MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: shutterstock rejecting everything,Why?  (Read 67349 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: September 05, 2011, 08:52 »
0
Any news guys, are you gettin' sheat through? My new work is like a river that can't get through the dam :o .

I have been submitting stock since 2004 and like you I know some very high end well respected shooters who either have quit submitting because of the ridiculous rejections or they are experiencing very high rejections rates.

Actually we should ask ourselves why as a rule, new inexperienced submitters are not experiencing high rejection rates. It just goes to show that we make judgements based on our own experience.  Either a good many of us been assigned a malicious group of reviewers or there is something amiss at SS.

It looks to me like new submitters are having fewer review issues.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 08:56 by gbalex »


« Reply #151 on: September 05, 2011, 08:56 »
0

My conclusion is simply that there is no rhyme or reason behind the LCV rejections.  I just had 40 accepted (100 percent) while this guy had zero accepted with a lot more graphic talent.

You shouldn't really be posting links to other people's work. I nearly slated the guy's portfolio, but really that would be unfair as he's not the one posting the link here.

All I will say is that if I was a reviewer there would be about 99% less images in that portfolio than there are now, so maybe SS is drawing the line in a better place than they used to.

 

Microbus, you are right, I shouldn't have posted that link.I try to be forthright here and in this case I posted it because I liked it.  However, it's clear that others weren't so hot on it.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #152 on: September 05, 2011, 08:59 »
0
Any news guys, are you gettin' sheat through? My new work is like a river that can't get through the dam :o .

I have been submitting stock since 2004 and like you I know some very high end well respected shooters who either have quit submitting because of the ridiculous rejections or they are experiencing very high rejections rates.

Actually we should ask ourselves why as a rule, new inexperienced submitters are not experiencing high rejection rates. It just goes to show that we make judgements based on our own experience.  Either a good many of us been assigned a malicious group of reviewers or there is something amiss at SS.

It looks to me like new submitters are having fewer review issues.

"very high end well respected shooters who either have quit submitting because of the ridiculous rejections or they are experiencing very high rejections rates."

like who? I hope you'r not referring to those few fellas living on SS forums, pimping their "very nice shot of my cute dog in my very nice garden" type high end stuff : )
« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 09:02 by lthn »

« Reply #153 on: September 05, 2011, 09:11 »
0
To put the thing in some sort of context, I will argue for the sake of the argument.  Having said that, and, even though I don't actually know very much compared to most of you guys about producing stock imagery or about the industry, I do believe I understand the acceptance policies of the big 4 supported by my own experience and the evidence of comments in the various fora (already outlined and won't bore you again).  The argument that certain folks are favoured is not supported by any evidence:

a. We don't know if the person concerned is also getting a lot of rejections on current submissions or whether much of the existing port would pass if submitted now
b. I have virtually no rejections on SS - I'm not arrogant enough to believe I'm producing anything special so there must be tens of thousands of bit players in the same position, none of whom are significant enough to warrent any special favour.

Those of you who produce high end commercial stock and are experiencing high rejections rates should take a good look at the points made in b.

« Reply #154 on: September 05, 2011, 09:12 »
0
Any news guys, are you gettin' sheat through? My new work is like a river that can't get through the dam :o .

I have been submitting stock since 2004 and like you I know some very high end well respected shooters who either have quit submitting because of the ridiculous rejections or they are experiencing very high rejections rates.

Actually we should ask ourselves why as a rule, new inexperienced submitters are not experiencing high rejection rates. It just goes to show that we make judgements based on our own experience.  Either a good many of us been assigned a malicious group of reviewers or there is something amiss at SS.

It looks to me like new submitters are having fewer review issues.

"very high end well respected shooters who either have quit submitting because of the ridiculous rejections or they are experiencing very high rejections rates."

like who? I hope you'r not referring to those few fellas living on SS forums, pimping their "very nice shot of my cute dog in my very nice garden" type high end stuff : )

Not a snow balls chance in hell.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #155 on: September 05, 2011, 09:24 »
0
Any news guys, are you gettin' sheat through? My new work is like a river that can't get through the dam :o .

I have been submitting stock since 2004 and like you I know some very high end well respected shooters who either have quit submitting because of the ridiculous rejections or they are experiencing very high rejections rates.

Actually we should ask ourselves why as a rule, new inexperienced submitters are not experiencing high rejection rates. It just goes to show that we make judgements based on our own experience.  Either a good many of us been assigned a malicious group of reviewers or there is something amiss at SS.

It looks to me like new submitters are having fewer review issues.

"very high end well respected shooters who either have quit submitting because of the ridiculous rejections or they are experiencing very high rejections rates."

like who? I hope you'r not referring to those few fellas living on SS forums, pimping their "very nice shot of my cute dog in my very nice garden" type high end stuff : )

Not a snow balls chance in hell.

So who is it then? I generaly know what I'm doing, and got some decent skills mostly because of my art trainig (that goes back a long time but I'm kinda new to photography), but my equipment is very-very far from apt, and I get very few rejections.

« Reply #156 on: September 05, 2011, 09:55 »
0
There's 61,000 new images this week.  Didn't that get up to 200,000 at one point?  I think they are rejecting much more and people have slowed down uploading.  If it was only SS rejecting more, I would be trying to improve the quality of my images and finding more of what they want but there's more putting me off.  Other sites are also rejecting more and cutting commissions.  It's harder to produce images that get high acceptance on all the big sites.  New images don't sell as much as they used to.  I'm really not surprised that the supply of new images is slowing down.

« Reply #157 on: September 05, 2011, 10:02 »
0

Oh it's not just tacky, it's really tacky and now SS are tightening up, 100% rejection speaks for itself. Hopefully he will get it and adapt and produce better work.

Maybe I just like tacky  ;D

« Reply #158 on: September 05, 2011, 11:44 »
0
Any news guys, are you gettin' sheat through? My new work is like a river that can't get through the dam :o .

I have been submitting stock since 2004 and like you I know some very high end well respected shooters who either have quit submitting because of the ridiculous rejections or they are experiencing very high rejections rates.

Actually we should ask ourselves why as a rule, new inexperienced submitters are not experiencing high rejection rates. It just goes to show that we make judgements based on our own experience.  Either a good many of us been assigned a malicious group of reviewers or there is something amiss at SS.

It looks to me like new submitters are having fewer review issues.

"very high end well respected shooters who either have quit submitting because of the ridiculous rejections or they are experiencing very high rejections rates."

like who? I hope you'r not referring to those few fellas living on SS forums, pimping their "very nice shot of my cute dog in my very nice garden" type high end stuff : )

Not a snow balls chance in hell.

So who is it then? I generaly know what I'm doing, and got some decent skills mostly because of my art trainig (that goes back a long time but I'm kinda new to photography), but my equipment is very-very far from apt, and I get very few rejections.
Using their names would be highly inappropriate. If they want to share with the community I am sure they will do it themselves, however what you are sharing does confirm what alot of us have been suspecting! 

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #159 on: September 05, 2011, 12:33 »
0
"...however what you are sharing does confirm what alot of us have been suspecting!"

Which is? Imho this issue looks the same as the one in the "shutterstock financial trouble" thread. Some have complaints and ppl blow it out of proportions not realizing it's just a few out of thounsands.

« Reply #160 on: September 05, 2011, 13:09 »
0
"...however what you are sharing does confirm what alot of us have been suspecting!"

Which is? Imho this issue looks the same as the one in the "shutterstock financial trouble" thread. Some have complaints and ppl blow it out of proportions not realizing it's just a few out of thounsands.

Sounds like it is pretty widespread.  But is it an issue of some crazy reviewers, or just Shutterstock raising standards?  I don't see a lot of photos posted, so hard to say.

« Reply #161 on: September 05, 2011, 13:13 »
0
My guess is that SS is trying to raise standards, but it is a tough thing to do. As usual it is a bit of luck of the draw with reviewers. Some reviewer might like your stuff, another won't.

here is one microstock fact:

An image that is accepted or rejected might have had the opposite treatment on a different day or a different reviewer.

That doesn't mean I don't still get upset when my images get rejected.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #162 on: September 05, 2011, 13:44 »
0
"...however what you are sharing does confirm what alot of us have been suspecting!"

Which is? Imho this issue looks the same as the one in the "shutterstock financial trouble" thread. Some have complaints and ppl blow it out of proportions not realizing it's just a few out of thounsands.

Sounds like it is pretty widespread.  But is it an issue of some crazy reviewers, or just Shutterstock raising standards?  I don't see a lot of photos posted, so hard to say.

My only real soruce for all of this is SS forums. I can count the ppl complaining there on my two hands, maybe some more, and thats not a lot.... and I still see things as I previously wrote, that most guy/gals who keep complaining there have pretty (or very) mediocre stuff on display. or worse.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 13:52 by lthn »

Slovenian

« Reply #163 on: September 05, 2011, 14:47 »
0
"...however what you are sharing does confirm what alot of us have been suspecting!"

Which is? Imho this issue looks the same as the one in the "shutterstock financial trouble" thread. Some have complaints and ppl blow it out of proportions not realizing it's just a few out of thounsands.

Sounds like it is pretty widespread.  But is it an issue of some crazy reviewers, or just Shutterstock raising standards?  I don't see a lot of photos posted, so hard to say.

My only real soruce for all of this is SS forums. I can count the ppl complaining there on my two hands, maybe some more, and thats not a lot.... and I still see things as I previously wrote, that most guy/gals who keep complaining there have pretty (or very) mediocre stuff on display. or worse.

Of course it's no use. I don't even bother writing to support anymore. I just have to accept I'm losing hundreds of dollars every year because of that (some are loosing that amount every week)

« Reply #164 on: September 05, 2011, 14:48 »
0
My only real soruce for all of this is SS forums. I can count the ppl complaining there on my two hands, maybe some more, and thats not a lot.... and I still see things as I previously wrote, that most guy/gals who keep complaining there have pretty (or very) mediocre stuff on display. or worse.

I think youre right even there were a few hundred complaining were talking a fraction of a percent of the contributor population.  I also seriously doubt that newbies fare better than the old pros, probably dont complain as much not having the attitude that we have a god given right to have everything accepted.  Also, lots of folks seem to evaluate quality on a purely technical level if its not what the sites want its a useless as the blurry pet snapshot.

« Reply #165 on: September 05, 2011, 15:04 »
0
My only real soruce for all of this is SS forums. I can count the ppl complaining there on my two hands, maybe some more, and thats not a lot.... and I still see things as I previously wrote, that most guy/gals who keep complaining there have pretty (or very) mediocre stuff on display. or worse.

I think youre right even there were a few hundred complaining were talking a fraction of a percent of the contributor population.  I also seriously doubt that newbies fare better than the old pros, probably dont complain as much not having the attitude that we have a god given right to have everything accepted.  Also, lots of folks seem to evaluate quality on a purely technical level if its not what the sites want its a useless as the blurry pet snapshot.
You guys really must be new to stock. Do you realize that a good number of the people who post on SS these days are fairly new or they are old timers trying to make money off of the newbies?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 15:09 by gbalex »

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #166 on: September 05, 2011, 15:58 »
0
My only real soruce for all of this is SS forums. I can count the ppl complaining there on my two hands, maybe some more, and thats not a lot.... and I still see things as I previously wrote, that most guy/gals who keep complaining there have pretty (or very) mediocre stuff on display. or worse.

I think youre right even there were a few hundred complaining were talking a fraction of a percent of the contributor population.  I also seriously doubt that newbies fare better than the old pros, probably dont complain as much not having the attitude that we have a god given right to have everything accepted.  Also, lots of folks seem to evaluate quality on a purely technical level if its not what the sites want its a useless as the blurry pet snapshot.
You guys really must be new to stock. Do you realize that a good number of the people who post on SS these days are fairly new or they are old timers trying to make money off of the newbies?

No, we can't read numbers so thx : ) Btw what does that have to do with anything?


Noodles

« Reply #167 on: September 05, 2011, 17:28 »
0

Oh it's not just tacky, it's really tacky and now SS are tightening up, 100% rejection speaks for itself. Hopefully he will get it and adapt and produce better work.

Maybe I just like tacky  ;D

lol, its true there is no accounting for some people's artistic taste and after all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But look at the facts, SS use to accept just about anything, right! Now they have 15million images they can afford to be choosy and that makes sense. So tacky is out. Understand it and adapt ........or die :)

« Reply #168 on: September 06, 2011, 02:02 »
0
My only real soruce for all of this is SS forums. I can count the ppl complaining there on my two hands, maybe some more, and thats not a lot.... and I still see things as I previously wrote, that most guy/gals who keep complaining there have pretty (or very) mediocre stuff on display. or worse.

I think youre right even there were a few hundred complaining were talking a fraction of a percent of the contributor population.  I also seriously doubt that newbies fare better than the old pros, probably dont complain as much not having the attitude that we have a god given right to have everything accepted. Also, lots of folks seem to evaluate quality on a purely technical level if its not what the sites want its a useless as the blurry pet snapshot.
You guys really must be new to stock. Do you realize that a good number of the people who post on SS these days are fairly new or they are old timers trying to make money off of the newbies?

No, we can't read numbers so thx : ) Btw what does that have to do with anything?

Again you seem to have missed the point... if you are making your determinations based on what you read on the SS forums your information will be skewed because the board is missing feedback from a good many people in the industry.  After all isn't that what this board is all about a place where we can discuss issues freely.  There are a good number of long term submitters who based on their work are very well respected in the stock photography world.  Some of those submitters are reporting that they are having significant issues with rejections and some of them are not. Again very inconsistent reviews.

Several of you are relatively new to stock and to photography yet you are reporting that you have very high acceptance rates consistently.  I am certain that you would not discount their efforts, professional feedback or merit by suggesting based on your own limited experience that your work deserves to be accepted while someone who has put in the work long term and has proven that they produce work that is far above the norm both in content and technical merit does not deserve to be accepted.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 02:03 by gbalex »

« Reply #169 on: September 06, 2011, 02:19 »
0
Can people explain how the number or new images that's online each week has more than halved?  I think it's because they are rejecting much more and it has slowed down uploads.  That's my experience.  I think it also depends on what you do, my backgrounds used to all get through, now they're usually rejected.  Boring landscapes that don't sell much still get accepted, some of my better selling concepts are rejected.  It's much more inconsistent than it used to be.

I could increase the quality of my images but this is microstock and SS used to sell almost everything I uploaded.  If I'm going to raise the bar, I really want more money but the commission cuts on other sites have made that impossible.  So now I'm working harder with sites like alamy that let me sell at higher prices and accept everything I upload.

« Reply #170 on: September 06, 2011, 02:47 »
0
I think this whole phenomenon it has not only to do with Shutterstock raising the bar, but also with them hiring clueless poorly payed uneducated new reviewers to cope with the tens of thousands of images uploaded.
I am in the top tier (0.38 camp) for some good while and it's not unusual to have my studio images rejected on a random basis. That is - let's say I produced 50 images today and I'm splitting in 2 batches, 25 each. Upload one today and the other one tomorrow. Exactly the same setup, same lighting. One batch has 100% approval, the other one let's say 30%, having rejected most of them because whatever button comes first - focus problem, lighting, exposure.
I believed at some point that is at least one reviewer who does not review images at all, but simply runs them through a software (like AcdSee for example) and clicks the "show me clipped highlights" button and that's all. If the software has wrong settings and it "clips" at 250.250.250, then you'll have all your perfectly in range images rejected.
That reviewer is probably payed by the number of images he/she reviews, therefore he/she will "review" as many as possible, with quantity in mind.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #171 on: September 06, 2011, 03:00 »
0
My only real soruce for all of this is SS forums. I can count the ppl complaining there on my two hands, maybe some more, and thats not a lot.... and I still see things as I previously wrote, that most guy/gals who keep complaining there have pretty (or very) mediocre stuff on display. or worse.

I think youre right even there were a few hundred complaining were talking a fraction of a percent of the contributor population.  I also seriously doubt that newbies fare better than the old pros, probably dont complain as much not having the attitude that we have a god given right to have everything accepted. Also, lots of folks seem to evaluate quality on a purely technical level if its not what the sites want its a useless as the blurry pet snapshot.
You guys really must be new to stock. Do you realize that a good number of the people who post on SS these days are fairly new or they are old timers trying to make money off of the newbies?

No, we can't read numbers so thx : ) Btw what does that have to do with anything?

Again you seem to have missed the point... if you are making your determinations based on what you read on the SS forums your information will be skewed because the board is missing feedback from a good many people in the industry.  After all isn't that what this board is all about a place where we can discuss issues freely.  There are a good number of long term submitters who based on their work are very well respected in the stock photography world.  Some of those submitters are reporting that they are having significant issues with rejections and some of them are not. Again very inconsistent reviews.

Several of you are relatively new to stock and to photography yet you are reporting that you have very high acceptance rates consistently.  I am certain that you would not discount their efforts, professional feedback or merit by suggesting based on your own limited experience that your work deserves to be accepted while someone who has put in the work long term and has proven that they produce work that is far above the norm both in content and technical merit does not deserve to be accepted.

You seem to have missed the point that after all you said you should be presenting some other source of data thats comparable to thousand or tens of thousands #. : )

"Several of you are relatively new to stock and to photography yet you are reporting that you have very high acceptance rates consistently."

Several, maybe (according to who / what?). So what? Stats based on 'several', again?

" while someone who has put in the work long term and has proven that they produce work that is far above the norm both in content and technical merit does not deserve to be accepted."

Oh yeah, I remember, those guys mentioned who have been doing photography anf stock for decades, these 'kings of stock' sittin on top piss poor galleries? : ) Or that other guy who mixes repulsive plastic low-end CG with low end photos in below-amateurish photoshop hacks, that we are supposed to see as brilliant, creative?  

Slovenian

« Reply #172 on: September 06, 2011, 03:22 »
0

Oh it's not just tacky, it's really tacky and now SS are tightening up, 100% rejection speaks for itself. Hopefully he will get it and adapt and produce better work.

Maybe I just like tacky  ;D

lol, its true there is no accounting for some people's artistic taste and after all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But look at the facts, SS use to accept just about anything, right! Now they have 15million images they can afford to be choosy and that makes sense. So tacky is out. Understand it and adapt ........or die :)

I wouldn't complain if that was the case. But you can't adapt to unclear, random, chaotic if you will, standards.

« Reply #173 on: September 06, 2011, 03:38 »
0
At this moment my latest batch just approved is not visible in search results or in my portfolio. This means it's going to be buried under the next photos. Again, a big issue never really solved by Shutterstock. If I complain to them now, I will get that "wait for 72 hours..." automated answer, which is of course useless, since in 72 hours there will be thousands of new images approved. I told them once to fornicate off and not give me this stupid machine answer - they were not pleased and therefore sent me the 72 hours answer again.

« Reply #174 on: September 06, 2011, 05:33 »
0
I just had a reject this morning of an editorial image of a coca cola truck with the remark that it was rejected beacause it ' Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement' . Makes me wonder if the reviewer even noticed it to be an editorial.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 08:04 by hofhoek »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
4730 Views
Last post January 18, 2013, 20:32
by brmonico
4 Replies
4475 Views
Last post August 25, 2013, 08:25
by Tryingmybest
58 Replies
15030 Views
Last post February 27, 2015, 02:54
by Phadrea
36 Replies
9166 Views
Last post December 08, 2019, 08:21
by trabuco
6 Replies
2981 Views
Last post October 29, 2021, 14:13
by SVH

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle