Author Topic: shutterstock rejecting everything,Why? (Read 87982 times)

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.

dgilder · « **Reply #1 on:** March 06, 2011, 23:02 »

I just had a batch go through with only a couple of rejects.

basti · « **Reply #2 on:** March 07, 2011, 00:46 »

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...

Noodles · « **Reply #3 on:** March 07, 2011, 01:16 »

Quote from: basti on March 07, 2011, 00:46

of course exactly same pictures are accepted on IS, Dreamstime and Fotolia

I find that hard to believe

WooStock · « **Reply #4 on:** March 07, 2011, 01:33 »

Quote from: Noodles on March 07, 2011, 01:16

Quote from: basti on March 07, 2011, 00:46
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.

Noodles · « **Reply #5 on:** March 07, 2011, 01:36 »

Quote from: raywoo on March 07, 2011, 01:33

Quote from: Noodles on March 07, 2011, 01:16
Quote from: basti on March 07, 2011, 00:46
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

lagereek · « **Reply #6 on:** March 07, 2011, 02:10 »

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.

rubyroo · « **Reply #7 on:** March 07, 2011, 03:21 »

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.

visceralimage · « **Reply #8 on:** March 07, 2011, 03:39 »

Quote from: rubyroo on March 07, 2011, 03:21

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

lagereek · « **Reply #9 on:** March 07, 2011, 04:20 »

Quote from: rubyroo on March 07, 2011, 03:21

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.

MikLav · « **Reply #10 on:** March 07, 2011, 06:56 »

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

cathyslife · « **Reply #11 on:** March 07, 2011, 07:31 »

Quote from: visceralimage on March 07, 2011, 03:39

Quote from: rubyroo on March 07, 2011, 03:21
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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #12 on:** March 07, 2011, 07:34 »

Quote from: Noodles on March 07, 2011, 01:16

Quote from: basti on March 07, 2011, 00:46
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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #13 on:** March 07, 2011, 07:35 »

Quote from: cclapper on March 07, 2011, 07:31

Quote from: visceralimage on March 07, 2011, 03:39
Quote from: rubyroo on March 07, 2011, 03:21
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.

Ellerslie · « **Reply #14 on:** March 07, 2011, 07:40 »

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.

Carl · « **Reply #15 on:** March 07, 2011, 07:40 »

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.)

Ellerslie · « **Reply #16 on:** March 07, 2011, 08:05 »

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

danhowl · « **Reply #17 on:** March 07, 2011, 14:46 »

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.

Rv-Voyager · « **Reply #18 on:** March 07, 2011, 15:31 »

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!

Mantis · « **Reply #19 on:** March 07, 2011, 19:23 »

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.

KB · « **Reply #20 on:** March 07, 2011, 20:31 »

Quote from: Rv-Voyager on March 07, 2011, 15:31

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.

visceralimage · « **Reply #21 on:** March 07, 2011, 21:13 »

Quote from: Rv-Voyager on March 07, 2011, 15:31

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.

graficallyminded · « **Reply #22 on:** March 18, 2011, 16:19 »

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.

cascoly · « **Reply #23 on:** March 20, 2011, 21:14 »

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

RacePhoto · « **Reply #24 on:** March 21, 2011, 00:06 »

Quote from: ArenaCreative on March 18, 2011, 16:19

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: shutterstock rejecting everything,Why? (Read 87982 times)

WooStock

dgilder

basti

Noodles

WooStock

Noodles

lagereek

rubyroo

visceralimage

lagereek

MikLav

cathyslife

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

Ellerslie

Carl

Ellerslie

danhowl

Rv-Voyager

Mantis

KB

visceralimage

graficallyminded

cascoly

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors