Author Topic: shutterstock rejecting everything,Why? (Read 79171 times)

sharpshot · « **Reply #25 on:** March 21, 2011, 04:34 »

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.

Noodles · « **Reply #26 on:** March 21, 2011, 05:23 »

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.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #27 on:** March 21, 2011, 06:46 »

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

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.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #28 on:** March 21, 2011, 09:36 »

Quote from: cascoly 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

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.

jcpjr · « **Reply #29 on:** March 22, 2011, 10:00 »

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.

jcpjr · « **Reply #30 on:** March 22, 2011, 22:00 »

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.

delphinium · « **Reply #31 on:** March 23, 2011, 01:26 »

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.

sharpshot · « **Reply #32 on:** March 23, 2011, 02:14 »

Quote from: jcpjr on March 22, 2011, 22:00

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.

borg · « **Reply #33 on:** March 23, 2011, 05:55 »

Guys, put this also on their forum...

gaja · « **Reply #34 on:** March 23, 2011, 11:57 »

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%.

Red Dove · « **Reply #35 on:** April 09, 2011, 03:05 »

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.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #36 on:** April 09, 2011, 06:17 »

Quote from: sharpshot on March 23, 2011, 02:14

Quote from: jcpjr on March 22, 2011, 22:00
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.

bobkeenan · « **Reply #37 on:** April 13, 2011, 20:19 »

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.

gbalex · « **Reply #38 on:** April 13, 2011, 22:09 »

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!

cascoly · « **Reply #39 on:** April 15, 2011, 13:25 »

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

lagereek · « **Reply #40 on:** April 15, 2011, 13:43 »

I have always had very good accaptance rate with SS, cant complain at all.

lthn · « **Reply #41 on:** April 21, 2011, 06:01 »

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 : ))))

tiero · « **Reply #42 on:** April 21, 2011, 10:07 »

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!

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #43 on:** April 21, 2011, 10:49 »

Quote from: tiero on April 21, 2011, 10:07

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!

bobkeenan · « **Reply #44 on:** April 21, 2011, 15:21 »

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.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #45 on:** April 22, 2011, 01:41 »

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.

sharpshot · « **Reply #46 on:** April 22, 2011, 01:57 »

Quote from: tiero on April 21, 2011, 10:07

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.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #47 on:** April 22, 2011, 08:26 »

Quote from: Microstock Posts on April 22, 2011, 01:41

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

Perry · « **Reply #48 on:** June 03, 2011, 15:52 »

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!

Red Dove · « **Reply #49 on:** June 04, 2011, 15:30 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: shutterstock rejecting everything,Why? (Read 79171 times)

sharpshot

Noodles

microstockphoto.co.uk

WarrenPrice

jcpjr

jcpjr

delphinium

sharpshot

borg

gaja

Red Dove

microstockphoto.co.uk

bobkeenan

gbalex

cascoly

lagereek

lthn

tiero

Microstock Posts

bobkeenan

Microstock Posts

sharpshot

WarrenPrice

Perry

Red Dove

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors