything accepted. That is demonstrably untrue, and we even have a quoted post from a ss admin saying they not only accept high rez images, but prefer them.
It's perfectly reasonable to downsize occasionally when shooting a difficult subject or situation. But if ALL your images require drastic downsizing, as the OP seems to suggest, then it is time to explore ways to improve technique.
I agree, just that blanket statements as from Ruxperiencediam dont fly.
-
I have to say, Ive never seen a 4 times upsample.
Edit: I guess the person voting me down knows what I have and have not seen at Shutterstock. With skills like that you shouldnt be in microstock, but operating a psychic booth on a Carnaval
-
Is the payment for differnt sizes same? Do i get 25 cents regardless of whether its a 16mp or a 6mp?
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
-
Is the payment for differnt sizes same? Do i get 25 cents regardless of whether its a 16mp or a 6mp?
Yes
-
I have to say, Ive never seen a 4 times upsample.
Edit: I guess the person voting me down knows what I have and have not seen at Shutterstock. With skills like that you shouldnt be in microstock, but operating a psychic booth on a Carnaval
Take a look at this file then http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=186782621 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=186782621)
It's one that was rejected as focus not where we like it at 20MP so I downsized it to 6MP and now you can see it is on sale up to 6MP and with a "supersize" 24MP option. Obviously, the acceptable supersize version must be significantly lower in quality than the unacceptable original 20MP version. Go figure.
-
I have to say, Ive never seen a 4 times upsample.
Edit: I guess the person voting me down knows what I have and have not seen at Shutterstock. With skills like that you shouldnt be in microstock, but operating a psychic booth on a Carnaval
Take a look at this file then [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=186782621[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=186782621[/url])
It's one that was rejected as focus not where we like it at 20MP so I downsized it to 6MP and now you can see it is on sale up to 6MP and with a "supersize" 24MP option. Obviously, the acceptable supersize version must be significantly lower in quality than the unacceptable original 20MP version. Go figure.
Ok, my bad, I always noticed the doubling of the longest side, but that means the short side is also doubled, which means 4 times bigger. How can a file 4 times upsampled have any quality left. Yeah, I agree about that. Its something I always wondered about as well.
-
That they upsample files is a reason that at least makes me understand why they have a problem with shallow DOF. What might look good in the native resolution uploaded, will probably look really bad at "supersize".
But their system seems to work for their customers, so who am I to change it?
I´ll just accept it and try to shoot files either with more DOF for them, or just downsample to meet their requirements.
-
Scott Braut has stated a few times that image size is one criteria some buyers use when selecting images. I wonder, though, how much weight this criteria places on the buying decision? I would think not a lot. Buyers find one at 6mp and a similar one at 24 mp and would likely choose the one that fits their visual needs first over the larger size. Sure there are times a buyer needs size as a selection factor but not many I suspect.
-
.
-
Doesn't shutterstock upsize images, how would a buyer even know if the image is downsized before buying it?
I wonder that too. And since my formerly 20MP image is now a 24MP supersize, doesn't that make it even better?
Also, since they apparently don't upsize anything above 15MP surely they should review those between 16 and 24MP at one quarter of their actual size before accepting or rejecting, to equalise the maximum size that can be downloaded? But like Cobalt says, it's their site, their policy, if it is indeciperhable it doesn't matter. We just live with it.
-
Hello All,
This topic has come up in the past and I strongly recommend against downsizing and encouraging others to downsize.
First, it's not in your best interest as a contributor. While many of our images are licensed through the subscription model to both large and small businesses, many of you have seen sales through our enterprise products (where royalties can be up to $120 or more). Many of those enterprise clients are advertising agencies, Fortune 500 companies, etc., who are looking for images of good or high technical quality. If you're downsizing images, you're potentially losing out on some of your highest-potential sales in many markets around the world. With nearly 1 million customers now searching for images at Shutterstock, you want your portfolio to be of the highest quality to generate the highest amount of earnings across that broad and diverse customer base.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
-
Very simple rule of thumb if majority of you sales are subscriptions, downsize to lowest acceptable size. Of course it is in agency interest to get best possible product for lowest possible price. Give them what they are paying for. Unless something drastically different happen on this market I see it is going to be more subscriptions with few occasional sales of other types.
-
This topic has come up in the past and I strongly recommend against downsizing and encouraging others to downsize.
Scott,
Leaving aside the folks who don't want to license a 21+MP for subscriptions, what about the issues of Shutterstock upsizing images that contributors have downsized to get around the frequent (and IMO often completely bogus) rejections for "focus not where we want it"?
I believe the customer would be best served with the image at its original size, not an upsized downsize - it just can't be getting better with the additional manipulation.
I just returned from Turks & Caicos where I was chuffed to see two of my images from a prior visit as big "wraps" in the airport (http://www.digitalbristles.com/temp/TCI-airport-pix.jpg) - and I know they weren't licensed from Shutterstock because you rejected them for being out of focus. They aren't out of focus. I have a long list of in focus images, some of which as I mentioned in an earlier post were in flames at iStock when I was an exclusive, that were rejected by Shutterstock. CNN found another one of your rejects (http://www.digitalbristles.com/temp/CNN-travel-grace-bay-beach.jpg) just fine too.
I'd happily give you more 21MP images, but your review process gets in the way. For some I might take the time to downsize to get around the bogus rejection, but mostly I just don't bother.
IMO what you need is some sort of formal appeals process, possibly limited to a certain number a month, or to contributors with a certain number of sales to prevent the process from being overwhelmed by things that really are junk. That sort of process would help you calibrate reviewers and improve the quality of reviews. In the long run that will benefit Shutterstock as much as it will contributors.
-
Hello All,
This topic has come up in the past and I strongly recommend against downsizing and encouraging others to downsize.
First, it's not in your best interest as a contributor. While many of our images are licensed through the subscription model to both large and small businesses, many of you have seen sales through our enterprise products (where royalties can be up to $120 or more). Many of those enterprise clients are advertising agencies, Fortune 500 companies, etc., who are looking for images of good or high technical quality. If you're downsizing images, you're potentially losing out on some of your highest-potential sales in many markets around the world. With nearly 1 million customers now searching for images at Shutterstock, you want your portfolio to be of the highest quality to generate the highest amount of earnings across that broad and diverse customer base.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Scott, you have completely dodged the questions. How can you say buyers want big images, then reject 20MP images for focus but accept the same image when downsized to 6MP after which you upsize to 24MP?
If you were trying to give buyers top quality you would accept the 20MP images and stop making us downsize them to 6MP so you can then upsize to 24MP.
The best thing would be to abolish "supersizing" and to set standards for inspectors that take account of image size.
(Past experience suggests that you will stand firmly by an illogical policy for about five years before coming round to my point of view :-) )
-
Hello All,
This topic has come up in the past and I strongly recommend against downsizing and encouraging others to downsize.
First, it's not in your best interest as a contributor. While many of our images are licensed through the subscription model to both large and small businesses, many of you have seen sales through our enterprise products (where royalties can be up to $120 or more). Many of those enterprise clients are advertising agencies, Fortune 500 companies, etc., who are looking for images of good or high technical quality. If you're downsizing images, you're potentially losing out on some of your highest-potential sales in many markets around the world. With nearly 1 million customers now searching for images at Shutterstock, you want your portfolio to be of the highest quality to generate the highest amount of earnings across that broad and diverse customer base.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Until you allow image or model opt out of the "sensitive use" many of us will not have any of our images available for these higher value sales (which would benefit SS and the artists). Please make this an option.
-
But submitting small size images doesnt matter, because they get up-sampled 4 times.
In fact, if I submit 15mp (or whatever the threshold is) it will remain 15mp, but if I submit 6mp, it will be up-sampled to 24mp. So basically by submitting 6mp images I have more advantage over someone submitting 15mp.
-
Original 15MP not upsampled - http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html)
Original 6MP upsampled to 24MP - http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html)
My 6MP waterlily is available in bigger size then my orignal 15MP Panorama of the Brighton Pier. So if a buyer needs a large waterlilly image of 24MP, better submit 6MP image, instead of a 18MP original image.
-
There is somewhere on SS where this was talked about once before but the search is broken as of recently so finding it is a joke, but even though you dont see SUPER listed as a size it is still available at a SUPER size.
Like I said this has been talked about on SS before and if the search ever gets fixed it will be easier to find the link to link to.
Original 15MP not upsampled - [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html[/url])
Original 6MP upsampled to 24MP - [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html[/url])
My 6MP waterlily is available in bigger size then my orignal 15MP Panorama of the Brighton Pier. So if a buyer needs a large waterlilly image of 24MP, better submit 6MP image, instead of a 18MP original image.
-
Original 15MP not upsampled - [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html[/url])
Original 6MP upsampled to 24MP - [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html[/url])
My 6MP waterlily is available in bigger size then my orignal 15MP Panorama of the Brighton Pier. So if a buyer needs a large waterlilly image of 24MP, better submit 6MP image, instead of a 18MP original image.
for real guys, this is becoming absurd, getting 2 minus for stating facts that are relevant to our workflow etc? honestly I would ban this feature now
-
Original 15MP not upsampled - [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html[/url])
Original 6MP upsampled to 24MP - [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html[/url])
My 6MP waterlily is available in bigger size then my orignal 15MP Panorama of the Brighton Pier. So if a buyer needs a large waterlilly image of 24MP, better submit 6MP image, instead of a 18MP original image.
for real guys, this is becoming absurd, getting 2 minus for stating facts that are relevant to our workflow etc? honestly I would ban this feature now
I noticed, let them have their field day, the fact that they dont reply shows they only do it out of spite :)
-
There is somewhere on SS where this was talked about once before but the search is broken as of recently so finding it is a joke, but even though you dont see SUPER listed as a size it is still available at a SUPER size.
Like I said this has been talked about on SS before and if the search ever gets fixed it will be easier to find the link to link to.
Original 15MP not upsampled - [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html[/url])
Original 6MP upsampled to 24MP - [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html[/url])
My 6MP waterlily is available in bigger size then my orignal 15MP Panorama of the Brighton Pier. So if a buyer needs a large waterlilly image of 24MP, better submit 6MP image, instead of a 18MP original image.
Well show me a screenshot then on how to get a super size of my 15MP image
-
Original 15MP not upsampled - [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html[/url])
Original 6MP upsampled to 24MP - [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html[/url])
My 6MP waterlily is available in bigger size then my orignal 15MP Panorama of the Brighton Pier. So if a buyer needs a large waterlilly image of 24MP, better submit 6MP image, instead of a 18MP original image.
for real guys, this is becoming absurd, getting 2 minus for stating facts that are relevant to our workflow etc? honestly I would ban this feature now
I noticed, let them have their field day, the fact that they dont reply shows they only do it out of spite :)
+1 from me, Ron. You are perfectly right in your observation.
Does anyone know where the threshold for starting to supersize exactly is? It seems in our best interest to downsize all images just below this threshold even if it doesn't give buyers the best image quality possible.
I hope SS will fix this situation within reasonable time, though.
-
Hi All,
IMO what you need is some sort of formal appeals process, possibly limited to a certain number a month, or to contributors with a certain number of sales to prevent the process from being overwhelmed by things that really are junk. That sort of process would help you calibrate reviewers and improve the quality of reviews. In the long run that will benefit Shutterstock as much as it will contributors.
Hi Jo Ann,
Agreed. Anyone is invited to disagree with a review determination. If they're right -- or the case was borderline -- we will reverse the reviewer's decision. As long as that process is not abused, it's important part of the feedback process for us. We "review our reviewers" and go through regular training with them, but it's helpful for us to determine when issues occur so we can give feedback to the reviewers themselves.
There are three possibilities in these situations:
- The images are clearly out of focus or back-focused when viewed at 100%.
- The images are slightly soft due to motion, lens choice, equipment, etc., but we'll give the nod to the contributor in a second review (we do ask our reviewers to consider whether softness is due to equipment limitations or poor technique).
- The images were sharp and the reviewer made the wrong determination.
We appreciate that it takes time to produce images and our goal is to have "0" issues across the millions of images that we review. If you feel the review was incorrect, it's important to let us know, and please write in.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
-
Hi All,
Unfortunately, I don't have a detailed reply on the moment on supersize images, but I can say that that's a feature that was historically provided as a convenience to buyers. I don't know what the future holds, but I would recommend uploading the correct original file instead of relying on system features to determine what gets delivered to buyers.
Best,
Scott
-
Anyone is invited to disagree with a review determination.
...
If you feel the review was incorrect, it's important to let us know, and please write in.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Hi Scott,
what's the normal time to receive a response to such a request? I sent one (whole batch rejected for reasons I did not agree to) almost a week ago (on April 8) and haven't heard back yet...
Other submissions since then have been accepted without issues.
thanks,
Dirk
-
Hello,
If you sent a note to our "submit" support address, you should hear back within 1-2 business days. If you didn't get any response, I would try again, in case it went into a spam folder. I can check with the team on the current status of the escalation queue, but they've been pretty fast.
If you don't receive a response after multiple email attempts, PM me (not the best first path, since the submit email address creates a ticket in our system and goes directly to the right people).
Best,
Scott
-
I would like to thank Scott for taking the time to come in to this thread and reply multiple times with helpful and substantive answers. It's a rare thing to have such interactions with admins from most sites, and agree or not with all Shutterstock's policies on this, he is to be commended IMO.
-
I would like to thank Scott for taking the time to come in to this thread and reply multiple times with helpful and substantive answers. It's a rare thing to have such interactions with admins from most sites, and agree or not with all Shutterstock's policies on this, he is to be commended IMO.
Totally agree Lisa. Wish more agencies acted as professionally as SS and Scott. Vote up for ya.
-
Scott Braut has stated a few times that image size is one criteria some buyers use when selecting images. I wonder, though, how much weight this criteria places on the buying decision? I would think not a lot. Buyers find one at 6mp and a similar one at 24 mp and would likely choose the one that fits their visual needs first over the larger size. Sure there are times a buyer needs size as a selection factor but not many I suspect.
What is definitely true - and you can see it at DT all the time - is that if buyers don't pay extra for a large size then they will take the largest size possible. I suspect that it is the "maybe someday I'll need it big so I might as well grab it" syndrome, rather than almost all the subs at DT being sold for use as posters two yards (metres) high. In fact I should think very few of our pictures are ever used larger than A4, but buyers still show a preference for downloading them at A0 size. But if they want it for a half-page magazine ad then they are not going to be put off because it is only available as a 4MP download.
The time when a supersized version would be useful would be when a very small part of the image is needed for inclusion in a design, but that's not likely with single-subject stock shots.
-
Hello,
If you sent a note to our "submit" support address, you should hear back within 1-2 business days. If you didn't get any response, I would try again, in case it went into a spam folder. I can check with the team on the current status of the escalation queue, but they've been pretty fast.
If you don't receive a response after multiple email attempts, PM me (not the best first path, since the submit email address creates a ticket in our system and goes directly to the right people).
Best,
Scott
Thanks Scott, I re-sent my message.
-
Thanks Scott and SS for paying attention and taking the time to reply on this Forum...very appreciated.
Regarding downsizing: Although you recommend not to do it for maintaining the possibility of higher priced corporate sales, I downsize since some time. The problem is simply that with a handfull of sales on some high priced sites I outperform already SS. For me, from a economic viewpoint, it is getting harder to justify pumping supreme quality into a subscription Model.
Don`t get me wrong, it is not really an emotional thing, it is just the fact that I feel every year a bit more that with such low priced sales I cannibalize the (growing) high priced sales on various other sites. Maybe it would be really time to think about a raise in the subscription Model?
-
Thanks Scott and SS for paying attention and taking the time to reply on this Forum...very appreciated.
Regarding downsizing: Although you recommend not to do it for maintaining the possibility of higher priced corporate sales, I downsize since some time. The problem is simply that with a handfull of sales on some high priced sites I outperform already SS. For me, from a economic viewpoint, it is getting harder to justify pumping supreme quality into a subscription Model.
Don`t get me wrong, it is not really an emotional thing, it is just the fact that I feel every year a bit more that with such low priced sales I cannibalize the (growing) high priced sales on various other sites. Maybe it would be really time to think about a raise in the subscription Model?
$0.50 per for highest pay category instead of .38.
-
Hi Tror,
Thanks for your feedback. I think it's important to think about Shutterstock's business outside of just subscriptions. The reality is that images are sold under many different price points and many different products, and that our enterprise business is growing daily on a global basis. There are nearly 1 million customers at Shutterstock (and more through our Facebook integration, which has 1 million active advertisers). It's not an "either-or" scenario. At our service, the same image that sells to a small local business in Utah under the subscription model can sell for hundreds of dollars to an ad agency in Germany, the UK or Japan. When you're putting quality images into the collection, you're making them available for every kind of purchase opportunity, unless you've specifically opted out of some.
The other thing to keep in mind is that our products grow and mature every single day. As a tech company, we're constantly testing and deploying small iterations of new features. A few years ago, $50 - $120 royalties didn't exist at the scale that they do now. Many features didn't exist, or were different. If you do something against our recommendations today because you're making future assumptions about who the customers are, what features are available, etc., then you're doing yourself a disservice.
For example, our search algorithms focus on image performance and complex analyses of large amounts of behavioral data. Over time, your images build up histories of customer behavior. Those are very important assets for you.
Avoid bad advice and chances that you may want to "change" an image in the future to take advantage of emerging opportunities. You might lose an important thing of value -- customer data -- that you earn on a hourly basis over the course of years.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
-
Hi Tror,
Thanks for your feedback. I think it's important to think about Shutterstock's business outside of just subscriptions. The reality is that images are sold under many different price points and many different products, and that our enterprise business is growing daily on a global basis. There are nearly 1 million customers at Shutterstock (and more through our Facebook integration, which has 1 million active advertisers). It's not an "either-or" scenario. At our service, the same image that sells to a small local business in Utah under the subscription model can sell for hundreds of dollars to an ad agency in Germany, the UK or Japan. When you're putting quality images into the collection, you're making them available for every kind of purchase opportunity, unless you've specifically opted out of some.
The other thing to keep in mind is that our products grow and mature every single day. As a tech company, we're constantly testing and deploying small iterations of new features. A few years ago, $50 - $120 royalties didn't exist at the scale that they do now. Many features didn't exist, or were different. If you do something against our recommendations today because you're making future assumptions about who the customers are, what features are available, etc., then you're doing yourself a disservice.
For example, our search algorithms focus on image performance and complex analyses of large amounts of behavioral data. Over time, your images build up histories of customer behavior. Those are very important assets for you.
Avoid bad advice and chances that you may want to "change" an image in the future to take advantage of emerging opportunities. You might lose an important thing of value -- customer data -- that you earn on a hourly basis over the course of years.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Thanks Scott.
Now if you could just get all of the naysayers to listen to you then you would be doing something but that is like trying to just casually walk through a brick wall!
And that's not going to happen so they will continue the argument over and over.
Oh well their loss.
-
Thanks for the thoughts Scott. It's great to hear information direct from the source.
-
After reading this thread I took my last 20 rejections, downsized them to 6MP, and had 14 accepted. That settles it for me.
-
As Paul said, rejected images dont sell, downsized images which are accepted do.
I am submitting standard 12MP images, downsized from 20MP. If they dont cut it, I downsize further.
The only images that are over 12MP are my panoramas they go at 15-30MP. My latest pano of Berlin was 129MP. Why would I submit such sizes to microstock? Sub packages make no distinction between size, 36 cent for S and XXXL, doesnt make sense. 30MP is big enough for 36 cents and 120 dollar.
-
After reading this thread I took my last 20 rejections, downsized them to 6MP, and had 14 accepted. That settles it for me.
I understand the Realpolitik of that, but it's just stupid. I really hate having to accept stupid...
-
It is occasional XXL credit sale vs everyday XXL subscription sale. If you downsize you will not get the first one and will be less sorry about second one.
-
We downsize all as much as possible.
-
Does SS pay the same regardless of the image size? Cause i seem to be getting. 0.25$ a pop on all downloads.
I'm such a case why would i upload hi res files to them?
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
For sub they want a XXL so they can make more. We make nothing extra. I don't upload full size.
-
Generally, if you keep ISO to 100, or no more than 200, or 250 tops, ...
There speaks someone from Florida ;) 8)
-
Generally, if you keep ISO to 100, or no more than 200, or 250 tops, ...
There speaks someone from Florida ;) 8)
LOL- Fair point. Although if you looked out my office window the last several days you would swear I lived in Seattle or some other very rainy place :)
-
After reading this thread I took my last 20 rejections, downsized them to 6MP, and had 14 accepted. That settles it for me.
Maybe it settles it for you in the easy way, but there is a lesson you didnt learn.
Question: Can you not shoot quality in full size?
Answer: it is not always possible (convenient), and sometimes you have to downsize to maintain image quality.
But if you have to do it on a regular basis, it shows that your are either working in a borderline field or are not good enough as a photographer.
-
After reading this thread I took my last 20 rejections, downsized them to 6MP, and had 14 accepted. That settles it for me.
Maybe it settles it for you in the easy way, but there is a lesson you didnt learn.
Question: Can you not shoot quality in full size?
Answer: it is not also possible (convenient), and sometimes you have to downsize to maintain image quality.
But if you have to do it on a regular basis, it shows that your are either working in a borderline field or are not good enough as a photographer.
No one wants to hear this here!
They will come up with all kinds of reasons and explanations as to why they downsize.
Just look at the minuses I get for talking like that!?
-
Barry, you get minuses if you just say it's a beautiful day and we should all get outdoors and enjoy the sunshine. ;D
-
I normally downsize according to the size I think the focus looks good enough at 100% that I would buy it. Sometimes that's full size, sometimes and often smaller. Really varies on the shot. I think that's a good way to work.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
-
Hello All,
This topic has come up in the past and I strongly recommend against downsizing and encouraging others to downsize.
First, it's not in your best interest as a contributor. While many of our images are licensed through the subscription model to both large and small businesses, many of you have seen sales through our enterprise products (where royalties can be up to $120 or more). Many of those enterprise clients are advertising agencies, Fortune 500 companies, etc., who are looking for images of good or high technical quality. If you're downsizing images, you're potentially losing out on some of your highest-potential sales in many markets around the world. With nearly 1 million customers now searching for images at Shutterstock, you want your portfolio to be of the highest quality to generate the highest amount of earnings across that broad and diverse customer base.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
You keep REJECTING tact sharp ISO 100 no photoshop adjustment no shadow lifting noise free images. I keep reducing file size, deal?
-
"Sharpness is an illusion based on focus and quality of light".
Focus and sharpness is not the same. A photo can be in focus and not look sharp. Postprocessing can greatly improve the percieved sharpness.
-
After reading this thread I took my last 20 rejections, downsized them to 6MP, and had 14 accepted. That settles it for me.
Maybe it settles it for you in the easy way, but there is a lesson you didnt learn.
Question: Can you not shoot quality in full size?
Answer: it is not always possible (convenient), and sometimes you have to downsize to maintain image quality.
But if you have to do it on a regular basis, it shows that your are either working in a borderline field or are not good enough as a photographer.
Maybe I am not good enough, or maybe I am just not trying hard enough. I don't know, but I suspect both are very possible. Frankly though, I don't really care. Why?
Well, what I do know is that the same images that don't get accepted at 20 MP do get accepted at 6 MP, and they sell. Where is my incentive to *not* downsize them, I ask? Preserve the overall quality of Shutterstock's image bank? Pleeeeease. And, really, if they didn't want 6 MP images -- or 4 MP images for that matter -- why oh why do they accept them?
-
According to a lot of long time contributors their old work outsells their new work. Older work was shot with low res cams, SS requirement back then was 2MP. If 2-6mp work of the old days still sells like gang busters, then the competition of 36MP files hasnt eroded sales on the old files much if I have to believe the general comments on the SS forum.
-
"Sharpness is an illusion based on focus and quality of light".
Focus and sharpness is not the same. A photo can be in focus and not look sharp. Postprocessing can greatly improve the percieved sharpness.
Exactly. But regarding downsizing, I do it ONLY when the images just doesn't look sharp and I need to in order to get accepted. However, maybe I'
ll get flamed here but.......
I upload full resolution sizes from my 24MP camera even if I only make 38 cents. Why? The amount of work I put into an image with a Nikon D100 (6mp camera) is the same as the work I put into my D7100 24 mp camera. If I take the mentality that I spend too much on equipment and these large images are too costly to give to MS sub sites (SS) what am I going to do with them? Why shoot? My work by in large isn't good enough for high end RM/midstock sites, probably good enough for Getty but impossible to get in, so I chose micro stock. Aren't I shooting myself in the foot if I refuse to upload to SS now that I've upgraded my camera? I have accepted that 38 cents is my high volume DL's but if I can enhance my earnings through OD and other revenue streams with larger files, I increase revenue potential. It's my choice to upgrade my equipment but I don't upgrade then say, these are only for Getty, Offset, or Stocksy because I'll never get in those outlets. So I am being more or less realistic with my MS business.
-
I tend not to downsize and that is partly because I get 38c for subs - and it's not worth all the extra clicks and disc space involved in making big and small versions for different sites. I crop and size according to what I think is appropriate, if I get a focus rejection I might or might not take the trouble to downsize and upload again.
-
In my workflow there is no extra work or space involved, all agencies get the same size
-
Me too, very small workflow process. I take the picture, barest minimum of tweaks/crops and submit and forget. If its in, its in, if not, I wouldn't know, I rarely read the acceptance/rejection emails. On to the next one!
-
I shoot travel images, often with tripod and on ISO 100. I used to downsize 16mp files (Nikon D7000) to 12mp. And now I downsize 36mp files (Nikon D800) to 12mp.
Only partly because of approval issues, mostly because I don't see the point of selling 36mp files for subscription prices. Probably for lifestyle images it doesn't really matter, but in my opinion for landscape and travel it does... The full-res files I only use in POD shops. Also 500px Prime has my full-size images, but it remains to be seen if they can sell anything at all.
-
You should be able to get a noise free tack sharp image at full resolution, and if you are not you need to work on your technique.
Enlighten me Barry, how do you shoot noise free at a concert when flash is not allowed?
PS: CanStockPhoto has a zoom option, dont use it, because you might find out you want to downsize some images of yours.
Very easy! Set iso 100-200-400 use tripod,fast prime lens and wait for good light than press the button and camera will do the rest.
using a tripod on a gig? ;D
Some musicians can stand very still:
http://www.neubauten.org/garden (http://www.neubauten.org/garden)
-
Today I'm having to downsize one because the uploader won't take a file bigger than 30 megabytes, and it won't show up after sending it via FTP.
-
Today I'm having to downsize one because the uploader won't take a file bigger than 30 megabytes, and it won't show up after sending it via FTP.
It will. It's just taking a bit more than usual for files to show up from FTP lately.
-
Since the new (ish) problems with reviewers at SS I now downsize all my images to around 4.5 - 4.6mb, just high enough to clear their 4mb minimum size requirement. Ever since doing so, I have had 100% acceptance on all images :)
The sad thing is (for SS customers), all the other sites get the exact same images, but they all get them at 20-25mb in size, sometimes even bigger.
I shoot RAW, NEFF files at a native 26MB (sensor size) which produce files of around 40-60 MB in TIFF format so I always bring them down a little anyway when converting to RGB JPEG.
The other sites also get my images sooner as I have to be careful as to when I upload to SS to avoid the new part-time and weekend reviewers, so I save them all up in a folder called (SS-Smaller). It's a bit of a pain, but doesn't take too long to upload them all, they're so tiny they upload on the normal web access in a matter of a few seconds.
I sometimes feel bad for the SS customers that only have access to the really small JPEGs (or upsized by SS JPEGs) but when I consider the 100% acceptance factor not to mention the measly 0.38c payback and no false rejections for focus/noise on new submissions I can live with it.
I actually see it as an SS problem more than a problem for me. They need to employ better reviewers and invest in better technology.
And I also have to say, the argument about not getting EL's etc with smaller files doesn't seem to affect my sales either, I get my fair share of EL's every month as I do from other sites too.
Like I say, I believe it's the fault of SS that their customers get 'second rate' images (in terms of image resolution), they need to pull up their A game a bit and sort out their 'new' appallingly bad and inconsistent image inspector/reviewer problem.
When or if it happens, then, and only then, will SS ever get access again to my images at the very best resolutions enjoyed by their competitors, again, I feel a bit sorry for their customers :(
-
Since the new (ish) problems with reviewers at SS I now downsize all my images to around 4.5 - 4.6mb, just high enough to clear their 4mb minimum size requirement. Ever since doing so, I have had 100% acceptance on all images :)
Now this is new!
You downsize the file info, MB and not the file size MP?
When did SS start this?
-
^ By newish I mean over the last four to six weeks, that was when I noticed rejections for noise/focus - however when viewed at 100% they were all clean and tack sharp. When those same images were downsized (by up to 50% from the original size) and resubmitted they were all accepted. The dpi was not changed just the pixel dimensions.
-
^I think "ruxpriencdiam" is just noting that the correct unit is megapixels, not megabytes (MB).
I see this error quite often here (and everywhere).
-
I shoot 36Mp D800 RAW images in ISO100 with tripod and use high quality prime lenses. I also suffered from "out of focus" rejections for my tack sharp still images. Now I downsample to 12Mp and "out of focus" rejections are minimal as well as noise rejections. So, you will reduce "Noise" rejections as well by downsampling...
-
I shoot 36Mp D800 RAW images in ISO100 with tripod and use high quality prime lenses. I also suffered from "out of focus" rejections for my tack sharp still images. Now I downsample to 12Mp and "out of focus" rejections are minimal as well as noise rejections. So, you will reduce "Noise" rejections as well by downsampling...
Thanks for posting this. I'm glad I'm not the only one :)
I also shoot with a tripod with prime Nikkor lenses and even use a infrared remote AND stacking focus software occasionally too :)
It's complete madness. I belief the current situation with SS reviewers is nothing short of ridiculous.
-
Hello,
Anyone who has had a review of a very large file that was "tack sharp" (or in their estimation, very sharp) should send a link to the original images or the batch number to the support team at [email protected]. That creates a ticket in our system which can be tracked and resolved. If it's been more than a round or two and you're not getting a satisfactory response, you can also escalate to me. If a specific review was reversed, but then you experienced the issue a second time, please take the same approach.
The truth is that many complaints we see were legitimate rejections where the focus point was off (i.e., the image is back-focused) or there's motion blur, etc... However, if there's a problem with the review process, a specific review or a specific reviewer, we want to know about it so that we can make it right. With increased resolution, varying camera types, lenses of different quality, different post-processing methods, displays, etc..., the best way to do that is to see the original images. If there's a policy or process improvement to make, we'll make it.
Thanks!
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
-
Hello,
Anyone who has had a review of a very large file that was "tack sharp" (or in their estimation, very sharp) should send a link to the original images or the batch number to the support team at [email protected]. That creates a ticket in our system which can be tracked and resolved. If it's been more than a round or two and you're not getting a satisfactory response, you can also escalate to me. If a specific review was reversed, but then you experienced the issue a second time, please take the same approach.
The truth is that many complaints we see were legitimate rejections where the focus point was off (i.e., the image is back-focused) or there's motion blur, etc... However, if there's a problem with the review process, a specific review or a specific reviewer, we want to know about it so that we can make it right. With increased resolution, varying camera types, lenses of different quality, different post-processing methods, displays, etc..., the best way to do that is to see the original images. If there's a policy or process improvement to make, we'll make it.
Thanks!
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
With the greatest respect, you are the one that has a problem.
That problem is mentioned here and also on your own forum. ALthough on your own forum you fail to even respond to the concerns voiced.
I suggest you sort that too.
The last thing a public company needs to have is a 'live' issue where leading contributors are submitting 'sub-standard' files (in resolution terms) to a company as a direct result of insufficiently trained staff or an appropriate technology available to your review team.
When your subscribers learn they can get higher resolution versions of the exact same images from your competitors they will leave and cancel their subscription contracts.
The problem is not actually one for us to prove to you.
The problem is for you to solve at your end, that's where the problem lies.
Until then, as I already stated, as far as I am concerned, you'll only get my sub-standard images (in terms of resolution) as they are the only types your reviewers accept.
Ergo - you sort it.
-
Maybe my technique is better, or maybe I'm using better glass, but I hardly ever get focus rejections, and when I do, I can almost always see what the reviewer saw. Given how subjective the review process can be, I'm surprised I don't have more images rejected.
I shoot with a Nikon D800, and I reduce the images by 25% in each dimension (36 MP down to 19 MB). That's plenty of resolution for most any customer, and the file sizes are a lot more manageable. I check my images at 200%; I edit on a retina MacBook Pro, where individual pixels are so small that Photoshop CC won't show me image problems at 100%.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have a hard time believing that perfect images are being rejected for focus on a regular basis. Not at Shutterstock, at any rate.
-
I shoot 36Mp D800 RAW images in ISO100 with tripod and use high quality prime lenses. I also suffered from "out of focus" rejections for my tack sharp still images. Now I downsample to 12Mp and "out of focus" rejections are minimal as well as noise rejections. So, you will reduce "Noise" rejections as well by downsampling...
Thanks for posting this. I'm glad I'm not the only one :)
I also shoot with a tripod with prime Nikkor lenses and even use a infrared remote AND stacking focus software occasionally too :)
It's complete madness. I belief the current situation with SS reviewers is nothing short of ridiculous.
I forgot to mention that I shoot all my photos with mirror up and shutter release delay in D800 to prevent vibration. My prime lens I mostly use is Nikon PC-E lens which allow me to shoot sharper images by tilting with wider aperture to prevent softness due to diffraction. All the RAW images processed in CaptureOne pro and reviewed in Photoshop at 200% on 24" IPS monitor.
As understood, I did my part for a sharp image by spending a lot of time on each image and I don't want to spend more to prove my images by sending tickets, mails etc. So, SS please solve the problems with the reviewers.
-
Maybe my technique is better, or maybe I'm using better glass, but I hardly ever get focus rejections, and when I do, I can almost always see what the reviewer saw. Given how subjective the review process can be, I'm surprised I don't have more images rejected.
I shoot with a Nikon D800, and I reduce the images by 25% in each dimension (36 MP down to 19 MB). That's plenty of resolution for most any customer, and the file sizes are a lot more manageable. I check my images at 200%; I edit on a retina MacBook Pro, where individual pixels are so small that Photoshop CC won't show me image problems at 100%.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have a hard time believing that perfect images are being rejected for focus on a regular basis. Not at Shutterstock, at any rate.
Or maybe you don't get focus rejections because you downsize? Try submitting full size and see if you have a "problem" it would be a good experiment.
I wonder if the problem is that the larger files take longer to load, so the "sharpness" doesn't appear until the image is fully loaded. Reviewers, in order to make money, have to cycle through as many images as they can. They don't wait for the image to fully load before rejecting....
-
Maybe my technique is better, or maybe I'm using better glass, but I hardly ever get focus rejections, and when I do, I can almost always see what the reviewer saw. Given how subjective the review process can be, I'm surprised I don't have more images rejected.
I shoot with a Nikon D800, and I reduce the images by 25% in each dimension (36 MP down to 19 MB). That's plenty of resolution for most any customer, and the file sizes are a lot more manageable. I check my images at 200%; I edit on a retina MacBook Pro, where individual pixels are so small that Photoshop CC won't show me image problems at 100%.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have a hard time believing that perfect images are being rejected for focus on a regular basis. Not at Shutterstock, at any rate.
Or maybe you don't get focus rejections because you downsize? Try submitting full size and see if you have a "problem" it would be a good experiment.
I wonder if the problem is that the larger files take longer to load, so the "sharpness" doesn't appear until the image is fully loaded. Reviewers, in order to make money, have to cycle through as many images as they can. They don't wait for the image to fully load before rejecting....
Once you load the image to SS it is already uploaded and when the reviewer clicks it it is there just the same as when you open it in PS they dont wait for anything they click zoom make the call and move on.
-
How do you know? You are just guessing.
-
How do you know? You are just guessing.
No Ron.
When you upload images to your computer from your camera where do you think they go?
They get stored in your mainframe for later use no uploading or downloading because they become STORED.
You just click and open just as a reviewer does because where does the file go after it is uploaded to SS????
Right to one of their mainframes that stores the images just as we do on our computers then the reviewer has access to that mainframe (which we dont) where images are stored and all they do is open them the same as we do when we open one from our computer there is no lag time!
-
How do you know? You are just guessing.
No Ron.
When you upload images to your computer from your camera where do you think they go?
They get stored in your mainframe for later use no uploading or downloading because they become STORED.
You just click and open just as a reviewer does because where does the file go after it is uploaded to SS????
Right to one of their mainframes that stores the images just as we do on our computers then the reviewer has access to that mainframe (which we dont) where images are stored and all they do is open them the same as we do when we open one from our computer there is no lag time!
But the reviewers are not in New York ( or where ever the servers are) they are scattered around the world using the same internet ( or slower) then we might be. I thought about applying for a reviewer position just for the experience, but my internet is so slow I could not review enough in an hour to make it worthwhile
-
Nevermind. My question was answered by a post I had overlooked.
-
How do you know? You are just guessing.
No Ron.
When you upload images to your computer from your camera where do you think they go?
They get stored in your mainframe for later use no uploading or downloading because they become STORED.
You just click and open just as a reviewer does because where does the file go after it is uploaded to SS????
Right to one of their mainframes that stores the images just as we do on our computers then the reviewer has access to that mainframe (which we dont) where images are stored and all they do is open them the same as we do when we open one from our computer there is no lag time!
Your whole comment is just guessing. You dont know where the images go. You dont even know if they are reviewed in NY. Do you think they have reviewers working at night in the weekend? Or do they have reviewers working during the day in another part of the world?
Paying a person in NY at night in the weekend is 1000 times more expensive then paying a dayworker in India (no disrespect).
You have no idea about the review process, how it works, and we are all guessing how it might work.
-
Whoever or wherever our images are assessed does not concern me really, all I know is I just had a 100% approval on my latest batch (more than 20, less than 50) all downsized and all around 50% smaller than the exact same images uploaded to other sites.
A few of the batch were resubmissions for 'focus', but I knew they were fine, even when viewed at 200%, Those images were simply slashed in size by 50-55% and they all went through.
Two of these tiny images have sold already and one of those that sold was a resubmission image :)
As I mentioned a few posts back I actually feel a little bad for the SS customers, they're being short-changed by SS, but what can I do? Simply accept perfectly good and saleable images being rejected, when the exact same ones sell on all the other sites?
I don't think so :)
-
I submitted 11 images this week, 9 older images at 4MP, shot with a 450D+cheap kit lens 18-55mm, and 2 images at 10MP shot with a 450D+24-70L II. Some of the 4mp images were soft, I expected them to get some rejections, the 10mp images were sharp. The downsized images all got accepted and the 2 sharp images got rejected for focus. Go figure.
-
How do you know? You are just guessing.
No Ron.
When you upload images to your computer from your camera where do you think they go?
They get stored in your mainframe for later use no uploading or downloading because they become STORED.
You just click and open just as a reviewer does because where does the file go after it is uploaded to SS????
Right to one of their mainframes that stores the images just as we do on our computers then the reviewer has access to that mainframe (which we dont) where images are stored and all they do is open them the same as we do when we open one from our computer there is no lag time!
Your whole comment is just guessing. You dont know where the images go. You dont even know if they are reviewed in NY. Do you think they have reviewers working at night in the weekend? Or do they have reviewers working during the day in another part of the world?
Paying a person in NY at night in the weekend is 1000 times more expensive then paying a dayworker in India (no disrespect).
You have no idea about the review process, how it works, and we are all guessing how it might work.
I know how it works.
There are reviewers specific to certain areas in the world and they work day night weekends and Holidays they work all over the world I have applied as a reviewer and know all about the entire review process and what is required by SS.
Whereas at CanStockPhoto reviewers must do illustrations and photos and certain programs are required at SS you are either a photo reviewer or an illustration reviewer.
Go put an application in it is quite easy and fully explained to you in plain simple English.
Work From Home Image Reviewer New York, New York
Work From Home Image Reviewer – Editorial / Weekends Only – North America New York, New York
Work From Home Vector & Illustration Image Reviewer (Europe) Berlin, Germany
Work From Home Image Reviewer
Headquartered in New York, Shutterstock is an innovative e-commerce company and a leading provider of royalty-free videos, photos, and illustrations. With over 30 million images and videos, Shutterstock sources content from a contributor community of thousands of photographers, videographers, artists and illustrators from around the world. We consider our contributor community, supply chain and operational capability to be among our greatest assets.
We are hiring Image Reviewers located in the USA to evaluate images for their overall quality, technical execution, commercial suitability, and adherence to our image acceptance standards.
This is a freelance work-from-home position using the reviewer"s own equipment and based around the reviewers available schedule.
Responsibilities:
Efficiently evaluate and approve images based on defined acceptance standards.
Operate as an authority for technical standards, trademark exceptions, fraud detection, copyright and release requirements; review images for adherence to content standards and suitability for inclusion in our commercial image catalog.
Perform exceptionable and consistent image evaluations in a high volume, fast-paced, and super detail-oriented manner.
Apply metadata standards, with light metadata editing and a keen eye for keyword and title relevance to drive accurate search engine results.
Provide consistent, objective, efficient, concise and accurate feedback to contributors.
Requirements:
Mandatory: Domain expertise and passionate enthusiasm for photography with 2+ years of professional photography experience, preferably as a photographer, contributor to stock agencies, photo editor, or photo researcher.
Must be available to work 25-30 hours per week including 5-8 hours per weekend.
Must have high-speed wired broadband Internet access [at least 25mbps download speed to test: [url]http://www.speedtest.net/[/url] ([url]http://www.speedtest.net/[/url])], own a PC or Mac, and own a sufficient and accurate color display for viewing high-resolution images.
Adept at photo editing, image resolution, and metadata evaluation, along with a basic foundation of best practices in post-production processes.
Understanding of evolving image industry trends, styles, and commercial value.
Comfortable and enthusiastic about making many detailed judgments repetitively.
Highly organized, super analytical and extremely detail-oriented.
Strong command of English; ability to read/write and participate in operations and business meetings.
Software: Knowledge of Adobe Photoshop, Google Docs and Microsoft Office Suite.
Equal Opportunity Employer, M/F/D/V
-
Must have high-speed wired broadband Internet access [at least 25mbps download speed to test: [url]http://www.speedtest.net/[/url] ([url]http://www.speedtest.net/[/url])],
[OFF-TOPIC] Just discovered via that speed test that my (wi-fi, not wired) dl speed is 6.89mbps. I guess that comes under my provider's advertised "up to 16mbps". :(
Thanks for the link.
-
I know this is going totally off topic and don't want to encourage it but just tested my fibre optic broadband speed using the same link and my results are my download speed is 72.78 Mbps. Impressive :)
-
You still dont know how the review process works. You just dont. Give it up. You know nothing about the review process, you think you do, but you dont. Period.
-
Back in topic, there's probably a physical reason why images downsized a bit look better than at "full" resolution: because there's no "full" resolution to start with.
All camera sensors have a number of photosites (some red, some blue, some green, and sometimes one channel is duplicated) arranged in a pattern (which is not the same as the final pixels' pattern) from which the final image is calculated; and the sum of total r+g+b photosites is roughly similar to the number of pixels. So the "true" resolution is just 1/3th or 1/4th of the advertised resolution.
I'm not talking about cheap cameras that upsize (that's another issue)! I'm talking about every camera including top quality dSLRs, because that's the way sensors work.
For this reason, a 18 MP image downsized to 6 MP looks better than a "native" 6 MP image, because the "native" one is not actually so. In a perfect world, cameras would "downsize" internally during demosaicing to preserve true resolution, but in the current megapixel race no one is going to do that of course.
We all - SS reviewers included - should just accept the fact that a full size image is a bit softer than a downsized image and avoid this ridiculous situation in which lower resolution images are preferred and then upsampled for "super" resolution.
-
You still dont know how the review process works. You just dont. Give it up. You know nothing about the review process, you think you do, but you dont. Period.
I know a reviewer at CanStockPhoto and she/he told me that needs to open batches of 10 files at PS (check 100% etc) and for a sweet amount of 1 cent/file
-
I believe SS uses a more sophisticated system, but I dont know.
Anyhoo, 1 cent/file, my word thats criminal. You need to review 9000 files per day to make a living.
-
1 cent per file?? That is incredible. Does that even pay the cost of downloading images? Or her monitor and computer?
-
I submitted 11 images this week, 9 older images at 4MP, shot with a 450D+cheap kit lens 18-55mm, and 2 images at 10MP shot with a 450D+24-70L II. Some of the 4mp images were soft, I expected them to get some rejections, the 10mp images were sharp. The downsized images all got accepted and the 2 sharp images got rejected for focus. Go figure.
Same here. I only got a couple files accepted which were shot by using my super old camera in smallish jpeg files. None of the large files shot by my spanky new camera got accepted. Mind you, the rejected images were even shot using tripod and wireless trigger.
-
1 cent per file?? That is incredible. Does that even pay the cost of downloading images? Or her monitor and computer?
yeah its insane, I asked that as well, spare time etc, I rather do nothing
-
I don't know how to downsize an image, how do you do that? I have Photoshop CS6.
-
I submitted 11 images this week, 9 older images at 4MP, shot with a 450D+cheap kit lens 18-55mm, and 2 images at 10MP shot with a 450D+24-70L II. Some of the 4mp images were soft, I expected them to get some rejections, the 10mp images were sharp. The downsized images all got accepted and the 2 sharp images got rejected for focus. Go figure.
Same here. I only got a couple files accepted which were shot by using my super old camera in smallish jpeg files. None of the large files shot by my spanky new camera got accepted. Mind you, the rejected images were even shot using tripod and wireless trigger.
I have requested a re-review and they agreed the review was in error. So problem solved, for now.
-
I don't know how to downsize an image, how do you do that? I have Photoshop CS6.
You can do it directly in PS - Image - Image Size or run a script program, which is what I do. The script is really quick and ensure consistency when doing multiple images. Screen grab attached.
-
I was browsing in Offset collection and stumbled on this shot http://www.offset.com/photos/61270. (http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.)
Since most of my issues with SS is focus, it makes me wonder if the images in Offset need to go through the same reviewing process.
Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to bash Offset or the photographer. In fact I have high admiration for this photographer and have been following their works for years now.
-
I was browsing in Offset collection and stumbled on this shot [url]http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.[/url] ([url]http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.[/url])
Since most of my issues with SS is focus, it makes me wonder if the images in Offset need to go through the same reviewing process.
Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to bash Offset or the photographer. In fact I have high admiration for this photographer and have been following their works for years now.
For 500 dollar thats called art.
Shocking, but thats how it is these days. The work on SS is of a much higher quality than offset, yet it gets sold for pennies. Submit horribly out of focus shots to Offset and they charge 500 dollar.
-
I don't know how to downsize an image, how do you do that? I have Photoshop CS6.
I found the link which might be helpful for you to download the script program. It's very easy to install into Photoshop, I just hope it works for you in CS6, I use CS3 and it works fine :)
http://www.laflor.dk/?p=266 (http://www.laflor.dk/?p=266)
-
What are actually criteria to get in? Sometimes looking at some RM stuff I got the feeling it was a closed club you can only get if you know somebody. Microstock with its craze rejections and large volume of uploads created much better collections.
I was browsing in Offset collection and stumbled on this shot [url]http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.[/url] ([url]http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.[/url])
Since most of my issues with SS is focus, it makes me wonder if the images in Offset need to go through the same reviewing process.
Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to bash Offset or the photographer. In fact I have high admiration for this photographer and have been following their works for years now.
For 500 dollar thats called art.
Shocking, but thats how it is these days. The work on SS is of a much higher quality than offset, yet it gets sold for pennies. Submit horribly out of focus shots to Offset and they charge 500 dollar.
-
I have no idea, you just need to send a link to your port. I never heard back from them. Same as Stocksy, lol. I am taking the hints. ;D
-
I was browsing in Offset collection and stumbled on this shot [url]http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.[/url] ([url]http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.[/url])
Since most of my issues with SS is focus, it makes me wonder if the images in Offset need to go through the same reviewing process.
Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to bash Offset or the photographer. In fact I have high admiration for this photographer and have been following their works for years now.
Hello,
Sorry for the confusion - that image looks like an upload error (the wrong file in a single edit being uploaded or approved) and has been removed.
Best,
Scott
-
I was browsing in Offset collection and stumbled on this shot [url]http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.[/url] ([url]http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.[/url])
Since most of my issues with SS is focus, it makes me wonder if the images in Offset need to go through the same reviewing process.
Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to bash Offset or the photographer. In fact I have high admiration for this photographer and have been following their works for years now.
Hello,
Sorry for the confusion - that image looks like an upload error (the wrong file in a single edit being uploaded or approved) and has been removed.
Best,
Scott
And that's why you don't link to someone else's images.....
-
I was browsing in Offset collection and stumbled on this shot [url]http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.[/url] ([url]http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.[/url])
Since most of my issues with SS is focus, it makes me wonder if the images in Offset need to go through the same reviewing process.
Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to bash Offset or the photographer. In fact I have high admiration for this photographer and have been following their works for years now.
Hello,
Sorry for the confusion - that image looks like an upload error (the wrong file in a single edit being uploaded or approved) and has been removed.
Best,
Scott
And that's why you don't link to someone else's images.....
Not at all.
Linking enabled an error to be corrected.
-
I was browsing in Offset collection and stumbled on this shot [url]http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.[/url] ([url]http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.[/url])
Since most of my issues with SS is focus, it makes me wonder if the images in Offset need to go through the same reviewing process.
Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to bash Offset or the photographer. In fact I have high admiration for this photographer and have been following their works for years now.
Hello,
Sorry for the confusion - that image looks like an upload error (the wrong file in a single edit being uploaded or approved) and has been removed.
Best,
Scott
Scott,
Glad to know that it was an error. My admiration has been restored.
-
What are actually criteria to get in? Sometimes looking at some RM stuff I got the feeling it was a closed club you can only get if you know somebody. Microstock with its craze rejections and large volume of uploads created much better collections.
I was browsing in Offset collection and stumbled on this shot [url]http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.[/url] ([url]http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.[/url])
Since most of my issues with SS is focus, it makes me wonder if the images in Offset need to go through the same reviewing process.
Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to bash Offset or the photographer. In fact I have high admiration for this photographer and have been following their works for years now.
For 500 dollar thats called art.
Shocking, but thats how it is these days. The work on SS is of a much higher quality than offset, yet it gets sold for pennies. Submit horribly out of focus shots to Offset and they charge 500 dollar.
I could be wrong. But what's obvious to me is the majority of the Offset contributors are assignment photographers who have shot big campaigns and are not known in stock photographer. I do recognize a couple of contributors who are also stock shooters. So I assume Offset offers very limited place for stock shooters and small-time photographers. Also, what I noticed many of the lifestyle, interior and food photos are styled by professional props and food stylist. So, I don't see any glimpse of hope how to get into this club unless I move out from where I live because the only assignment a photographer can make a living here is wedding photography which I hate, and there is hardly professional stylist in my area.
While I think it's a brilliant move by SS to have these group of photographers as contributors, I'm wondering, how are they going to compete with Getty in building a comprehensive library. I don't see how these elite photographers will be able to contribute local cultural content that specific to certain region except for some touristy shots. Just search Lunar/Chinese New Year which is a big celebration in Asia, it's almost non existent in Offset. I hope Offset will welcome more small-time photographers while still maintain strict curation of the collection.
-
I just upgraded from a 16mp D7000 to a 24mp D7100 so I was a bit disappointed to read this thread.
I decided to do a test and resubmitted a picture taken at 24mp which was rejected for focus issues. After downsizing, it was accepted in Shutterstock. (I also did some reprocessing of colors and cropping, but that was not the issue for refusal)
The original picture accepted at fotolia but not at SS
http://www.fotolia.com/id/64257005 (http://www.fotolia.com/id/64257005)
and the picture accepted at SS after downsizing
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=189941966 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=189941966)
I will do some more test in future with rejected pictures for focus issues.
-
So, I generally agree with the review standards at SS. However, I also see value in downsizing images.
Here is one reason why:
I occasionally log into Alamy. On their front page there is usually some sort of outstanding image. Often it is incredibly noisy or has some other issue that would get it rejected on Shutterstock. But apparently it is in the database (unless they buy from somewhere else which would be madness).
If I had a wonderful image with gobs of commercial value that stock sites would want to have up as a background on their home page, would I be happier to downres it to a useful size for web viewing on a blog or webpage, have it accepted and sell? or go "oh well, Shutterstock will never accept that" and move along?
Sure, I'd be missing all of those lucrative SOD downloads with a smaller file. Is that really an issue though?
Personally, I flip back and forth about downrezing ALL images I submit (to sub sites at least). In the long run, I'll probably get over it eventually and just upload full size. Or maybe not.
-
I just upgraded from a 16mp D7000 to a 24mp D7100 so I was a bit disappointed to read this thread.
I decided to do a test and resubmitted a picture taken at 24mp which was rejected for focus issues. After downsizing, it was accepted in Shutterstock. (I also did some reprocessing of colors and cropping, but that was not the issue for refusal)
The original picture accepted at fotolia but not at SS
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/id/64257005[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/id/64257005[/url])
and the picture accepted at SS after downsizing
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=189941966[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=189941966[/url])
I will do some more test in future with rejected pictures for focus issues.
Maybe that's why I'm seeing more and more 'super' size images on some contributors portfolio's. Others too have caught on to the unfair unreasonable focus rejections and submit lower file dimension images to Shutterstock which Shutterstock automatically 'up-scale' to Super.
Makes sense, if that is indeed the reason. I always thought maybe they were shooting with lower end DSLR's, maybe not :)
-
I cannot remember where it was mentioned, but I think Scott Braut came on here stating there was no upload file size limit on Shutterstock, this file was a 49.55MB panoramic.
Go figure :)
Oh well, I'll just downsize it to a tiny 6MB then :)
-
Web uploader is limited to 30MB, FTP is unlimited.
-
Anyone who has had a review of a very large file that was "tack sharp" (or in their estimation, very sharp) should send a link to the original images or the batch number to the support team at [email protected]. That creates a ticket in our system which can be tracked and resolved.
I thought I'd give this system a try - after a lot of acceptances, I had a batch of 11 rejected today - all apparently not in focus.
The reply I got back, while prompt was nonsensical. Here's the reply and my query below:
"Hi Jo Ann,
Thank you for your email. I'm glad to hear you're interested in becoming a Shutterstock contributor. For all information pertaining to submitting images, please follow this link:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/ (http://submit.shutterstock.com/)
Also, you may email all contributor-related questions to [email protected].
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
--------------- Original Message ---------------
From: Jo Ann Snover
Sent: 5/7/2014 3:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Not sure if this is the same place as the contact form...
If it is, this is a duplicate request.
I (contributor 249; account e-mail [email protected]) just had 11 images rejected for improper focus. I want someone to look these over as I think the rejection is bogus.
Batches 45969983 (10 images) and 45969896 (1 image)
These are 21 MP originals, carefully process and are not out of focus. There’s no arty DOF stuff in any of them.
thanks,
Jo Ann"
How could anyone have thought I was asking to become a contributor? I included both my number and account e-mail right up top? I did also use the contact form, so possibly that goes somewhere else and might get a relevant answer.
-
I had the same experience once Jo. I asked for a re review on an image of my dad playing golf, the reply I got was about an image of a cat and how it was a snapshot and all that.
-
Must be caused by one of those loose algorithms we hear so much about.
-
Hi Jo Ann,
Sorry about that - your ticket was accidentally grabbed by a member of another team and didn't initially make it to Content. There is an internal email thread to re-route the ticket to the right place. You should hear from Vincent or a member of the team if you haven't already.
Best,
Scott
-
Hi Jo Ann,
Sorry about that - your ticket was accidentally grabbed by a member of another team and didn't initially make it to Content. There is an internal email thread to re-route the ticket to the right place. You should hear from Vincent or a member of the team if you haven't already.
Best,
Scott
I haven't yet, but thanks for looking at this.
I would suggest, even if it did get to a different team, the person who received it didn't read it. One of my pet peeves from a variety of companies' customer service efforts is getting off topic answers that suggest that no one bothered to read the question. If it's software that's "reading" the incoming e-mails, it needs an upgrade :)
-
studio shots with SS are not a problem, but for outdoor (non people) shots they are really strange and inconsistent. Coming from iStock exclusivity back to SS I had them reject shots (beach, landscape) that were in flames on IS for focus or composition or incorrect white balance (usually that would be sunrise or sunset shots when the light isn't neutral).
These were 21MP shots from L glass and they were in focus, well composed and with correct white balance. I can't explain what SS's review process is or why they do what they do.
I sometimes resubmit with a note - recently pointed out that a shot was pre-sunrise, hence the color and they accepted it. But it wasn't any sort of mystery that required an explanation.
I don't complain because they don't seem to have any interest in changing anything they do.
L glasses means nothing, they have chromatic aberrations and distortion as every normal lenses, overall if you consider lens like the 16-35 or the 17-40...
Consider polarizers destroy a lot of good pictures.
-
studio shots with SS are not a problem, but for outdoor (non people) shots they are really strange and inconsistent. Coming from iStock exclusivity back to SS I had them reject shots (beach, landscape) that were in flames on IS for focus or composition or incorrect white balance (usually that would be sunrise or sunset shots when the light isn't neutral).
These were 21MP shots from L glass and they were in focus, well composed and with correct white balance. I can't explain what SS's review process is or why they do what they do.
I sometimes resubmit with a note - recently pointed out that a shot was pre-sunrise, hence the color and they accepted it. But it wasn't any sort of mystery that required an explanation.
I don't complain because they don't seem to have any interest in changing anything they do.
L glasses means nothing, they have chromatic aberrations and distortion as every normal lenses, overall if you consider lens like the 16-35 or the 17-40...
Consider polarizers destroy a lot of good pictures.
Yes, it does have unavoidable optical aberrations (that can be corrected in software) but L-glass is about as sharp as you can get for the focal range it covers. Assuming any CA has been dealt with, any L lens should be able to produce pictures that will pass inspection - that might not be true for cheaper lenses.
-
overall if you consider lens like the 16-35 or the 17-40...
Presumably there was some useful information you had intended to impart at the end of the sentence which got truncated to '...'
-
overall if you consider lens like the 16-35 or the 17-40...
Presumably there was some useful information you had intended to impart at the end of the sentence which got truncated to '...'
Sorry, English is not my first language and insomnia doesn't help :-). I mean a "cheap" lens like the canon 85 1.8 is better than a 24-105 L lens for example, obviously only at 85mmm. The canon 100 macro has same quality of the 100 macro l is and has half price. The sigma 35 1.4 is a lot better of the canon 35 1.4 l and has half price too. "L" means luxury, not professional.
-
studio shots with SS are not a problem, but for outdoor (non people) shots they are really strange and inconsistent. Coming from iStock exclusivity back to SS I had them reject shots (beach, landscape) that were in flames on IS for focus or composition or incorrect white balance (usually that would be sunrise or sunset shots when the light isn't neutral).
These were 21MP shots from L glass and they were in focus, well composed and with correct white balance. I can't explain what SS's review process is or why they do what they do.
I sometimes resubmit with a note - recently pointed out that a shot was pre-sunrise, hence the color and they accepted it. But it wasn't any sort of mystery that required an explanation.
I don't complain because they don't seem to have any interest in changing anything they do.
L glasses means nothing, they have chromatic aberrations and distortion as every normal lenses, overall if you consider lens like the 16-35 or the 17-40...
Consider polarizers destroy a lot of good pictures.
Yes, it does have unavoidable optical aberrations (that can be corrected in software) but L-glass is about as sharp as you can get for the focal range it covers. Assuming any CA has been dealt with, any L lens should be able to produce pictures that will pass inspection - that might not be true for cheaper lenses.
I used in the past really cheap lenses like samyang 8mm and the canon 18-55 is(100 bucks) never had a problem with acceptations. You are not working for vogue or playboy, you are selling image for 20 cents, the only problem is to have a nice subject-composition , good lights and shoot in raw.
-
I used in the past really cheap lenses like samyang 8mm and the canon 18-55 is(100 bucks) never had a problem with acceptations. You are not working for vogue or playboy, you are selling image for 20 cents, the only problem is to have a nice subject-composition , good lights and shoot in raw.
Yes. I heard from an impeccable source that a Nokia phone is the perfect camera for stock.
-
I used in the past really cheap lenses like samyang 8mm and the canon 18-55 is(100 bucks) never had a problem with acceptations. You are not working for vogue or playboy, you are selling image for 20 cents, the only problem is to have a nice subject-composition , good lights and shoot in raw.
Yes. I heard from an impeccable source that a Nokia phone is the perfect camera for stock.
Ahahahah yes in fact excluding you sarcasm almost every stock sites now accept photos taken with smart-phones.
-
overall if you consider lens like the 16-35 or the 17-40...
Presumably there was some useful information you had intended to impart at the end of the sentence which got truncated to '...'
Sorry, English is not my first language and insomnia doesn't help :-). I mean a "cheap" lens like the canon 85 1.8 is better than a 24-105 L lens for example, obviously only at 85mmm. The canon 100 macro has same quality of the 100 macro l is and has half price. The sigma 35 1.4 is a lot better of the canon 35 1.4 l and has half price too. "L" means luxury, not professional.
I bought a number of cheaper lenses starting out, including Sigmas. Some of them were quite good, like the Sigma 20mm 1.8 prime. However, their quality control is spotty. You can get a wide variation of quality and have to rely on luck to get a good copy. Also, Sigma customer service is famously bad. Since I started shooting L glass I have gotten consistently high quality lenses and tack sharp pictures. It's worth the extra price to me.
-
I used in the past really cheap lenses like samyang 8mm and the canon 18-55 is(100 bucks) never had a problem with acceptations. You are not working for vogue or playboy, you are selling image for 20 cents, the only problem is to have a nice subject-composition , good lights and shoot in raw.
Yes. I heard from an impeccable source that a Nokia phone is the perfect camera for stock.
Ahahahah yes in fact excluding you sarcasm almost every stock sites now accept photos taken with smart-phones.
Yuri had someone send me some downsized (5-6MP) shots from the thing that really were very good, but taken in undemanding light. If that is what you are happy to have represent your work then that's your decision.
Do you really think the technical requirements for Vogue are higher than the technical requirements for SS? Vogue is looking for an A4 print, isn't it? Amd that is served by a 4-6MP image. If you upload a 22MP file to SS (which is, apparently, what they want) they will expect it to be perfect at a reproduction of about 100 dpi. Which is wall size, not magazine size.
(I thought your reference to the 16=35 and the 17-40 had something to do with the fact that they are known to be the worst Canon L lenses for CA etc.. and therefore if you want to say something negative about Canon L lenses they were the obvious ones to choose. Clearly I was entirely wrong in that interpretation. ...)
-
I bought a number of cheaper lenses starting out, including Sigmas. Some of them were quite good, like the Sigma 20mm 1.8 prime. However, their quality control is spotty. You can get a wide variation of quality and have to rely on luck to get a good copy. Also, Sigma customer service is famously bad. Since I started shooting L glass I have gotten consistently high quality lenses and tack sharp pictures. It's worth the extra price to me.
I guess it's worth mentioning that the L-class lenses I've got, which are my stock lenses, cost about 2% of my total stock earnings. If I hadn't been in as early as I was the figures probably wouldn't look so good, but in any professional photo business the difference between a $1,000 and a $1,500 lens is not really significant.
What's more, if I had been a bit more careful all those lenses would have been good for 20+ years, rather than the 10 that seems to be the point where I abuse them too much.
-
overall if you consider lens like the 16-35 or the 17-40...
Presumably there was some useful information you had intended to impart at the end of the sentence which got truncated to '...'
Sorry, English is not my first language and insomnia doesn't help :-). I mean a "cheap" lens like the canon 85 1.8 is better than a 24-105 L lens for example, obviously only at 85mmm. The canon 100 macro has same quality of the 100 macro l is and has half price. The sigma 35 1.4 is a lot better of the canon 35 1.4 l and has half price too. "L" means luxury, not professional.
I bought a number of cheaper lenses starting out, including Sigmas. Some of them were quite good, like the Sigma 20mm 1.8 prime. However, their quality control is spotty. You can get a wide variation of quality and have to rely on luck to get a good copy. Also, Sigma customer service is famously bad. Since I started shooting L glass I have gotten consistently high quality lenses and tack sharp pictures. It's worth the extra price to me.
All that's true. Or it was. Tamron, Sigma and Tokina have made strides in the past year or so to produce more professional lenses. You just have to know which lenses to buy. And you'd have to pry my Tamron 90 mm macro from my cold, dead fingers. Pin sharp on my D800 everytime and it only cost me $275.
-
I bought a number of cheaper lenses starting out, including Sigmas. Some of them were quite good, like the Sigma 20mm 1.8 prime. However, their quality control is spotty. You can get a wide variation of quality and have to rely on luck to get a good copy. Also, Sigma customer service is famously bad. Since I started shooting L glass I have gotten consistently high quality lenses and tack sharp pictures. It's worth the extra price to me.
I guess it's worth mentioning that the L-class lenses I've got, which are my stock lenses, cost about 2% of my total stock earnings. If I hadn't been in as early as I was the figures probably wouldn't look so good, but in any professional photo business the difference between a $1,000 and a $1,500 lens is not really significant.
What's more, if I had been a bit more careful all those lenses would have been good for 20+ years, rather than the 10 that seems to be the point where I abuse them too much.
Microstock a lot of years ago was 6 mp cameras and crappy images. If we have to follow your tips, the next year everyone will have to buy a medium format camera and a 7.000$ lens to shoot for microstock and for 0.10$ each image.
-
I bought a number of cheaper lenses starting out, including Sigmas. Some of them were quite good, like the Sigma 20mm 1.8 prime. However, their quality control is spotty. You can get a wide variation of quality and have to rely on luck to get a good copy. Also, Sigma customer service is famously bad. Since I started shooting L glass I have gotten consistently high quality lenses and tack sharp pictures. It's worth the extra price to me.
I guess it's worth mentioning that the L-class lenses I've got, which are my stock lenses, cost about 2% of my total stock earnings. If I hadn't been in as early as I was the figures probably wouldn't look so good, but in any professional photo business the difference between a $1,000 and a $1,500 lens is not really significant.
What's more, if I had been a bit more careful all those lenses would have been good for 20+ years, rather than the 10 that seems to be the point where I abuse them too much.
Microstock a lot of years ago was 6 mp cameras and crappy images. If we have to follow your tips, the next year everyone will have to buy a medium format camera and a 7.000$ lens to shoot for microstock and for 0.10$ each image.
You don't have to do anything, but I don't understand why you appear to be so angry and negative about L glass.
If you want my advice about cheap glass I can recommend the 58mm f3.5 Micro-Nikkor from about 1970, which will set you back about $50, the 20mm f4 Zeiss Jena Flektogon and its 35mm f2.4 sister, though I think those are both a bit overpriced on the second-hand market now, the Pentacon 135 f2.8, the Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135 f3.5 and the Sonnar 300 f4. I've used all of those for stock at one time or another.
-
What's more, if I had been a bit more careful all those lenses would have been good for 20+ years, rather than the 10 that seems to be the point where I abuse them too much.
Hmmmm.
My 100-400 (L) which I haven't had for many years, is in for repair (focussing problem) at the moment. The original fix I requested was c£300 and they have discovered another problem which may or may not matter to me (I'm taking it out with just the requested fix done whenever I get time to get up to Glasgow) which will, if I want it, cost >£200 more.
When I asked how the problems could have arisen, the repair man said it could be as simple as vibration in a car. Well, of course, I need to travel to take pics, whether by car, train or plane. I'm not even sure that lens can focus on the 'far' wall in my garden!
-
I bought a number of cheaper lenses starting out, including Sigmas. Some of them were quite good, like the Sigma 20mm 1.8 prime. However, their quality control is spotty. You can get a wide variation of quality and have to rely on luck to get a good copy. Also, Sigma customer service is famously bad. Since I started shooting L glass I have gotten consistently high quality lenses and tack sharp pictures. It's worth the extra price to me.
I guess it's worth mentioning that the L-class lenses I've got, which are my stock lenses, cost about 2% of my total stock earnings. If I hadn't been in as early as I was the figures probably wouldn't look so good, but in any professional photo business the difference between a $1,000 and a $1,500 lens is not really significant.
What's more, if I had been a bit more careful all those lenses would have been good for 20+ years, rather than the 10 that seems to be the point where I abuse them too much.
Microstock a lot of years ago was 6 mp cameras and crappy images. If we have to follow your tips, the next year everyone will have to buy a medium format camera and a 7.000$ lens to shoot for microstock and for 0.10$ each image.
You don't have to do anything, but I don't understand why you appear to be so angry and negative about L glass.
If you want my advice about cheap glass I can recommend the 58mm f3.5 Micro-Nikkor from about 1970, which will set you back about $50, the 20mm f4 Zeiss Jena Flektogon and its 35mm f2.4 sister, though I think those are both a bit overpriced on the second-hand market now, the Pentacon 135 f2.8, the Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135 f3.5 and the Sonnar 300 f4. I've used all of those for stock at one time or another.
I am not negative about L glasses. I was speaking about the quality(and investments) needed for microstock. I know people shooting with a 500d with 100 macro(non L) and on Fotolia is emerald.
-
I gather the 100 macro non-L has the same optics as the L version so the extra price is in the weather-sealing. If I'd realised that before I got mine I would have gone for the non-L, too.
I think we sort of established earlier in this thread that the extra megapixels from top-end full-frame cameras don't help with your acceptances in stock, and it's actually helpful to have smaller files that are less likely to run into SS's focus rejections. I'm currently uploading some stuff shot with my 100mm macro and I won't be at all surprised if the shallow DOF gets the rejection, in which case I will probably downsize and reupload. Good glass and a cheaper body may be a better investment than cheap glass and an expensive body. You can also find a lot of old manual focus primes with an image quality that can take on modern top-end zooms if you are willing to mess about with manually set apertures and loss of AF. The sharpest shot I've ever taken was with a 20 or 30 year old 150mm APO Symmar on a large format film camera.
-
I gather the 100 macro non-L has the same optics as the L version so the extra price is in the weather-sealing. If I'd realised that before I got mine I would have gone for the non-L, too.
I think we sort of established earlier in this thread that the extra megapixels from top-end full-frame cameras don't help with your acceptances in stock, and it's actually helpful to have smaller files that are less likely to run into SS's focus rejections. I'm currently uploading some stuff shot with my 100mm macro and I won't be at all surprised if the shallow DOF gets the rejection, in which case I will probably downsize and reupload. Good glass and a cheaper body may be a better investment than cheap glass and an expensive body. You can also find a lot of old manual focus primes with an image quality that can take on modern top-end zooms if you are willing to mess about with manually set apertures and loss of AF. The sharpest shot I've ever taken was with a 20 or 30 year old 150mm APO Symmar on a large format film camera.
Recently for test On SS i uploaded almost every shoots of food at 1.4 with the sigma 35 1.4 and i had not any rejections.
-
Recently for test On SS i uploaded almost every shoots of food at 1.4 with the sigma 35 1.4 and i had not any rejections.
That's impressive. What size files did you upload?
-
Recently for test On SS i uploaded almost every shoots of food at 1.4 with the sigma 35 1.4 and i had not any rejections.
That's impressive. What size files did you upload?
21 mega-pixel of the 5d mark ii, nothing impressive http://www.shutterstock.com/it/pic-188649884/stock-photo-cupcakes.html?src=9EfMUzNJ8JIDU84rIJxkVQ-1-15 (http://www.shutterstock.com/it/pic-188649884/stock-photo-cupcakes.html?src=9EfMUzNJ8JIDU84rIJxkVQ-1-15)
but no agency created me any problems, considering it was daylight through a window
-
Recently for test On SS i uploaded almost every shoots of food at 1.4 with the sigma 35 1.4 and i had not any rejections.
That's impressive. What size files did you upload?
21 mega-pixel of the 5d mark ii, nothing impressive [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/it/pic-188649884/stock-photo-cupcakes.html?src=9EfMUzNJ8JIDU84rIJxkVQ-1-15[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/it/pic-188649884/stock-photo-cupcakes.html?src=9EfMUzNJ8JIDU84rIJxkVQ-1-15[/url])
but no agency created me any problems, considering it was daylight through a window
OK, it really does surprise me that you got that through. Maybe the fact the OOF area is so "in your face" appealed to them. Who knows?
PS: We can start fighting now about whether daylight is better than flash, if you like ;)
[But, on reflection, what mystifies me more than anything is how you got 301 keywords when the maximum allowed is 50 .... at least, in English]
-
[But, on reflection, what mystifies me more than anything is how you got 301 keywords when the maximum allowed is 50 .... at least, in English]
Looks like it largely overlaps with my pitifully small Italian vocabulary, so I can see that a lot of them are marginal, irrelevant or worse.
-
LOcal sites have all possible synonyms of a keyword translated through some incredibly poor translator.
The obscenities in Dutch and other languages is truly shocking. And I mean shocking. Images of little kittens (*) with the keyword cunt (in dutch: kut, seriously rude language) etc. Dont bother telling SS they do nothing about it.
-
I gather the 100 macro non-L has the same optics as the L version so the extra price is in the weather-sealing.
I am not sure on the optics, but the L has got IS, which is suppossedly working great.
-
Recently for test On SS i uploaded almost every shoots of food at 1.4 with the sigma 35 1.4 and i had not any rejections.
That's impressive. What size files did you upload?
21 mega-pixel of the 5d mark ii, nothing impressive [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/it/pic-188649884/stock-photo-cupcakes.html?src=9EfMUzNJ8JIDU84rIJxkVQ-1-15[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/it/pic-188649884/stock-photo-cupcakes.html?src=9EfMUzNJ8JIDU84rIJxkVQ-1-15[/url])
but no agency created me any problems, considering it was daylight through a window
OK, it really does surprise me that you got that through. Maybe the fact the OOF area is so "in your face" appealed to them. Who knows?
PS: We can start fighting now about whether daylight is better than flash, if you like ;)
[But, on reflection, what mystifies me more than anything is how you got 301 keywords when the maximum allowed is 50 .... at least, in English]
I have no idea why i got so many keywords in Italian, i insert 30 keywords max in English
-
Recently for test On SS i uploaded almost every shoots of food at 1.4 with the sigma 35 1.4 and i had not any rejections.
That's impressive. What size files did you upload?
21 mega-pixel of the 5d mark ii, nothing impressive [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/it/pic-188649884/stock-photo-cupcakes.html?src=9EfMUzNJ8JIDU84rIJxkVQ-1-15[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/it/pic-188649884/stock-photo-cupcakes.html?src=9EfMUzNJ8JIDU84rIJxkVQ-1-15[/url])
but no agency created me any problems, considering it was daylight through a window
OK, it really does surprise me that you got that through. Maybe the fact the OOF area is so "in your face" appealed to them. Who knows?
PS: We can start fighting now about whether daylight is better than flash, if you like ;)
[But, on reflection, what mystifies me more than anything is how you got 301 keywords when the maximum allowed is 50 .... at least, in English]
I have no idea why i got so many keywords in Italian, i insert 30 keywords max in English
True - there are many fewer English keywords. I have no idea how their system works.
-
They translate every keyword with every possible synonym in the foreign language.
They actually call my dad Hansworst which is a ridicule name you call someone when they are being silly or stupid. And he is also Krols and Loops which is estrus, meaning when female animals are in the most fertile period of time in the female's reproductive cycle. Weel is surface water occurred by digging or a dyke collapse.
http://www.shutterstock.com/nl/pic.mhtml?id=114902584 (http://www.shutterstock.com/nl/pic.mhtml?id=114902584)
grill, het roosteren, mensen, benzine, gas, achtertuin, 65 plusser, 65-plusser, aower, oudste, senior, mens, menselijk, knap, bbq, grillen, nederland, nederlands, gein, leuk, lol, lollig, plezant, plezier, plezierig, pret, bief, biefstuk, rundvlees, holland, hollandse, nederland, bron, de lente, lente, lentetijd, springen, springtij, veer, voorjaar, weel, weels, wel, bewerken, gereedschap, hulpmiddel, instrument, uitrusten, werktuig, blijdschap, blijheid, fortuin, geluk, vreugde, meerderjarige, volwassene, jongen, man, mannelijk, mannen, mannetje, mannetjes, mannetjesdier, mannetjesplant, masculien, actief, de zomer, zomer, buiten, buitenaf, buitenkant, oud, oude, chefkok, kaukasisch, kaukasische, kaukasiër, apparatuur, uitrusting, avondeten, avondmaal, avondmaaltijd, dinee, diner, eten, lunch, middageten, middagmaal, middagmaaltijd, warme maaltijd, het verouderen, levensstijl, lifestyle, pensioen, pensionering, burgers, vitaliteit, persoon, in openlucht, bakken, kok, koken, kokkin, algemêen nederlands, nederlander, nederlanders, nederlands, nederlandse, rijpen, vervallen, volwassen, erf, feest, feesten, partij, party, vieren, viering, broeds, heet, hitte, krols, loops, opwarmen, opwinden, pikantheid, tochtig, verhitten, verwarmen, warmte, eten, voedsel, hansworst, lulvent, substantie, vlees, vleessoort, vruchtvlees, bedreven, blij, gelukkig, goed geluimd, handig, kundig, tevreden, kooktoestel
You cant make stuff up like that.
Sorry for the off topic.
-
LOL!
Auto-spam!
-
I suspect that it is the "maybe someday I'll need it big so I might as well grab it" syndrome, rather than almost all the subs at DT being sold for use as posters two yards (metres) high.
What if it is not that.
What if the customers know that downsizing from the max size to the needed size gives a better quality?
The customer cannot know, upfront, if a 6Mpx downsized version is really downsized or just crop with inferior quality.
-
According to a lot of long time contributors their old work outsells their new work. Older work was shot with low res cams, SS requirement back then was 2MP. If 2-6mp work of the old days still sells like gang busters, then the competition of 36MP files hasnt eroded sales on the old files much if I have to believe the general comments on the SS forum.
If this might still be the case today, I believe that as time passes, the good quality high-res photos will slowly build an better history and reputation, climb-up the algorithm ranks and slowly begin out-sell the old and obsolete, low quality samples.
-
According to a lot of long time contributors their old work outsells their new work. Older work was shot with low res cams, SS requirement back then was 2MP. If 2-6mp work of the old days still sells like gang busters, then the competition of 36MP files hasnt eroded sales on the old files much if I have to believe the general comments on the SS forum.
If this might still be the case today, I believe that as time passes, the good quality high-res photos will slowly build an better history and reputation, climb-up the algorithm ranks and slowly begin out-sell the old and obsolete, low quality samples.
Maybe, or maybe more and more buyers will only need lower res files as time goes on.
Just because something is old doesn't necessarily make it obsolete or low quality.
-
Maybe, or maybe more and more buyers will only need lower res files as time goes on.
Just because something is old doesn't necessarily make it obsolete or low quality.
Maybe, or maybe not, indeed.
My belief is that with all this marketing push for high res-smartphones, retina displays, 4k TV and so on, it is more likely to see an increase in the demand for high res material.
Additionally, as mentioned in another post, when you upload a low-res photo, customers might think that it is rather a crop instead of a downsized photo.
Crop means "digital zoom" in smartphone language and everybody knows that digital zoom gives more noise, artifacts etc.
-
I suspect that it is the "maybe someday I'll need it big so I might as well grab it" syndrome, rather than almost all the subs at DT being sold for use as posters two yards (metres) high.
What if it is not that.
What if the customers know that downsizing from the max size to the needed size gives a better quality?
The customer cannot know, upfront, if a 6Mpx downsized version is really downsized or just crop with inferior quality.
What is needed, then, is a loupe that lets you see bits of it at 100%
-
Hi,
The Super format is created for images that are 15 MP or less, so if the version of the image you submitted to us is over 15 MP, a Super size is not necessary and will not be made available.
Best,
Vincent Jansen
Shutterstock
-
I don't want to start another topic.
The inconsistency of reviews is annoying. Last week i had 100% accepted, this week 90% rejected. The same type of images, the same workflow and sharpness/noise reduction settings.
I try to keep all images at the highest size (i have a Nikon D600) but acceptance ratio is very inconsistent from a week to another. And the icing on the cake is that now (when they rejected almost everuthing) accepted one image previously rejected (rejected in a batch with 90% accepted).
I have to say that on all other agencies i have 100% accepted ratio.
-
Yup, 100% of my recent batch of jpgs were rejected. One rejection was correct...it seems I had left the word "vector" in the title...but the rest were ridiculous rejections. And when all else fails, click "poor rasterization" as a rejection reason, which will be overturned 99.999% of the time as being a "mistake."
No doubt the vectors will be accepted as always, with the built-in option to buy the exact same jpg that was rejected. Because the jpg was fine, of course. Craziness.