Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else? (Read 246589 times)

Pauws99 · « **Reply #675 on:** April 27, 2015, 00:46 »

When I started getting rejections for noise for the first time I realised something was not quite right!

50% · « **Reply #676 on:** April 27, 2015, 02:01 »

It's so obvious that it is an algorithm that now mostly reviews our photos. It's crazy to do it this way after all good photos transfer feelings and emotions and can't be judged by a machine. It is all about greed even fishheads are now too expensive for them to pay reasonable good reviewers. People should stop to think that SS is a photographer friendly agency they are quite the opposite.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #677 on:** April 27, 2015, 02:04 »

Profit/greed is a nasty filthy thing. We all love having money but it brings the worst out of people and companies. 3 letters that will change everything. I P O

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #678 on:** April 27, 2015, 02:05 »

Mantis · « **Reply #679 on:** April 27, 2015, 07:59 »

Quote from: 50% on April 27, 2015, 02:01

It's so obvious that it is an algorithm that now mostly reviews our photos. It's crazy to do it this way after all good photos transfer feelings and emotions and can't be judged by a machine. It is all about greed even fishheads are now too expensive for them to pay reasonable good reviewers. People should stop to think that SS is a photographer friendly agency they are quite the opposite.

As my post stated earlier in this thread, I agree with you. Something new has been introduced and they are MUM about it. Quite amazing that SS takes the low road, really.

gbalex · « **Reply #680 on:** April 27, 2015, 09:19 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 27, 2015, 02:04

Profit/greed is a nasty filthy thing. We all love having money but it brings the worst out of people and companies. 3 letters that will change everything. I P O

I quit keeping track months ago but at that time the key players excluding Jon have granted themselves 16,356,140 shares of SSTK stock at a cost to themselves of $0.

If they disposed of it at an average share price of $70 that would amount to $1,144,929,800

The last thing on their minds is the welfare of contributors, their biggest concern is driving stock prices up, as they are in this for the short term.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #681 on:** April 27, 2015, 16:01 »

Quote from: gbalex on April 27, 2015, 09:19

The last thing on their minds is the welfare of contributors, their biggest concern is driving stock prices up, as they are in this for the short term.

most definite and correctly said. ss stocks is anything but blue chip stocks, no one is in for a long term it's like penny stocks. it's just a grab and go . i would not keep ss stocks for long either ...
it's not even like bri-x and look where it left us ..

Red Dove · « **Reply #682 on:** April 28, 2015, 05:22 »

This is a new one - for me anyway:

Foreign Text -- An English translation is required for non-English text that appears in an image. Please provide translations in the title field. Note that images with large amounts of foreign text cannot be accepted.

I don't speak or read Chinese so I'm fracked on my Chinatown editorial images....Not that it matters since they also clobbered me with composition and trademark....I'm fully confident I will achieve a full house of rejections for one image in the very near future.

Mantis · « **Reply #683 on:** April 28, 2015, 07:14 »

Quote from: Red Dove on April 28, 2015, 05:22

This is a new one - for me anyway:

Foreign Text -- An English translation is required for non-English text that appears in an image. Please provide translations in the title field. Note that images with large amounts of foreign text cannot be accepted.

I don't speak or read Chinese so I'm fracked on my Chinatown editorial images....Not that it matters since they also clobbered me with composition and trademark....I'm fully confident I will achieve a full house of rejections for one image in the very near future.

I've had a few of those, too. I would just resubmit with a note...in the old days. Now you can't write a note. Not trying to hijack this thread but I am more and more convinced that Scott left Shutterstock because he knew what was coming and wanted no part of it. If that's true, pure class & integrity on his part.

gbalex · « **Reply #684 on:** April 28, 2015, 08:38 »

Quote from: Mantis on April 28, 2015, 07:14

Quote from: Red Dove on April 28, 2015, 05:22
This is a new one - for me anyway:

Foreign Text -- An English translation is required for non-English text that appears in an image. Please provide translations in the title field. Note that images with large amounts of foreign text cannot be accepted.

I don't speak or read Chinese so I'm fracked on my Chinatown editorial images....Not that it matters since they also clobbered me with composition and trademark....I'm fully confident I will achieve a full house of rejections for one image in the very near future.

I've had a few of those, too. I would just resubmit with a note...in the old days. Now you can't write a note. Not trying to hijack this thread but I am more and more convinced that Scott left Shutterstock because he knew what was coming and wanted no part of it. If that's true, pure class & integrity on his part.

I have been thinking the same thing. At least he attempted to communicate with us. I used to feel sorry for him, as I had the distinct feeling his hands were tied in regard to what he could do for us.

Red Dove · « **Reply #685 on:** April 28, 2015, 08:42 »

Some of the companies I worked for came up from nothing to be global powers and on the way turned very inward-looking...sitting around tables discussing the value of values or mission statements a five year old could have put together with crayons. Suppliers and customers banging on the front door of the glass fortress are at best an inconvenience and at worst, rabble to be removed by security or fobbed off with a PR sheet full of marketing claptrap and a phone number for Customer Services in Azerbaijan (apologies to the fine people of that country)

This sketch is painfully accurate in my experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUK-w_xbrTg

sunlover · « **Reply #686 on:** April 28, 2015, 15:07 »

This is a real puzzler. I submitted a clear blue sky image. No clouds, No tone variation, sunny, daytime.
It gets rejected for noise, white balance and cropping.

?

ravens · « **Reply #687 on:** April 28, 2015, 15:13 »

Who is this sour face SS reviewer? I just got ALL my photos back rejected with "incorrect white balance".
Nothing wrong with them, just more work to fix them and resubmit. They won't look better with changes anyway. Who is this idiot?

ultimagina · « **Reply #688 on:** April 28, 2015, 17:00 »

Quote from: sunlover on April 28, 2015, 15:07

This is a real puzzler. I submitted a clear blue sky image. No clouds, No tone variation, sunny, daytime.
It gets rejected for noise, white balance and cropping. ?

And who do you think would buy a photo that could be easily be taken by a 3 years old?

sunlover · « **Reply #689 on:** April 28, 2015, 17:14 »

Apparently you haven't done your homework on what does sell. Take some time and search any agency for "solid color blue background" view the results and then come back with a constructive response. BTW what does it matter the age of the photographer besides the legality of entering into a contract?

Your response was unappreciated.

Batman · « **Reply #690 on:** April 28, 2015, 17:30 »

Review team is now hired offshore, many barly speak or understand English. Mine isn't so good either, but I can see the team is out of control. SS is losing the connection to realty.

I sent email to support for a rejection for, "Overuse--Image has excessive noise reduction and/or excessive sharpening effects applied."
I wrote them I used no effects or sharpening the picture was right from phone to SS using their app. Here is the answer.

"Thank you for contacting us.

Photos that are submitted to Shutterstock must be of professional quality. We accept photo submissions in jpeg and tiff format, but strongly recommend you to upload only in jpeg format because all images are automatically converted to jpeg upon submission. The images what you shoot with phone has to meet the same requirements as the images shot by cameras.
Please check your images at 100% for focus and noise issue before submission.
You may edit the images in post production, such as (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.) if it is necessary.

Best regards,
Contributor Support
Shutterstock
Visit our support center: http://support.shutterstock.com/contributor"

Not a answer to the question, just some rubbish and program sentences. Not rejected for noise or focus, I uploaded a jpg. Read the part about photos what I shoot with a phone? Appeal review is not who it was before, not in New York. No control over reviewers and SS doesn't care.

Batman · « **Reply #691 on:** April 28, 2015, 17:34 »

Quote from: gbalex on April 27, 2015, 09:19

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 27, 2015, 02:04
Profit/greed is a nasty filthy thing. We all love having money but it brings the worst out of people and companies. 3 letters that will change everything. I P O

I quit keeping track months ago but at that time the key players excluding Jon have granted themselves 16,356,140 shares of SSTK stock at a cost to themselves of $0.

If they disposed of it at an average share price of $70 that would amount to $1,144,929,800

The last thing on their minds is the welfare of contributors, their biggest concern is driving stock prices up, as they are in this for the short term.

You mean jon can just print all the stock for his own, give to himself, and make money, no limit to the amount. Isn't there some regulation against this?

dirkr · « **Reply #692 on:** April 28, 2015, 17:47 »

Quote from: Batman on April 28, 2015, 17:30

I sent email to support for a rejection for, "Overuse--Image has excessive noise reduction and/or excessive sharpening effects applied."
I wrote them I used no effects or sharpening the picture was right from phone to SS using their app. Here is the answer.

Do you know what the software in your phone does to the image? Have you checked it at 100%?

You have no control over the (automatic) image processing your phone does, that may well look like oversharpened (or excessive noise reduction) to a reviewer.

marthamarks · « **Reply #693 on:** April 28, 2015, 22:19 »

Quote from: sunlover on April 28, 2015, 15:07

This is a real puzzler. I submitted a clear blue sky image. No clouds, No tone variation, sunny, daytime.
It gets rejected for noise, white balance and cropping. ?

I can (maybe) see objections to noise and wb, but… cropping? LOL!!!

Is there a "correct" and an "incorrect" way to crop the sky?

marthamarks · « **Reply #694 on:** April 28, 2015, 22:30 »

Quote from: Batman on April 28, 2015, 17:30

The images what you shoot with phone has to meet the same requirements as the images shot by cameras.

Sounds like it's not just the reviewers who are not native English speakers but also the folks who write communications for SS.

That sentence Batman quoted is so bad it's laughable. If it reflects the quality standard that SS aspires to these days, no wonder so many contributors are getting disgusted.

I'm just wrapping up a photo trip of almost three weeks. Over that time, I've submitted images to SS that are every bit as good as what used to get me 85-90% acceptance. But now it's very different. I've had entire batches rejected over the last 1-2 weeks, with almost no acceptances in between them, and that never happened to me before. Never.

Rinderart · « **Reply #695 on:** April 28, 2015, 23:44 »

Quote from: Mantis on April 28, 2015, 07:14

Quote from: Red Dove on April 28, 2015, 05:22
This is a new one - for me anyway:

Foreign Text -- An English translation is required for non-English text that appears in an image. Please provide translations in the title field. Note that images with large amounts of foreign text cannot be accepted.

I don't speak or read Chinese so I'm fracked on my Chinatown editorial images....Not that it matters since they also clobbered me with composition and trademark....I'm fully confident I will achieve a full house of rejections for one image in the very near future.

I've had a few of those, too. I would just resubmit with a note...in the old days. Now you can't write a note. Not trying to hijack this thread but I am more and more convinced that Scott left Shutterstock because he knew what was coming and wanted no part of it. If that's true, pure class & integrity on his part.

I couldn't agree more.

fotografer · « **Reply #696 on:** April 29, 2015, 01:38 »

I've just had half and half rejections from a batch because of lighting when the lighting is exactly the same in every photo. I'll just leave it a few weeks and put them up with another batch.

ultimagina · « **Reply #697 on:** April 29, 2015, 12:49 »

Quote from: sunlover on April 28, 2015, 17:14

Apparently you haven't done your homework on what does sell. Take some time and search any agency for "solid color blue background" view the results and then come back with a constructive response. BTW what does it matter the age of the photographer besides the legality of entering into a contract?

Your response was unappreciated.

I understand that these bogus rejection reasons are frustrating, but don't get suprised to see your plain blue sky rejected since it only clutters the servers and the search algorithms with the most trivial shot you can imagine. Do something more creative that can really stand out. Free advice. You are welcome.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #698 on:** April 29, 2015, 14:53 »

Quote from: sunlover on April 28, 2015, 15:07

This is a real puzzler. I submitted a clear blue sky image. No clouds, No tone variation, sunny, daytime.
It gets rejected for noise, white balance and cropping. ?

Try to put a little fluffy cloud in the left upper corner, and resubmit.

BigLeague · « **Reply #699 on:** April 29, 2015, 15:54 »

Got an image rejected as it wasnt marked as 'illustration'
Possibly fair point as it was heavily manipulated photographic image.

Checked with SS support and yes should have been 'illustration' (even though similar images have been accepted as non illustration for years)

So resubmitted as illustration, and guess what, rejected as incorrectly submitted as illustration!!

How are we supposed to get it right when support and reviewers cant even agree!!
(copied from SS boards)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else? (Read 246589 times)

Pauws99

50%

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

Mantis

gbalex

etudiante_rapide

Red Dove

Mantis

gbalex

Red Dove

sunlover

ravens

ultimagina

sunlover

Batman

Batman

dirkr

marthamarks

marthamarks

Rinderart

fotografer

ultimagina

LesPalenik

BigLeague

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors