My approval rate for photos on SS is close to 100% these days.  Since I upgraded my camera to Canon 1DC, approval rate went up.  Also, I made technical improvement as well.  Flotilla reject many more photos than SS these days for a reason of similar photos.

Lol. Pigeons.
Once from me they requested a model release for an image of a saint on editorial photo of medieval vitrage

Lol. Pigeons.
Once from me they requested a model release for an image of a saint on editorial photo of medieval vitrage

what they actually wanted was a property release for an interior shot -- some reviewers seem to ignore that the image was submitted as editorial

Quote from: heywoody on May 17, 2014, 15:51

SS are now just a bit more picky than the others and can afford to be

That's a part of it, but not all of it.

They've certainly upped their standards, but there are enough totally idiotic rejections - such as wrong white balance for pre-sunrise/sunrise/sunset images - that aren't borne out by sales if you talk them into accepting the image.

One just broke my top 50 list and they rejected that (Jan 2013) for incorrect white balance until I resubmitted with a note that the light is that color at that time of day.

I believed the automation theory in the first place - not that they don't have human inspectors but that there is some type of pre-screening (and I'm fairly sure one of their early earnings calls made some reference to automation of the review process).

Those defending inconsistent and weird reviews seem to forget about all the stuff that still goes in on a daily basis. The marihuana port to name one but there's plenty more, even from established contributors. Some people like to upload low quality just because they can meanwhile other are fighting to get their high quality work online.
I feel it has nothing to do with standards but more of favouring, insiders trying to bump their friends and family, reviewers letting crap they know won't sell in but rejecting work that is in competition with their own or friends/family. Maybe they try to meet their quota by accepting/rejecting large batches.
If the standards were up it would show in newest images because they would all (at least almost because one or two reviewers might be off) be of highest quality.

How many days it takes usually for SS to reply on my complain send because of rejection?

I had 3 photos of my model isolated on white rejected for intellectual property.

Depends, some never get a reply. I used to get one usually the next day but nowadays they answer whenever they feel like it which is becoming rare. I'm not talking just reviews but everything contributor related. A few good people have left support and the new guys couldn't care less about us.

Eh ...nothing can beat this one guys 
Rejection reason: "...because we couldn't vet your profile"

CherryMusic 22 Jun 2015 21:16
Hello. Is that a normal rejection reason? I mean i'm totally dissapointed of Pond5's communication. Here's the story.

I never been asked to upload an ID or do anything regarding verifying my profile. Now i got a rejection of my last series and i decided to write to a currator. As i submit music to other platforms as well, i know that some stock sites has an option to ask for a second review. So i asked currator if i can get a second review. Then after two emails talking with the currator i got a message from him that my tracks were likely rejected (quote): "because we couldn't vet your profile". What the.. Why do i hear it for the first time and from a currator and after two emails and after i wrote to hime myself first??? Is it a normal communication of Poin5? Shouldn't pond ask for a verification in a normal way? Now after i write to a currator, i finally hear that i need to send him my ID? Is it safe to send my ID scan to a person? Wouldn't that be normal to have an upload form?

All in all, i feel very dissapointed. Almost 200 tracks here on Pond5 already, and all this situation is now so dissrespectful..

http://www.pond5.com/community?forum=8750973&thread=44841443&lp=1

and more...
http://www.pond5.com/community?forum=622&thread=45112740&lp=1

Quote from: KnowYourOnions on July 10, 2015, 09:57

Eh ...nothing can beat this one guys 
Rejection reason: "...because we couldn't vet your profile"

CherryMusic 22 Jun 2015 21:16
Hello. Is that a normal rejection reason? I mean i'm totally dissapointed of Pond5's communication. Here's the story.

I never been asked to upload an ID or do anything regarding verifying my profile. Now i got a rejection of my last series and i decided to write to a currator. As i submit music to other platforms as well, i know that some stock sites has an option to ask for a second review. So i asked currator if i can get a second review. Then after two emails talking with the currator i got a message from him that my tracks were likely rejected (quote): "because we couldn't vet your profile". What the.. Why do i hear it for the first time and from a currator and after two emails and after i wrote to hime myself first??? Is it a normal communication of Poin5? Shouldn't pond ask for a verification in a normal way? Now after i write to a currator, i finally hear that i need to send him my ID? Is it safe to send my ID scan to a person? Wouldn't that be normal to have an upload form?

All in all, i feel very dissapointed. Almost 200 tracks here on Pond5 already, and all this situation is now so dissrespectful..

http://www.pond5.com/community?forum=8750973&thread=44841443&lp=1

and more...
http://www.pond5.com/community?forum=622&thread=45112740&lp=1

Wrong thread, I guess.

Well...Alamy was discussed earlier on this thread too, so I though to add my fav too. :-)

Now Shutterstock reviews are taking 4+ days and the rejections even worse. These incompetent reviewers are wasting way too much of everyone's time and I just can't wrap my head around why SS management thinks it cost effective and efficient to make us submit over and over and contact them and resubmit again and again. Completely mind boggling and incredibly disrespectful to those of us making them their money. Going to start contributing to more of their competitors if for no other reason than to spite them and contribute to weakening their virtual monopoly, they're getting cocky.

I don't even think management is aware of what goes on most of the time (not just on SS)
It's probably not the agency's management at fault here, as long as the money is raking in they're happy. It's those in between trying to mess with our progress/exposure/sales. What makes you think when you contact support those aren't the same people trying to block your progress? do they even care? why should they care?
But in the end this is nothing new and will never change. Impossible for management to keep track of what all their staff is doing.
What I wonder though is if the top guys knew would they even care to do something about it? or just continue letting their staff use any means possible to keep their bottom up? even if that means leaving a lot of money on the table by letting them boost their friends and family or whomever they seem to favour that day by manipulating reviews and exposure (search) instead of promoting the better selling contributors that are competing with them and make more money.

 

Quote from: Daryl Ray on July 12, 2015, 18:22

Now Shutterstock reviews are taking 4+ days and the rejections even worse. These incompetent reviewers are wasting way too much of everyone's time and I just can't wrap my head around why SS management thinks it cost effective and efficient to make us submit over and over and contact them and resubmit again and again. Completely mind boggling and incredibly disrespectful to those of us making them their money. Going to start contributing to more of their competitors if for no other reason than to spite them and contribute to weakening their virtual monopoly, they're getting cocky.

I don't even think management is aware of what goes on most of the time (not just on SS)
It's probably not the agency's management at fault here, as long as the money is raking in they're happy. It's those in between trying to mess with our progress/exposure/sales. What makes you think when you contact support those aren't the same people trying to block your progress? do they even care? why should they care?
But in the end this is nothing new and will never change. Impossible for management to keep track of what all their staff is doing.
What I wonder though is if the top guys knew would they even care to do something about it? or just continue letting their staff use any means possible to keep their bottom up? even if that means leaving a lot of money on the table by letting them boost their friends and family or whomever they seem to favour that day by manipulating reviews and exposure (search) instead of promoting the better selling contributors that are competing with them and make more money.

 

There are all signs of what you described.

New member on the board so interested in any advice or experiences in this area.

I tried submitting my initial 10 images to SS. Three were accepted and six were rejected for not having property releases. They do not require property releases (for many years it was my job to know about such IP issues) and they are all images I have for sale on other agency sites.

Of course getting rejectons for ridiculous reasons from time to time happens with all agencies but I wondered if this a general thing with SS? Given that the largest part of my work consists of architectural images there would be little point in me submitting ten candles or bowls of cherries to get in only to have next to nothing accepted thereafter.

Image / SS dictionary

Natural outdoor light - POOR LIGHTNING
Black and white do not clipping - POOR LIGHTING
Right lighted image - EXPOSURE ISSUES
WB (gray card used) - INCORRECT WHITE BALANCE
Natural lightning (not studio lightning) - UNFAVORABLE LIGHTNING CONDITIONS
Model's eyes are in totally sharp in focus - OUT OF FOCUS
ISO 50 - EXCESSIVE NOISE
Sharp lens camera combination - EXCESSIVE NOISE
etc..

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=297546848

ISO 500, f4, 1/125s, 340mm, Nikon d300

It's not about camera settings, it's how your image looks at 100% zoom.