Quote from: helix7 on May 07, 2011, 16:52

Quote from: borg on May 04, 2011, 09:42
Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!

They're rejecting everything that is common and over-done, and I'm all for it. I'd have a hard time getting an icon set approved these days, but for good reason. How many of the same thing does any one agency need?

Besides, we've been getting away with murder at Shutterstock for years. They had the most lenient approvals, and the overall quality of the collection suffered because of it. I say this new, stricter policy is overdue.

True but they're now rejecting work from many serious contributors that meets much higher quality standards than older files in the collection. They probably don't want to lose their 15m images byline -  but it makes business sense (to me) to clear out the crap that isn't selling first and judge new work on it's merit...not because they have a glut of images.

Quote from: Red Dove on May 07, 2011, 21:00

Quote from: helix7 on May 07, 2011, 16:52

Quote from: borg on May 04, 2011, 09:42
Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!

They're rejecting everything that is common and over-done, and I'm all for it. I'd have a hard time getting an icon set approved these days, but for good reason. How many of the same thing does any one agency need?

Besides, we've been getting away with murder at Shutterstock for years. They had the most lenient approvals, and the overall quality of the collection suffered because of it. I say this new, stricter policy is overdue.

True but they're now rejecting work from many serious contributors that meets much higher quality standards than older files in the collection. They probably don't want to lose their 15m images byline -  but it makes business sense (to me) to clear out the crap that isn't selling first and judge new work on it's merit...not because they have a glut of images.

Lets not forget the FACT that they are STILL accepting Huge quantities of technically inferior images from some submitters while expecting technical image perfection from others.

"Lets not forget the FACT that they are STILL accepting Huge quantities of technically inferior images from some submitters while expecting technical image perfection from others."

True enough. I've just seen some new food images that look like they were lit with a desk lamp. Really poor work.

Quote from: Red Dove on May 07, 2011, 21:17
"Lets not forget the FACT that they are STILL accepting Huge quantities of technically inferior images from some submitters while expecting technical image perfection from others."

True enough. I've just seen some new food images that look like they were lit with a desk lamp. Really poor work.

Hmmmm guess I'll trash that desk lamp.   

Quote from: gbalex on May 07, 2011, 21:07
Lets not forget the FACT that they are STILL accepting Huge quantities of technically inferior images from some submitters while expecting technical image perfection from others.

Yes I agree.  That is very confusing to me too.  (Even though I love them).

Quote from: Red Dove on May 07, 2011, 21:00
...they're now rejecting work from many serious contributors that meets much higher quality standards than older files in the collection. They probably don't want to lose their 15m images byline -  but it makes business sense (to me) to clear out the crap that isn't selling first and judge new work on it's merit...not because they have a glut of images.

This point has been made before and IMHO it is absolutely correct. And it is true of both photos and illustrations, and of other sites as well as SS.

If SS has 'too many' of a certain kind of image, such as icons (an example used above by Helix) then SS should go back and delete those old, technically crude images which never sell, instead of rejecting well-made new images, just because they are of icons. Buyers still want icons, and photo isolations, and so on. It is the old images which are the excess.

If Kroger has expired milk on the shelves which no one is buying, they throw out that milik. They don't tell suppliers to stop delivering fresh milk.