MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: shutterstock rejecting everything,Why?  (Read 67348 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: September 06, 2011, 05:59 »
0
got pictures approved more than 24h ago but they do not show up in portfolio yet, did someone else noticed that?


« Reply #176 on: September 06, 2011, 06:48 »
0
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 :)
Hmmmm....  If Im being honest I really dont like stock photography it may be technically very good but as boring as elevator music I find this stuff interesting and imaginative.  As for acceptance, I suspect this batch was outside the norm, I dont think tacky is out, I think same old same old is out (except for IS) and thats where adaption is needed (for acceptance if not for sales).   Fortunately for me I dont need to adapt unless I want to get stuff on IS but then it would be like work and that really would need income like work and......

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.
Here is the essential error in the argument.  Deserves has absolutely nothing to do with anything.  This is cold hard commerce; the vendor stocks his shelves with whatever he wants rightly or wrongly.  I have a lot of sympathy for folks whose income is being eroded by this but my sympathy wont pay anyones mortgage.  BTW have been doing photography since the early 80s dont submit photos as neither the film scans nor what I can do with available digital kit is up to par.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #177 on: September 06, 2011, 06:56 »
0
got pictures approved more than 24h ago but they do not show up in portfolio yet, did someone else noticed that?

Took them somewhat more tha 24h to appear for me, which is nothing alarming imho. Actually it's still a lot faster then most other sites.

« Reply #178 on: September 06, 2011, 08:31 »
0
1st time I notice that in 3 years strange

Slovenian

« Reply #179 on: September 06, 2011, 10:37 »
0
got pictures approved more than 24h ago but they do not show up in portfolio yet, did someone else noticed that?

Took them somewhat more tha 24h to appear for me

+1

« Reply #180 on: September 06, 2011, 12:39 »
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.
I personally think people are fed up with the insane inaccurate reviews.  Rejections that have merit are helpful, however when they reject images for reasons that are not accurate, you start to understand that uploading to SS is a waste of time.

For instance why would someone who has been submitting for years with continued sales in the hundred or more images per day - even on the weekends continue to submit images that are consistently rejected in the 60% to 100% range for bogus reasons.  They know their images sell well and they are going to upload them to the sites where those images will be accepted and sold first, not to a site that "if they are accepted"; also has database problems that cause those images to often not show up for days (or not at all), essentially rendering those new files invisible to buyers.

« Reply #181 on: September 06, 2011, 13:29 »
0
Best option (I think) - Hold fire on your images till this flattening hurricane called "Rejecta" blows over.
Only thing is - it could take time!

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #182 on: September 06, 2011, 15:07 »
0
Best option (I think) - Hold fire on your images till this flattening hurricane called "Rejecta" blows over.
Only thing is - it could take time!

Good idea! I'll keep uploading tho : P

RacePhoto

« Reply #183 on: September 07, 2011, 02:30 »
0
Best option (I think) - Hold fire on your images till this flattening hurricane called "Rejecta" blows over.
Only thing is - it could take time!

Maybe Attila the reviewer will go back to school now?  ;D

Personally I haven't found anything different, but as I often warn, consider the source. I did have three editorial rejected for the caption today, where I cut and pasted the example, filled in my words, did all the dumb-ass caps, - colon, ended with date and location.

All I got was a link and quoting, Please follow EXACTLY the caption (title) guidelines for editorial (including CAPITAL LETTERS): please read link provided First: LOCATION Second: DATE Third: Description with date and location at the end of title

Yeah, I did that, please tell me what was wrong? Frustrating but maybe I'll get an answer for WHAT was wrong, not a boilerplate generic rejection.

But as for content rejections, no change. I don't do anything risky or unusual.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #184 on: September 07, 2011, 07:49 »
0
I had crazy 100% rejections all summer long. Now, with my last 2 batches situations reverted to near 100% acceptance. Hope it will last but I don't know.

« Reply #185 on: September 07, 2011, 15:25 »
0
 had several batches sitting over the weekend - about 150 images. then suddenly 100% reject - they must be clearing their backlog!

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #186 on: September 07, 2011, 16:16 »
0
had several batches sitting over the weekend - about 150 images. then suddenly 100% reject - they must be clearing their backlog!

I'd really curious what are they like, after 150 all getting rejected...

« Reply #187 on: September 07, 2011, 16:28 »
0
I had a fairly high rejection rate lately too. They seem to no longer want backgrounds, which they used to almost always accept.

It is pretty demotivating to get a big batch stomped on. One advantage of being independent is that they will be available elsewhere at least.

Maybe in the future I'll figure out what the new standards are, but other than the backgrounds they seem somewhat random to me at the moment.

eggshell

« Reply #188 on: September 08, 2011, 03:53 »
0
I had a pretty bad rejection streak back in january . Now I hardly get any rejection at all . Last two rejections were several months ago because I forgot to check the illustration category and for exceeding the maximum file size limit  ;D
What I find worrying now at SS is the poor performance of my new content . I see many big sellers complaining about it too

« Reply #189 on: September 08, 2011, 12:54 »
0
had several batches sitting over the weekend - about 150 images. then suddenly 100% reject - they must be clearing their backlog!

I'd really curious what are they like, after 150 all getting rejected...

it's a VERY broad sample, from over 2 years - travel, people, markets, nature, textures, landmarks, urban, rural, etc, etc - basically look at my SS portfolio of over 5K imkages and most of those would be rejected if submitted now - worst are  the editorial rejections from reviewers who still dont know the difference between breaking news and editorial - but 100% rejection is just ludicrous

Wim

« Reply #190 on: September 14, 2011, 08:57 »
0
.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 02:43 by Wim »

« Reply #191 on: September 14, 2011, 11:15 »
0
I remember when I first started microstock in 2007 and pretty much every site would refuse certain types of photos becuase there were already too many (flowers and sunsets come to mind). How long before 90% of all topics will be fully covered and rejected in a similar fashion (unless they're exceptional or unique)? I'm hoping we're not already there.


« Reply #192 on: September 14, 2011, 11:21 »
0
When I started SS everyone was hypersensitive about noise.  Now it's focus and white balance.  Maybe now they so many photos in their archives that have been Noisewared into blurriness that now they are obsessed with detail!   

rubyroo

« Reply #193 on: September 14, 2011, 11:23 »
0
 :D :D :D

"Noisewared into blurriness".  That's brilliant.

 

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #194 on: September 14, 2011, 11:32 »
0
I had a lot of mass rejections for "poor lighting" lately, especially for architectural pictures, and couldn't find a reason

then I understood what they want: now I am applying a lot of fill light to reduce shadows - which is making them worse actually imo, but they're happy and so am I

« Reply #195 on: September 14, 2011, 11:45 »
0
My last three sets of non-model images were 100% rejected.  One group was rejected for noise; I edited, applied minimum noise reduction and submitted them along with some new images.  Every one was rejected for overuse of noise reduction.

That was bad enough, but an isolated U-Turn road sign image got an LCV rejection.  Strange, since road signs are some of my most popular images both here and everywhere else.

It did force me to make a change.  I used to submit to SS first and use their acceptances and rejections to guide what I submit elsewhere.  No more, at least for those situations where they reject an entire batch.  That'll be my indication that the issue is more likely with the reviewer than my work.  It may not be true, but it's a good working hypothesis.

RacePhoto

« Reply #196 on: September 27, 2011, 00:42 »
0
My last three sets of non-model images were 100% rejected.  One group was rejected for noise; I edited, applied minimum noise reduction and submitted them along with some new images.  Every one was rejected for overuse of noise reduction.

That was bad enough, but an isolated U-Turn road sign image got an LCV rejection.  Strange, since road signs are some of my most popular images both here and everywhere else.

It did force me to make a change.  I used to submit to SS first and use their acceptances and rejections to guide what I submit elsewhere.  No more, at least for those situations where they reject an entire batch.  That'll be my indication that the issue is more likely with the reviewer than my work.  It may not be true, but it's a good working hypothesis.

Yeah, it's rejections like this that make me sad to be reading them.

So SS has farmed out reviews to India now on a pay by the hour basis? I had two editorial rejections for the Captions and when I wrote that I had copied the exact format of the example and substituted my data, asking what was wrong? They got accepted. No answer to why they were rejected twice... Someone who can read English might help a little for understanding what we are sending in. (maybe this is a joke too, but honestly some of the reviewers are from Mars?)

I thought Attila the reviewer may have been farmed back to wherever she came from, like DT, doing too many similars when it was ten different items, but two words were the same in the descriptions. :(  SS does claim they are trying to make the reviewers consistent. Problem is, higher rejections seem to be more common which is the kind of consistent none of us wanted.

« Reply #197 on: October 27, 2011, 09:10 »
0
And since there's no "democracy" on today's agencies anyway and they're cutting royalties at will, they could also start deleting all the [email protected] at will, IMO 75% of the content should be deleted. What did sell before 2008 doesn't necessarily (usually!) sell today and all that BS isolated on white still life/portraits, tens of thousands of images of grand canyon should be gone. And all the numerous similars and also the new [email protected] stuff. It would benefit all of us, but mostly agencies.


Slovenian, I doubt your portfolio makes even a fraction of what this guy
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=996128
do with his "BS isolated on white still life"
I doubt you can make pictures at his level.

« Reply #198 on: October 27, 2011, 09:45 »
+2
Based on my experience, I've come to the conclusion that the following criteria are used by the inspectors in determining whether or not to approve an image:

+ Weather
+ Outdoor temperature
+ Indoor temperature
+ The phase of the moon
+ The health of the inspector's pet
+ Whether or not the inspector's sciatica is acting up
+ Whether or not the inspector "got any" the night before

+Menstrual cycle!  ;)

« Reply #199 on: October 28, 2011, 19:15 »
0
And since there's no "democracy" on today's agencies anyway and they're cutting royalties at will, they could also start deleting all the [email protected] at will, IMO 75% of the content should be deleted. What did sell before 2008 doesn't necessarily (usually!) sell today and all that BS isolated on white still life/portraits, tens of thousands of images of grand canyon should be gone. And all the numerous similars and also the new [email protected] stuff. It would benefit all of us, but mostly agencies.


Slovenian, I doubt your portfolio makes even a fraction of what this guy
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=996128
do with his "BS isolated on white still life"
I doubt you can make pictures at his level.


Most of that stuff isn't isolated. 


 

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