MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: WooStock on March 06, 2011, 20:18
-
My acceptance rate on Dreamstime and iStock is about 60%, on Shutterstock only about 30%, and in recent days I can hardly get anything accepted, very very disappointed.
-
I just had a batch go through with only a couple of rejects.
-
I had no problems to get 70-80% accepted by SS - since end of november I always got 70-80% rejected. Most because of pretty disputable reasons. Suddenly everything is out of focus, low commercial value and blahblah - of course exactly same pictures are accepted on IS, DT and FT and many of them were accepted also on Alamy.
Probably new batch of editors, new training, policy update or something...
-
of course exactly same pictures are accepted on IS, Dreamstime and Fotolia
I find that hard to believe
-
of course exactly same pictures are accepted on IS, Dreamstime and Fotolia
I find that hard to believe
It's true to me. It's much easier to get files accepted by Dreamstime and even IS. I canceled my Dreamstime exclusive status in late November last year and began to upload to SS, IS and FT. Nearly all of my images uploaded to these agencies are the files accepted by Dreamstime, Many of these files are accepted by IS ( and of course by dreamstime ) but rejected by SS. Actually I had quite good acceptance at SS at the beginning until someday in December, everything changed all of a sudden since then.
-
of course exactly same pictures are accepted on IS, Dreamstime and Fotolia
I find that hard to believe
It's true to me. It's much easier to get files accepted by Dreamstime and even IS. I canceled my Dreamstime exclusive status in late November last year and began to upload to Shutterstock, IS and Fotolia. Nearly all of my images uploaded to these agencies are the files accepted by Dreamstime, Many of these files are accepted by IS ( and of course by dreamstime ) but rejected by Shutterstock. Actually I had quite good acceptance at Shutterstock at the beginning until someday in December, everything changed all of a sudden since then.
strange hey, you would expect the complete opposite
-
There must be some trainee reviewers or something. I had some rejects, I mailed the support and sure enough, my shots were OK and accepted.
Ofcourse, reviewers must be trained, I appreciate that but not at the expense of shots getting wasted.
-
That's very interesting lagereek. I have an 80%+ acceptance rate at SS, but on the very few occasions that I felt strongly enough to query a rejection, the second reviewer agreed with the rejection. For that reason I concluded that appealing the rejection was a waste of time and haven't bothered since. Seeing that you have had a more positive experience, I might try again in future.
I haven't noticed an increase in rejections myself lately, but perhaps I've been lucky and haven't hit a new reviewer yet (dreading that now). However, I DO get very frustrated with those 'focus' rejections. They're the only rejections I get at SS - and all of those are accepted at the other agencies, including iStock.
-
However, I DO get very frustrated with those 'focus' rejections.
Agreed, what are they looking for; this is the only agency that routinely gives the focus rejection
-
That's very interesting lagereek. I have an 80%+ acceptance rate at Shutterstock, but on the very few occasions that I felt strongly enough to query a rejection, the second reviewer agreed with the rejection. For that reason I concluded that appealing the rejection was a waste of time and haven't bothered since. Seeing that you have had a more positive experience, I might try again in future.
I haven't noticed an increase in rejections myself lately, but perhaps I've been lucky and haven't hit a new reviewer yet (dreading that now). However, I DO get very frustrated with those 'focus' rejections. They're the only rejections I get at Shutterstock - and all of those are accepted at the other agencies, including iStock.
Same here around 80% acceptance rate at SS. However, reviewing is a human process and ofcourse, things can go wrong.
-
It must be to do with the content and possibly with the lighting.
* I am having around 99% acceptance for my studio people shots (goes down if I try to experiment with contrast directional lighting)
* Goes down with people shoot outdoor natural light and candid type of pictures
* Goes further down with nature/landscape pictures
-
However, I DO get very frustrated with those 'focus' rejections.
Agreed, what are they looking for; this is the only agency that routinely gives the focus rejection
They don't really like shallow dofs and my food shots are sometimes rejected for that reason.
-
of course exactly same pictures are accepted on IS, Dreamstime and Fotolia
I find that hard to believe
Why? If agencies have different criteria you might tick all the boxes on one but have another box that you don't tick on another. For example, IS likes a filtered "brilliant" look that can easily get a WB rejection from SS and I suspect all those partly desaturated "Vetta" portraits would fail SS inspection.
-
However, I DO get very frustrated with those 'focus' rejections.
Agreed, what are they looking for; this is the only agency that routinely gives the focus rejection
They don't really like shallow dofs and my food shots are sometimes rejected for that reason.
Yes, I've often wondered if they would prefer point-and-shoot close-ups.
-
I've seen that there isn't a real criteria for rejections on Fotolia, Dreamstime, IS and Shutterstock. A lot of time the reason is only what a stock agency is looking for. I'm an illustrator and I have 70-100% approved images on Shutterstock, more or less the same on Fotolia, much less on dreamstime and IS is not interesting in my work ( altogether, they said me "beautiful works but it isn't what we're looking for" even if I sold well my illustration in other agencies...). A lot of time a picture rejected for technical problems by an agency is accepted to another one and viceversa (I hope that in english vice versa is written like in italian ???). I've understood that technical problems aren't objective (many times...) only a point of view.
-
I have a catalog of video clips on SS, but I have yet to be accepted as a photographer. My latest attempt (#6) with the initial ten included only shots that have been accepted on DT, FT, and others, about half of which have sold already. All ten were rejected with the same "focus" nonsense. (I see regular video sales at IS but I've decided not to try to get accepted as a photographer because it seems to be a sinking ship.)
-
Just in this moment I had 7 rejected images by dreamstime. All these works are succefully submitted and accepted by Shutterstock and Fotolia. Dreamstime said me..."This image requires your attention on some issues...ecc.ecc :) or "The composition of a successful commercial image needs to be clear and supportive of the image's main concept and primary subject. " ;)"
Only to say you that there isn't a reason.
Personally I think that an agency should accept all works without error, it isn't important if there're too many flowers or landscapes. It's an error reject good (without errors) works. It isn't a problem for the contributor, he goes in another agency, it's a problem for the agency that loses the contributor.
Shutterstock loves my illustrations, Dreamstime so and so...So I upload only on Shutterstock...also because it's the better one for sales :)
I hate the thinking of some agencies, I find it not open mind and I think that it isn't a good idea for themself reject without a realistic and important reason but because, like IS, they looks only for one kind of images.
I can understand what they look for: no atrworks, no effects, clear subjects ecc. ecc. so there're some categorie absent altogether. It's not so strange statistic that I can see here (-0.22) ;)
Only to say you that many time there isn't a real reason. So good luck everibody ;)
-
Sorry, but I can't find any parallel to your results. I'm on the same three sites and have had different experiences. I have a +70% acceptance rate on iStock which came about with tighter submission groups to them than the other two. I still get some questionable rejects from IS for things that are accepted (and sold) elsewhere which I have learned to laugh off (such as petty judgement calls over keywords which I would still debate). I just haven't found it worth the time to Scout or resubmit anymore.
However, I have a +90% acceptance rate at Shutterstock and am approaching 1000 approved images now. I submit more to Shutterstock than IS in terms of numbers because I will upload a slightly broader range of poses within a take on a subject, but they are all still coming from the same shoots. Dreamstime has be more similar to SS than IS. The most common rejection I get at DT is too many images on same subject which I have learned to moderate for them. Overall, I have found SS to be the most 'liberal' in terms of acceptance--often times they are also the quickest in terms of approvals.
-
I submitted an image of an alligator, it was rejected because of selected focus. The game winner, was they recommended using a tripod to increase the depth of field. I want the reviewer to show how it done, with more depth of field, using a tripod, and without getting becoming alligator bait!
-
According to a post made in their forums by a contributor, SS admins responded to an email he sent about rejections and they told him that indeed they have developed and implemented higher standards, but are less than transparent on what those standards are. I will see if I can find that post and link it.
-
I submitted an image of an alligator, it was rejected because of selected focus. The game winner, was they recommended using a tripod to increase the depth of field. I want the reviewer to show how it done, with more depth of field, using a tripod, and without getting becoming alligator bait!
I'm pretty sure that's a canned rejection that is meant to suggest you should use a tripod for greater DOF by decreasing the aperture. Doing so means you'd have to use a slower shutter speed (or up the ISO, or both), and thus the suggestion of using a tripod.
Of course, doing so on a moving subject means the subject is likely to be badly (unusably) blurred. Such is the usefulness of canned responses. ;D
-
I submitted an image of an alligator, it was rejected because of selected focus. The game winner, was they recommended using a tripod to increase the depth of field. I want the reviewer to show how it done, with more depth of field, using a tripod, and without getting becoming alligator bait!
Wait till they tell you they want a lower angle; laying on your belly photographing alligators is not so smart-speaking from experience!! When the gator "charges" you and hits your lens, jamming it into your face, it smarts (maybe "smarts' is not such a good pun here). Such are the joys of being a wildlife photographer. Snapped at by alligators, chased by bison, struck at by rattlesnake, kissed by a moose (she was a good kisser but a bit sloppy), etc.
-
It's getting really bad. Almost like someone over there is reviewing with a macro, or script. All we can do is keep on reporting it to support until they actually audit the department. If this new change in rejections is on purpose, I wish they would announce something. I consider myself seasoned, like many others here - we didn't change, if anything, we're improving. It's not us, it's them - don't feel bad.
-
yep, their rejections have become totally arbitrary - esp fior editorial - their staf stikll think that editorial MUSt be newsworthy when the managers keep saying that's not the case - i just resubmit after aweek or so and they get accepted - real waste of time but they dont seem to care
my other peeve is that stupid hyperalert captcha they use - it's rare i can even read their first attempt - just what are they worried about? other sites with much greater secuerity cocerns use simple 6 letter codes and sem to do fine
-
It's getting really bad. Almost like someone over there is reviewing with a macro, or script. All we can do is keep on reporting it to support until they actually audit the department. If this new change in rejections is on purpose, I wish they would announce something. I consider myself seasoned, like many others here - we didn't change, if anything, we're improving. It's not us, it's them - don't feel bad.
You mean there's actually a way to report something to support and get an answer back from them? Maybe you can lead me to the secret handshake or link. :D
-
What I find really annoying when sites tighten up their reviews is that the reviewers seem to accept images that I don't think will sell much and reject the ones I think have a better chance of making money. It's such a shame that the site that makes me the most money is now doing this. The only good news is that it gives some of the newer sites like Stockfresh and Graphic Leftovers a boost, as buyers now have to go there to see all my new images.
The old sites have millions of inferior images produced with inferior cameras or when we were less experienced at doing illustrations. I really don't know why they don't remove those and accept more new images. It's going to lose them money in the long term and I think they will change policy again when that dawns on them. Their policy might work if reviewers were good enough at seeing the potential of the images they are reviewing but most of them obviously aren't. I have always thought that it's better to let buyers decide if an image is commercial, not leave that decision to a reviewer. What's wrong with accepting more and deleting them if they don't sell after a year? I'm sure that would make the sites more money and would make us less frustrated.
-
Topic: shutterstock rejecting everything,Why?
Because the crappy images they have always accepted are no longer required.
Don't they have nearly 15 million images now?! Seems like they are tightening up and its not going to get any easier.
-
They don't really like shallow dofs and my food shots are sometimes rejected for that reason.
You're being very politically correct in saying that - I'd rather say they (or their bots if they do an automatic screening) can't distinguish between out of focus and dof.
They also don't seem to appreciate any variation in lighting from standard evenly-lit studio settings, which is a problem for outdoor architectural photography.
The bad thing is that these pictures are actually selling the few times they accept them. SS is already my best earning site, and could be even more.
-
yep, their rejections have become totally arbitrary - esp fior editorial - their staf stikll think that editorial MUSt be newsworthy when the managers keep saying that's not the case - i just resubmit after aweek or so and they get accepted - real waste of time but they dont seem to care
my other peeve is that stupid hyperalert captcha they use - it's rare i can even read their first attempt - just what are they worried about? other sites with much greater secuerity cocerns use simple 6 letter codes and sem to do fine
Ten of ten rejected then got five of five editorial accepted. And sold one less than 12 hours after acceptance.
It is frustrating but there are "sometimes" rewards. I still prefer Shutterstock to most others.
-
I've been submitting just a few images a week with all the rejects at SS and they get reject as well...really frustrating. (Accepted by all the others of course). As far as SS removing the older stuff, this is very unlikely to happen. They commercialize the fact that they have over 15 million (?) images to sell. In this game more is better for them.
I chose not to delete my older images. I had an image sell 3 times this past week that hasn't sold in over 2 years. I guess it moved up a little after the first sale...so you really never know what will be needed in the future.
-
I need to add something here... Anyone notice that the rejections at SS are almost always approved at Bigstock? At least that's my case. I'm not sure I like the auto-migration program from SS to BS if the rejections continue. I'm sure that will change too.
-
I've actually had a few recent images rejected at BigStock that had been accepted at SS - which was a big surprise because, in the past, I could count on BS accepting most of what I uploaded.
-
I need to add something here... Anyone notice that the rejections at Shutterstock are almost always approved at Bigstock? At least that's my case. I'm not sure I like the auto-migration program from Shutterstock to BS if the rejections continue. I'm sure that will change too.
Yes, almost all my rejections with SS are accepted with BS. BS don't have the annoying focus rejection that has been a real PITA for lots of us with SS for years now. BS also don't seem to of changed their standards like SS did last year.
-
Guys, put this also on their forum...
-
I notice some of you getter better acceptance in the weekends than in the work days. For me it is the complete opposite. Weekends and holidays I'm closing on to 100% rejection, weekdays they accept more than 50%.
-
AAAAGGHHH - Doing my nut in right now. Two batches in a row rejected for LCV but most of them accepted on appeal. And now a third batch thrown out for LCV. What is going on over there?? Not bothered if they are being tougher, raising the bar, trying to improve the quality of their collection - nothing wrong with that....but let's have some consistency and connectivity with the contributors please. I can't afford to submit everything twice to Shutterstock because they got prissy all of a sudden.
If they want a better collection fair enough, clear out the many thousands of crap images they accepted over the years and haven't sold or sold very well. Yes some of my stuff would fall into that category but I think I'm shooting better work now....and so does IS and Getty....who are historically much pickier. Time for a cup of tea and a rethink but it's tough to know how to readjust to this new Shutterstock when the goalposts keep moving.
-
I need to add something here... Anyone notice that the rejections at Shutterstock are almost always approved at Bigstock? At least that's my case. I'm not sure I like the auto-migration program from Shutterstock to BS if the rejections continue. I'm sure that will change too.
Yes, almost all my rejections with Shutterstock are accepted with BS. BS don't have the annoying focus rejection that has been a real PITA for lots of us with Shutterstock for years now. BS also don't seem to of changed their standards like Shutterstock did last year.
Indeed. Now that they migrated my images from SS to BS through the bridge, I am considering opting out of the bridge and continue submitting separately. I just would like to be sure that they don't remove pictures already added through the bridge if I out out.
-
I see this happen intermittently. At first I thought it was the weekend people. But now it happens any time of the week. The last batch was 1 accepted out of 10. The batch before that all 10 rejected.
One funny thing. I have been taking the rejects and submitting them to Bigstock. Most are being accepted. But they do not sell nearly as well as SS....but it makes me feel better. Most of the other sites except IS take these recent rejects as well.
-
These rejections would not be nearly as annoying if the playing field were level for one and all. However it is infuriating to have images rejected that you know good and well have great content and are technically sound only to see recently accepted images routinely flaunted on the boards that absolutely do not remotely meet these "supposed" new technical requirements Shutterstock is implementing.
Quite frankly I think there are a few reviewers keen on making life hell for some very good shooters and it is a shame that they are rejecting images that would add to Shutterstock bottom line, not to mention the fact that they are negatively affecting the livelihoods of some serious photographers.
If everyone had the pleasure of running up against the reviewer or group of reviewers handing out the LCV, lighting and focus rejections I am sure Shutterstock would be forced to address the issue. However based on the responses on the boards I think most submitters escape this super critical reviewer. I keep asking myself if it would be a good thing to have XX's reviewer, in the end the bar would be far to low and there is no challenge in that!
-
in addition to all the previous reasons, another abused category is rejection for 'NOT CROPPED THE WAY WE WOULD HAVE TAken THE PICTURE" -- especially annoying when the imavge is clearly labeleD "DETAIL" and shows a particular texture, architectural feature, etc
reviewers should be working on tecnical merits only [there's more than enough subjectiveity available there] and not ruling on artistic merits
-
I have always had very good accaptance rate with SS, cant complain at all.
-
Shutterstock recruits inspectors from contributors -just like most other sites- and that means that most inspectors are amateur 'photographers' of the "heey, I was flipping burgers, and now I got me a dslr" type from a few years back, and they know little to nothing about imagery or style, not even the basic technical things, especially when comes to process printing. I saw the port of one person who claimed she is/was a longtime inspector... I wasn't expecting much but it was some of the most distastefull amateurish photoshop junk I'v ever seen in my life. Terrible lens flares badly pasted on everything, and the sort, just rubbish. On the other hand I can't complain, they accept just about everything from me... just dont send them flowers, they hate that : ))))
-
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!
-
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!
Lol!
-
Does anyone know how many reviewers they have? I swear that there is one reviewer who just does not like my style pics. Just got another 100% rejection. Those used to be rare for me.
-
I probably have a 90% rejection rate for my regular rf stuff (which sell more for me), but probably 90% acceptance rate for editorial stuff. So basically it's only worth me sending editorial now. :(
-
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.
-
I probably have a 90% rejection rate for my regular rf stuff (which sell more for me), but probably 90% acceptance rate for editorial stuff. So basically it's only worth me sending editorial now. :(
+1
-
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 SS, 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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
-
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?
-
My last 4 batches (10 randomly selected photos per batch) were 100% rejected.
-
yes they seem to have some reviewers who havent realized that real world lighting is different from studio
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 ???
-
guys you are all trying very hard.. isolations and people I have around 100% approved, now leave my port ok? :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
-
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...
-
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.
-
-
-
Seems simple enough. IS want pixel perfection no matter how hackneyed, sterile and boring. Dreamstime don’t 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 that’s 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 isn’t accepted. It’s 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 it’s pretty uncool to criticise other people’s work when one’s own is invisible.
-
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...
-
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!
-
@smthore
There is always a degree of personal judgement and there is inconsistency on all sites, I just don't buy the conspiracy theory. I’d 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 wouldn’t argue with any of that...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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 cr@ap 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 cr@ppy stuff. It would benefit all of us, but mostly agencies.
-
I don't see any illustration work in your portfolios. Which images did they reject?
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-gay-image5703013[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-gay-image5703013[/url])
Well, to be honest, if that's the sort of stuff you're seeing rejected by SS, I think the rejections are justified. That type of work just isn't going to cut it anymore. And not just at SS. There are tons of silhouettes on all the sites. Maybe you could get a group of silhouettes approved (9 or more silhouettes in 1 file) but even that may be a stretch.
You definitely need to step it up with your illustrations if you expect to get approvals.
-
I don't see any illustration work in your portfolios. Which images did they reject?
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-gay-image5703013[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-gay-image5703013[/url])
Well, to be honest, if that's the sort of stuff you're seeing rejected by Shutterstock, I think the rejections are justified. That type of work just isn't going to cut it anymore. And not just at Shutterstock. There are tons of silhouettes on all the sites. Maybe you could get a group of silhouettes approved (9 or more silhouettes in 1 file) but even that may be a stretch.
You definitely need to step it up with your illustrations if you expect to get approvals.
Helix is right. That doesn't align with today's standards. The problem is that although it may be technically acceptable, agencies have to balance content with quality or they end up with a collection of sub par images sprinkled in with their top dawg images. But I say that the inspection process at SS is greatly flawed. Take photos. There is one guy on SS who claims to be the king of stock and he is the worst photographer in general I can think of, yet SS continues to reject good images and accept his junk. There is, in my opinion, a double standard over there. Not a variance in inspectors for him, but favoritism for him. When I look at the crap he gets accepted and the excellent images that get rejected I can only conclude that there is a different set of rules for some photographers. This isn't just one or two images I disagree with. It's been that way for years, that's why he has 10,000 images on line THERE. He can't get accepted anywhere else. If I have 10,000 GOOD images I would certainly take the time to upload on all sites I could. He doesn't.
I don't personally know the guy nor do I blame him. I blame Shutterstock for creating that unfair rift and showing clear favoritism.
-
I don't personally know the guy nor do I blame him. I blame Shutterstock for creating that unfair rift and showing clear favoritism.
we all know him, show me the money, show me the dog!
now more seriously if you open his port you will find nice pics too
-
If they have 15 M photos, why don't they stand at that number - accept every GOOD photo and drop photos off the bottom with some criteria, lowest sales/views etc. Just doesn't make sense to refuse relevant material - especially when they are a subscription agency.
-
^^^I presume it would cost them more to delete old files than it does to reject new ones? I wouldn't of thought that was true but why else would they do this? Perhaps all the links that are created over the years help the sites with things like google ranking? Perhaps deleting all the old junk is detrimental in some way? Or perhaps they hope that lots of us will just stop uploading and that will cut their reviewing costs? I hope there's a reason for keeping old images that haven't sold in years and rejecting new ones that would sell. If there isn't, they are just throwing money away. It's already severely reduced my production and I'm researching other ways to make money.
-
^^^I presume it would cost them more to delete old files than it does to reject new ones?
???? deleting old files takes something like a 10-20 line sript, it would cut thru the database in a few hours...
... but the agencies generallly brag about having a large and ever growing stock, it's a focal point of their self promotion, so why would anyone think they'll go around deleting stuff en masse'?
If you ask me they could delete stuff that sold only once or none in the last 2-3 years, and I suspect that would halve their stock.
-
Like Dreamstime. I am expecting a bunch of de-activations this month for images that haven't sold in three years. They cull their collection as most of you know.
-
... but the agencies generallly brag about having a large and ever growing stock, it's a focal point of their self promotion, so why would anyone think they'll go around deleting stuff en masse'?
If you ask me they could delete stuff that sold only once or none in the last 2-3 years, and I suspect that would halve their stock.
Exactly. I don't think they are looking to halve their stock. As a subscription site, a larger collection is a selling point to their buyers. Even if many of the older images are sub-par, they are probably just dropped to the bottom of search results, so practically invisible.
-
>>>>>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.
that's SS biggest problem - they define 'ediitorial' reasonably, but then dont train/inform their reviewers most of whom think editorial MUST BE newsworthy. % wise i sell more editorial than non on SS, but it now takes multiple submissions to finaly hit a reviewer who knows what they're doing
-
There is one guy on Shutterstock who claims to be the king of stock and he is the worst photographer in general I can think of, yet Shutterstock continues to reject good images and accept his junk. There is, in my opinion, a double standard over there. Not a variance in inspectors for him, but favoritism for him. When I look at the crap he gets accepted and the excellent images that get rejected I can only conclude that there is a different set of rules for some photographers. This isn't just one or two images I disagree with. It's been that way for years, that's why he has 10,000 images on line THERE. He can't get accepted anywhere else. If I have 10,000 GOOD images I would certainly take the time to upload on all sites I could. He doesn't.
I don't personally know the guy nor do I blame him. I blame Shutterstock for creating that unfair rift and showing clear favoritism.
Is it acceptable to pick on an identifiable individual (hell, even I know who you're talking about) like this using a cloak of anomynity?
-
I don't personally know the guy nor do I blame him. I blame Shutterstock for creating that unfair rift and showing clear favoritism.
we all know him, show me the money, show me the dog!
now more seriously if you open his port you will find nice pics too
To be fair his work has improved a great deal over the last year.
Understandably we all avoid blasting anyone's work and in truth it does not go down well for most of us when we go there out of frustration. Mantis made a very good point; it has nothing to do with said submitter, it is clearly not his choice. In my opinion they are doing him no favors by setting the bar so low.
However we should be holding their feet to the fire about his one and we should be asking ourselves WHY they are using him as a poster boy. What are they trying to accomplish besides alienating the submitters who helped make them successful? Who are they trying to encourage?
I kept asking myself why the great divide between the images that they are accepting or rejecting from us as individuals. And when the reviews for the rest of us no longer made sense to me or to some very long time submitters I started asking myself more questions. In particular the question kept coming up, what are they accepting?
The new higher technical image and content standards argument does not hold up, if you spend a week or two every day and take a good look at the images they ARE accepting in each category. The content and quality for the images that they are accepting has not changed. It is still the same old same old.
-
I don’t know if he is or isn’t a poster boy but if it’s not his fault he shouldn’t be singled out.
Anyway back to the substantive point about how the site is losing money by rejecting high quality content where the subject matter is well covered. The simple fact is they aren’t. Consider, a designer is looking for a shot of a pretty girl on a telephone isolated on white and your absolutely brilliant interpretation of just this has just been rejected. What happens? The designer just buys another from the thousands of quality examples already there and the site still makes a sale. On the other hand I submit a reasonably adequate Robin Hood that is nowhere near the technical standard you have set – mine is accepted because the buyer looking for a full length Robin Hood isolated on white would have to go elsewhere and they would lose a sale. What they are doing makes perfect commercial sense.
-
I don’t know if he is or isn’t a poster boy but if it’s not his fault he shouldn’t be singled out.
Anyway back to the substantive point about how the site is losing money by rejecting high quality content where the subject matter is well covered. The simple fact is they aren’t. Consider, a designer is looking for a shot of a pretty girl on a telephone isolated on white and your absolutely brilliant interpretation of just this has just been rejected. What happens? The designer just buys another from the thousands of quality examples already there and the site still makes a sale. On the other hand I submit a reasonably adequate Robin Hood that is nowhere near the technical standard you have set – mine is accepted because the buyer looking for a full length Robin Hood isolated on white would have to go elsewhere and they would lose a sale. What they are doing makes perfect commercial sense.
Exactly, they have the majority of content well covered by the early submitters who helped them grow and clearly they can only gain by accepting content that fits your description. They will pay less by making it available to buyers and they are well aware of this.
However I doubt if buyers would have to go elsewhere. Most content that buyers need is already well covered and available on the majority of the micro sites already. That content is just buried by the ever expanding deluge of new content that the sites accept daily.
-
I found this on SS Forum. But it doesn't change anything on the fact that some of the rejections are really absurd (like poor lightning - white balance may be incorrect - for my bitmap illustration).
Dear Contributors,
We work hard to improve our review standards on a continuous basis. As the Shutterstock collection grows, we want to maintain consistency and improve overall quality within the collection.
There has never been any automation in our review process. We utilize knowledgeable reviewers who do their best to provide fair reviews for all submitted content.
The fact remains, however, that the process is a subjective one. If you receive a rejection and would like a bit more information as to why, we welcome you to post your photos in the critique forum to get feedback from other contributors. With the help and input of the talented Shutterstock contributor community we know you will continue to meet the challenges of these improvements.
If you still feel that a review was done incorrectly, you are welcome to contact support ([email protected]) with your request.
Best Regards,
Content Operations
Shutterstock
-
As far as posting your rejection in their forum for critique, I'm not sure what good that will do. If you ask 10 people their opinions, you're going to get 10 different opinions, all of which may be correct. I'll bet I could look at every single photo that's been accepted and find something wrong with it, technically. It's a given that forum contributors are going to find something wrong with it.
The important part is that Shutterstock's reviewers accept the photo, not every other contributor on the forum. I think I would stick with contacting support if I had a question about a rejection.
-
gbalex,
Try searching for "Robin Hood" on the big 4 then try "girl telephone". There must be tons of examples like this where SS is providing some product and IS really aren't.
-
gbalex,
Try searching for "Robin Hood" on the big 4 then try "girl telephone". There must be tons of examples like this where Shutterstock is providing some product and IS really aren't.
"Generally speaking" the need for Robinhood sales, should rank right up there with a speck of a dog flying around the moon sales. The micros may fill out their sites with obscure, not often sold content. However the people who use their time and resources to produce that content will not see much in the way of sales. Once again a win win for who?
-
gbalex,
Try searching for "Robin Hood" on the big 4 then try "girl telephone". There must be tons of examples like this where Shutterstock is providing some product and IS really aren't.
"Generally speaking" the need for Robinhood sales, should rank right up there with a speck of a dog flying around the moon sales. The micros may fill out their sites with obscure, not often sold content. However the people who use their time and resources to produce that content will not see much in the way of sales. Once again a win win for who?
I wouldn’t argue with that. However, between the speck of dog and the archetypical stock shot there is a whole raft of subject matter that is covered to a greater or lesser extent. If these sales didn’t add significantly to the income of the site they wouldn’t have 300,000 contributors, there would be just the few (relatively speaking) pros and semi-pros involved. The point remains that the better a subject is covered, the more picky the vendor can be about what he accepts without hurting his sales. HCV for the contributor does not mean that it’s the same for the vendor. The people who produce this content may not see much in the way of sales but possibly more than they would for more mainstream images that are rejected. ;)
-
gbalex,
Try searching for "Robin Hood" on the big 4 then try "girl telephone". There must be tons of examples like this where Shutterstock is providing some product and IS really aren't.
"Generally speaking" the need for Robinhood sales, should rank right up there with a speck of a dog flying around the moon sales. The micros may fill out their sites with obscure, not often sold content. However the people who use their time and resources to produce that content will not see much in the way of sales. Once again a win win for who?
I wouldn’t argue with that. However, between the speck of dog and the archetypical stock shot there is a whole raft of subject matter that is covered to a greater or lesser extent. If these sales didn’t add significantly to the income of the site they wouldn’t have 300,000 contributors, there would be just the few (relatively speaking) pros and semi-pros involved. The point remains that the better a subject is covered, the more picky the vendor can be about what he accepts without hurting his sales. HCV for the contributor does not mean that it’s the same for the vendor. The people who produce this content may not see much in the way of sales but possibly more than they would for more mainstream images that are rejected. ;)
I am guessing that what you and I think of as picky is very different.
One point we do agree upon is that HCV for the contributor does not mean the same to the bottom line for the micro sites. Thus they focus on plumping out the bottom line by attracting 300,000 contributors who produce just good enough work to sell for those individual contributors in small numbers. And they count on those contributors producing in such small numbers that they rarely make payout.
This landslide of content rounds out the revenue they receive from contributors who do consistently do produce HCV content and the majority of sales for the site. These are the HCV contributors who helped build the micros business to sustainability and they reward them by burying their new content and then increasingly rejecting new content from them that could easily compete for sales with this landslide. http://www.shutterstock.com/cat-8-Holidays.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/cat-8-Holidays.html)
-
You know what? We are actually in agreement :D Don't get me wrong, I never said it was right or fair to the folks who made this business model work but corporations really don't care about fairness and this won't hurt them. * sure you can compete with the deluge but that won't make more sales, just different sales.
-
Sadly, it doesn't look like it's just temporary, employing new reviewers or something like that. It's not about the quality over quantity as well. They either incorporated some kind of automated reviewing process or they outsourced it to a country with super cheap workforce, that also, unfortunately for us, doesn't know the first thing about photography.
-
The upside to this is that I can still make BME's with SS, despite hardly any new images getting accepted. While that continues, I find it hard to complain too much but I do think in the long term buyers and contributors will want new images to replace some of the old stuff. If there are any buyers around that want to see what's getting rejected by the old sites, they should have a look at sites like Graphics Leftovers and Canstockphoto. I hope they will get a boost from this and it will make the old sites reconsider their policy. I haver already seen lots of sales from images that SS and DT now reject.
-
I guess it's time to register with those 2 small timers ;D (just kidding, but I will give it some thought;)
-
The upside to this is that I can still make BME's with SS, despite hardly any new images getting accepted. While that continues, I find it hard to complain too much but I do think in the long term buyers and contributors will want new images to replace some of the old stuff. If there are any buyers around that want to see what's getting rejected by the old sites, they should have a look at sites like Graphics Leftovers and Canstockphoto. I hope they will get a boost from this and it will make the old sites reconsider their policy. I haver already seen lots of sales from images that SS and DT now reject.
Yeah sales for me are stronger than ever, despite having most things rejected now. I've noticed that a lot of my images that fail to get on the big sites, get sales on smaller sites, which goes to show that it's not that the buyers don't want them, they just can't get past the reviewers on the big sites.
There are just so many of us submitting, that they reject for anything at all these days. And I really can't differentiate between the ones that get online and the ones that are rejected. I mean what's the difference, why do some get through and others don't. It's just luck of the draw. The weirdest thing for me is that BS can accept an image and ss can reject it and vice versa. Which just shows how much luck of the draw it is.
-
I've noticed that a lot of my images that fail to get on the big sites, get sales on smaller sites, which goes to show that it's not that the buyers don't want them, they just can't get past the reviewers on the big sites.
I don't fail at any of the big sites besides SS. That's what bothers me the most. I get a rejection here and there at IS, but usually it gets accepted if I make some minor adjustments. Or if I think there's nothing wrong with it I submit it again and it usually gets accepted. But SS is on a whole new level lately :o .
What I agree on, is that it's a lottery
-
...And I really can't differentiate between the ones that get online and the ones that are rejected. I mean what's the difference, why do some get through and others don't. It's just luck of the draw...
Quite often ones that I think are least likely to make money are accepted and those that I think will definitely sell are rejected.
It feels worse with SS than it does with DT because I usually make over 4x the earnings with them. They might not want to give their subs buyers more choice but what about the PPD buyers? I now make more with PPD buyers with SS than I do with DT but they need to look at other sites to see most of my new images. It takes away my incentive to keep producing new images. I'm finding it really hard to stay interested in microstock if it's just going to end up a stagnant pool of old images.
-
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
There may be other criteria that I haven't discovered yet, but these allow us to plan our work in ways that increase our chances for acceptance. :P
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/130012/130012,1309969228,1/stock-photo-a-green-bell-pepper-with-doll-eyes-and-eyebrows-made-of-thin-carrot-slices-generous-copyspace-80524903.jpg)
-
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
There may be other criteria that I haven't discovered yet, but these allow us to plan our work in ways that increase our chances for acceptance. :P
Lol! The weather one is definitely an influence. It sucks to be indoors when the sun is shining. I'll do some research on the phase of the moon. "Whether or not the inspector "got any" the night before" Lets just hope they start going at it like rabbits. ;D
-
Quite often ones that I think are least likely to make money are accepted and those that I think will definitely sell are rejected.
... I'm finding it really hard to stay interested in microstock if it's just going to end up a stagnant pool of old images.
I have been reading Sharpshot's posts on this subject, and I hope SS has been too, because I agree with everythng he has said. My experience and thoughts with the new rejections at SS are the same, and I do vectors. I have cut my submissions there down by over 75% and I feel gloomy when I even think about submitting to SS.
The only bright spots I see are:
1. Since SS is rejecting so many good new images, I think it hits us oldtimers less hard, since buyers have to buy old images when the supply of good new ones is reduced.
2. Whatever SS's true reasons for the rejections are (cut reviewing costs or whatever), the policy may have been implemented intentionally at the slow time of year, and maybe will end by Labor day, when micrsotock sales will increase across all the sites (except maybe IS :D)
-
I'm starting to see a difference (knocking on wood). New images are not selling but a few are getting accepted.
And, it is so rewarding (in a revenge sort of way) when I get an EL at SS on an image recently rejected by DT. :o 8)
-
There is one guy on Shutterstock who claims to be the king of stock and he is the worst photographer in general I can think of, yet Shutterstock continues to reject good images and accept his junk. There is, in my opinion, a double standard over there. Not a variance in inspectors for him, but favoritism for him. When I look at the crap he gets accepted and the excellent images that get rejected I can only conclude that there is a different set of rules for some photographers. This isn't just one or two images I disagree with. It's been that way for years, that's why he has 10,000 images on line THERE. He can't get accepted anywhere else. If I have 10,000 GOOD images I would certainly take the time to upload on all sites I could. He doesn't.
I don't personally know the guy nor do I blame him. I blame Shutterstock for creating that unfair rift and showing clear favoritism.
Is it acceptable to pick on an identifiable individual (hell, even I know who you're talking about) like this using a cloak of anomynity?
Get over it. I never mentioned anyone's name. Just because you think you know who he/she is doesn't mean my comment was finger pointing. And this thread is about SS rejections and it is an appropriate observation relevant to this conversation.
-
There is one guy on Shutterstock who claims to be the king of stock and he is the worst photographer in general I can think of, yet Shutterstock continues to reject good images and accept his junk. There is, in my opinion, a double standard over there. Not a variance in inspectors for him, but favoritism for him. When I look at the crap he gets accepted and the excellent images that get rejected I can only conclude that there is a different set of rules for some photographers. This isn't just one or two images I disagree with. It's been that way for years, that's why he has 10,000 images on line THERE. He can't get accepted anywhere else. If I have 10,000 GOOD images I would certainly take the time to upload on all sites I could. He doesn't.
I don't personally know the guy nor do I blame him. I blame Shutterstock for creating that unfair rift and showing clear favoritism.
Is it acceptable to pick on an identifiable individual (hell, even I know who you're talking about) like this using a cloak of anomynity?
Get over it. I never mentioned anyone's name. Just because you think you know who he/she is doesn't mean my comment was finger pointing. And this thread is about SS rejections and it is an appropriate observation relevant to this conversation.
If we rise above personalities and listen to your message, it is hard to ignore the facts. The review process at SS has serious issues; as you mentioned it has been clear for years that SS accepts virtually anything from some submitters while others are subjected to very stiff review standards. Whether those who have been given a pass have different reviewers or go through no review at all has been a topic of speculation for years.
SS obviously does not care that a good many of us have lost respect for the company as a consequence and I doubt we will see them addressing the issue any time soon!
-
Although the inspection process could use some adjustments, IMHO, I get more action in a day on the images that get approved than I get on other sites in a month. The flip side of that coin is that with 33 cents per download (as a general rule), I need a lot more activity to translate that activity into decent $$. For instance, I've got 34 downloads so far this month, and only $17. That's just wrong! But that's just the reality, so hi ho, hi ho, it's off to shoot I go... 8)
-
There is one guy on Shutterstock who claims to be the king of stock and he is the worst photographer in general I can think of, yet Shutterstock continues to reject good images and accept his junk. There is, in my opinion, a double standard over there. Not a variance in inspectors for him, but favoritism for him. When I look at the crap he gets accepted and the excellent images that get rejected I can only conclude that there is a different set of rules for some photographers. This isn't just one or two images I disagree with. It's been that way for years, that's why he has 10,000 images on line THERE. He can't get accepted anywhere else. If I have 10,000 GOOD images I would certainly take the time to upload on all sites I could. He doesn't.
I don't personally know the guy nor do I blame him. I blame Shutterstock for creating that unfair rift and showing clear favoritism.
Is it acceptable to pick on an identifiable individual (hell, even I know who you're talking about) like this using a cloak of anomynity?
Get over it. I never mentioned anyone's name. Just because you think you know who he/she is doesn't mean my comment was finger pointing. And this thread is about SS rejections and it is an appropriate observation relevant to this conversation.
I know EXACTLY who you were talking about and, if I do, ANYONE with an account at SS will too. How is this NOT finger pointing? I simply happen to think that criticising an identifiable individual in a public forum, who is not a participant and whose work in not particularly relevant to the conversation, is unacceptable. To do so from within a cloak of anonymity is just plain cowardly.
Similarly, your opinions about your “excellent images” vs someone else’s “crap” and a sub sale at SS will earn me $0.25.
The idea that acceptance / rejection depends on who you are rather than what you submit is just silly. More likely you are either submitting technically good stuff but not what they feel they need at the moment (IS is a good home for these) or the images are just not as excellent as you think they are. In any case, I’m not the one who needs to “get over it”.
-
There is one guy on Shutterstock who claims to be the king of stock and he is the worst photographer in general I can think of, yet Shutterstock continues to reject good images and accept his junk. There is, in my opinion, a double standard over there. Not a variance in inspectors for him, but favoritism for him. When I look at the crap he gets accepted and the excellent images that get rejected I can only conclude that there is a different set of rules for some photographers. This isn't just one or two images I disagree with. It's been that way for years, that's why he has 10,000 images on line THERE. He can't get accepted anywhere else. If I have 10,000 GOOD images I would certainly take the time to upload on all sites I could. He doesn't.
I don't personally know the guy nor do I blame him. I blame Shutterstock for creating that unfair rift and showing clear favoritism.
Is it acceptable to pick on an identifiable individual (hell, even I know who you're talking about) like this using a cloak of anomynity?
Get over it. I never mentioned anyone's name. Just because you think you know who he/she is doesn't mean my comment was finger pointing. And this thread is about SS rejections and it is an appropriate observation relevant to this conversation.
I know EXACTLY who you were talking about and, if I do, ANYONE with an account at SS will too. How is this NOT finger pointing? I simply happen to think that criticising an identifiable individual in a public forum, who is not a participant and whose work in not particularly relevant to the conversation, is unacceptable. To do so from within a cloak of anonymity is just plain cowardly.
Similarly, your opinions about your “excellent images” vs someone else’s “crap” and a sub sale at SS will earn me $0.25.
The idea that acceptance / rejection depends on who you are rather than what you submit is just silly. More likely you are either submitting technically good stuff but not what they feel they need at the moment (IS is a good home for these) or the images are just not as excellent as you think they are. In any case, I’m not the one who needs to “get over it”.
Sorry, Woody, I disagree with you flat out. But that's fine. This is why forums like this add value...varying opinions. But the truth seems to hurt. There is a clear double standard at SS and I brought up an example. Because you think that example finger points means in your eyes I am wrong for bringing it up because I choose to be anonymous here. That doesn't mean I don't make valid posts on MSG. I merely pointed out a clear example of why some contributors get frustrated submitting to SS and you spun it into being a personal poke at an individual. So, as I said, we simply disagree. By the way, I had three people PM me asking who I was talking about. So your argument is without merit. I am also close to MANY high end contributors who are refraining from uploading because of the mess they've created. My post was based on my personal and anecdotal experience with other submitters.
-
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.
-
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.
Fair enough.
-
I still can't get the greater part of my last series online at SS >:( (while it's been excepted everywhere else, 21/21 everywhere, just IS rejected one). I think they'll drive a few ppl into IS exclusivity (since IS still is the 2nd best earner for most, way ahead of the rest and earnings of those who get most good content rejected at SS will sooner or later dry up). A lot more ppl will just stop uploading there. I'll give them another shot with a new series I hope to shoot soon (actually I hope to shoot at least 4 by the end of August) and if they'll just reject the whole series, I'll take a break over there. And than see what happens in the next month or 2. I'll sure carefully read these threads.
-
I still can't get the greater part of my last series online at SS >:( (while it's been excepted everywhere else, 21/21 everywhere, just IS rejected one). I think they'll drive a few ppl into IS exclusivity (since IS still is the 2nd best earner for most, way ahead of the rest and earnings of those who get most good content rejected at SS will sooner or later dry up). A lot more ppl will just stop uploading there. I'll give them another shot with a new series I hope to shoot soon (actually I hope to shoot at least 4 by the end of August) and if they'll just reject the whole series, I'll take a break over there. And than see what happens in the next month or 2. I'll sure carefully read these threads.
This is the risk they run. I don't know if folks with good earning ports on SS will give it all up and go exclusive on IS BUT there is a high chance that some better contributors will stop uploading. Obviously they won't care that they won't be offered stuff they don't want but they may care about not being offered stuff they do want ;)
-
Any news guys, are you gettin' sheat through? My new work is like a river that can't get through the dam :o .
-
100% approval. Studio work, lately.
-
No problems with acceptances here.
-
100% approval. Studio work, lately.
Yes that apparently still goes through without a problem. It looks like they mostly want brightly, evenly lit boring studio shots (not saying yours are, of course), preferably isolated one white. Why do they want to return to 2005. This really is passe, nobody's buying it anymore
-
My vectors are now suffering from 100% rejection. Up until recently, I'd say I had about 0% rejection. Oh well, at least their standards have gone up if they are finally rejecting my crap ;)
-
100% approval. Studio work, lately.
Yes that apparently still goes through without a problem. It looks like they mostly want brightly, evenly lit boring studio shots (not saying yours are, of course), preferably isolated one white. Why do they want to return to 2005. This really is passe, nobody's buying it anymore
whether to make it on white or not is entirely your choice. This is from my latest batch:
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/113008/113008,1313407280,2/stock-photo-young-woman-doing-workout-with-weights-studio-shot-82828714.jpg)
And stuff on white sells too, if you do it alright.
-
100% approval. Studio work, lately.
Yes that apparently still goes through without a problem. It looks like they mostly want brightly, evenly lit boring studio shots (not saying yours are, of course), preferably isolated one white. Why do they want to return to 2005. This really is passe, nobody's buying it anymore
whether to make it on white or not is entirely your choice. This is from my latest batch:
([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/113008/113008,1313407280,2/stock-photo-young-woman-doing-workout-with-weights-studio-shot-82828714.jpg[/url])
And stuff on white sells too, if you do it alright.
Nicely lit. You're lucky it wasn't rejected for uneven lighting (by their poor reviewers standards of course), I got the last batch rejected for it a few times.
I wouldn't really know about white isolations, I just know mine sell way worse than on location shots or at least a studio shot with a non white bg. And looking at what sells in the last few years you don't see a lot of isolated shots among the top sellers.
-
I got this email today:
You have been consistently resubmitting rejected images. This behavior violates Shutterstock guidelines and is not permitted.
Continuing this action will risk account suspension. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Regards,
Shutterstock Content Operations
If you have any questions, please contact support at [email protected]
Thank You.
--ShutterStock Support
Just to let you know don't resubmit them more than once, since you might get your port deleted. It's just so frustrating seeing perfectly good images rejected and loosing tens, hundreds or for some even thousands of dollars. I really hope sales at other sites pick up and make up the loss I'm already having at SS :(
-
Which gym does she belong to? I might have to cancel my Balley's membership LOL!
-
And got 1/5 from the series I shot yesterday accepted. Now I'm making headway, lol!
I think I'm off from uploading until I see some signs (in one of these threads) of improving or better yet, things getting back to the way they were. It'll be good for my sanity ;)
-
Well, in this case I am going to do the opposite of being accused of pointing out a substandard portfolio and point out a superior portfolio, the artist of whom had a 100 percent rejection rate from a recent submission. Now, these rejections are not available for us to see, but from his/her port I'd venture to say that we can infer that the submissions were of similar quality and composition. The reason I am making this post is that there has been a lot of, "well your port must suck then" comments over several threads.
Here's the guy's port at Shutterstock: http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-urolffimages.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-urolffimages.html)
Here is the thread about his 100 percent rejection submission. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110311 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110311)
I have a very hard time believing that someone of this stature, quality and creativity would have 100 percent of his images rejected.
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.
-
I have a very hard time believing that someone of this stature, quality and creativity...
You must be joking.
-
I have a very hard time believing that someone of this stature, quality and creativity...
You must be joking.
Well, he is ;D
-
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/113008/113008,1313407280,2/stock-photo-young-woman-doing-workout-with-weights-studio-shot-82828714.jpg)
Xalanx -
Please allow me to divert from the topic to compliment you on a great photograph. It's obvious to me that you took a lot of time and effort to set it up, based on the expert lighting - especially the back lighting for perfect highlights. Perfect shadows as well, combined with the right model, the right pose, and the right "attitude", all come together to make a really nice image, IMHO. I'm surprised that SS didn't reject it because of the "uneven lighting", as Slovenian mentioned, but I think they were very wise in their approval. My complements for a job well done.
-
thanks, csproductions! :)
-
Well, in this case I am going to do the opposite of being accused of pointing out a substandard portfolio and point out a superior portfolio, the artist of whom had a 100 percent rejection rate from a recent submission. Now, these rejections are not available for us to see, but from his/her port I'd venture to say that we can infer that the submissions were of similar quality and composition. The reason I am making this post is that there has been a lot of, "well your port must suck then" comments over several threads.
Here's the guy's port at Shutterstock: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-urolffimages.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-urolffimages.html[/url])
Here is the thread about his 100 percent rejection submission. [url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110311[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110311[/url])
I have a very hard time believing that someone of this stature, quality and creativity would have 100 percent of his images rejected.
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.
Wow , the only "superior" thing I see here is the number of images . Someone should buy this guy a tackymeter
-
Nice image. My only gripe is that the bicep curl is done in a wrong wa, This is how it should be done http://www.balacore.net/exercises-Biceps.php (http://www.balacore.net/exercises-Biceps.php) (the left image)
-
well, she's going to develop some unknown groups of muscles you've never thought of... ;D
-
well, she's going to develop some unknown groups of muscles you've never thought of... ;D
She's more likely to hurt her elbow. And not getting the last squeeze because there is no weight on the muscle in the end of the movement :)
(btw. what is the light colored patch in the elbow, is it a patch of spotlight or what?)
-
no, it's a piece of wrinkled skin because of the weight of the arm. You take it far too much into details and I could give you many examples where buyers are not so pixel peeping and some "wrong documented" images are selling great.
-
Well, in this case I am going to do the opposite of being accused of pointing out a substandard portfolio and point out a superior portfolio, the artist of whom had a 100 percent rejection rate from a recent submission. Now, these rejections are not available for us to see, but from his/her port I'd venture to say that we can infer that the submissions were of similar quality and composition. The reason I am making this post is that there has been a lot of, "well your port must suck then" comments over several threads.
Here's the guy's port at Shutterstock: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-urolffimages.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-urolffimages.html[/url])
Here is the thread about his 100 percent rejection submission. [url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110311[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110311[/url])
I have a very hard time believing that someone of this stature, quality and creativity would have 100 percent of his images rejected.
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.
Can’t argue with you on this!! Technically excellent, ultra creative, different and sells really well (judging by performance where numbers of dls are available). BTW, never said your stuff sucks – I can’t see it so don’t know but probably much better than what I produce.
@eggshell – tacky? This is stock we’re talking about (ubiquitous sterile cheesy grins, stick figures, plates of salad etc). It’s technically good and sells very well so very fit for purpose. As a bonus, it’s complex and interesting to look at – on that basis, I’m all for tacky
-
I have a very hard time believing that someone of this stature, quality and creativity...
You must be joking.
I don't joke, mostly 8)
-
Although I have the most activity and sales on SS, one does have to wonder what those inspectors are smokin'. Here's a screen shot of a couple of my most recent rejections, because I don't think you'd believe me otherwise...
(http://www.csproductions.info/images/Rejection.jpg)
I guess I'll be more attentive about getting property releases for these architectural photos! :P
-
Those curves are unique indeed :D
-
Although I have the most activity and sales on SS, one does have to wonder what those inspectors are smokin'. Here's a screen shot of a couple of my most recent rejections, because I don't think you'd believe me otherwise...
([url]http://www.csproductions.info/images/Rejection.jpg[/url])
I guess I'll be more attentive about getting property releases for these architectural photos! :P
Gonna take a complete punt here - could they possibly have been talking about a property release for the tatoos & hit the wrong button?
-
... Gonna take a complete punt here - could they possibly have been talking about a property release for the tatoos & hit the wrong button?
Most likely. You better have a property release for tattoos that are in focus. It makes life easier.
-
Got it. Not architectural. Wrong button. Twice. :P
-
Got it. Not architectural. Wrong button. Twice. :P
Select a set of images. Pull down rejection reason from a menu. Accidentally pick the wrong reason.
-
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.
-
Now that I got 9/9 approved they don't show up in my port and are not searchable :s . I guess I'll have to wait 72h or else support will just give me that in their generic reply.
-
Now that I got 9/9 approved they don't show up in my port and are not searchable :s . I guess I'll have to wait 72h or else support will just give me that in their generic reply.
Well I got so fed up, that I created a small file called "send in September" a few weeks ago. I remember last summer that my AR, at least on ss, dt, and 123rf took a nose dive during summer. When I worked in the UK, we would have to book our summer hols to make sure that it didn't coincide with too many people, but the fact was that during summer we were always understaffed or working with temps, we were more rushed and more stressed, and undoubtedly things weren't done as good as when we were fully staffed. Agencies are also companies and I imagine they face similar problems. From next year I won't bother to upload at all in the summer and send it all in September, that's when more people will see them anyway. By the way so far I've been sent a few files from the Upload in September file and I'm smiling again.
-
Well, in this case I am going to do the opposite of being accused of pointing out a substandard portfolio and point out a superior portfolio, the artist of whom had a 100 percent rejection rate from a recent submission. Now, these rejections are not available for us to see, but from his/her port I'd venture to say that we can infer that the submissions were of similar quality and composition. The reason I am making this post is that there has been a lot of, "well your port must suck then" comments over several threads.
Here's the guy's port at Shutterstock: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-urolffimages.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-urolffimages.html[/url])
Here is the thread about his 100 percent rejection submission. [url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110311[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110311[/url])
I have a very hard time believing that someone of this stature, quality and creativity would have 100 percent of his images rejected.
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.
Can’t argue with you on this!! Technically excellent, ultra creative, different and sells really well (judging by performance where numbers of dls are available). BTW, never said your stuff sucks – I can’t see it so don’t know but probably much better than what I produce.
@eggshell – tacky? This is stock we’re talking about (ubiquitous sterile cheesy grins, stick figures, plates of salad etc). It’s technically good and sells very well so very fit for purpose. As a bonus, it’s complex and interesting to look at – on that basis, I’m all for tacky
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.
-
Now that I got 9/9 approved they don't show up in my port and are not searchable :s . I guess I'll have to wait 72h or else support will just give me that in their generic reply.
Well I got so fed up, that I created a small file called "send in September" a few weeks ago. I remember last summer that my AR, at least on ss, dt, and 123rf took a nose dive during summer. When I worked in the UK, we would have to book our summer hols to make sure that it didn't coincide with too many people, but the fact was that during summer we were always understaffed or working with temps, we were more rushed and more stressed, and undoubtedly things weren't done as good as when we were fully staffed. Agencies are also companies and I imagine they face similar problems. From next year I won't bother to upload at all in the summer and send it all in September, that's when more people will see them anyway. By the way so far I've been sent a few files from the Upload in September file and I'm smiling again.
I've had similar thoughts, just more along the way they don't want as much new content during the summer since the sales are lower (ODs and ELs particularly) and are rejecting just because they want ppl to hold off for a while. I wouldn't mind if I didn't have summer material (outdoor sports). Who's gonna buy that during the winter? ??? And by the time the season comes they're gonna be buried anyway
-
...I wouldn't mind if I didn't have summer material (outdoor sports). Who's gonna buy that during the winter? ??? And by the time the season comes they're gonna be buried anyway
People buy well before seasons start. My tacky sunset crap start getting loads of downloads from around February and during summer hardly get any downloads.
-
...I wouldn't mind if I didn't have summer material (outdoor sports). Who's gonna buy that during the winter? ??? And by the time the season comes they're gonna be buried anyway
People buy well before seasons start. My tacky sunset crap start getting loads of downloads from around February and during summer hardly get any downloads.
Exactly, but as I said by the end of the fall they're gonna be buried let alone February ;) . I just hope some southern hemisphere (or from tropical region) find them before that.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 : )
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
"...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.
-
"...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 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.
-
"...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.
-
"...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)
-
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 you’re right even there were a few hundred complaining we’re talking a fraction of a percent of the contributor population. I also seriously doubt that newbies fare better than the old pros, probably don’t 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 it’s not what the sites want it’s a useless as the blurry pet snapshot.
-
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 you’re right even there were a few hundred complaining we’re talking a fraction of a percent of the contributor population. I also seriously doubt that newbies fare better than the old pros, probably don’t 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 it’s not what the sites want it’s 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?
-
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 you’re right even there were a few hundred complaining we’re talking a fraction of a percent of the contributor population. I also seriously doubt that newbies fare better than the old pros, probably don’t 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 it’s not what the sites want it’s 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?
-
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 :)
-
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 you’re right even there were a few hundred complaining we’re talking a fraction of a percent of the contributor population. I also seriously doubt that newbies fare better than the old pros, probably don’t 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 it’s not what the sites want it’s 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.
-
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 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.
-
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 you’re right even there were a few hundred complaining we’re talking a fraction of a percent of the contributor population. I also seriously doubt that newbies fare better than the old pros, probably don’t 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 it’s not what the sites want it’s 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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
got pictures approved more than 24h ago but they do not show up in portfolio yet, did someone else noticed that?
-
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 I’m being honest I really don’t 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 don’t think tacky is out, I think same old same old is out (except for IS) and that’s where adaption is needed (for acceptance if not for sales). Fortunately for me I don’t 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 won’t pay anyone’s mortgage. BTW have been doing photography since the early 80s – don’t submit photos as neither the film scans nor what I can do with available digital kit is up to par.
-
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.
-
1st time I notice that in 3 years strange
-
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
-
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.
-
Best option (I think) - Hold fire on your images till this flattening hurricane called "Rejecta" blows over.
Only thing is - it could take time!
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
had several batches sitting over the weekend - about 150 images. then suddenly 100% reject - they must be clearing their backlog!
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
.
-
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.
-
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!
-
:D :D :D
"Noisewared into blurriness". That's brilliant.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 cr@ap 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 cr@ppy 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 (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.
-
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! ;)
-
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 cr@ap 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 cr@ppy stuff. It would benefit all of us, but mostly agencies.
Slovenian, I doubt your portfolio makes even a fraction of what this guy
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=996128[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=996128[/url])
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.