MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock - downsizing to 6mp - thoughts?  (Read 36859 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Me


« Reply #125 on: April 29, 2014, 15:49 »
+1
I was browsing in Offset collection and stumbled on this shot 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.


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.....


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #126 on: April 29, 2014, 16:37 »
+2
I was browsing in Offset collection and stumbled on this shot 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.


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.

« Reply #127 on: April 29, 2014, 21:20 »
0
I was browsing in Offset collection and stumbled on this shot 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.



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.

« Reply #128 on: April 29, 2014, 21:56 »
0
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 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.
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.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2014, 22:02 by onepointfour »

« Reply #129 on: April 30, 2014, 10:48 »
0
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
and the picture accepted at SS after downsizing
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=189941966

I will do some more test in future with rejected pictures for focus issues.

« Reply #130 on: April 30, 2014, 11:21 »
0
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.

ethan

« Reply #131 on: April 30, 2014, 14:54 »
0
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
and the picture accepted at SS after downsizing
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=189941966

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 :)

ethan

« Reply #132 on: May 04, 2014, 12:39 »
0
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 :)
« Last Edit: May 04, 2014, 12:42 by ethan »

Ron

« Reply #133 on: May 04, 2014, 13:12 »
+1
Web uploader is limited to 30MB, FTP is unlimited.

« Reply #134 on: May 07, 2014, 15:07 »
+3
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/

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. Theres 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.

Ron

« Reply #135 on: May 08, 2014, 01:39 »
0
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.

« Reply #136 on: May 08, 2014, 02:19 »
0
Must be caused by one of those loose algorithms we hear so much about.


« Reply #138 on: May 08, 2014, 13:56 »
+7
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 :)

« Reply #139 on: May 08, 2014, 15:53 »
0
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.

« Reply #140 on: May 09, 2014, 02:05 »
+3
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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #141 on: May 09, 2014, 08:49 »
0
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 '...'


« Reply #142 on: May 09, 2014, 09:26 »
0
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.

« Reply #143 on: May 09, 2014, 09:35 »
0
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.

« Reply #144 on: May 09, 2014, 09:54 »
+1
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.

« Reply #145 on: May 09, 2014, 10:13 »
-2
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.

lisafx

« Reply #146 on: May 09, 2014, 12:25 »
+1
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.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 12:34 by lisafx »

« Reply #147 on: May 09, 2014, 12:34 »
+1
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. ...)

« Reply #148 on: May 09, 2014, 13:01 »
+1
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.

« Reply #149 on: May 10, 2014, 07:16 »
+1
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3408 Views
Last post September 19, 2007, 10:21
by w7lwi
35 Replies
14739 Views
Last post May 25, 2009, 11:09
by KB
11 Replies
4776 Views
Last post June 07, 2011, 05:50
by Gannet77
1 Replies
2350 Views
Last post March 15, 2012, 13:08
by sgoodwin4813
29 Replies
15459 Views
Last post February 24, 2014, 22:24
by MicrostockExp

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors