MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: beketoff on September 29, 2015, 03:10
-
Hi all,
Got a rejection from Shutterstock reviewer of two photos with classical yellow cabs in NYC where I have desaturated everything else but the cabs (classics as well, I know). I submitted these photos as editorial as they contained some people and stores/brands in the street. While the same but unedited (full-color) photos have been accepted, these two were rejected with the following reasoning: "Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable."
My question is: can desaturating part of a photo be described as "traditional photographic techniques (.... color adjustments)" which are, apparently, allowed? If yes, why were the photos rejected then? And should I be able to succeed in getting these photos accepted, with another reviewer then?
Thanks for your advice.
-
...classical yellow cabs in NYC where I have desaturated everything else but the cabs (classics as well, I know). I submitted these photos as editorial as they contained some people and stores/brands in the street.
This is unacceptable for editorial photos.
-
I don't think its the cab in itself, SS tend to reject anything to do with transport, cars, trucks, aircrafts and so on. Problems with logos and trademarks. Even if you remove the logo from a BMW, the car is still recognizable isn't it.
Besides, monochrome don't sell too well.
-
editorial must be editorial, desaturate everything or keep colors, and resubmit
-
editorial must be editorial, desaturate everything or keep colors, and resubmit
As I mentioned in my original post, I already have the same two photos in full color accepted at SS. However, for artistic purposes I decided to post it in semi-desaturated variant, as well (if you search it on SS, you will find similar photos already from other contributors, in editorial, so how did they succeed? see e.g. here (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-10280134/stock-photo-new-york-city-times-square.html?src=85gkNE9MN5P1dtACTpyFaw-1-25)and here (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-163284611/stock-photo-new-york-city-ny-oct-yellow-cab-at-times-square-on-october-in-new-york-city-ny-it.html?src=85gkNE9MN5P1dtACTpyFaw-1-32)).
Perhaps the problem is that I submitted it under editorial, and there this is not acceptable (still, see examples above - semi-desaturated and in editorial). And I'm still not convinced about their reasoning, since in my view selective desaturation is exactly what the 'color alteration' means and what that they should accept (see the quote with their reasoning).
Finally, I can't see these photos (semi-desaturated) being accepted in a non-editorial format.
So, no precise rules and it's just random at SS, based on the existing photos in the database and their reasoning? Quite frustrating...
Thanks for your feedback, though!
-
I already have the same two photos in full color accepted at SS. However, for artistic purposes I decided to post it in semi-desaturated variant, as well.
Seems like you really don't understand the meaning of editorial.
-
Seems like you really don't understand the meaning of editorial.
[/quote]
I do understand, and I have plenty of editorials submitted and accepted, even by SS with their extremely strict acceptance rules. And I did explain above one of the main reasons I posted it under editorial, instead of a general category. But can you please perhaps explain the reason why other similar photos (again, see above links) are available for sale at SS under editorial then? I expect to hear that they were submitted earlier when rules were different, no?..
-
I do understand, and I have plenty of editorials submitted and accepted, even by SS with their extremely strict acceptance rules. And I did explain above one of the main reasons I posted it under editorial, instead of a general category. But can you please perhaps explain the reason why other similar photos (again, see above links) are available for sale at SS under editorial then? I expect to hear that they were submitted earlier when rules were different, no?..
In my opinion, they cannot be editorial.
-
Can you provide some examples? Some links to so called similar photos....
You don't read carefully, as I included the links in my earlier post in this thread above. But I don't mind providing them again for your convenience:
Here (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-163284611/stock-photo-new-york-city-ny-oct-yellow-cab-at-times-square-on-october-in-new-york-city-ny-it.html?src=85gkNE9MN5P1dtACTpyFaw-1-32) or here (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-10280134/stock-photo-new-york-city-times-square.html?src=85gkNE9MN5P1dtACTpyFaw-1-25)or here (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-58167553/stock-photo-photo-new-york-city-taxi-blur-focus-motion-times-square.html?src=277Q18C4q5lGu18pP7CYeg-2-24)...
All are editorial, and all in exactly the same technique as my photos, being nevertheless rejected recently.
-
No thats not editoria at all! looks like an AD for a cab company or similar.
-
No thats not editoria at all! looks like an AD for a cab company or similar.
Good, but why would it (and many others) be then allowed into 'editorial' category of SS? That's the only question I'm asking, and not going into debate what is editorial and what is not, what is yellow and what is not...
From the responses received so far I understand there's no clear answer, and that this is probably quite random and inconsistent. Which prompts me to try re-submitted the images few more times and see if another reviewer gets it accepted.
-
Which prompts me to try re-submitted the images few more times and see if another reviewer gets it accepted.
I don't understand why you should try few more time to submit an image on a subject which is sufficiently covered on SS. Actually, it seems like you have copied the concept from already existing photos on SS.
-
Which prompts me to try re-submitted the images few more times and see if another reviewer gets it accepted.
I don't understand why you should try few more time to submit an image on a subject which is sufficiently covered on SS. Actually, it seems like you have copied the concept from already existing photos on SS.
Bingo!!
-
Editorial photos cannot be altered in ANY way. If you or someone else had something similar accepted, then they slipped by a reviewer who didnt understand editorial either.
-
Which prompts me to try re-submitted the images few more times and see if another reviewer gets it accepted.
I don't understand why you should try few more time to submit an image on a subject which is sufficiently covered on SS. Actually, it seems like you have copied the concept from already existing photos on SS.
Actually, it's not original to SS. That concept has been around long before SS. It could even be considered 'classic'.
-
Which prompts me to try re-submitted the images few more times and see if another reviewer gets it accepted.
I don't understand why you should try few more time to submit an image on a subject which is sufficiently covered on SS. Actually, it seems like you have copied the concept from already existing photos on SS.
Actually, it's not original to SS. That concept has been around long before SS. It could even be considered 'classic'.
Yes this concept was beaten to death by N.Y photographers like Mitchell-Funk, Burt-Glinn and many more. That was back in 1985
-
What's up with all the edited out license plates in editorial files?
-
Can you provide some examples? Some links to so called similar photos....
You don't read carefully, as I included the links in my earlier post in this thread above. But I don't mind providing them again for your convenience:
Here ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-163284611/stock-photo-new-york-city-ny-oct-yellow-cab-at-times-square-on-october-in-new-york-city-ny-it.html?src=85gkNE9MN5P1dtACTpyFaw-1-32[/url]) or here ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-10280134/stock-photo-new-york-city-times-square.html?src=85gkNE9MN5P1dtACTpyFaw-1-25[/url])or here ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-58167553/stock-photo-photo-new-york-city-taxi-blur-focus-motion-times-square.html?src=277Q18C4q5lGu18pP7CYeg-2-24[/url])...
All are editorial, and all in exactly the same technique as my photos, being nevertheless rejected recently.
Review mistake they should have been rejected.
-
Review mistake they should have been rejected.
As a newbie, I learn and double-check by searching examples of what is accepted and what is not. When I see multiple instances of a type/genre that I shot myself and would like to post being accepted, I take it as a rule. Especially at a stock like SS where acceptance rates are generally very low, compared to others.
Now it's more clear. Thanks to all reasonable responses.
(And I still can't get why so many people around are morrons and have to be rude).
-
There are some people in this world who hate to hear honest opinions which can be harsh sometimes. People tend to get relieved more and more by fake and fancy words. New generation!
-
There are so people in this world who hate to hear honest opinions which can be harsh sometimes. People tend to get relieved more and more by fake and fancy words. New generation!
Does that include calling people rude and morons, for answering with the truth?
http://support.shutterstock.com/contributor/articles/kbat02/000006656 (http://support.shutterstock.com/contributor/articles/kbat02/000006656)
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/announcing-shutterstocks-new-editorial-guidelines (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/announcing-shutterstocks-new-editorial-guidelines)
Minor edits, such as cropping the image or adjusting the lighting would be acceptable.
Wording of rejection reason that might apply.
"Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable."
A reviewer can make a mistake rejecting a photo or can make a mistake accepting it too. People here know that there are many photos for sale that wouldn't and shouldn't have passed review. Some have things in them that are not allowed. I have photos that are unacceptable with the new rules, but they are still for sale and do get downlods.
Finding examples of a photo does not mean proof that they are allowed.
-
I thought cropping is allowed for editorial.
-
I thought cropping is allowed for editorial.
Yes that what it says above but NOT removing objects
-
A ok, thanks. I misread it.
-
Does that include calling people rude and morons, for answering with the truth?
Minor edits, such as cropping the image or adjusting the lighting would be acceptable.
Wording of rejection reason that might apply.
"Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable."
Finding examples of a photo does not mean proof that they are allowed.
First, my personal comment wasn't addressed to you by any means, as your responses were in fact more straight to the point rather than abusing. But that's not the topic.
From all your comments I now do understand that presence of examples in SS database is not a proof that certain images are allowed. However, since the official rules and guidelines don't explicitly talk about partial desaturation, my confusion still exists as to "color adjustments" mentioned among the allowed alterations to any image, irrespective of its genre. In my view, "color adjustment" is precisely what is partial desaturation of an image is. And although, as mentioned above, I do now see that editorials are not allowed to alter the color in any specific way except for total desaturation (b&w) or full color, I still find the reasoning confusing, which perhaps needs to be addressed at least somewhere. My confusion and experience with rejection is a good example of what other new contributors might experience in the future, don't you think so?
-
Does that include calling people rude and morons, for answering with the truth?
Minor edits, such as cropping the image or adjusting the lighting would be acceptable.
Wording of rejection reason that might apply.
"Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable."
Finding examples of a photo does not mean proof that they are allowed.
First, my personal comment wasn't addressed to you by any means, as your responses were in fact more straight to the point rather than abusing. But that's not the topic.
From all your comments I now do understand that presence of examples in SS database is not a proof that certain images are allowed. However, since the official rules and guidelines don't explicitly talk about partial desaturation, my confusion still exists as to "color adjustments" mentioned among the allowed alterations to any image, irrespective of its genre. In my view, "color adjustment" is precisely what is partial desaturation of an image is. And although, as mentioned above, I do now see that editorials are not allowed to alter the color in any specific way except for total desaturation (b&w) or full color, I still find the reasoning confusing, which perhaps needs to be addressed at least somewhere. My confusion and experience with rejection is a good example of what other new contributors might experience in the future, don't you think so?
I'd say yes and just like reviews, there are glaring inconsistancies. Unlike life, we can't use the past as a way to learn or predict the future. Not with anything microstock.