pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: shutterstock rejecting everything,Why?  (Read 78680 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #50 on: June 05, 2011, 07:26 »
0
I'm getting really frustrated. I was on a trip in Europe, and got a very nice sunny weather for shooting travel pictures. Blue skies and vibrant colors, just the way clients want 'em.

But when I submitted a batch of images to Shutterstock, they rejected about two thirds of them, because they didn't like my lighting. They didn't propably like the dark shadows caused by the sun. Looking at some crap they have accepted they seem to prefer their travel pics shot on an overcast day. Dull and grey, that's how they like them.

Grrrr!

It's even worse, actually. They want sunny days and blue skies but no shadows. Which doesn't happen very often in nature.


« Reply #51 on: June 05, 2011, 09:18 »
0
Yes - they are still accepting poor quality images. Do a search on food, newest first and there is stuff getting through with shadows,underexposure, poor composition, too much white space. Or studio shot people on white with blown highlights on the edge of arms and faces, underexposed  faces, hair that disappears into a black background or is frazzled by overexposure of the white background. I just don't get it.

A trend does emerge, if you start paying attention to the over all common denominators between the submitters who's ports are experiencing high rejections for technically good content and then take the time to consider what the ports that continue to have poor images accepted also have in common.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 11:41 by gbalex »

Tempusfugit

« Reply #52 on: June 09, 2011, 11:30 »
0
-
« Last Edit: July 20, 2011, 12:05 by Tempusfugit »

helix7

« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2011, 12:49 »
0
This is very very very frustrating. The lastest 3 days, 3 batches rejected!!!all rejected :( including illustrations that on other sites sell well... And submitted a batch this morning and got rejected on the evening. This is crazy, I think I will stop submitting for some days...

I don't see any illustration work in your portfolios. Which images did they reject?

« Reply #54 on: June 09, 2011, 13:02 »
0
My last 4 batches (10 randomly selected photos per batch) were 100% rejected.

« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2011, 13:26 »
0
yes they seem to have some reviewers who havent realized that real world lighting is  different from studio

« Reply #56 on: June 09, 2011, 15:09 »
0
I wonder how much sites lose from these mass rejections?  They still have to pay the reviewers, so they make a loss on all the rejected images.  I don't know about everyone else but it stops me uploading.  I just don't see the point any more.  So they also lose out on the earnings of the images that I would of had accepted if my motivation hadn't been taken away by so many rejections.

And now I'm supplying all the sites that still accept my images and doing other work outside of microstock.  How does that benefit SS?

« Reply #57 on: June 09, 2011, 15:52 »
0
I guess rejecting is less costly than approving (takes longer for inspector and takes storage space). Unless you offer something which is not widely represented in their database they have no interest in new stuff. It will be buried behind old stuff that sells anyway.

« Reply #58 on: June 09, 2011, 18:03 »
0
A trend does emerge, if you start paying attention to the over all common denominators between the submitters who's ports are experiencing high rejections for technically good content and then take the time to consider what the ports that continue to have poor images accepted also have in common.

Could you spell it out?

RacePhoto

« Reply #59 on: June 09, 2011, 18:33 »
0
A trend does emerge, if you start paying attention to the over all common denominators between the submitters who's ports are experiencing high rejections for technically good content and then take the time to consider what the ports that continue to have poor images accepted also have in common.

Could you spell it out?

I think it's spelled C r y p t i c   ???

« Reply #60 on: June 09, 2011, 21:33 »
0
guys you are all trying very hard.. isolations and people I have around 100% approved, now leave my port ok? :)

« Reply #61 on: June 09, 2011, 23:39 »
0
A trend does emerge, if you start paying attention to the over all common denominators between the submitters who's ports are experiencing high rejections for technically good content and then take the time to consider what the ports that continue to have poor images accepted also have in common.

Could you spell it out?

If you already had millions of images that sell reasonably well. Would you rather encourage a few hundred submitters who's ports reach high payouts each month or would you prefer to encourage many thousands of good enough submitters who's port rarely make payout? 

Take a good look at the new images coming in. 

« Reply #62 on: June 10, 2011, 00:42 »
0

If you already had millions of images that sell reasonably well. Would you rather encourage a few hundred submitters who's ports reach high payouts each month or would you prefer to encourage many thousands of good enough submitters who's port rarely make payout? 

Take a good look at the new images coming in. 

I wondered if you were going to say something like that ... though I though it might be to do with 38c vs 25c or whatever the starting rate is.

Tempusfugit

« Reply #63 on: June 10, 2011, 04:27 »
0
-
« Last Edit: July 20, 2011, 11:42 by Tempusfugit »

« Reply #64 on: June 10, 2011, 04:48 »
0
Mmmm
The problem of mass rejection seems coming only from one or maybe some reviewers...It's a question of luck.
Yesterday 80% of batch rejected with pictures coming from stage dancing show, " poor lightings", and today other pictures of the same place with same lightings are all accepted. Some reviewers haven't any knowledge about art of lighting. There's sometimes also a problem with "out of focus" with perfectly focused pictures.
Last past 15 days the mass rejection stop for me, but since two three days, it's back again, maybe some reviewers have some vacancies, i don't know but it's not a professional way to operate...

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #65 on: June 10, 2011, 04:59 »
0
I agree.  I exprienced my first mass rejection with my latest submission, which was accepted on all other sites.  I'm guessing that there's a particular reviewer who's rejecting everything.  Or perhaps it depends on what kind of mood the reviewer is in at the time.  It does seem to be a gamble.

Tempusfugit

« Reply #66 on: June 10, 2011, 05:19 »
0
-
« Last Edit: July 20, 2011, 12:05 by Tempusfugit »


« Reply #67 on: June 10, 2011, 05:49 »
0
Seems simple enough.  IS want pixel perfection no matter how hackneyed, sterile and boring.  Dreamstime dont want what they regard as similars and Shutterstock are looking for something  a bit different.  If you submit same old same old I suspect the review process is tougher than for subject matter thats not already well covered.  These guys are not stupid and pretty sure they have a good idea what they can sell which, at the end of the day, is the whole point regardless of what individual contributors think of what is and isnt accepted.    Its a matter of tailoring your submissions to what each site is looking for because supply is far greater than demand and they can afford to be picky.
The argument that higher end contributors are discriminated against makes no sense.  Even if the margin per sale for the site is less, it is additional, not instead of, the higher margins from newbies.  Also, even newbies get payouts.  BTW I think its pretty uncool to criticise other peoples work when ones own is invisible.

« Reply #68 on: June 10, 2011, 05:55 »
0
heywoody, the proof is not a matter of new subjects or different: acceptance change with same subject from 0 to 100% in few hours!!
My last batch was with not well covered subject: transsexual singers on stage, with model release...

« Reply #69 on: June 10, 2011, 06:16 »
0
I think we've reached the point we all knew was coming. Passing the 15 million images mark tends to make them really critical unless offered something they might not already have, don't you think? The reviewers are probably just attempting to carry out their instructions. SS is partly the reason I've decided to de-emphasize microstock, relax, and have some fun with photography while I still can (at 75).

That said, most microstock reviewers, even though they are probably quite young, seem to have read the Kodak Brownie instruction book sun at your back, subject front lit and overexposed. Any lighting scheme that is slightly unusual or dramatic is not accepted. The other laugh to me is their editorial policy, which is just clueless and liable to cost them many potential sales. Their arbitrary standard that images must be "newsworthy" is silly. Who says what is newsworthy? The greatest use of editorial images is NOT because they are newsworthy, but because they INFORM and illustrate a story or article or book or web page. Merely a non-commercial application.

I have decided to just relax and enjoy my SS income while it lasts. To that end, I recently sold my pro equipment and got a little LX5 to shoot for fun. I couldn't resist submitting a few LX5 pictures to SS.

Yep, they accepted some! Go figure!

« Reply #70 on: June 10, 2011, 07:36 »
0
@smthore
There is always a degree of personal judgement and there is inconsistency on all sites, I just don't buy the conspiracy theory.  Id lay odds though that your transsexual dancers stand a better chance of acceptance on SS than equal (or even better) quality girl with nice teeth speaking on telephone :-D
@biketourist
I wouldnt argue with any of that...

« Reply #71 on: June 10, 2011, 07:46 »
0
I really cannot understand why they don't weed some of the crap out automatically. In Shutterstock's case they could throw out everything that hasn't been sold in the last three years. We are propably talking about a couple of millions of images.

And yes, they should let the new good stuff in to see if it sells.

« Reply #72 on: June 10, 2011, 08:00 »
0
Mmmm
The problem of mass rejection seems coming only from one or maybe some reviewers...It's a question of luck.
Yesterday 80% of batch rejected with pictures coming from stage dancing show, " poor lightings", and today other pictures of the same place with same lightings are all accepted. Some reviewers haven't any knowledge about art of lighting. There's sometimes also a problem with "out of focus" with perfectly focused pictures.
Last past 15 days the mass rejection stop for me, but since two three days, it's back again, maybe some reviewers have some vacancies, i don't know but it's not a professional way to operate...

Maybe it is a script run up front before the images even hit the review area.

« Reply #73 on: June 10, 2011, 08:14 »
0
Biketourist, yes me too, i'm don't understand editorial shutterstock policies too!
As i can remember, every year there is some months where the files have mass rejection in shutterstock, it's not the first time, even at 5 millions pictures and 10 millions, so it's not a problem of over saturation...
A script? Why not? 123Rf have also some strange rejections these days...
Today it's istock: since 4 months they accept everything and today keywords and artifacts problems are back in mass!!! That's not a problem because new pictures don't sell at istock.

Slovenian

« Reply #74 on: June 10, 2011, 08:36 »
0
And what about this: "Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best.", when you have a picture with blur background and people in focus? ???
Someone has to tell them about DOF!
They have had this policy for years.  Its annoying when you have a really good photo that's technically perfect and they come up with this reason to reject it.  All the sites seem to have at least one stupid reason to reject good stock images.  The exceptions are alamy that seem to accept everything I upload and mostphotos that don't bother with a review.

Weird, I got most (I'd say 90%) of my min dof (and I mean FF, f1.8-f2.5, portrait) shots accepted, and the 10% that were rejected weren't usually because of the above stated reason. I guess it's just an excuse if they don't like your photo (s). And generally I have no problems with my photos getting rejected on any of the big 4 sites. I guess you should stop posting sheatty photos :P (now don't get angry I believe some of you had great shots rejected, but I'm also sure most of the rejected is rejected for a reason, although it may not be the one stated in the rejection)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
5732 Views
Last post January 18, 2013, 20:32
by brmonico
4 Replies
5158 Views
Last post August 25, 2013, 08:25
by Tryingmybest
36 Replies
13341 Views
Last post December 08, 2019, 08:21
by trabuco
6 Replies
4941 Views
Last post October 29, 2021, 14:13
by SVH
10 Replies
2215 Views
Last post August 17, 2023, 11:02
by Injustice for all

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors