MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: SLStudios on May 16, 2014, 16:58
-
Man, the last two weeks have been rough at SS for me. Everything I have tried to get in my portfolio has been kicked back at me and for stuff I feel like has not changed. Recently I am hearing that my images are out of focus and I know they are not. I check them close at 100% but still they are kicking my butt on this.
Anyone else seeing this? SS is the only place I have sold much lately so it is discouraging, to say the least.
-
Yep, got slammed today (67% failed) for noise. Let's see I took them on a tripod using ISO 100 with my Canon 1D. Yep, that will for sure produce a ton of noise! When I get rejected I just say, "Whatever" and move on...
-
After a round of what I considered unreasonable reviews a few weeks back (discussed in the downsizing thread) I decided to take a break from uploading there for a while. I'll resume when my tolerance for the rollercoaster is higher. One could get whiplash from the lurch from 100% acceptance a lot of the time to 100% rejection now and then.
-
Well, it is at least comforting to know it isn't just me. I was starting to think I forgot how to use my camera while I was sleeping or something.
Thanks for the replies......
-
its really a crapshoot these days
-
same :/ i created a ticket.
noise - there was none
focus - with one object on the picture in focus
etc. looks like the work has been outsourced to totally different people.... :(?
sad
-
Last batch got rejected for: At this time, we are not accepting images that contain large amounts of foreign text.
Not sure how to translate buildings outside English speaking countries to English and also how does a customer ever find it if not using the original name. Like Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore has to be basilica of Saint Mary Major? Yeah kudos to the customer who comes up with that while searching for it.
I'm also taking a break from uploading to SS, not worth the effort if everything gets rejected for some bs reason.
-
just got a review with my images only in there for 5 hours- 100% passed thus time to submit your images... 8)
-
I never had a reviewer beat me up.... yet 8)
(I did get my fair share of rejections)
-
Same here today 100% rejected, focus issue.. and they are not!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
It does seem like if you use any selective focus or shallow DOF, they are kicking those back as "focus not appropriate" or out of focus. I do like a shallower DOF but just as a test I sent some in that were shot at f/11 with everything in the image in focus and they booted those too. Yup, for focus. Lol.
-
Same here today 100% rejected, focus issue.. and they are not!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
frustrating isn't it? I just got new glasses so they can't tell me I can't see. Lol
-
It's not just a SS thing. Pretty much all the microstocks seem totally averse to picture elements that make an image interesting. The "golden hour" that photographers love around sunset/sunrise will result in a lower color temp than the reviewers can tolerate. Wrong white balance. Cross lighting or back lighting to show modeling or drama. No. Exposure issues. Full frontal lighting, flattening the subject and reducing tonal values. Oh yes! Scans of 70-year-old negs that would be of great interest to some buyers are out because of (horrors!) film grain or artifacts. And inconsistencies in editorial policies? Don't get me started.
So SS has their product: 35 million bright vacuous happy isolations on white.
Thanks. I feel better.
-
From the beginning of the month I have uploaded about 250 photos.
I have got three rejected.
Two of these have been accepted then, after that I corrected some little issues.
Some time ago I had many inconsistent rejections for images of the same quality standard.
As I have already written, I think that sometime the inspection is a kind of lottery (except that you never win millions).
-
So SS has their product: 35 million bright vacuous happy isolations on white.
No, this is Fotolia.
With the difference that they have only 28 million of isolations on white.
… Sorry 26
hmm sorry again 24
Ooop 20 now…
O_o
-
I'm new to SS, so I'm not yet familiar with the reviews. However, I just had a batch refused yesterday all for noise. :-\
-
I've posted in the past about my belief that SS has partially automated their reviewing and that these crazy rejections are the result of software algorithms that are supposed to evaluate focus and noise but aren't really all that sophisticated. Is anyone ready to believe me yet?
-
I had a batch 90% rejected last week after an almost perfect acceptance record. What was odd was that they were from a shoot where I've had everything accepted both before and since, and the editing was the same in both accepted and rejected images. The subjects were both Indian, and the only difference I can see was that they were both wearing dark clothing. I guess the combination of dark subjects isolated on white gave one reviewer heartburn.
I contacted Support, who said they thought my subjects were evenly lit. (Yes, I guess even lighting is a problem.) But they said I should resubmit, which I've done. Waiting for the verdict.
Update 5/19: All of my resubmitted images were approved this time around, as were all the others I'd submitted while waiting. Well, not all: some really harshly lit images were rejected, but even a few of those made it through.
-
Lately all I've uploaded to SS have been abstract backgrounds & textures - digitally created from my photos - and they've all passed and some even sold on day 1 so they're in the mix.
The last time I had any rejections it was for unusual stuff like keywording and logos on buildings in a city skyline so I feel your pain...
I've been concentrating more on no-micro stuff but had planned to upload a bunch of photos from Rome and Venice taken with my D70 since they are 6MP and not something I'd be likely to sell much on the macros these days, but now I worry they'll be rejected if the names that anyone - English-speaking or Italian ... or from anywhere else .... would use to find certain landmarks will cause the image to be rejected. I have a few of the photos that I couldn't initially upsize to 50MB for Alamy in the old days on SS and other micros and they sell so it seemed like a good idea.
-
Yeah, me too! 87 of 87 rejected for poor lighting. I have over 2500 accepted images on SS with an approval rating of at least 70%. I usually resubmit the exact same images with a note to the reviewer that says they were previously rejected but I've fixed the images. Works half the time...
-
Now, one thing that has crossed my mind is that I feel it is often a 'soft' let down on the rejections but the main reason I am rejected is that the category is over saturated. Rejections are very subjective to say the least thus if the reviewers are told to be very hard on say 'Flowers' that they will find any reason to reject a technically perfect flower shot by me.
Just my deep thoughts...
-
I am not sure about the automation thing but maybe. All I know is that I can not seem to get a shot in there lately. Sad too. Some of what has been rejected has sold on other agencies so I feel like it might have done well on SS.
I guess I will take a break this week. Maybe I will go ready my camera's operation manual and see what all those buttons and stuff are for. Maybe I turn the wrong dil or hit the wrong button....... ;D
-
Yes! same here and has been like that for some time.
It's hard to understand, but at least if an image is going to be rejected we deserve a proper reason, not ones that are so blatantly wrong!
-
SS are now just a bit more picky than the others and can afford to be - I've had a few over the last year vs none elsewhere and can see why (whether or not I agree)
-
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).
-
...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....
I'd agree with that. Frequently, if left to my own devices, would use a warmer light for stuff like candles, time of day etc but, figuring that would lead to white balance rejection, don't do it to the detriment of of the image and (possibly) sales - course, the poxy isolations sell better than any attempt at being creative anyway so probably makes no difference except that they still get accepted.
-
It seems Shutterstock periodically replace reviewers and every newcomer afflicts contributors for a while during his learning period. I wonder this learning periods costs how much to Shutterstock in total. Yes every undeserved rejection cost more than us to them.
-
...
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).
Go the SEC Filings section of the SS site and pull up Form 424B4 (a prospectus from 2012), search for "review", and you'll find this: "We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."
That document is about 18 months old. I think it's obvious that they've implemented software screens for focus, white balance, noise and "lighting" - that don't work all that well, yet.
-
...
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).
Go the SEC Filings section of the SS site and pull up Form 424B4 (a prospectus from 2012), search for "review", and you'll find this: "We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."
That document is about 18 months old. I think it's obvious that they've implemented software screens for focus, white balance, noise and "lighting" - that don't work all that well, yet.
Good find. That explains some of why the focus rejections are so prevalent. I assume those are automated rejections then and never see the eyes of a reviewer or the reviewer is too cautious not to override that expensive technology, otherwise why would they need it.
-
...
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).
Go the SEC Filings section of the SS site and pull up Form 424B4 (a prospectus from 2012), search for "review", and you'll find this: "We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."
That document is about 18 months old. I think it's obvious that they've implemented software screens for focus, white balance, noise and "lighting" - that don't work all that well, yet.
Good find. That explains some of why the focus rejections are so prevalent. I assume those are automated rejections then and never see the eyes of a reviewer or the reviewer is too cautious not to override that expensive technology, otherwise why would they need it.
And Ron will tell you no they dont use bots to review in any way, I have brought this up many times over over on the SS forums and Ron always shoots it down, I would post the link addresses but since the search on SS is inop and no longer working it would take to long to do a manual search one by one.
-
I just love the composition rejection ....I dont do big uploads any more because that seems to trigger a 100% rejection.
-
It's not just a SS thing. Pretty much all the microstocks seem totally averse to picture elements that make an image interesting. The "golden hour" that photographers love around sunset/sunrise will result in a lower color temp than the reviewers can tolerate. Wrong white balance. Cross lighting or back lighting to show modeling or drama. No. Exposure issues. Full frontal lighting, flattening the subject and reducing tonal values. Oh yes! Scans of 70-year-old negs that would be of great interest to some buyers are out because of (horrors!) film grain or artifacts. And inconsistencies in editorial policies? Don't get me started.
So SS has their product: 35 million bright vacuous happy isolations on white.
Thanks. I feel better.
well that's their "style". Stocksy has a style, and it's all the stuff you mentioned before, even the grain is ok. I have been about 50/50 at SS of late, but i'm shooting for stocksy first and foremost nowadays, so it's little wonder they don't like the few I offer them. I did have one out of a batch rejected for "noise", even though all the others shot under identical conditions got through. *shrug* that's why we submit to more than one agency. Rejections suck, but they are part of the game.
-
...
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).
Go the SEC Filings section of the SS site and pull up Form 424B4 (a prospectus from 2012), search for "review", and you'll find this: "We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."
That document is about 18 months old. I think it's obvious that they've implemented software screens for focus, white balance, noise and "lighting" - that don't work all that well, yet.
Good find. That explains some of why the focus rejections are so prevalent. I assume those are automated rejections then and never see the eyes of a reviewer or the reviewer is too cautious not to override that expensive technology, otherwise why would they need it.
And Ron will tell you no they dont use bots to review in any way, I have brought this up many times over over on the SS forums and Ron always shoots it down, I would post the link addresses but since the search on SS is inop and no longer working it would take to long to do a manual search one by one.
I spoke to SS about this and I am just forwarding on what they told me. I am not shooting anything down, I am just sharing what I know from SS. You and a few others on SS try to gag me every time I dont agree with what you are saying because it doesnt help your agendas. And when I still dont agree after your bullying I am accused of starting arguments. You and a few other try to get some sort of control of the SS forum and bully anyone into shut up and get with the program. I assume you know by now I dont work like that.
Now you can run off to SS forum and spread the word that I attacked you on MSG, as you always do. Forgetting its just another reply where you dragged me into a discussion I had nothing to do with in the first place.
I apologise for the off topic. Carry on.
-
How does this explain bots being used?
Just as thought it is the weekend!
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues and/or incorrect white balance.
([url]http://picdn.net/shutterstock/pending_photos/242950886/thumb.jpg[/url])
Now it has gone from WB to.
Focus--Image is not in focus or the focal point is not appropriate for the composition.
([url]http://picdn.net/shutterstock/pending_photos/243537083/thumb.jpg[/url])
We are lacking in consistency somehow?
If technology is used, it wont be inconsistent on the same image. It would have the same result over and over. But human interference would make something inconsistent.
-
How does this explain bots being used?
Just as thought it is the weekend!
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues and/or incorrect white balance.
([url]http://picdn.net/shutterstock/pending_photos/242950886/thumb.jpg[/url])
Now it has gone from WB to.
Focus--Image is not in focus or the focal point is not appropriate for the composition.
([url]http://picdn.net/shutterstock/pending_photos/243537083/thumb.jpg[/url])
We are lacking in consistency somehow?
If technology is used, it wont be inconsistent on the same image. It would have the same result over and over. But human interference would make something inconsistent.
As I remember, in the interview that you have had with them some months ago they clearly told you that they use some automatic system to make a pre-review of the images.
From your thread
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/my-meeting-with-shutterstock/msg352498/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/my-meeting-with-shutterstock/msg352498/)
"Reviews:
Not much to say, I asked if they use technology to review the images, yes they do, but a human makes the decision. "
-
Yes, I have also explained how they use technology. I have no idea where that quote is, its somewhere on a forum. I think even Scott came in here and explained it.
They open the image automatically for the reviewer at 100% on the screen. To speed things up. The reviewer still makes the decision. How do you explain inconsistency on the same image, if it was 100% automated? Technology is not ambiguous.
-
Yes, I have also explained how they use technology. I have no idea where that quote is, its somewhere on a forum. I think even Scott came in here and explained it.
They open the image automatically for the reviewer at 100% on the screen. To speed things up. The reviewer still makes the decision. How do you explain inconsistency on the same image, if it was 100% automated? Technology is not ambiguous.
Probably the system proposes to the inspector some possible "verdicts" and the inspector, hurry to reach his quota of reviewed images for the day, to then go to smoke cigarettes and drink beers with his unemployed friends, pushes hastily one of buttons correspondent to the various rejection reasons offered by the system…
(Or do they just use blind people as inspectors??)
-
No rejections here. Well, a couple for model releases and 3d stuff.
-
Yes, I have also explained how they use technology. I have no idea where that quote is, its somewhere on a forum. I think even Scott came in here and explained it.
They open the image automatically for the reviewer at 100% on the screen. To speed things up. The reviewer still makes the decision. How do you explain inconsistency on the same image, if it was 100% automated? Technology is not ambiguous.
Probably the system proposes to the inspector some possible "verdicts" and the inspector, hurry to reach his quota of reviewed images for the day, to then go to smoke cigarettes and drink beers with his unemployed friends, pushes hastily one of buttons correspondent to the various rejection reasons offered by the system…
(Or do they just use blind people as inspectors??)
Absolutely no evidence for that. As Ron said, they use technology for workflow, not for decision making and the killer argument is the apparently “inconsistent” decisions – software will always produce the same outcome based on the same data.
-
I have always assumed it was people that were at the root of the problem simply because it is so inconsistent. Seriously, if a piece of software was being this erratic, I would scrap it and find a better way.
-
How does this explain bots being used?
Just as thought it is the weekend!
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues and/or incorrect white balance.
([url]http://picdn.net/shutterstock/pending_photos/242950886/thumb.jpg[/url])
Now it has gone from WB to.
Focus--Image is not in focus or the focal point is not appropriate for the composition.
([url]http://picdn.net/shutterstock/pending_photos/243537083/thumb.jpg[/url])
We are lacking in consistency somehow?
If technology is used, it wont be inconsistent on the same image. It would have the same result over and over. But human interference would make something inconsistent.
Depends on what the gage R&R study variance is. You are assuming that it performs the same way each time on the same photo (and it should by the way) but we simply do not know for sure without running some statistical testing. And that ain't gonna happen. We also don't know if 100% of images go through this test (assuming they are still using that proprietary software). Basically, lot's of unknowns. Maybe they tried it and decided to kill the system, who knows. I do still get weird rejections there and if I submit for a re-review they almost always get through, which makes me suspect that an upstream filter is being used such as software, but I have no clue really.......and I don't think anyone in this forum really knows for sure. Your conversations with SS may be accurate and they may have indeed killed the technology or just don't want that cat out of the bag.
-
Yes, I have also explained how they use technology. I have no idea where that quote is, its somewhere on a forum. I think even Scott came in here and explained it.
They open the image automatically for the reviewer at 100% on the screen. To speed things up. The reviewer still makes the decision. How do you explain inconsistency on the same image, if it was 100% automated? Technology is not ambiguous.
Probably the system proposes to the inspector some possible "verdicts" and the inspector, hurry to reach his quota of reviewed images for the day, to then go to smoke cigarettes and drink beers with his unemployed friends, pushes hastily one of buttons correspondent to the various rejection reasons offered by the system…
(Or do they just use blind people as inspectors??)
Absolutely no evidence for that. As Ron said, they use technology for workflow, not for decision making and the killer argument is the apparently “inconsistent” decisions – software will always produce the same outcome based on the same data.
Yes the software will always produce the same outcome based on the same data.
But we don't know what is the response given by the software after having analyzed and image.
Does the software give only one answer, or different possibilities that the inspector should chose then?
If the software gives a choice of different causes for a rejection, letting the task of a definitive choice to the inspector it is possible that the inspector, in the hurry, choses the wrong answer.
What I mean is that software system or not software system it looks enough obvious that some inspectors do not do their job correctly.
I don't know what are the reasons for this (I can only make suppositions).
One can be a lack of experience or training, because they are new to the job;
The other could be a hurry to finish their daily quota of images to review (if they have one - but in fact I don't know if they work with quotas).
-
I agree nobody knows, but some people are all to sure about it, like Ruxperiencediam
-
I agree nobody knows, but some people are all to sure about it, like Ruxperiencediam
Yea I hear you.
-
I think we can assume that any software used for screening on things like noise, focus and lighting is perpetually 'in development' and is being frequently changed, tweaked and tuned. As thousands of images are coming in every day, the result of a small change could be major whiplash for some contributors. The next day might be different.
Obviously we'll never know the details - SS only said enough to impress prospective investors. As far as I know, no one representing SS has ever - in response to a question - explicitly denied the use of software screening. I think I recall a couple of statements that sort of danced around the subject.
-
No rejections here. Well, a couple for model releases and 3d stuff.
I have also wondered if we all get the same reviewers or if the higher earners get the more experienced reviewers. I know if I was designing the system this is something I would build in....
-
I thought the automation was about making sure the image met the minimum file size and things of that nature. .
-
File size too low is rejected up front. Those images wont make it to the editor. But I understand what you are saying.
-
I am guessing that any auto screening lists potential problems for the reviewer who can choose between them. Lazy reviewers just pick on and reject. I am also guessing that they are constantly tweaking the algorithms as well as possibly changing the thresholds based on keywords (maybe harsher on flowers and cats say).
How sweet would it be if they rejected for focus or shadows and light - and sent it straight to offset.
-
Had a bunch of editorials rejected for "credentials required". I included a note that the event was public and credentials were not provided but they still rejected the images. It's not worth fighting them about. My other sites that take editorials took them all.
I hate this "credentials required" rule they have now. I've done well in the past with editorials shot at public events. Now it's almost impossible to get them accepted unless it's something obvious like a parade.
-
Well if it's any consolation used to get tons of rejections but they are falling off these days purely because:
A. I custom white balance each shooting session.
B. Manual focus everything (auto is just too inaccurate)
C. Blown highlights are avoided as are clipped blacks so hand held metering for everything.
D. Shoot everything on a tripod at ISO100
E. Most importantly I've done test shots at all apertures on the lens selections I have and found the optimum point for DOF and focus before circle of confusion sets in for each lens.
F. Never bother processing and submitting borderline photos.
G. Proper keywording so none of this keyword spam crapola.
H. A little selective sharpening (30~40% opacity) makes things look clean and clear.
And lo and behold rejections have fallen off and the ones I get I tend to agree with. ;D
I also find small batches submitted often works wonders too.
I tend to wait for batches to get through approval before submitting the next one that way you avoid the scattergun rejection approach some reviewers seem to use. :-\
-
The micro agencies always list reasons for rejection, but they seldom make any sense. More likely they just don't feel the image will be a decent seller or they already have thousands of similar images, and therefore they list one of any number of technical reasons to reject it. That way they're covered.
-
Anyone know if SS sales is partly tied to acceptance rate?
-
Why would any agency punish your sales for the images they accepted?
-
Well if it's any consolation used to get tons of rejections but they are falling off these days purely because:
A. I custom white balance each shooting session.
B. Manual focus everything (auto is just too inaccurate)
C. Blown highlights are avoided as are clipped blacks so hand held metering for everything.
D. Shoot everything on a tripod at ISO100
E. Most importantly I've done test shots at all apertures on the lens selections I have and found the optimum point for DOF and focus before circle of confusion sets in for each lens.
F. Never bother processing and submitting borderline photos.
G. Proper keywording so none of this keyword spam crapola.
H. A little selective sharpening (30~40% opacity) makes things look clean and clear.
And lo and behold rejections have fallen off and the ones I get I tend to agree with. ;D
I also find small batches submitted often works wonders too.
I tend to wait for batches to get through approval before submitting the next one that way you avoid the scattergun rejection approach some reviewers seem to use. :-\
Are you sure that after all this work you're not actually auto-rejecting more than just accepting the occasional random rejections and move on?
-
Had a bunch of editorials rejected for "credentials required". I included a note that the event was public and credentials were not provided but they still rejected the images. It's not worth fighting them about. My other sites that take editorials took them all.
I hate this "credentials required" rule they have now. I've done well in the past with editorials shot at public events. Now it's almost impossible to get them accepted unless it's something obvious like a parade.
I've had this a few times recently as well. However, there was no fight involved - just an email to the submit address referencing the file numbers and explaining that it was a public event with no credentials required (maybe link to a website for the event for added clarity). Shutterstock couldn't have been more helpful with responses within 24hours giving me a reference number to add as a note to re-submits. All then accepted. The alternative, especially if you have a lot of images from an event you think might cause issues, would be to contact Credentials first with the appropiate info and get a "credentials approved" reference before submitting ( I haven't tried this myself).
The problem is, as you said, unless it is something obvious like a public street parade the reviewers have no way of knowing if it is a restricted event requiring credentials or not. Regards, David.
-
Well if it's any consolation used to get tons of rejections but they are falling off these days purely because:
A. I custom white balance each shooting session.
B. Manual focus everything (auto is just too inaccurate)
C. Blown highlights are avoided as are clipped blacks so hand held metering for everything.
D. Shoot everything on a tripod at ISO100
E. Most importantly I've done test shots at all apertures on the lens selections I have and found the optimum point for DOF and focus before circle of confusion sets in for each lens.
F. Never bother processing and submitting borderline photos.
G. Proper keywording so none of this keyword spam crapola.
H. A little selective sharpening (30~40% opacity) makes things look clean and clear.
And lo and behold rejections have fallen off and the ones I get I tend to agree with. ;D
I also find small batches submitted often works wonders too.
I tend to wait for batches to get through approval before submitting the next one that way you avoid the scattergun rejection approach some reviewers seem to use. :-\
About the same here.
Except for your point H.
Mine is: Selective denoising, specially in the darkest zones.
But this does not change the fact that even having close to 90+% of images accepted there is always a moment, completely without any apparent reasons, when the rejections become close to 100%…
o_O
-
15 pages.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130946&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130946&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)
-
Well if it's any consolation used to get tons of rejections but they are falling off these days purely because:
A. I custom white balance each shooting session.
B. Manual focus everything (auto is just too inaccurate)
C. Blown highlights are avoided as are clipped blacks so hand held metering for everything.
D. Shoot everything on a tripod at ISO100
E. Most importantly I've done test shots at all apertures on the lens selections I have and found the optimum point for DOF and focus before circle of confusion sets in for each lens.
F. Never bother processing and submitting borderline photos.
G. Proper keywording so none of this keyword spam crapola.
H. A little selective sharpening (30~40% opacity) makes things look clean and clear.
And lo and behold rejections have fallen off and the ones I get I tend to agree with. ;D
I also find small batches submitted often works wonders too.
I tend to wait for batches to get through approval before submitting the next one that way you avoid the scattergun rejection approach some reviewers seem to use. :-\
Thanks for sharing your workflow here. It could really be helpful to some. Interestingly enough, alot of what you mention, I am already doing. I have even taken to shooting tethered a lot so I can get a good look at each image as it is created.
-
Its a lot of work and worries for 38 cents per image. If any agency demands such quality they should up the royalties.
-
(http://www.rzrforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=82883&d=1378351910)
-
Why would any agency punish your sales for the images they accepted?
Dreamstime reportedly does just that. And I agree that it's a bizarre approach (especially when they used to hand out rejections for including a model release - for things like partial profiles, body parts - which then count against you)
-
([url]http://www.rzrforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=82883&d=1378351910[/url])
I wouldn't post images here under any circumstances. It'd be like being set up in a dunk tank and the proceeds wouldn't be going to charity.
The iStock critique forum was moderated and useful - constructive criticism. I haven't found anything like that anywhere else.
-
Why would any agency punish your sales for the images they accepted?
Dreamstime reportedly does just that. And I agree that it's a bizarre approach (especially when they used to hand out rejections for including a model release - for things like partial profiles, body parts - which then count against you)
Bizarre. So they push you back in the search when you rejections are too high? What is the threshold?
Pffff, I just opened my account there, might as well close it again
-
I wouldn't post images here under any circumstances. It'd be like being set up in a dunk tank and the proceeds wouldn't be going to charity.
The iStock critique forum was moderated and useful - constructive criticism. I haven't found anything like that anywhere else.
I will never ever post an image again (istocks meaning of never) here nor on SS forum. Its like throwing yourself in starving shark infested water, when having bleeding wounds.
-
Sometimes these threads remind me of Kitchen Nightmares or Restaurant Impossible where the chefs don't have any interest in listening to the obvious problems that are pointed out. If something was posted that obviously didn't have the problem listed, I could go "Oh, yeah, they're crazy", which I've done in the past.
-
Sometimes these threads remind me of Kitchen Nightmares or Restaurant Impossible where the chefs don't have any interest in listening to the obvious problems that are pointed out. If something was posted that obviously didn't have the problem listed, I could go "Oh, yeah, they're crazy", which I've done in the past.
its all scripted ;)
-
Don't ruin my tv experience!
-
Its a lot of work and worries for 38 cents per image. If any agency demands such quality they should up the royalties.
A forgone conclusion that should have been addressrf long ago. As long as we put up with it, they will continue to demand more from us without commiserate compensation.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/success-lessons-from-a-marketplace-master-%28jon-oringer%29/125/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/success-lessons-from-a-marketplace-master-%28jon-oringer%29/125/)
My word, this is not about not wanting a raise, this is about a Manhattan office. You say there hasnt been a raise, I say there were plenty.
You are complaining your work isnt valued, but you value your own work when putting it on a sub site. You started out by getting 20 cents, and now you get 25 cents to 120 dollar.
If your work is that good, and high valued, how about applying to OFFSet?
I honestly dont see why you keep bringing it up, YOU devalue your own work.
Give it a rest. Here is Yuris favorite photo in his gallery in 2005. I think the bar has been raised a bit since then and you are talking apples to caviar. The discussion is not even apples to oranges. There is no comparison in the quality of 2005 image standards to those sold today.
Yuri's 2005 response to the question - What's your favorite picture in your gallery?
(http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/files/2700_1129844395_3_169.jpg)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793)
Another example of image quality from one of microstocks most successful contributors at that time
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402)
And here are Yuris 2005 thoughts on SS's new image quality bar.
Snip
This sites image standards has to balance with payout prices for quality pictures.
As it is now, criteria for getting images approved have accelerated to a much stricter level but the payout is the same as before.
Development in picture quality standards should guide payouts pr picture!
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821)
-
They are rejecting 100% of some batches with the reason of Poor Lighting.
Lot of Attila reviewers since I got there last month... they still accept more than Fotolia though.
-
A forgone conclusion that should have been addressrf long ago. As long as we put up with it, they will continue to demand more from us without commiserate compensation.
My god, how do you find the time to produce any images? You seem so busy constantly digging up quotes.
But you misinterpreted my comment. I really cannot be bothered to explain it to you as I am pretty much done with you.
If your big mastermind battle against Shutterstock has come to try and prove me, the amateur / troll, wrong, I feel very, very sorry for you.
-
SS can also help you get credentials through their On the Red Carpet program - the only downside there is you must submit at least 10 images to them that they accept and all your images from that shoot may only be submitted to SS exclusively for 2 years, but as they are most people's top micro seller, that's really not a big issue IMHO.
I generally get credentials when need via various publications I work with, or sometimes simply as a freelancer, but have found that editorial photos do pretty well on SS so I wouldn't be averse to their On the Red Carpet program if you have an event you think will sell and no way to get in. I did it once and it worked out well - the event turned out to be less interesting than anticipated but there are three from the batch that continue to sell well years later and a few have been in books - nothing to do with the event but all as general editorial.
They are definitely very responsive when you contact them about issues and seem eager to help you find a way to get an image accepted when it's a credentialing or similar type of issue.
-
Well if it's any consolation used to get tons of rejections but they are falling off these days purely because:
A. I custom white balance each shooting session.
B. Manual focus everything (auto is just too inaccurate)
C. Blown highlights are avoided as are clipped blacks so hand held metering for everything.
D. Shoot everything on a tripod at ISO100
E. Most importantly I've done test shots at all apertures on the lens selections I have and found the optimum point for DOF and focus before circle of confusion sets in for each lens.
F. Never bother processing and submitting borderline photos.
G. Proper keywording so none of this keyword spam crapola.
H. A little selective sharpening (30~40% opacity) makes things look clean and clear.
And lo and behold rejections have fallen off and the ones I get I tend to agree with. ;D
I also find small batches submitted often works wonders too.
I tend to wait for batches to get through approval before submitting the next one that way you avoid the scattergun rejection approach some reviewers seem to use. :-\
Are you sure that after all this work you're not actually auto-rejecting more than just accepting the occasional random rejections and move on?
Auto-rejecting? Do you mean self rejecting?
Yes you probably right but I tend to be a self critic and I'm always using the process to improve quality and speed.
But to be honest all of the process steps above are what would need to be done anyway in order to achieve a reasonable standard of photography.
Steps A through E don't take more than a minute to sort out and saves a lot of processing crap. :)
-
To be honest, lately I have gone completely the opposite. When I go on one of my hikes, I put the 6D on full auto and just shoot. Come home, process, keyword and submit. Production has gone up, and I dont have to worry about settings and bringing a tripod. Just enjoy the day, take snapshots, and be happy. Yesterday submitted another 55 images from my walk to Dublin city and back, Saturday in the sun. Processed the 60 images on Sunday when it was raining. Half commercial, half editorial. 48 approved today. The other 12 rejected for trademark. Will resubmit as editorial and done.
-
Much in the same boat for me. I take my photos, do the most basic adjustments (crop, straighten, exposure sometimes), keyword, upload and forget. I don't look at the emails about acceptance or rejections and my approval rating is good enough for me. I save the detail/editing work for other things. I don't like tripods and I don't think I've shot at ISO 100 in ages.
-
A forgone conclusion that should have been addressrf long ago. As long as we put up with it, they will continue to demand more from us without commiserate compensation.
My god, how do you find the time to produce any images? You seem so busy constantly digging up quotes.
I will assume you are not capable of quick keyword searches. For a reality check, you have posted 4 times more than I have in total over the last 8 years and yet you have been a member here for only one year. Yes some of us notice that you talk out of both sides of your mouth.
Ron Date Registered: June 06, 2013 Posts: 3920 (11.297 per day)
Gbalex Date Registered: March 20, 2008, Posts: 1090 (0.484 per day)
-
Yes, its because you are constantly digging up quotes, that costs time. Seriously, as a seasoned pro, why do you bother with me? I am of no significance in stock world. I still feel sorry for you.
PS: Dont forget to dig up Poncke and Poncke V2
-
To be honest, lately I have gone completely the opposite. When I go on one of my hikes, I put the 6D on full auto and just shoot. Come home, process, keyword and submit. Production has gone up, and I dont have to worry about settings and bringing a tripod. Just enjoy the day, take snapshots, and be happy. Yesterday submitted another 55 images from my walk to Dublin city and back, Saturday in the sun. Processed the 60 images on Sunday when it was raining. Half commercial, half editorial. 48 approved today. The other 12 rejected for trademark. Will resubmit as editorial and done.
Ron - I take a lot of time processing my images. Much of my time is spent in viewing the image at 300% to fix any hot pixels as I cant see them in 100% view on my HD display laptop. Other than peering through the image section by section from left to right and top to bottom (in LR), I dont know any other way. Is there something different that you do to fix hot pixels ? Thanks !
-
To be honest, lately I have gone completely the opposite. When I go on one of my hikes, I put the 6D on full auto and just shoot. Come home, process, keyword and submit. Production has gone up, and I dont have to worry about settings and bringing a tripod. Just enjoy the day, take snapshots, and be happy. Yesterday submitted another 55 images from my walk to Dublin city and back, Saturday in the sun. Processed the 60 images on Sunday when it was raining. Half commercial, half editorial. 48 approved today. The other 12 rejected for trademark. Will resubmit as editorial and done.
Ron - I take a lot of time processing my images. Much of my time is spent in viewing the image at 300% to fix any hot pixels as I cant see them in 100% view on my HD display laptop. Other than peering through the image section by section from left to right and top to bottom (in LR), I dont know any other way. Is there something different that you do to fix hot pixels ? Thanks !
can you get your camera to map them and fill them in?
-
Ron - I take a lot of time processing my images. Much of my time is spent in viewing the image at 300% to fix any hot pixels as I cant see them in 100% view on my HD display laptop. Other than peering through the image section by section from left to right and top to bottom (in LR), I dont know any other way. Is there something different that you do to fix hot pixels ? Thanks !
can you get your camera to map them and fill them in?
Thanks Tom ! I dont know how to do it. I will look it up and hopefully find how to do it :)
-
I am fed up with their reviewers bs, what I have online is about 20% of what I've ever submitted, I work with a tripod,very often with artificial light at high speeds, I take my good time processing, I view my images at 100% on a 24" HD Dell Ultrasharp screen calibrated every week with an X-rite device (and would really like to know what gear is on the other side...) in a controlled environment and get all sort of odd reasons about noise, focus, lights, you name it.
Reviewers get in a megalomaniac omnipotence syndrome, frankly stopping submissions and looking for other markets is making me feel much better, ms just kills creativity.
My 2 cents
-
To be honest, lately I have gone completely the opposite. When I go on one of my hikes, I put the 6D on full auto and just shoot. Come home, process, keyword and submit. Production has gone up, and I dont have to worry about settings and bringing a tripod. Just enjoy the day, take snapshots, and be happy. Yesterday submitted another 55 images from my walk to Dublin city and back, Saturday in the sun. Processed the 60 images on Sunday when it was raining. Half commercial, half editorial. 48 approved today. The other 12 rejected for trademark. Will resubmit as editorial and done.
Ron - I take a lot of time processing my images. Much of my time is spent in viewing the image at 300% to fix any hot pixels as I cant see them in 100% view on my HD display laptop. Other than peering through the image section by section from left to right and top to bottom (in LR), I dont know any other way. Is there something different that you do to fix hot pixels ? Thanks !
Why are you looking for hot pixels at 300% if you cant see them at 100%? An image is reviewed at 100%, I do not fix anything that appears beyond 100%. Also, I downsize all my images by 50%, it automatically reduces noise and increases the illusion of sharpness (kudos to Jens). But you can use spot removal in LR and batch process all the hot pixels at once. Just fix them on the first image and then, select all images, click sync, select spot removal, and apply.
This is not directed at you: But that is what I mean with getting 23-36 cent. I am not going out of my way to get 23-36 cent. If they want to sell images for 20 cent or a dollar they get images with minimal effort. Any image sold for more is cherry on the cake. So I have less ELs and SODs, but I also dont spent hours setting up, and processing to get immaculate images.
The images pass the inspection at several agencies, so its not like I am selling inferior images. They are good images, just not with a ton of work applied to them.
-
Ron - I take a lot of time processing my images. Much of my time is spent in viewing the image at 300% to fix any hot pixels as I cant see them in 100% view on my HD display laptop. Other than peering through the image section by section from left to right and top to bottom (in LR), I dont know any other way. Is there something different that you do to fix hot pixels ? Thanks !
Why are you looking for hot pixels at 300% if you cant see them at 100%? An image is reviewed at 100%, I do not fix anything that appears beyond 100%. Also, I downsize all my images by 50%, it automatically reduces noise and increases the illusion of sharpness (kudos to Jens). But you can use spot removal in LR and batch process all the hot pixels at once. Just fix them on the first image and then, select all images, click sync, select spot removal, and apply.
This is not directed at you: But that is what I mean with getting 23-36 cent. I am not going out of my way to get 23-36 cent. If they want to sell images for 20 cent or a dollar they get images with minimal effort. Any image sold for more is cherry on the cake. So I have less ELs and SODs, but I also dont spent hours setting up, and processing to get immaculate images.
The images pass the inspection at several agencies, so its not like I am selling inferior images. They are good images, just not with a ton of work applied to them.
Agreed Ron ! I need to make my workflow a lot leaner !
-
Why would any agency punish your sales for the images they accepted?
In the past Istock did it, dt still does it, etc.
-
I am fed up with their reviewers bs, what I have online is about 20% of what I've ever submitted, I work with a tripod,very often with artificial light at high speeds, I take my good time processing, I view my images at 100% on a 24" HD Dell Ultrasharp screen calibrated every week with an X-rite device (and would really like to know what gear is on the other side...) in a controlled environment and get all sort of odd reasons about noise, focus, lights, you name it.
Reviewers get in a megalomaniac omnipotence syndrome, frankly stopping submissions and looking for other markets is making me feel much better, ms just kills creativity.
My 2 cents
Reviewers are hired without seeing the equipment they will use to review images. They all work out of their homes and the sites have no way of knowing if they use color management, keep their eye glass prescriptions up to date, have adequate functioning equipment etc.
The reviews at shutterstock have always been erratic, I think they assign reviewers regionally and who you get to review your images is the luck of the draw. Some of them are great and others are dot.
If they are rejecting your images, they need to review the reviewers. It is a long standing fact that they don't bother.
-
My illustrations get almost 100% acceptance rate, even my ugliest vectors are accepted.
But photos are really hard to be accepted. I think they're really, really, really, really expert photographers.
-
The same thing happened to me today ---all rejections. I doubled checked images at 100% and all were just fine, and in focus--but were rejected for noise, focus, composition--all which were accepted and sold the same day on other sites.
My feeling are hurt.
-
Same problem here :D
100% rejection in the last batches >:(
-
I'm being beaten up too, but I suspect I deserve it! Only just got accepted by Shutterstock so "experimenting" a bit with what I upload to get a feel for what gets through. However, I am terribly excited at getting my first sale in the first 24 hours... and for a photo taken with my iPhone....shhh, don't tell anyone 8)
I was playing around to see if iPhone photos would pass!
-
I am getting so fed up with SS lately- today I had this title rejected for being NOT ENGLISH-
Indian Ocean waves rolling in on the sandy beach near a rocky groyne by the landbacked harbour in Bunbury south Western Australia on a fine cloudy autumn morning.
What is going on?? And the whole batches are rejected for same reasons-focus, poor lighting, white balance, etc. Each batch gets the same refusal. It is getting beyond a joke. Particularly when other sites accept the images. Time is wasted uploading to SS . And they must be losing money as well by these mass rejections.
-
Well if it's any consolation used to get tons of rejections but they are falling off these days purely because:
A. I custom white balance each shooting session.
B. Manual focus everything (auto is just too inaccurate)
C. Blown highlights are avoided as are clipped blacks so hand held metering for everything.
D. Shoot everything on a tripod at ISO100
E. Most importantly I've done test shots at all apertures on the lens selections I have and found the optimum point for DOF and focus before circle of confusion sets in for each lens.
F. Never bother processing and submitting borderline photos.
G. Proper keywording so none of this keyword spam crapola.
H. A little selective sharpening (30~40% opacity) makes things look clean and clear.
And lo and behold rejections have fallen off and the ones I get I tend to agree with. ;D
I also find small batches submitted often works wonders too.
I tend to wait for batches to get through approval before submitting the next one that way you avoid the scattergun rejection approach some reviewers seem to use. :-\
That's a great process unless you want to shoot anything but inanimate objects.
-
Well if it's any consolation used to get tons of rejections but they are falling off these days purely because:
A. I custom white balance each shooting session.
B. Manual focus everything (auto is just too inaccurate)
C. Blown highlights are avoided as are clipped blacks so hand held metering for everything.
D. Shoot everything on a tripod at ISO100
E. Most importantly I've done test shots at all apertures on the lens selections I have and found the optimum point for DOF and focus before circle of confusion sets in for each lens.
F. Never bother processing and submitting borderline photos.
G. Proper keywording so none of this keyword spam crapola.
H. A little selective sharpening (30~40% opacity) makes things look clean and clear.
And lo and behold rejections have fallen off and the ones I get I tend to agree with. ;D
I also find small batches submitted often works wonders too.
I tend to wait for batches to get through approval before submitting the next one that way you avoid the scattergun rejection approach some reviewers seem to use. :-
nice technique.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
-
I uploaded a small batch today. This is the first in about 2 weeks. I am waiting to see what happens with them but after the replies here, I am half suspecting they will get tossed. Time will tell.
-
It's more bullying than reviewing :)
Usually I don't resubmit, but I tried to get one particular series of images accepted, just to play.
- submission 1: rejected for poor lighting
- submission 2, less contrast: too much noise reduction
- submission 3, less noise reduction: rejected for noise
- submission 4, after some acrobacies in post production: rejected for poor lighting, lighting problem, noise and composition ... Jackpot!
And this with images taken in a sunny day, late afternoon, sun behind my shoulders, tripod, ISO 100, f/11, manual focus and exposition using live view.
The point is, not only one waste time and images, but after a mass rejection, SS can send a warning, and after three can suspend the contributor's portfolio. So now a lot of people can be fired out from SS at any moment.
-
Same here today 100% rejected, focus issue.. and they are not!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Resubmitted and about 30% was accepted. I made more sharpening, little over my own taste.
Yesterday two sets was 100% accepted. And same there, little more sharpening..
-
No doubt in my mind that at least some of these are automated, done-by-computer rejections. I just submitted a batch of 5 and found that the poorer ones (which still had a good range of tones) got accepted and the best one of the lot (which had a lot of silhouetting) got rejected for white balance / exposure. A second review has been requested...
-
Well if it's any consolation used to get tons of rejections but they are falling off these days purely because:
A. I custom white balance each shooting session.
B. Manual focus everything (auto is just too inaccurate)
C. Blown highlights are avoided as are clipped blacks so hand held metering for everything.
D. Shoot everything on a tripod at ISO100
E. Most importantly I've done test shots at all apertures on the lens selections I have and found the optimum point for DOF and focus before circle of confusion sets in for each lens.
F. Never bother processing and submitting borderline photos.
G. Proper keywording so none of this keyword spam crapola.
H. A little selective sharpening (30~40% opacity) makes things look clean and clear.
And lo and behold rejections have fallen off and the ones I get I tend to agree with. ;D
I also find small batches submitted often works wonders too.
I tend to wait for batches to get through approval before submitting the next one that way you avoid the scattergun rejection approach some reviewers seem to use. :-\
That's a great process unless you want to shoot anything but inanimate objects.
Inanimate objects are my forte ;D
It's obviously not going to be practical in all subjects
-
Well, there it is..... They rejected the whole batch from the weekend for noise and lighting. All shot at ISO 100 and lite very precisely. This is getting old.
-
Ever since I avoided weekend reviews my approvals seem to be ok.
-
Ever since I avoided weekend reviews my approvals seem to be ok.
The stuff that I had rejected today was submitted yesterday but reviewed this afternoon......
-
Ever since I avoided weekend reviews my approvals seem to be ok.
It could be that the weekend reviewers are more thorough and picky about little things whilst weekday staff are rushing through the images. I had some very valid rejections on the weekend as I had some dust spots which id missed and other rejections I agree with.
Saying that, often that's not the case and I don't agree with the rejection.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It's hit or miss even on weekends. This month my acceptance was around 75% thus low for me- I am usually around 86% acceptance rate. The standards or what they are seeking probably driving the rejections.
-
The stories like these make me appreciate my istock exclusivity a bit more. I meticulously edit the files that I send, so I'd be really pissed to have them all rejected for a weird or extremely stupid reason like sunset/sunrise wb, noise or selective focus / shallow dof, after hours spent in the lightroom and photoshop. Total crap. >:( Especially today since most of the images bought are in medium and large formats and none of the "imperfections" can be spotted or seen. It's just nonsense.
-
One thing I've noticed on my rejections- when I bring up the file in Camera Raw (version 8.4) on the upper right is the histogram the left and right markers better be in black indicating that there isn't any extreme conditions. I bet they the launch some program (maybe even Camera Raw) and if the markers are not right it is automatically rejected for lighting...
-
The stories like these make me appreciate my istock exclusivity a bit more.
The only problem, IMO, is that iStock is taking it to the other extreme....allowing just about everything in, stuff that shouldn't be allowed, and thus degrading the entire collection in the process.
-
The stories like these make me appreciate my istock exclusivity a bit more.
The only problem, IMO, is that iStock is taking it to the other extreme....allowing just about everything in, stuff that shouldn't be allowed, and thus degrading the entire collection in the process.
Don't worry, it will happen at Shutterstock as well sooner or later.
And their entire collection is already degraded by random 100% acceptance or 100% rejection anyway.
I read somewhere that their reviewers are being paid very little. As a result, the review quality is very very low.
One day Shutterstock will realize that it's pointless to pay even just 1 cent per image if the results are totally random. So they'll have to decide to either employ capable reviewers and pay them properly or just instruct them to accept everything, except for a quick legal issues check. My guess is that they'll choose the cheaper way.
-
Curious, if anyone knows, are whole batches reviewed by the one person or are the images just spread far and wide and then consolidated again afterwards to give the final feedback on the whole batch? Just wonder if reviewers are paid per image, then that may be an incentive to take shortcuts and just bulk code some batches? There does seem to be a remarkable similarity in the reason selected, even when the images are diverse (from completely different shoots and conditions)
-
Curious, if anyone knows, are whole batches reviewed by the one person or are the images just spread far and wide and then consolidated again afterwards to give the final feedback on the whole batch? Just wonder if reviewers are paid per image, then that may be an incentive to take shortcuts and just bulk code some batches? There does seem to be a remarkable similarity in the reason selected, even when the images are diverse (from completely different shoots and conditions)
Not that I know directly... but statistical observations all point to this: whole batch - and all queued batches as well, even if uploaded at different times - reviewed by just one person. Quick bulk rejection choosing a random reason is exactly the problem.
-
The rejections are worse than anything I've seen in nearly 10 Years. Totally shocking.
-
I got stoned last night - only one pic passed out of the entire batch! I will stop uploading for a while until this madness stops! >:(
-
I got stoned last night - only one pic passed out of the entire batch! I will stop uploading for a while until this madness stops! >:(
I've got a theory for this: rejecting whole batches is getting suspicious; all but one is safer for lazy reviewers.
-
It is what the government would call "DOUBLE DIPPING"!
This way the reviewer can get paid twice for what should have been only once!
-
The most worrying fact is that everybody seems to be concerned about these crazy rejections EXCEPT Shutterstock.
There's a very long thread on their forum too, and they are completely ignoring it.
This is very unprofessional.
Maybe it's time to start to boycott Shutterstock as well - why should they have a free pass?
1. No more uploads until they'll take note;
2. About the "double dipping" thing, the shareholders may be interested to hear from us;
3. Uploading more pictures to other sites: rebalancing the marketplace is good for us.
-
I'm going to take the high road on this issue even though, like so many others, the vast majority of my submissions have been rejected for many months now.
I wonder if SS is looking at the BIG picture and seeing a troublesome trend taking shape that if not already hurting us all, will chip away more and more down the road.
I'm referring to the "freebies". Images that are offered by other agencies and on-line sites like free images dot com and freeimages dot co. The free pile is growing and while most of those images maybe average snapshots, SS may be recognizing that they have to do everything they can to distinguish their stock from the snapshot pile or loose market share.
If that's the case, it's a bold move. Like so many of you, I've done everything I can to improve my technical skills. Tripod. Using the 10x extender to check focus etc. And yet the vast majority are still rejected - yet doing well with other agencies.
-
"Maybe it's time to start to boycott Shutterstock as well - why should they have a free pass?"
Good luck with that! Let's see they are at least 40% to 50% of my total monthly income. I assume similar to a lot of other folks on this site. If I boycott them I am as will boycott the entire industry thus sell my camera and work for walmart... ???
-
I'm going to take the high road on this issue even though, like so many others, the vast majority of my submissions have been rejected for many months now.
I wonder if SS is looking at the BIG picture and seeing a troublesome trend taking shape that if not already hurting us all, will chip away more and more down the road.
I'm referring to the "freebies". Images that are offered by other agencies and on-line sites like free images dot com and freeimages dot co. The free pile is growing and while most of those images maybe average snapshots, SS may be recognizing that they have to do everything they can to distinguish their stock from the snapshot pile or loose market share.
If that's the case, it's a bold move. Like so many of you, I've done everything I can to improve my technical skills. Tripod. Using the 10x extender to check focus etc. And yet the vast majority are still rejected - yet doing well with other agencies.
Agree, except I can't see how random rejections are the proper way to distinguish their stock.
The only site that went down this road (random rejections to try to give the impression they are better) is Crestock. We all can see the results.
-
The most worrying fact is that everybody seems to be concerned about these crazy rejections EXCEPT Shutterstock.
There's a very long thread on their forum too, and they are completely ignoring it.
This is very unprofessional.
Maybe it's time to start to boycott Shutterstock as well - why should they have a free pass?
1. No more uploads until they'll take note;
2. About the "double dipping" thing, the shareholders may be interested to hear from us;
3. Uploading more pictures to other sites: rebalancing the marketplace is good for us.
Re: Comments in bold:
Admins hardly ever post comments on their own forum pages in response to concerns voiced there. That is altogether not an unusual occurrence. And yes, it is unprofessional.
SS 'voice boxes' will willingly come here and post messages which never seems to make sense as a lot of SS contributors don't come here so never get answers to their concerns. That is even more unprofessional.
I completely stopped uploading three weeks ago to SS. That's the first time in four years of me constantly uploading during that time. They're not getting any of my new stuff. Not now or in the foreseeable future. I know of a few others that have also stopped uploading any new material to SS too as a result of their draconian stance of image acceptance.
I genuinely am now believing the 'good times' are over at SS and it is purely about EPS as far as SS is concerned.
Whatever is happening today has nothing whatsoever to do with 'contributor success' it's just about making the next quarter's earnings for their stock holders.
EDIT: I am also now shooting all my 'really good new stuff 'purely for RM site acceptance (and not OFFSET btw)
-
They don't like snapshots from snap-shooters. ;D
-
They don't like snapshots from snap-shooters. ;D
I beg to differ, my portfolio: 'is a great study in mediocrity with very few exceptional images' and 'average tourist snapshots' so they do accept snapshots. They just need to be technically in order.
-
"245,969 new stock images added this week"
It looks like they do accept some;-)
-
Reviewers are hired without seeing the equipment they will use to review images. They all work out of their homes and the sites have no way of knowing if they use color management, keep their eye glass prescriptions up to date, have adequate functioning equipment etc.
This i feel is a big issue. A large number of exposure/WB rejections when on examination on several calibrated systems shows nothing wrong does hint to me that the reviewer in question does not have a properly calibrated and profiled display. Especially the batches all rejected for that.
Some of the time im convinced its someone sitting in a darkened room with a laptop on full brightness randomly clicking through images.
SS needs to have a policy of reviewing the reviewers,
-
The stories like these make me appreciate my istock exclusivity a bit more.
The only problem, IMO, is that iStock is taking it to the other extreme....allowing just about everything in, stuff that shouldn't be allowed, and thus degrading the entire collection in the process.
While I agree with that, I look at it differently. It gives me freedom to edit freely and upload without thinking if my work will go down the drain during inspection. Of course, my post-process regime is very strict, rigorous, paying very special attention to detail and texture. My goal is to satisfy the buyer of that image, offering the quality for both the image and the post-processing. But I always played with selective focusing and many of my S+ images have shallow dof and sell really well. I guess they wouldn't even pass the inspection process at SS.
I remember long ago, it was 2006/7. I was at the beginning, my skills were basic and I was using much much inferior equipment. But istock's inspectors were way more forgiving, offering details and clues with rejections. The SS was more strict, stubborn and even restricted my access for several months because of the too many "mistakes". One of the reasons that I went exclusive at istock at that time was of my disagreement with Shutterstock's inspection policy and their best match that favoured new images with high level of sink rate.
-
I'm getting a constant 90% rejection. Weekdays and weekends, big and small batches.
What . is wrong with them?
Will stop uploading there for a while, even Fotolia selects pictures more reasonably.
-
Pretty normal for me. Just the odd batch now and again that mostly gets binned. Last batch all but one got accepted.
-
It's getting serious now. Nothing seems to get by those reviewers.
Had more rejected this week.
A lot of people saying what's the point and I don't blame them.
If SS are reading these forums they should realise that their reputation is at stake.
Rejections like these are unacceptable and are insulting to the artists who submit.
It's not good at all!
-
The worst part is that those pictures that do get through are not the best ones.
Some are taken with the same lighting and configurations, 5 seconds later and don't get approved.
Or they approve photos taken with my old camera while my superior new images get rejected.
It's the totally randomness that's really annoying me.
-
I just wish they would add another canned rejection reason, something along the lines of 'we already have enough of this type of image in our files, thanks anyway'. The current rejection reasons of focus, WB, etc. often don't apply to the images of mine they reject and leave me wondering if they're seeing something I'm not.
-
They had the LCV rejection but did away with that and decided to accept such images as no one can determine the CV of an image.
-
Taking a break can change things sometimes. I had 100% rejections this week too. All for composition. It happens. Either a new reviewer or someone who really dislikes my photos. Or, perhaps they're right and my comps have drastically changed from my other thousands accepted.
(just keep swimming...) :)
-
I always find it interesting that the ones initially rejected, if I then re-submit, they tend to be my best sellers.
One image that was rejected twice, is now my second best seller, I may have made the smallest of adjustments after the rejections.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
In my brief experience with them, it seems the thing they really don't like is areas of solid black... which is a shame, because backlighting and silhouetting is often a big part of my images. The habit that I'm developing is to send a polite email to submit@... asking for a second review and also asking them to explain exactly why they rejected the images. So far, they have always got back to me within a couple of days with comments that are positive and saying "it's a little under-exposed", "can you lighten the greys a little?" or something like that, and giving me some text to paste into the "note to reviewer" box when I submit a second time. I wish they'd do that in the initial rejection!
It's a bit annoying because IMO these images work better when the silhouetting is pretty strong, but it seems they want to see at least a little bit of detail in there, so that's what I'm doing. Funny that as others have said, the originals have already been accepted - and sold - with other agencies, but hey ho... if piddling about a little bit is what it takes to get images accepted as SS, I'm happy to do it for the time being. I'm just glad that my stock income only needs to generate a bit of coffee money for me, and isn't my main revenue stream... dealing with reviewers would frustrate the heck out of me otherwise. I guess I'm still just in that early phase of being happy that any of my images are good enough to be accepted, and getting a buzz whenever those $0.25s come rolling in. Those of you who do this for a living have my sympathy... getting images accepted is a bit of a black art and a moving target, no doubt about it.
-
Finally, yesterday, I have got one superextracrazy rejection!
A batch of 10 photos, similar subject, same light/wb conditions.
2 accepted, 8 rejected for light/wb.
(All photos accepted on all the other sites, included on Fotolia who generally don't accept flowers)
---
I have just resubmitted, without even put a note because I am tired to repeat myself…
-
I hope Lauren is cool about me linking his last comment on the SS forum here;
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138823&start=15 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138823&start=15)
Sadly, as is ALWAYS THE CASE, the unprofessional, darn-right lazy admins over at SS still have no comment to make. Not one. Not a single jot.
They must know what's going on but choose to completely ignore the obvious problem they have with their incompetent reviewers.
Lauren, I wanted to post it here because as you know, SS hate it when their insufficiencies get posted 'off-site' for public viewing so they might respond.
But don't hold your breath, this thread essentially discussing the same problem is over 6 pages long and they haven't bothered commenting here.
Like I said a few days ago, I'm now a whole month of no new uploads to SS with 59 new images in that period on the sites of their competitors - and as of this week, selling :)
Finally, why should all the other sites get all the bad press on these forums, yes they do deserve it, but on the other hand SS is no angel in the market either, their total deficiencies on image reviews not to mention their strangle hold and manipulation on photographers earnings contributes an equal amount of dissatisfaction and angst among serious contributors.
-
I think we all need to get one big letter together for everyone to use then we all send it to SS and let them know there is something wrong!?
If no one is letting SS know anything is wrong then they will do nothing but if everyone starts sending a letter then they will fix it just like a power outage if 10,000 people loose power and only 50 call about it the power company thinks it is a small problem and nothing much to worry about so they are slow to fix it but if all 10,000 report it then it gets fixed almost right away.
-
Hi guys,
We've been in the process of creating a more detailed FAQ on Review, but to answer the basic question(s) in the meanwhile:
We welcome review disputes and feedback when you're unhappy. You guys put a lot of work into image creation and we respect that. Many people on the team are photographers, videographers and illustrators themselves and appreciate the effort that goes into content creation.
There are three basic scenarios that we find when we research review disputes:
1. You’re 100% right and there was an error made during the process. Please let us know. We’ll fix it.
2. The review determination was “on the line” and could be viewed either way. A more forgiving second review can result in the images being approved. This is a long-standing policy.
3. The original review determination was correct.
In terms of communication, we have individuals participating in the various forums. For example, Vincent administrates the SS forums, Anna participates in the Russian-speaking forums, and I’ll often respond to inquiries at MSG. We have over a dozen different communication channels, ranging from the blogs, social media, forums, workshops, contributor meetups, email tickets and more.
We read all of that incoming feedback, but we often don’t participate in review threads. We also ask that support questions only go to our email address. Why?
With a large team of individual reviewers, over 55,000 contributors and millions of images passing through this process, every single case is different. We also need to see the exact images in question.
The only "official" process at the moment for handling review feedback is to contact Support. That logs a trackable ticket in our system which we can then assign to our review coordinators; the "Tier 2" leaders who work directly to evaluate, train, and mentor specific reviewers. They also own the maturation of our guidelines and standards. Tickets can be tracked, escalated, closed, and have the full history of the questions and feedback. We can tie the issue or question to a specific group of images and a specific reviewer.
We track the number of issues on a daily and weekly basis, as well as many metrics that allow us to analyze the review process. Statistically speaking, we receive very few complaints to Support relative to the many millions of images that we process, but any number of issues greater than zero is too many and we always want to improve.
As always, if you have a specific batch that was an issue, please let us know at [email protected]. We're happy to help.
As mentioned, we're also writing up a more extensive FAQ to supplement what's found on the Contributor blog and in educational materials such as our Success guide. We don't want this process to feel mysterious. More to come.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
-
Hi guys,
We've been in the process of creating a more detailed FAQ on Review, but to answer the basic question(s) in the meanwhile:
We welcome review disputes and feedback when you're unhappy. You guys put a lot of work into image creation and we respect that. Many people on the team are photographers, videographers and illustrators themselves and appreciate the effort that goes into content creation.
There are three basic scenarios that we find when we research review disputes:
1. You’re 100% right and there was an error made during the process. Please let us know. We’ll fix it.
2. The review determination was “on the line” and could be viewed either way. A more forgiving second review can result in the images being approved. This is a long-standing policy.
3. The original review determination was correct.
In terms of communication, we have individuals participating in the various forums. For example, Vincent administrates the SS forums, Anna participates in the Russian-speaking forums, and I’ll often respond to inquiries at MSG. We have over a dozen different communication channels, ranging from the blogs, social media, forums, workshops, contributor meetups, email tickets and more.
We read all of that incoming feedback, but we often don’t participate in review threads. We also ask that support questions only go to our email address. Why?
With a large team of individual reviewers, over 55,000 contributors and millions of images passing through this process, every single case is different. We also need to see the exact images in question.
The only "official" process at the moment for handling review feedback is to contact Support. That logs a trackable ticket in our system which we can then assign to our review coordinators; the "Tier 2" leaders who work directly to evaluate, train, and mentor specific reviewers. They also own the maturation of our guidelines and standards. Tickets can be tracked, escalated, closed, and have the full history of the questions and feedback. We can tie the issue or question to a specific group of images and a specific reviewer.
We track the number of issues on a daily and weekly basis, as well as many metrics that allow us to analyze the review process. Statistically speaking, we receive very few complaints to Support relative to the many millions of images that we process, but any number of issues greater than zero is too many and we always want to improve.
As always, if you have a specific batch that was an issue, please let us know at [email protected]. We're happy to help.
As mentioned, we're also writing up a more extensive FAQ to supplement what's found on the Contributor blog and in educational materials such as our Success guide. We don't want this process to feel mysterious. More to come.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
As I stated this morning highlighted in bold.
I think we all need to get one big letter together for everyone to use then we all send it to SS and let them know there is something wrong!?
If no one is letting SS know anything is wrong then they will do nothing but if everyone starts sending a letter then they will fix it just like a power outage if 10,000 people loose power and only 50 call about it the power company thinks it is a small problem and nothing much to worry about so they are slow to fix it but if all 10,000 report it then it gets fixed almost right away.
-
Why would any agency punish your sales for the images they accepted?
Dreamstime reportedly does just that. And I agree that it's a bizarre approach (especially when they used to hand out rejections for including a model release - for things like partial profiles, body parts - which then count against you)
Bizarre. So they push you back in the search when you rejections are too high? What is the threshold?
Pffff, I just opened my account there, might as well close it again
Actually, it's pretty logical - in theory higher acceptance ratio = higher quality so show the best stuff first - in practice probably not :)
-
Hi guys,
We've been in the process of creating a more detailed FAQ on Review, but to answer the basic question(s) in the meanwhile:
We welcome review disputes and feedback when you're unhappy. You guys put a lot of work into image creation and we respect that. Many people on the team are photographers, videographers and illustrators themselves and appreciate the effort that goes into content creation.
There are three basic scenarios that we find when we research review disputes:
1. You’re 100% right and there was an error made during the process. Please let us know. We’ll fix it.
2. The review determination was “on the line” and could be viewed either way. A more forgiving second review can result in the images being approved. This is a long-standing policy.
3. The original review determination was correct.
In terms of communication, we have individuals participating in the various forums. For example, Vincent administrates the SS forums, Anna participates in the Russian-speaking forums, and I’ll often respond to inquiries at MSG. We have over a dozen different communication channels, ranging from the blogs, social media, forums, workshops, contributor meetups, email tickets and more.
We read all of that incoming feedback, but we often don’t participate in review threads. We also ask that support questions only go to our email address. Why?
With a large team of individual reviewers, over 55,000 contributors and millions of images passing through this process, every single case is different. We also need to see the exact images in question.
The only "official" process at the moment for handling review feedback is to contact Support. That logs a trackable ticket in our system which we can then assign to our review coordinators; the "Tier 2" leaders who work directly to evaluate, train, and mentor specific reviewers. They also own the maturation of our guidelines and standards. Tickets can be tracked, escalated, closed, and have the full history of the questions and feedback. We can tie the issue or question to a specific group of images and a specific reviewer.
We track the number of issues on a daily and weekly basis, as well as many metrics that allow us to analyze the review process. Statistically speaking, we receive very few complaints to Support relative to the many millions of images that we process, but any number of issues greater than zero is too many and we always want to improve.
As always, if you have a specific batch that was an issue, please let us know at [email protected]. We're happy to help.
As mentioned, we're also writing up a more extensive FAQ to supplement what's found on the Contributor blog and in educational materials such as our Success guide. We don't want this process to feel mysterious. More to come.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
What I don't get is how I went from getting 90% of my work approved to 100% rejection OVERNIGHT! I am quite sure I don't just all of a sudden suck at what I do. Something changed on SS end of the process and a lot of people are getting screwed by it.
-
So no machines then eh? I hopes this debunks the myth of automated bot reviews. Or maybe not, and they need feedback to adjust the software ;)
Whuahahahahaaaaaa
-
So no machines then eh?
Did he actually say that?
-
Put the severed quote back into context, with the rest of the comment, and you will see that I meant something completely different than you are implying now. Classic MSG, no room for a cheeky comment.
-
What I don't get is how I went from getting 90% of my work approved to 100% rejection OVERNIGHT! I am quite sure I don't just all of a sudden suck at what I do. Something changed on SS end of the process and a lot of people are getting screwed by it.
There are three basic scenarios that we find when we research review disputes:
1. You’re 100% right and there was an error made during the process. Please let us know. We’ll fix it.
2. The review determination was “on the line” and could be viewed either way. A more forgiving second review can result in the images being approved. This is a long-standing policy.
3. The original review determination was correct.
-
The way I see it everyone with a bad review needs to all send SS a letter asking for a second review this way they can see if they have a reviewer problem otherwise this will continue because they wont know anything about it.
And there are quite a few people with 100% rejections that are saying they wont send a letter for a second review so in this case submitters loose and SS wins.
So do something about it people just like you did with DPC, write for a second review so this can get fixed.
-
Good points, I am guilty of that myself. I'll write in over the weekend.
-
Well I suppose we should be at least grateful a response from a SS admin was made.
Albeit, just a collection of words.
462 words to be precise, just words, deflecting completely the concerns of contributors in the current climate of hopelessly wrong reviews and a very strong feeling that something has significantly changed in how our images are reviewed.
462 words that state the complete obvious and restating information what everyone already knew.
There is a plethora of experienced contributors that cannot get a single image approved at the moment and Scott chooses to completely ignore the problem, even more so, fails to even acknowledge that current concern in his response. Amazing.
Yes, we can all write a ticket to support to have our images re-reviewed and yes, we don't mind doing that on the single digit occasions it used to occur when a reviewer made (in our view) a mistake. Occasionally, the reviewer was right and there was something wrong with the file which on closer inspection was corrected. That's fine, that's why there is a review system. It's in everyones ultimate interests that the standard of imagery within the SS library is the best it can be, we all want to attain higher and better standards to ensure customers keep loyal to SS and keep buying quality images. That, in my view, is a given.
But the current status of image reviewing is totally different situation. This is wholesale rejection, in some cases, of entire batches of images from contributors that for years have submitted images to SS and in many cases have the best selling images in the entire collection.
Contributors of such experience do not complain unnecessarily about such matters unless something is seriously wrong, that is also a given.
SS has changed something significantly and for reasons that only they can explain, appear unwilling to divulge to contributors what it is.
Is it the migration of ex- IS contributors into the SS review teams that notoriously 'scupper' other contributors submissions that compete with their own images, or is it a completely new influx of reviewers that are simply incompetent. I don't think so.
I think it might be something quite different.
Conspiracy theorists makes cup of tea and settles down to read on :)
SS need to cut costs to maintain profits, quarter by quarter, year on year. They have stakeholders now, and we all know, shareholders demand more and more, are never satisfied and always love to see cuts. Lower costs mean higher dividends. Yummy.
"With a large team of individual reviewers, over 55,000 contributors and millions of images passing through this process, every single case is different"
A large team of individual reviewers - that costs. OK they make only a penny or two per image, but when you calculate the number of images reviewed every week that is a cost that's going to add up PDQ. We know that SS add around 245,000 images a week to their collection. Each of those images have been reviewed and pennies paid out. But you have to consider all the images that were not approved that week which were also paid pennies for.
If 245,000 pass how many do you think fail? 500,000, 750,000? They all have the same associated cost. Ouch.
If you have such an overhead which you're paying for every week (pass or fail) it would make sense for an 'automated system' for reviewing to be considered. Not just to reduce your costs but also to improve efficiency and maintain quality standards.
In fact, I think, an automated system to 'weed out' substandard images in a 'primary review' process is in fact the Holy Grail to a company like SS, indeed any large digital image library. Imagine if you had an automated system that kicks out all the cr*p before it gets to a 'human' reviewer. If the 'failed' numbers are in the region of 500,000 a week imagine the cost savings in having an automatic image filtering system in place. The human reviewers only get to see (and be paid for) images that have passed a preliminary review and your costs for reviews just dropped by 65-80% - depending on the numbers that fails anyway.
Now consider this.
Beta Testing.
I know that's the buzz term of the moment with DT but this might be a different type of Beta Test. A SS Beta Test.
Software to review images is probably still in it's infancy, or the early adopters phase of development. It needs to be tested, no doubt it has been through lab tests now it's a real test (aka a beta test) on real images. Then it can be really tested, reviewed, results analysed, software can be tweaked and then retested again. But you probably would not want to tell people you're doing it. Why would you? You don't want the likes of Getty or FT/DT to know what your doing and you want to test the software under 'normal conditions' of image submissions. So you say nothing.
This software would give you a real competitive advantage in cost saving terms, you're saying nothing.
You just start using it.
Maybe the software is not able to precisely determine the reasons for non-approval (yet) so rather than a single reason being given, multiple reasons are given, WB, Focus, composition etc. Ring any bells?
OK it will cause a small amount of disruption in the short term, experienced submitters will get angry and confused, people will complain, some may even come up with conspiracy theories :) but "we need to look at the bigger picture guy's think of the money we will save in the long term" SS will say.
And then it all stops and goes back to normal again. Everyones happy and just believes Attila finally gone on holiday and it's over.
The Beta Test program will have a defined start date and finish date :)
Of course I could be wrong, maybe the reviewers are just **** :)
-
Hi guys,
We've been in the process of creating a more detailed FAQ on Review, but to answer the basic question(s) in the meanwhile:
We welcome review disputes and feedback when you're unhappy. You guys put a lot of work into image creation and we respect that. Many people on the team are photographers, videographers and illustrators themselves and appreciate the effort that goes into content creation.
There are three basic scenarios that we find when we research review disputes:
1. You’re 100% right and there was an error made during the process. Please let us know. We’ll fix it.
2. The review determination was “on the line” and could be viewed either way. A more forgiving second review can result in the images being approved. This is a long-standing policy.
3. The original review determination was correct.
In terms of communication, we have individuals participating in the various forums. For example, Vincent administrates the SS forums, Anna participates in the Russian-speaking forums, and I’ll often respond to inquiries at MSG. We have over a dozen different communication channels, ranging from the blogs, social media, forums, workshops, contributor meetups, email tickets and more.
We read all of that incoming feedback, but we often don’t participate in review threads. We also ask that support questions only go to our email address. Why?
With a large team of individual reviewers, over 55,000 contributors and millions of images passing through this process, every single case is different. We also need to see the exact images in question.
The only "official" process at the moment for handling review feedback is to contact Support. That logs a trackable ticket in our system which we can then assign to our review coordinators; the "Tier 2" leaders who work directly to evaluate, train, and mentor specific reviewers. They also own the maturation of our guidelines and standards. Tickets can be tracked, escalated, closed, and have the full history of the questions and feedback. We can tie the issue or question to a specific group of images and a specific reviewer.
We track the number of issues on a daily and weekly basis, as well as many metrics that allow us to analyze the review process. Statistically speaking, we receive very few complaints to Support relative to the many millions of images that we process, but any number of issues greater than zero is too many and we always want to improve.
As always, if you have a specific batch that was an issue, please let us know at [email protected]. We're happy to help.
As mentioned, we're also writing up a more extensive FAQ to supplement what's found on the Contributor blog and in educational materials such as our Success guide. We don't want this process to feel mysterious. More to come.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Thanks, Scott, for your long reply.
But it seems to me that you are still not completely understanding the current exceptional situation.
What you suggest (contacting support) makes sense for occasional rejections. And it's what I always do in such cases.
When there are mass rejections (100% of a batch, with a random reason equal for all images), or mass acceptance (100% of a batch, which is equally bad for library quality), you should consider other ways to check your reviewers.
It's not a bunch of newbies in need of feedback on their borderline images. It's everyone - including old-timers pros. Something is wrong.
Only you have all the data. It shouldn't be difficult to statistically evaluate the work of all your reviewers and automatically find out who's cheating*. Easier than evaluating thousands of tickets.
*please also consider the case of "all rejected but one" which seems to be the latest trend with some reviewers, probably to avoid suspects
-
often I have a feeling that reviewers "own" ss - and that ss can do nothing against them - mr. scottbraut is a vary polite person - but it seems that reviewers do what they want to do - and nobody can stop them - very strange situation
-
often I have a feeling that reviewers "own" ss - and that ss can do nothing against them - mr. scottbraut is a vary polite person - but it seems that reviewers do what they want to do - and nobody can stop them - very strange situation
No doubt some, like Atilla, have a power complex. The one area I would like to better understand are why one day 100% get accepted then the next those same images can be 100% rejected. I can defiantly understand the human element but aside from that a 100% rejection of similar or the same quality has two components in my mind:
1. Machine
2. The reviewer is going outside of the inspection parameters and injecting his or her personal like or dislike.
In either case neither will be discussed or admitted by SS so all rejection threads are really venting threads. Fixing the root cause will never be public.
-
Reviewers shouldn't be active contributors at the same time. Their ports should be disabled if they are reviewing. There's a clear conflict of interest for reviewers who have the power to keep out images that would compete with theirs.
-
Reviewers shouldn't be active contributors at the same time. Their ports should be disabled if they are reviewing. There's a clear conflict of interest for reviewers who have the power to keep out images that would compete with theirs.
I agree but I don't think that is the case. I think I read somewhere that you can be both.
-
Reviewers shouldn't be active contributors at the same time. Their ports should be disabled if they are reviewing. There's a clear conflict of interest for reviewers who have the power to keep out images that would compete with theirs.
I´m pretty sure most agencies will immediately let go of a reviewer who is discovered to do this because it goes against the interests of the agency.
It would anyway make no sense to even try, unless you are the only one inspecting all the files that are coming in, you cannot prevent the competition anyway. 200 000 new files approved every week,remember?
I worked as a reviewer for istock and approved loads of content that was better than my own. If anything it is a motivation to improve yourself, if you really come across something exceptionally well done.
Shutterstock is a huge agency and I am sure they can train their team to be professionals. And having a portfolio yourself is helpful,because you understand the pain of rejections. It is not something that is fun to do.
ETA: about the current topic. I would indeed think with the length of the thread and the experience of people posting that SS is currently having a less balanced system, then other agencies. I am not seeing people complain that much about the competition. The artists have been doing this for many years now and we know what to expect from an agency and their upload system. If the balance changes, people will notice. It is up to SS to analyze the feedback and achieve a balance that works for them.
Might be worth adding a dedicated ticket system for rejection, instead of the general contributor submit@.... Many people don´t have English as a first language and are intimidated if they have to write a longer email themselves. It is then helpful to have a form with multiple choice tags you can just select and send. istock has the scout ticket system and that seems to work very well.
Like I said before I tend to downsize most files for SS and now my rejections are minimal. But of course this means that full size 24 MP files are available elsewhere, while SS gets a mix 6 and 12 MP files. But I am fine with that, I really don´t like to reupload a file.
-
I have a counterexample to offer. I've been submitting photos from a few recent shoots in small batches of 20 images. Most have sailed through with 100% acceptance. One batch was completely rejected; I complained, was advised to resubmit with a note, and had them all accepted the second time.
Two batches had significant numbers of rejections (around half); when I looked very closely I could see that I had some color fringing. I had two lights blowing out the background (these were studio shoots of a model), and the combination of the high power setting and the lens I was using created that fringing problem. Easy to fix in Camera Raw; I'll resubmit and expect them all to be accepted.
My point is that even though I thought my technique was fine and I was having a high rate of acceptance, I could still mess things up on occasion. The reviewer was right; the problem wasn't dramatic, but it was there.
-
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130946&start=255 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130946&start=255)
Hey guys,
Thanks for the feedback. Obviously -- being outside the company -- it's tough to know what initiatives and measures are taken to analyze and ensure performance, and what responses are executed in return to make improvements. Incidentally, if you're ever in NY, you can reach out to our team because we bring contributors in for office visits as much as it's practical.
I could detail what goes on behind the scenes and give you verbal assurances, but ultimately, all that matters is whether at the end of the day, you feel that you either: a) got a fair review; and/or: b) understand why you received the review that you did and we can all be better aligned on the next batch of images.
As a philosophy - we don't mind the critical feedback - we want it. It helps us improve and we (very sincerely) want you to have the best experience possible.
Lots more to come. :)
Best,
Scott
-
Reviewers shouldn't be active contributors at the same time. Their ports should be disabled if they are reviewing. There's a clear conflict of interest for reviewers who have the power to keep out images that would compete with theirs.
I agree but I don't think that is the case. I think I read somewhere that you can be both.
You are correct..At least thats the way it was when i reviewed for 3+ years. It was a requirement.
-
There is a very good constructive thread going at SS where scott is posting. If you have issues Pls post them. Speak from your heart Pls. Nothing personal. We are finally having a conversation.
Thanks
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130946&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130946&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)
-
There is a very good constructive thread going at SS where scott is posting. If you have issues Pls post them. Speak from your heart Pls. Nothing personal. We are finally having a conversation.
Thanks
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130946&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130946&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0[/url])
I can't as I am banned. And I don't miss it one bit over there.
-
There is a very good constructive thread going at SS where scott is posting. If you have issues Pls post them. Speak from your heart Pls. Nothing personal. We are finally having a conversation.
Thanks
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130946&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130946&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0[/url])
I applaud the fact admins are responding to you on their own site. Thats good progress, and so they should.
-
Well I suppose we should be at least grateful a response from a SS admin was made.
Albeit, just a collection of words.
462 words to be precise, just words, deflecting completely the concerns of contributors in the current climate of hopelessly wrong reviews and a very strong feeling that something has significantly changed in how our images are reviewed.
462 words that state the complete obvious and restating information what everyone already knew.
There is a plethora of experienced contributors that cannot get a single image approved at the moment and Scott chooses to completely ignore the problem, even more so, fails to even acknowledge that current concern in his response. Amazing.
Yes, we can all write a ticket to support to have our images re-reviewed and yes, we don't mind doing that on the single digit occasions it used to occur when a reviewer made (in our view) a mistake. Occasionally, the reviewer was right and there was something wrong with the file which on closer inspection was corrected. That's fine, that's why there is a review system. It's in everyones ultimate interests that the standard of imagery within the SS library is the best it can be, we all want to attain higher and better standards to ensure customers keep loyal to SS and keep buying quality images. That, in my view, is a given.
But the current status of image reviewing is totally different situation. This is wholesale rejection, in some cases, of entire batches of images from contributors that for years have submitted images to SS and in many cases have the best selling images in the entire collection.
Contributors of such experience do not complain unnecessarily about such matters unless something is seriously wrong, that is also a given.
SS has changed something significantly and for reasons that only they can explain, appear unwilling to divulge to contributors what it is.
Is it the migration of ex- IS contributors into the SS review teams that notoriously 'scupper' other contributors submissions that compete with their own images, or is it a completely new influx of reviewers that are simply incompetent. I don't think so.
I think it might be something quite different.
Conspiracy theorists makes cup of tea and settles down to read on :)
SS need to cut costs to maintain profits, quarter by quarter, year on year. They have stakeholders now, and we all know, shareholders demand more and more, are never satisfied and always love to see cuts. Lower costs mean higher dividends. Yummy.
"With a large team of individual reviewers, over 55,000 contributors and millions of images passing through this process, every single case is different"
A large team of individual reviewers - that costs. OK they make only a penny or two per image, but when you calculate the number of images reviewed every week that is a cost that's going to add up PDQ. We know that SS add around 245,000 images a week to their collection. Each of those images have been reviewed and pennies paid out. But you have to consider all the images that were not approved that week which were also paid pennies for.
If 245,000 pass how many do you think fail? 500,000, 750,000? They all have the same associated cost. Ouch.
If you have such an overhead which you're paying for every week (pass or fail) it would make sense for an 'automated system' for reviewing to be considered. Not just to reduce your costs but also to improve efficiency and maintain quality standards.
In fact, I think, an automated system to 'weed out' substandard images in a 'primary review' process is in fact the Holy Grail to a company like SS, indeed any large digital image library. Imagine if you had an automated system that kicks out all the cr*p before it gets to a 'human' reviewer. If the 'failed' numbers are in the region of 500,000 a week imagine the cost savings in having an automatic image filtering system in place. The human reviewers only get to see (and be paid for) images that have passed a preliminary review and your costs for reviews just dropped by 65-80% - depending on the numbers that fails anyway.
Now consider this.
Beta Testing.
I know that's the buzz term of the moment with DT but this might be a different type of Beta Test. A SS Beta Test.
Software to review images is probably still in it's infancy, or the early adopters phase of development. It needs to be tested, no doubt it has been through lab tests now it's a real test (aka a beta test) on real images. Then it can be really tested, reviewed, results analysed, software can be tweaked and then retested again. But you probably would not want to tell people you're doing it. Why would you? You don't want the likes of Getty or FT/DT to know what your doing and you want to test the software under 'normal conditions' of image submissions. So you say nothing.
This software would give you a real competitive advantage in cost saving terms, you're saying nothing.
You just start using it.
Maybe the software is not able to precisely determine the reasons for non-approval (yet) so rather than a single reason being given, multiple reasons are given, WB, Focus, composition etc. Ring any bells?
OK it will cause a small amount of disruption in the short term, experienced submitters will get angry and confused, people will complain, some may even come up with conspiracy theories :) but "we need to look at the bigger picture guy's think of the money we will save in the long term" SS will say.
And then it all stops and goes back to normal again. Everyones happy and just believes Attila finally gone on holiday and it's over.
The Beta Test program will have a defined start date and finish date :)
Of course I could be wrong, maybe the reviewers are just **** :)
IMHO it's now blindingly obvious that this is exactly what's happening, and that SS won't discuss it or even acknowledge it. At some point, though, I think they'll have to. For one thing they'll want to trumpet the 'success' - i.e. cost savings of their new automated reviewing tools to investors. Or some former employee or contractor will leak it.
-
Scary scenario.
-
"Or some former employee or contractor will leak it. "
If they do leak it out they will have to move to Russia 8)
-
got slammed again for poor lighting. Time to take a break from this ordeal...
-
got slammed again for poor lighting. Time to take a break from this ordeal...
I am nearly at the point of giving up completely. This is getting so freakin' old.
-
Sure wish you guys would post here so SS knows.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130946 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130946)
-
Ok, Shutterstock just handed me a very crazy review. A couple of images that I shot from a tripod at ISO 100 and f/11 have been rejected for noise and incorrect focus. I'm a little confused as to what more is required to get an image accepted there.
Is there a way to get them to revaluate these images?
-
[email protected]
-
All this being said about Shutterstock reviews, and I've had a bone to pick with them every once in a while. I haven't had issues lately, but I can tell when they hire a bunch of new reviewers. I think it's more or less worked itself out now. They are still more consistent than reviewers on other sites like 123RF, Canstock and Fotolia who might throw out a weird rejection that makes no sense, and you know they don't know what they're doing.
-
[email protected]
You are right Ron.
As I have already told in another thread about the SS rejection we should ALL and SYSTEMATICALLY send a mail to this address to contest the rejection that we consider inconsistent.
I do it and 95% of the time my images are then accepted after a new review by an expert inspector.
And enough often who answer you can give you good advices.
-
I personally haven't had problems with acceptance. I've been restoring 1800's photos and uploading them as editorial for quite awhile now since I sorta gave up on the traditional stock photos. No problem there. Tuesday I uploaded some of the new grunge style photos that they were wanting. I hadn't tryed to upload them before and was holding my breath about them being accepted, but all of them were except for one. These grunge photos would have never been accepted before if they hadn't been textured with grunge. I have them on my Fine Art America site.
-
So it's Friday, end of the week, time to tie up all those loose ends. Well not the case for Scott Braut it seems.....
Following an avalanche of posted concerns on the SS forum relating to the unfounded, ridiculous and down right stupid rejections of perfectly good images (from established contributors mind, not the cr*p from newbies) Scott finally succumbed with a stalling post (attached)..
That was Monday, five days ago.
He obviously does not have the capacity (or is it the will and desire ?) to respond to the glaring question of what is going wrong.
Perhaps he does not have mobile communications, strange that as he essentially works for a digital based company.
He was 'forced' to respond last time following a (my) post on a public forum last week, (which they hate btw) so here we go again.
Scott Braut - Do your job. It's why you take your salary each month.
Respond.
-
I had a couple random images approved today out of a set that had previously been 100% rejections. While I am not complaining, it is odd that the rest of the groups was rejected then these went right through.
-
Hello Ethan,
Thanks. I'm happy to respond, but unfortunately I'm traveling at the moment with intermittent access to wifi and email. This week I was with members of our team in London to meet with some of Shutterstock's European contributors directly, as well as in Berlin to (also) meet with contributors and attend the annual CEPIC conference. (http://www.cepic.org/congress)
My apologies for any delay, but these trips are for the purpose of speaking with our contributors and partners to gather their input and feedback.
All of what I have posted about Review remains true and accurate. Shutterstock is a technology company, but as we've already stated publicly in our blog posts, humans review images. (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/vector-and-illustration-advice-from-a-shutterstock-reviewer) I believe others have already pointed to the reviewer job descriptions on our site, and the use of reviewers is well-established in the industry.
Given that we've posted previously on these questions and we've asked contributors to contact us directly anytime they have an issue, what information are you most looking for so I can best answer you?
As stated, we're formulating a longer FAQ. We're also creating and releasing much more educational material (often in multiple languages) so that our review standards and practices are well understood. We're increasing the types of content that we accept as well.
The illustration review post (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/vector-and-illustration-advice-from-a-shutterstock-reviewer) was one example, as was our post about editorial illustrations (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/now-accepting-editorial-illustrations-and-vectors). As another, please see our 80-page "protect your content" guide, which addresses things such as editorial, credential, trademark and copyright standards:
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/protect-your-content (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/protect-your-content).
Happy to be of help.
Best,
Scott
-
Hello Ethan,
Thanks. I'm happy to respond, but unfortunately I'm traveling at the moment with intermittent access to wifi and email. This week I was with members of our team in London to meet with some of Shutterstock's European contributors directly, as well as in Berlin to (also) meet with contributors and attend the annual CEPIC conference. ([url]http://www.cepic.org/congress[/url])
My apologies for any delay, but these trips are for the purpose of speaking with our contributors and partners to gather their input and feedback.
All of what I have posted about Review remains true and accurate. Shutterstock is a technology company, but as we've already stated publicly in our blog posts, humans review images. ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/vector-and-illustration-advice-from-a-shutterstock-reviewer[/url]) I believe others have already pointed to the reviewer job descriptions on our site, and the use of reviewers is well-established in the industry.
Given that we've posted previously on these questions and we've asked contributors to contact us directly anytime they have an issue, what information are you most looking for so I can best answer you?
As stated, we're formulating a longer FAQ. We're also creating and releasing much more educational material (often in multiple languages) so that our review standards and practices are well understood. We're increasing the types of content that we accept as well.
The illustration review post ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/vector-and-illustration-advice-from-a-shutterstock-reviewer[/url]) was one example, as was our post about editorial illustrations ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/now-accepting-editorial-illustrations-and-vectors[/url]). As another, please see our 80-page "protect your content" guide, which addresses things such as editorial, credential, trademark and copyright standards:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/protect-your-content[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/protect-your-content[/url]).
Happy to be of help.
Best,
Scott
I appreciate the reply, I have not checked (yet) but I hope a similar response has been posted on your site, at Shutterstock.
Firstly, I do appreciate the restrictions that are imposed during international travel. For nearly ten years straight I was hardly ever at home during the week or even in my own country. However with todays more advanced technologies, WiFi is standard especially in Europe and most certainly in London. I assume your staying in hotels?
I note your response to my points and no doubt to my earlier posted 'scenario'. You must have read that (in your homework prior to responding) to make your comment about humans.
I was speculating that the first pass review might be automated, which you delicately avoided commenting on. And I can understand why.
I accept that, as you say yourself, Shutterstock is a technology based company. I get that. I still believe the Holy Grail for a company like yours is an automated systems at first-pass to exclude images from 'human review' in order to reduce your costs.
It is a fact you have to pay a reviewer (albeit pennies) to either pass or fail an image when they review. The image that passes will 'pay back that cost' as soon as it begins to sell.
However, a failed image is dead money.
More images fail than pass, therefore the dead money cost has to be higher than 'passed money'. That's simple math. To get those images reviewed in an automated fashion and off the system makes sense.
You still continue to state that contributors can write to SS and appeal against image rejections. We know that. We do that already.
I should not have to labor this point. There has been a sea-change in recent weeks. The effect has been huge. It has effected many, most notably some of the most seasoned, experienced and successful contributors you have. Rejections (for multiple reasons) that make no sense. When appealed those same images are accepted.
We are as a group of experienced contributors not stupid. Give us a little credit. Something has changed in the review process (at this moment in time) and we know it has as a result of the wholesale rejections that have occurred the very recent past few weeks.
I know from my own experiences in the technology business that often 'being first' is key. I also appreciate that if your working on a new technology, no doubt through a third party, confidentially is essential as well as a necessity.
The less you say, the more I read your difficulties, I do understand that.
I just hope whatever review is going on it can be perfected quickly so everything can get back to normal asap.
And thanks again for getting back and enjoy my home town of London :)
PS The weather tomorrow is supposed to be rubbish.
-
So it's Friday, end of the week, time to tie up all those loose ends. Well not the case for Scott Braut it seems.....
Following an avalanche of posted concerns on the SS forum relating to the unfounded, ridiculous and down right stupid rejections of perfectly good images (from established contributors mind, not the cr*p from newbies) Scott finally succumbed with a stalling post (attached)..
That was Monday, five days ago.
He obviously does not have the capacity (or is it the will and desire ?) to respond to the glaring question of what is going wrong.
Perhaps he does not have mobile communications, strange that as he essentially works for a digital based company.
He was 'forced' to respond last time following a (my) post on a public forum last week, (which they hate btw) so here we go again.
Scott Braut - Do your job. It's why you take your salary each month.
Respond.
The guy already responded. I'm not sure what you'd want him to add. He said that if you have an issue with a rejected image to contact support, and they will look at the image again. They will either overrule the previous rejection or uphold the rejection. I know the system works because I've used it twice recently and had rejections overturned.
He also told us about several areas where they are trying to get better so we don't have to go through the initial anguish of a bad rejection.
-
So it's Friday, end of the week, time to tie up all those loose ends. Well not the case for Scott Braut it seems.....
Following an avalanche of posted concerns on the SS forum relating to the unfounded, ridiculous and down right stupid rejections of perfectly good images (from established contributors mind, not the cr*p from newbies) Scott finally succumbed with a stalling post (attached)..
That was Monday, five days ago.
He obviously does not have the capacity (or is it the will and desire ?) to respond to the glaring question of what is going wrong.
Perhaps he does not have mobile communications, strange that as he essentially works for a digital based company.
He was 'forced' to respond last time following a (my) post on a public forum last week, (which they hate btw) so here we go again.
Scott Braut - Do your job. It's why you take your salary each month.
Respond.
The guy already responded. I'm not sure what you'd want him to add. He said that if you have an issue with a rejected image to contact support, and they will look at the image again. They will either overrule the previous rejection or uphold the rejection. I know the system works because I've used it twice recently and had rejections overturned.
He also told us about several areas where they are trying to get better so we don't have to go through the initial anguish of a bad rejection.
Thanks for stating the obvious. The appeal process your so keen to mention only proves my point that something is amiss.
-
It's not so hard to figure out. They hired a bunch of new reviewers to keep up with the increasing number of downloads; I remember seeing the ads, in fact. It was just a few months ago that it took 7-10 days to get your images reviewed. Now it's down to one day. It's taking some time to get some of those reviewers trained and on the same page.
The reason reviews are so seemingly inconsistent isn't because the review system is automated; it's because they use people, all of whom seem to have a different idea of what makes a sellable microstock image.
-
It's not so hard to figure out. They hired a bunch of new reviewers to keep up with the increasing number of downloads; I remember seeing the ads, in fact. It was just a few months ago that it took 7-10 days to get your images reviewed. Now it's down to one day. It's taking some time to get some of those reviewers trained and on the same page.
Well pardon me (and multiple others) that would disagree with your point of view. I appreciate it might take someone of a less sycophantic mindset to rationalise the situation more accurately, but thanks anyway.
And BTW, why do you suddenly care what a 'anonymous' poster on MSG thinks, I thought you stated recently on these forums that in respect to anonymous posters there was no 'frame of reference' for such types and we are all trolls?
-
Don't forget "cowardly."
-
Don't forget "cowardly."
Clearly you do not have to be anonymous to be a troll.
PS. You're now on ignore, so continue to post at your leisure I won't waste any time in reading your posts :)
-
Just calling it like I see it. It's not a matter of kissing up to Shutterstock. You're badgering the guy for questions he's already answered to the best of his ability.
The review system isn't perfect, but it's better than a lot of sites. They actually respond to you if you have an issue. I had a weird rejection at Canstock and put in a ticket. They responded by saying they automatically delete the image and couldn't see if it had an issue. How's that helpful? You get a rejection at Fotolia, they give you an "all of the above" reason and you can't fix it.
-
As I see it, the question has not been answered.
We know that "humans review images". We also know that cows eat grass, but obviously other animals eat grass too.
The question is: does the SS review process include screening by software, or is reviewing done ONLY by humans?
-
Wha else could "humans review images" possibly mean?
-
Naw the real question is!
Why is it that there are so many unjust rejections for:
1) Lighting
2) composition and or cropping
3) Focus
And these are coming from the top of the crop as well as others!
There are some contributors that have posted such rejections that aren't afraid too over in the Critique / Tips / Tricks forum and have been told they were robbed and you can clearly see they were robbed.
The thing is also the time involved with the whole re-review process which is cumbersome as well as tiring and lets not forget to mention that some people are using DATA plans so the process for those can be costly having to use more and more DATA to submit a second set that should have been approved the first time around meaning they wouldn't have needed to burn extra DATA.
And with these unjust results we can also look at some of the really true so called just reviews of isolated on white that has a grey or blue BG or perhaps some serious vignetting in the corners clearly piss poor lighting.
Some of the just focus approvals that are so far off the reviewer themselves must need a new prescription for their glasses or they need to get an eye exam.
And lets not even get into the comp / crop part of the whole process.
Sure we have had rejection problems before and probably always will but there is a difference between a proper review and a review where we are now getting into a grey area of reviewers knowing that they can make more by doing a mass rejection because they will get resubmitted and get paid a second time for what should have been approved the first time.
OK here are the links for this years threads that I know of.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130946&start=0 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130946&start=0)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=137927&start=0 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=137927&start=0)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138843 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138843)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138823 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138823)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138749 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138749)
I also have a link for all the reviewer rejection threads all the way back into 2011 there-before and thereafter.
Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 11:18 am
18 rejection threads that somewhat pale in comparison to the ones as of lately
And lets not forget our good friend and reviewer Attila who without we just dont know what we would do! :) :) :) :)
-
Okay, I heard agents of S.H.E.I.L.D., M.I.B. and the Borg are reviewing our images now -thus answering all questions about humans doing the reviewing 8)
-
As I see it, the question has not been answered.
We know that "humans review images". We also know that cows eat grass, but obviously other animals eat grass too.
The question is: does the SS review process include screening by software, or is reviewing done ONLY by humans?
:)
That is the question.
-
Given that we've posted previously on these questions and we've asked contributors to contact us directly anytime they have an issue, what information are you most looking for so I can best answer you?
[...]
As stated, we're formulating a longer FAQ. We're also creating and releasing much more educational material (often in multiple languages) so that our review standards and practices are well understood. We're increasing the types of content that we accept as well.
Oh no, Scott! This is the sad proof that you are completely out of tune with the real problem.
There's a 20+ page thread on your own forum called 'Image Acceptance - getting ridiculous'
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt130946.html (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt130946.html)
where you can find all our FAQs. We don't need your FAQs, we need real answers.
There's no need for educational material to explain your current review standards and practices.
Please see here if you don't know the meaning of randomness: http://www.random.org (http://www.random.org)
Whether it's human or automated I don't care - I just know that it's bad.
SS is lucky that it's still the #1 site for many, otherwise we will simply stop uploading and ignore you forever. Please, take some real action to solve this problem before it happens. We have seen other large sites fall due to their bad management, things can happen.
Now I have one more question: is ignoring the problem of bad reviews the official company policy, or just your personal view? Just to know if we need to escalate this issue to the SS owner and stackholders, to which you are not probably doing a favour. On the other hand, if it's an official policy, I give up: I won't keep bothering you with questions that you are not allowed to answer.
-
Given that we've posted previously on these questions and we've asked contributors to contact us directly anytime they have an issue, what information are you most looking for so I can best answer you?
[...]
As stated, we're formulating a longer FAQ. We're also creating and releasing much more educational material (often in multiple languages) so that our review standards and practices are well understood. We're increasing the types of content that we accept as well.
Oh no, Scott! This is the sad proof that you are completely out of tune with the real problem.
There's a 20+ page thread on your own forum called 'Image Acceptance - getting ridiculous'
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt130946.html[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt130946.html[/url])
where you can find all our FAQs. We don't need your FAQs, we need real answers.
There's no need for educational material to explain your current review standard and practices.
Pleaase see here if you don't know the meaning of randomness: [url]http://www.random.org[/url] ([url]http://www.random.org[/url])
Whether it's human or automated I don't care - I just know that it's bad.
SS is lucky that it's still the #1 site for many, otherwise we will simply stop uploading and ignore you forever. Please, take some real action to solve this problem before this happens. We have seen other large sites fall due to their bad management, things can happen.
Now I have one more question: is ignoring the problem of bad reviews the official company policy, or just your personal view? Just to know if we need to escalate this issue to the SS owner and stackholders, to which you are not probably doing a favour.
You make some excellent points,many of which I would like to associated myself with, not least the section in bold. I actually did stop uploading about seven weeks ago, which I have never ever done in all my time with SS. I'd upload 10-30 images a month every two or three days in little batches, invariably with 100% acceptance.
I understand that a few others have also stopped uploading in recent weeks due to this debacle.
The less that is coming out of HQ on this issue actually say's more (to me at least).
Something is up, and it might not actually be a million miles off to suggest that they're testing out some proprietary software system which they actually cannot disclose, for a plethora of commercial and 'other' reasons. I understand that, and if it is the case, our constant pestering for more details must be both irritating and unwelcome.
Other than wait this out for a obvious conclusion I'm not actually sure what more we can do.
-
Something is up, and it might not actually be a million miles off to suggest that they're testing out some proprietary software system which they actually cannot disclose, for a plethora of commercial and 'other' reasons. I understand that, and if it is the case, our constant pestering for more details must be both irritating and unwelcome.
Other than wait this out for a obvious conclusion I'm not actually sure what more we can do.
I had that impression too (software testing);
but a completely automated system can't explain the randomness in the process, such as the the random rejection reason (same for all images) and the same images being accepted if resubmitted;
:)
That is the question.
Yes, the words 'screening' and 'only' in Stockastics' question may explain it: "does the SS review process include screening by software, or is reviewing done ONLY by humans?"
My current view is that it's a combination of screening software and lazy reviewers that accept whatever the screening software suggests. I guess you agree.
-
1. Rather than subscribe to conspiracy theories, isn't it more plausible that some submissions are borderline in terms of what they are looking for?
2. Funny that folks have a sense of entitlement to have work accepted in certain sites but are happy to accept they are not "good enough" for the "in danger of being lost in their own alimentary canal" sites.
-
1. Rather than subscribe to conspiracy theories, isn't it more plausible that some submissions are borderline in terms of what they are looking for?
2. Funny that folks have a sense of entitlement to have work accepted in certain sites but are happy to accept they are not "good enough" for the "in danger of being lost in their own alimentary canal" sites.
1) No.
2) It's not entitlement. It's trying to build a portfolio.
-
1. Rather than subscribe to conspiracy theories, isn't it more plausible that some submissions are borderline in terms of what they are looking for?
2. Funny that folks have a sense of entitlement to have work accepted in certain sites but are happy to accept they are not "good enough" for the "in danger of being lost in their own alimentary canal" sites.
1) No.
2) It's not entitlement. It's trying to build a portfolio.
Well put.
Also, to completely ignore the recent wholesale landslide of rejections, affecting many experienced and successful contributors not just the normal border-line submissions, is IMO ingenuous and shows questionable judgement.
-
Yes ingenuous - although I guess you meant disingenuous :-D
I question your judgement in questioning my judgement - experienced successful guys like Rob seem to be having no problems, inexperienced unsuccessful guys like me are having no problems and this whole thing just seems like folks feelings are hurt. That aside, which is more likely
a) The bar has been raised an some people are struggling?
b) Someone has got it in for you?
-
Heywood,
maybe I now understand where's the misunderstanding.
Your port in SS is all illustrations. You have not experienced, I think, mass rejections on illustrations. I have half port made by illustrations too, and no issues with them.
But try to upload some photos: you'll get them all rejected for stupid reasons. Again, and again, for months.
Then go to the SS main page, make a search for a wide category, say "landscape", choose "photos", "new" then see yourself where the bar is, if it is raised or not.
Then you'll understand why some people is angry.
-
I think it's probably a combination of things (these are just guesses on my part; I don't have any information):
1. They raised the bar and didn't announce it.
2. They supply their inspectors with software that opens the image at 100% in the center, and if the center's out of focus (even if you intended it to be focused somewhere else)...
3. Inspectors are paid very little and are most likely trying to get through as many images as possible as quickly as possible, so many will simply reject the image in point #2, while a few may take an extra couple of seconds to look further.
4. Inspectors are freelance and all have different levels of competency. They also make mistakes.
5. Shutterstock needs to address the problem one way or another, or they'll have a mass defection of photographers who finally throw up their hands in disgust.
-
ditto on
3. Inspectors are paid very little and are most likely trying to get through as many images as possible as quickly as possible, so many will simply reject the image in point #2, while a few may take an extra couple of seconds to look further.
4. Inspectors are freelance and all have different levels of competency. They also make mistakes.
also, if the category is over-saturated they are told to reject them unless the are 'Perfect' and show something different or unique. Let's face it an image of a flower or tomato isn't needed anymore out of the millions in the library. Yet people keep submitting them.
-
Yes ingenuous - although I guess you meant disingenuous :-D
I question your judgement in questioning my judgement - experienced successful guys like Rob seem to be having no problems, inexperienced unsuccessful guys like me are having no problems and this whole thing just seems like folks feelings are hurt. That aside, which is more likely
a) The bar has been raised an some people are struggling?
b) Someone has got it in for you?
Oh, I had some problems. I was getting a bunch of lighting rejections all of a sudden. Then I showed the images to other photographers, and they said my images were too bright. I adjusted my screen, and the rejections more or less stopped.
That doesn't explain everything, though. I'm convinced the issue is a lot of new reviewers, some of whom are being too harsh or not trained properly or something.
There are times when composition and lighting quality are subjective. Maybe an image is better to have some shadows in it for definition or maybe the image looks better with the subject centered. In these cases, the advantage should go to the contributor. The buyers will decide whether it's a good image.
It costs Shutterstock very little to store an approved image, but it costs the site and its contributors a lot to reject potential sellers.
-
Yes ingenuous - although I guess you meant disingenuous :-D
I question your judgement in questioning my judgement - experienced successful guys like Rob seem to be having no problems, inexperienced unsuccessful guys like me are having no problems and this whole thing just seems like folks feelings are hurt. That aside, which is more likely
a) The bar has been raised an some people are struggling?
b) Someone has got it in for you?
My comment was not intended to be aimed at you. And, no I did not mean disingenuous, that would have been the complete opposite of what I meant. See attached dictionary meaning for ingenuous. Perhaps I should have used the naive instead.
As for feelings being hurt, yes I think there are. But I'm glad to say not mine. My last upload was 100% accepted but I chose to stop uploading when I discovered others were having difficulties in getting perfectly good images refused. And as for your point b) why would any contributor think that?
Very odd.
Anyway, here's the attachment explaining the word ingenuous.
-
Here's the thing. The height of the bar is not set by the sites, it's based on the quality of the competition (the high jump would be a bit higher at the olympics than at a local track meet). Photographers in particular are competing with high end professionals with high end kit - always gonna be a bit of an ask.
-
I aggree with 99.9% of the rejections. I can even tell upfront when a photo will be rejected by SS, but accepted by everybody else. It's simple really, it is only about quality. There is no conspiracy theory, no Atilla, or Genghis Khan among reviewers.
If the photo is well exposed, sharp and noise free, it goes through.
Today I even had 3 iPhone 5 photos accepted!!!
Can't complain!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
How would that explain replies from SS saying the review was in error and resubmit??
-
Surprising to learn this is a widespread issue. Acceptances rolling along like normal for me. I didn't even read this thread til now because I am not seeing any more rejections than usual. Is it possible the problem seems worse than it is because those who don't have too many rejections aren't bothering to read or post in this topic?
I am no better than most. If I am getting my images accepted then there must be a lot of others getting accepted also.
-
Yes, if you look at the # of newly accepted images on SS each week it is a lot (like 265,000). If 5% of the reviewers are doing an awful job your chances of hitting one of them is not all that high, but the chances that a lot of people will get weird rejections are pretty high. I personally haven't had a problem in a while either, but when all or almost all of the images are rejected for focus or lighting when other images from the same shoot have been accepted in the past it does raise flags.
Many or most of the rejections are perfectly valid and it is when experienced contributors complain about them that people take more notice, especially when entire batches are rejected for the same reason.
-
I aggree with 99.9% of the rejections. I can even tell upfront when a photo will be rejected by SS, ........
Just an example of a 0.01%
-
How would that explain replies from SS saying the review was in error and resubmit??
Borderline quality.
Nobody has any interest to reject good photos!
-
Yeah - 95% quality rather than 96%
-
I aggree with 99.9% of the rejections. I can even tell upfront when a photo will be rejected by SS, ........
Just an example of a 0.01%
This is not about the photo quality. I doubt you can call this error a "trend"
-
How would that explain replies from SS saying the review was in error and resubmit??
Borderline quality.
Nobody has any interest to reject good photos!
So someone submits a dozen images, 100% rejection, resubmits, 100% approval because it was a batch of 100% borderline images. You are missing the point this is about experienced shooters. For example Dave Smith, shoots immaculate food images for 7 years, and all of a sudden his work is borderline?
-
So someone submits a dozen images, 100% rejection, resubmits, 100% approval because it was a batch of 100% borderline images. You are missing the point this is about experienced shooters. For example Dave Smith, shoots immaculate food images for 7 years, and all of a sudden his work is borderline?
I take your word that he is an experienced photographer, but we, both, can only speculate, since we didn't see "that" batch.
I'm only describing my experience, like it or not.
Even if I would like to see more of my photos for sale on SS, and not only on DT, FT, IS, 123 or Alamy, I can understand the reasons behind these SS rejections.
In most of the cases it's "me" not "them"
-
Seriously, he knows what a good image is, he helps people out tirelessly in the critique forum, does workshops, etc, he wont be submitting borderline batches. If you think there is nothing wrong, thats fine. Other people beg to differ from experience.
-
The thing is HUMAN reviewers can make mistakes...
Even at that though, a buyer will more than likely be able to find an equivalent food shot that suits so the company does not lose out and that is the name of the game - not about justice or fairness, just what will or will not make a buck for the company - course, I'm naive so what do I know.
-
The thing is HUMAN reviewers can make mistakes...
Even at that though, a buyer will more than likely be able to find an equivalent food shot that suits so the company does not lose out and that is the name of the game - not about justice or fairness, just what will or will not make a buck for the company - course, I'm naive so what do I know.
Name of the game indeed!
This looks to me like the endless talks after a football match, when people argue for hours: was it penalty or not? Did the ball pass the goal line or not?
Of course there are mistakes, from time to time. And mistakes will always be part of the game.
However, most of us will still watch and enjoy the upcoming world cup matches. And the football players will keep on playing and making money out of this game, despite the few mistakes made by these "unjust" referees!
-
Again, its not about simple mistakes.
-
Then about what? Intentional mistakes? Conspiracy theories? Is SS targeting specific contributors, rejecting good photos only to punish them? Sadistic "Atilla" enjoying another "kill"? What is your explanation?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
This is starting to get me dizzy from going around in circles :-[
-
Then about what? Intentional mistakes? Conspiracy theories? Is SS targeting specific contributors, rejecting good photos only to punish them? Sadistic "Atilla" enjoying another "kill"? What is your explanation?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seriously, are you now just taking the piss?? Just wumming or what? Someone else might explain it to you, but not me.
-
No wumming. I sincerely believe that one should look in the mirror before blaming others for failures.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
No wumming. I sincerely believe that one should look in the mirror before blaming others for failures.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What does this have to do with the topic of "Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up....Anyone Else?" ? Unless you are a reviewer and want to beat me up ???
-
Lol, reviewer! That's a good one! Another conspiracy theory! ;)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I get the idea this a case of lost in translation or utter miscommunication
-
just had 18 out of 18 accepted! Thus looking good for the rest of the gang since I consider myself below average compared to the majority of folks on this site.
-
Hi All,
Thanks for your patience - I'm now back in New York and able to respond better.
First, I think it's important to look at numbers. We added over 3 million "accepted" images in Q1 - so obviously, images are getting accepted at record rates. As I've stated, I can say that quantitatively, the number of complaints that we get is very small relative to the millions of images being reviewed - of which, accepted images are only a part.
But let's hypothetically say that it's 10, 100, 500 or more disputed reviews out of millions of images processed. It doesn't matter. That could be 10, 100, or 500 people who have done work and gotten a result that they either: a) don't agree with; or b) don't understand. We consider it an obligation to get it right all of the time, or at least do a better job of explaining the review. One of our key internal measurements is contributor happiness and satisfaction and people aren't going to be happy if they feel that they didn't get an accurate review.
I've looked at a number of these personally. I've explained in other posts that disputed reviews fall into three categories.
1) The review was incorrect (i.e., the contributor is 100% right to complain).
2) The review was borderline (i.e., if you were liberal or conservative in interpreting our standards, you could argue the review either way).
3) The review was 100% correct, but maybe not fully understood or agreed with.
In scenarios #1 or #2, we generally approve on a 2nd pass. We appreciate that contributors have invested their time, creativity and money in creating content, and the goal is of course to take re-review scenarios as close to zero as possible.
In terms of reviewers having an incentive to reject to earn more money - they don't (nor would we accept that). Our review queues are always receiving new images and submissions are at an all-time high. We also track a number of metrics related to reviewer activity which would result in seeing that behavior in the numbers or in feedback.
Obviously, if and when we find an issue -- either internally on our own or via contributor feedback -- we address it. We have a number of internal ways that we track review performance and the patterns of our reviewers, as well as extensive training programs. Those things are built-upon daily and weekly and reviewers regularly interact with our coordinators.
I'm personally grateful for the hard work of our reviewers, most of whom come from photo, illustration, and design backgrounds. They're quite skilled and many have been with us for years. They're asked to get it right 100% of the time, which is no easy task across thousands (literally millions) of individual judgments.
We have a large team of reviewers. If there's an issue, it could be one or two batches out of hundreds or thousands being reviewed. The best thing has always been to contact us and we'll address it.
We greatly respect your hard work and welcome both criticism and feedback.
Thank you!
Best,
Scott
-
The thing is HUMAN reviewers can make mistakes...
… but, too much often, human SS reviewers make inhuman mistakes…
-
Hi All,
[…] the number of complaints that we get is very small relative to the millions of images being reviewed - of which, accepted images are only a part.
[…]
It is not because the silent majority of the sheep does not complain that it agree.
And I think that a great part of the problem is really here: even if most of the contributors do not agree with the rejections and the reasons given, this does not mean that they all complain about it.
The fact is that we live in a society where more and more people just accept the status quo, silently.
-
Scott,
thank you for taking time to post the explanation. However, the reply does not address our main concerns that are review inconsistency, and the ambiguous reasons for the bulk rejections. If we get a 100% acceptance for one batch of images, and 100% rejection for another batch of very similar content, lighting and quality with the same rejection phrase for all images, it is very puzzling to say the least, highly demoralizing and counter productive for both parties when we are told to resubmit the images.
No doubt, that many of your reviewers are highly skilled, hardworking and conscientious, but those mass rejections are not likely made by them. The question is whether such bulk rejections are made by a group of new reviewers or by some automated procedure that obviously can't match the expertise and judgment of the experienced reviewers.
-
yes - problem is inconsistency - not a strictness
-
Hi Les,
Thanks. As we've stated before in various venues, images or videos are reviewed by people. Which means that if you find yourself with a batch rejection that you disagree with, you're disagreeing with determinations made by trained individuals whose performance is evaluated for quality and consistency. If we discover an issue, we address it.
As far as specific rejection disputes - it varies from batch to batch. Some are legitimate objections; some aren't (in the sense that the initial review was accurate); some fall in-between. There's no categorical statement I could make across the millions of images being reviewed. We look into every inquiry individually as well as monitor metrics. We make changes and improvements where appropriate, with quality and consistency as goals.
More to do! We appreciate the feedback.
Best,
Scott
-
I would agree the main problem is inconsistency and this has been the case for many years.
Fortunately as a group we have decided to not point out individual contributors. However there are well know case in point examples of this review inconsistency between individual contributors.
It is frustrating for contributors as a group to watch one well known individual who submits virtually everything they snap in very high numbers and for us to see that almost everything he shoots is accepted by shutterstock. Over the years we have consistently watched very low quality content with a myriad of technical and content defects make their way into this port along with high number of "virtually identical snaps" in submission after submission.
At the same time some of your best contributors with pristine carefully planed and processed ports are receiving rejections for content of much higher quality.
As much as shutterstock would like to explain this inconsistency between reviews away "It Is A Fact" which is well know amongst us and shutterstock consistently refuses to address it.
If shutterstock were going to be honest about the quality of it's own review process, a quick look at it new image pages each day would sufficiently highlight the inconsistency between images accepted into the shutterstock collection.
-
I am pleased that Scott has replied, but I must admit I felt a bit deflated by his response. I don't think he has added a real long term solution for anyone, except to keep resubmitting and writing to support. I for one don't have the time to do that.
I personally think Shutterstock's review criteria is far too severe - after all it is only MICROSTOCK ! The dollar-a-download stuff. And some of the things such as wb or cropping is ridiculous. Shadows? every photo has shadows. Anyone can pick faults in a photo if they try hard enough, and that's what the reviewers seem to be doing nowadays: looking for reasons to fail an image, not to approve. Big difference there.
I for one, am just going to submit, if it fails, then move on and give my work to the other agencies. Shutterstock's loss. :'(
-
Is this another example of supply vs. demand biting contributors on the bum? When SS are adding millions of images, do they really need every image submitted? We need them accepted a lot more than they need more content.
-
Oh, I forgot to say, to conform to Shutterstock's severe review standards, a photographer has to compromise their artistic work. SS review standards will only produce bland, overexposed white background stock. And that is behind the current image trends ... if they are not careful, and keep insisting on this criteria for stock, they will eventually lose the number one position.
-
Oh, I forgot to say, to conform to Shutterstock's severe review standards, a photographer has to compromise their artistic work. SS review standards will only produce bland, overexposed white background stock. And that is behind the current image trends ... if they are not careful, and keep insisting on this criteria for stock, they will eventually lose the number one position.
I hear what you are saying, and to a certain extent I agree. But do we really need them? I think we should question that. I earn an average of $300 to $500 per month from SS, more from the others combined. I can earn more than $300 A WEEK from doing something else, however I chose this job because I love photography. So, in reality I don't really need them.
They need us because they need a constant supply of top selling fresh new stock all the time to satisfy their customers. But if its not fresh or just plain bland and uninteresting stock, the customers will go elsewhere. And their top photographers who are getting angry over this, will eventually go elsewhere. Let the others get the fresh, new images, and see where the customers go then.
-
Oops, this last post was to PixelBytes - I am newly registered here and still learning how to post.
-
Oops, this last post was to PixelBytes - I am newly registered here and still learning how to post.
Ah. I understand. You may be right. Tightening standards is good, but accepting only bland content would be a big mistake.
Edit...The content I see on Shutter mainly is not bland content. Very creative stuff accepted. I don't know what is causing mass rejections but there is nothing to suggest it is because an image is too creative or not bland enough.
-
Ok, here is a perfect example. Go to the Shutterstock main home page, scroll down a bit and click on the Photos tab. On the left hand side there is a very nice photo of asparagus.
Now, I dare anyone to try to duplicate that photo and get it passed the SS reviewers now. I can almost guarantee that it will be refused for a) poor lighting (shadows) and/or b) cropping.
Something happened to the review system a few months ago. What used to go though approved before, will more than likely be rejected now. Everything is taken too literally. That sweet little asparagus photo would not exist there today, if left up to the current review system.
-
Ok, here is a perfect example. Go to the Shutterstock main home page, scroll down a bit and click on the Photos tab. On the left hand side there is a very nice photo of asparagus.
Now, I dare anyone to try to duplicate that photo and get it passed the SS reviewers now. I can almost guarantee that it will be refused for a) poor lighting (shadows) and/or b) cropping.
Something happened to the review system a few months ago. What used to go though approved before, will more than likely be rejected now. Everything is taken too literally. That sweet little asparagus photo would not exist there today, if left up to the current review system.
I think it would Anja :)
Kati Molin is one of the best food photographers on SS (and elsewhere).
I have been following her for years - in a purely professional capacity of course :)
I think she was once the featured photographer on Shutterstock too, in fact, if I remember correctly it was after reading her interview/bio on SS I 'checked her out' and clicked on follow, and that was about three years ago.
However, back on topic, I understand what you're saying. Images that 'push the envelope' do run the risk of being rejected for lighting issues, but there again, they always have done.
In the past, generally, even in those specific cases, they could get through because the reviewer would hopefully appreciate the aesthetic quality of an image, and commercial value. That might well have changed now.
But, your point is well taken and possibly true, I just doubt it would would apply to Kati Molin's stuff that's all.
Edit: I just checked her recent stuff on SS (although I'm a follower I am a little tardy in checking every week) her new stuff is a great example of 'pushing that envelope'. Lovely use of light and (extreme) shallow DOF. She knows what she's doing and clearly is getting the stuff accepted.
There again, of course we don't know how much is thrown back at her from reviewers, but judging what they have passed (recently) it's all looking good :)
-
Thanks, Ethan :)
-
i dont have rejected images, 99% acceptance, i upload every day 2-3 images, maybe i have one image rejected every 14 days.
1. tripod
2. iso100-200
3. check whole image for noise, every pixel
4. watch shadows
5. manual focus and fucus area sharpened little, if too much then is noise rejection
6. bright images, mostly i have with exposure +0,7 or more
7. check overburn in photoshop, no areas 255 255 255, avoid this numbers!
landscape, this is another story
rejection are not problems, problems for us are factory images.
-
Ok, here is a perfect example. Go to the Shutterstock main home page, scroll down a bit and click on the Photos tab. On the left hand side there is a very nice photo of asparagus.
Now, I dare anyone to try to duplicate that photo and get it passed the SS reviewers now. I can almost guarantee that it will be refused for a) poor lighting (shadows) and/or b) cropping.
Something happened to the review system a few months ago. What used to go though approved before, will more than likely be rejected now. Everything is taken too literally. That sweet little asparagus photo would not exist there today, if left up to the current review system.
I think it would Anja :)
Kati Molin is one of the best food photographers on SS (and elsewhere).
I have been following her for years - in a purely professional capacity of course :)
I think she was once the featured photographer on Shutterstock too, in fact, if I remember correctly it was after reading her interview/bio on SS I 'checked her out' and clicked on follow, and that was about three years ago.
However, back on topic, I understand what you're saying. Images that 'push the envelope' do run the risk of being rejected for lighting issues, but there again, they always have done.
In the past, generally, even in those specific cases, they could get through because the reviewer would hopefully appreciate the aesthetic quality of an image, and commercial value. That might well have changed now.
But, your point is well taken and possibly true, I just doubt it would would apply to Kati Molin's stuff that's all.
Edit: I just checked her recent stuff on SS (although I'm a follower I am a little tardy in checking every week) her new stuff is a great example of 'pushing that envelope'. Lovely use of light and (extreme) shallow DOF. She knows what she's doing and clearly is getting the stuff accepted.
There again, of course we don't know how much is thrown back at her from reviewers, but judging what they have passed (recently) it's all looking good :)
Kati Molin is a great photographer but for the life of me, I can't see how you could get shots like that through. I have had so many rejected for focus because I chose a to use a shallow DOF and poor lighting for shooting with some shadows in the image. All in the last couple of months too but I am not near as talented as Kati so it could just be me. I don't think that is the case though.
-
Not a specific photo question, what gbalex wrote is right, why it's frustrating. Inconsistent and changing, send same shots from same session in they get accepted next month.
-
I don't get most of the main photos on Shutterstock page that being used as the background (background for the search field). No offense to the photographers, but Shutterstock has a lot more beautiful photos but the photos chosen on their website, I'm almost 100% sure the would get rejected if one submit the same photos today. Let's me go thru one by one and please if you are the photographer, please do not get offended. This is not personal attack but to show the what's the problem with current inconsistent review. The photos in question are as below (if you know what's I'm talking about, you need to keep refreshing shutterstock page to see each of the photo)
Photo #1 - photo of a green plant (looks like succulent to me) that was shot using shallow depth of field. Today this would be rejected for focus issue.
Photo #2 - photos of rice terrace - it looks like it was taken during a very gloomy day. If it's submitted today, it probably will be rejected for lighting issue
Photo #3 - Photo of sailing boat. Dark, gloomy and huge potential to be rejected for lighting issue as well
Photo #4 - Photo of sleeping Asian baby on mother's arms. Beautiful photo but the white balance looks off to me, almost too yellow. I'm Asian, I'm sure as hell I'm not that yellow :)
-
I don't get most of the main photos on Shutterstock page that being used as the background (background for the search field). No offense to the photographers, but Shutterstock has a lot more beautiful photos but the photos chosen on their website, I'm almost 100% sure the would get rejected if one submit the same photos today. Let's me go thru one by one and please if you are the photographer, please do not get offended. This is not personal attack but to show the what's the problem with current inconsistent review. The photos in question are as below (if you know what's I'm talking about, you need to keep refreshing shutterstock page to see each of the photo)
Photo #1 - photo of a green plant (looks like succulent to me) that was shot using shallow depth of field. Today this would be rejected for focus issue.
Photo #2 - photos of rice terrace - it looks it was taken during a very gloomy day. If it's submitted today, it probably will be rejected for lighting issue
Photo #3 - Photo of sailing boat. Dark, gloomy and huge potential to be rejected for lighting issue as well
Photo #4 - Photo of sleeping Asian baby on mother's arms. Beautiful photo but the white balance looks off to me, almost too yellow. I'm Asian, I'm sure as hell I'm not that yellow :)
To old saying- "Do as I say, not as I do"
-
i dont have rejected images, 99% acceptance, i upload every day 2-3 images, maybe i have one image rejected every 14 days.
[…]
3. check whole image for noise, every pixel
[…]
I hope that your images are not 50 Megapixels…
-
The work you some guys are putting in for pennies is just overkill. Send them images worthy of 38 cents. Not images worthy of 38 dollar. Snapshots are the way forward. If you want to be rewarded and feel appreciated as an artist submit to other image banks other then microstock.
-
The work you some guys are putting in for pennies is just overkill. Send them images worthy of 38 cents. Not images worthy of 38 dollar. Snapshots are the way forward. If you want to be rewarded and feel appreciated as an artist submit to other image banks other then microstock.
"submit to other image banks"
The question is: which one???
Today they are not exactly all the same… but tomorrow??
-
The work you some guys are putting in for pennies is just overkill. Send them images worthy of 38 cents. Not images worthy of 38 dollar. Snapshots are the way forward. If you want to be rewarded and feel appreciated as an artist submit to other image banks other then microstock.
Have to find myself agreeing with that sentiment as far as RF stock is today. Six or seven years ago it would have been sensible to buy top gear and shot stock as the total numbers of images available on the sites that existed was small proportionate to the demand. High quality images would have sold like hot cakes and established themselves at the top of all the searches and would have continued to sell even today albeit in smaller numbers. Those sales probably paid the hundreds or thousands of dollars invested in equipment.
Today, my o' my, is it a totally different story.
To buy even a mid-range DSLR and a decent lens could take years to pay for itself if the only place you sold images taken with it was on RF Microstock sites.
Nowadays, my view on such places is they only get the 'cuttings off the floor' which the client didn't like. And only then if I can be bothered to keyword them and upload.
The term 'crapstock' is more accurate today than ever. Shutterstock simply do not deserve to get photographs of high quality or styling when they mug you off with .38 cents for subs. In the early days of microstock it was the micro photographers that drove the growth and they are now the very reason why the market is so over saturated it's almost a futile if not even pointless exercise to even submit any new images. It must be so disheartening for newcomers today to see their new image disappear to page 50 of 470 pages within a week never, ever to be even seen, and therefore never downloaded.
And that shiny new expensive DSLR is still sitting there :(
And SS wants to raise the bar on image standards even higher? Please.
And of course there's the new phenomena of a few microstock 'shooters' quite happy to give their images away for free! That's gonna help :)
RM or commissions is the only viable money making option today, and anyway, it's always more fun working with real clients, it gets me out the house and away from the computer :)
-
+1.
-
They really got me today. All my images were rejected from my recent trip to Amsterdam--But have been all accepted on the top three other sites. Reasons--Not in focus, composition, lighting, and white balance. These images has been sold within the last two days 10+ times each. I just don't understand what's going on. Something is very strange and becoming almost a waste of time for me to continue to upload.
-
They just got me again but this time for focus. The images were shot at ISO100, f/8, on a tripod and are sharp on my monitor. Seriously considering being done with them. what shutter stock? Seriously?
-
I think many times perfectly fine and technically correct images are rejected just "because SS doesn't want those type or style of images."
So many of the contributors see these random rejections that, frankly are wrong (rejected for out of focus when the images are technically superior in focus and clarity to many of the images in the current library), but the REAL reason for rejection is SS just doesn't want THOSE images.
FT does this all the time, and if you ask anyone around here they will tell you that is just what FT does because they don't want any landscape images, or whatever type of images don't fit their CURRENT needs.
The problem is contributors spend time capturing and processing images to the best of their abilities, paying careful attention to issues of noise, focus and color balance only to have that plate of cookies rejected for something like "focus issues" when in reality SS just doesn't think they need any more images of a plate of cookies (landscapes, cookies, or whatever random image fits the bill at the time.)
I think (just my opinion) that the "kind" of images SS wants right now is highly produced "typical" stock images, the kind Yuri Arcurs used to provide. Images with a lot of production, technically complex lighting setups, models, makeup artists, full-on high production "lifestyle" type of stuff. That is the kind of stuff that will maintain the "photo buyer" income levels that the upper management is looking to "sell" to the CEO and stockholders.
As much as Yuri tried to turn microstock into a business, which required a staff and paid models, and over time turned into a full-blown enterprise, most of us small time contributors can't compete on that scale, nor can we produce images with that "style" in a cost-effective manner.
So, (again just my opinion) as time marches on microstock needs to be more and more like stock photography used to be in the old days. Where the stock houses told the photographers what kinds of images to shoot and worked in partnership with a broad spectrum of photographers.
The higher ups at SS still want to work off the whole "crowd source" model, they just want to dictate what the "crowd" provides, and that just doesn't work [period].
-
I think many times perfectly fine and technically correct images are rejected just "because SS doesn't want those type or style of images."
So many of the contributors see these random rejections that, frankly are wrong (rejected for out of focus when the images are technically superior in focus and clarity to many of the images in the current library), but the REAL reason for rejection is SS just doesn't want THOSE images.
FT does this all the time, and if you ask anyone around here they will tell you that is just what FT does because they don't want any landscape images, or whatever type of images don't fit their CURRENT needs.
The problem is contributors spend time capturing and processing images to the best of their abilities, paying careful attention to issues of noise, focus and color balance only to have that plate of cookies rejected for something like "focus issues" when in reality SS just doesn't think they need any more images of a plate of cookies (landscapes, cookies, or whatever random image fits the bill at the time.)
I think (just my opinion) that the "kind" of images SS wants right now is highly produced "typical" stock images, the kind Yuri Arcurs used to provide. Images with a lot of production, technically complex lighting setups, models, makeup artists, full-on high production "lifestyle" type of stuff. That is the kind of stuff that will maintain the "photo buyer" income levels that the upper management is looking to "sell" to the CEO and stockholders.
As much as Yuri tried to turn microstock into a business, which required a staff and paid models, and over time turned into a full-blown enterprise, most of us small time contributors can't compete on that scale, nor can we produce images with that "style" in a cost-effective manner.
So, (again just my opinion) as time marches on microstock needs to be more and more like stock photography used to be in the old days. Where the stock houses told the photographers what kinds of images to shoot and worked in partnership with a broad spectrum of photographers.
The higher ups at SS still want to work off the whole "crowd source" model, they just want to dictate what the "crowd" provides, and that just doesn't work [period].
My personal experience: Shutterstock never refuses me flowers or landscapes ( I don't send many, I shoot mainly food) but, if are well done they take all my pictures. Fotolia too. Is not that "they don't need them". They need them, but the quality must be exceptional and very nice and rare compositions. The problem here is almost all the people shoot in the same manner, doesn't matter they are in focus, but when you see the same stuff to all contributors everyday you start to reject, is normal. I think many contributors make a main mistake: create what others create and try to copy the bestsellers. The stock agencies look a lot to originality, creativity. I believe this is important and what I try to do now is remove all these bad images from my portfolio, I don't care if I will cut a lot, I care about the look of my port.
-
Man.. same here.. they complain a lot about focus.. yet the focus always seems spot on to me.. Some submissions with be great, but the last two batches, they rejected everything.. :/
-
The problem is that there is no consistency with Shutterstock lately. I submitted 12 photos and they were all rejected due to focus issues, WTH! The focus could not be more dead on, the photos were taken in a studio with my 7D and used live view 10X to focus and shot with 100 iso, 250 shutter at f/8.
Istock, Canstock, Alamy and a few other companies accepted them within 2 days. So here is the secret for Shutterstock, wait 3-4 hours after the rejection then resubmit, just don't forget to delete the rejected photos. I just resubmitted all 12 and all 12 got accepted, and I sold 9 photos within 8 hours of their acceptance, go figure.
-
I have 100% acceptance rate at Shutterstock lately. I can understand before what they will refuse if I submit and I'm trying to avoid that. Sometimes I get wrong, but if I make a count my rejections in the past 6 months are limited to 9-10 images.
-
I have 100% acceptance rate at Shutterstock lately. I can understand before what they will refuse if I submit and I'm trying to avoid that. Sometimes I get wrong, but if I make a count my rejections in the past 6 months are limited to 9-10 images.
You have a nice port.
-
I have 100% acceptance rate at Shutterstock lately. I can understand before what they will refuse if I submit and I'm trying to avoid that. Sometimes I get wrong, but if I make a count my rejections in the past 6 months are limited to 9-10 images.
You have a nice port.
Thank you very much, I still have to clean it, I have several hundreds not professional at all...
-
They might have addressed some of the crazier reviews from my experience at least. The last 2-3 weeks all the ones i've had i'd class as fair. The rejections im getting i can agree with (or at least see their point) and images seem to be evaluated individually so no batch rejections for random reasons or lumps of rock needing a release. That's been 7 or 8 reviews in a row totalling about 200 images for me all going normally.
Before that it was pretty much 100% reject with 1 reason or 100% acceptance even for ones that shouldn't for ages.
Maybe reviewers are getting new advice or retrained and the problem is slowly being corrected. The number of poor reviewers might now be smaller.
-
Yeah all my batches from the last 2-3 weeks got reviewed fairly, +1 point to SS.
-
I don't consider myself very good in this business- below the middle range in inventory (portfolio size) and monetary according to the MSG survey yet I have had 85 out 95 images approved this month thus don't feel that there is anything wrong with the review process. I submit on all days as well.
-
Same here, gnirtS and Nikovsk: reviews seem to be back to normal since the last 2 weeks.
If they addressed the issue in the background, despite publicly negating that there was a problem, it's fine for me.
I just hope that it would not happen again in the future, since it's not the first time.
-
Is all ok, I still get 100% acceptance
-
It is frustrating for contributors as a group to watch one well known individual who submits virtually everything they snap in very high numbers and for us to see that almost everything he shoots is accepted by shutterstock. Over the years we have consistently watched very low quality content with a myriad of technical and content defects make their way into this port along with high number of "virtually identical snaps" in submission after submission.
At the same time some of your best contributors with pristine carefully planed and processed ports are receiving rejections for content of much higher quality.
This is what kills my incentive to do more than the absolute minimum effort to get images for SS. I know exactly who you're referring to and it really has been going on for years. If you look at their latest work, you can't see any difference between some images all approved in the same batch of crap photos that no one else would be able to get in to SS.
Its proof to me that some reviewers play favorites, and the rest of us play the review lottery and get the speedy reviewers who look at one image and if it doesn't pass, they reject the whole bunch.
-
Ok, here is a perfect example. Go to the Shutterstock main home page, scroll down a bit and click on the Photos tab. On the left hand side there is a very nice photo of asparagus.
Now, I dare anyone to try to duplicate that photo and get it passed the SS reviewers now. I can almost guarantee that it will be refused for a) poor lighting (shadows) and/or b) cropping.
Something happened to the review system a few months ago. What used to go though approved before, will more than likely be rejected now. Everything is taken too literally. That sweet little asparagus photo would not exist there today, if left up to the current review system.
Not sure I could agree on the asparagus example, though. Whilst I've never seen that photo before (honest!) I recently submitted a set of photo's containing asparagus (some very close up and selective focus) and they were all accepted. All were lit using small tungsten spots; none of which has an identical colour temperature. No rejection even on wb.
OTOH, some outside stuff taken in natural sunlight does get rejected on wb! So I duuno. :)
-
I continue to repeat that each reviewer sees and judges in a different way each photo. One of them considers it good, another one no and rejects it. The reviewers are scattered in all the world and they have different points of view. Like all of us, we are all different. I don't think Shutterstock has favorites and unfavorites. Common, I diddn't see many unfair refused photos. If they refuse it there's always a reason even if we like it or not.
-
I praised them just to get another Attila review... 100% rejection.
This is getting old.
-
I have been submitting really small batches of 1 to 5 images a day and that is getting it done but I also went to shooting on a tripod and tethered so I can see exactly what I am getting right away and adjust on the fly. I shoot mostly food so that works for me.
-
I have been submitting really small batches of 1 to 5 images a day and that is getting it done but I also went to shooting on a tripod and tethered so I can see exactly what I am getting right away and adjust on the fly. I shoot mostly food so that works for me.
Me too, I shoot on tripod, tethered 90% of my shots. For videos too, I use a tripod. I don't send batches with more than 25 images.
-
Well I'm not gonna hike with a tripod... I'll try really small batches like 2 at a time and see how it goes.
-
Got pounded myself today! I am going to just take a break before I smash my camera! >:(
-
Got pounded myself today! I am going to just take a break before I smash my camera! >:(
:D
-
I'm not seeing much rhyme or reason regarding SS rejections these days. Reviewer comments often make no sense when comparing what is accepted and rejected from the same shoot. As others have said, I'm afraid it's becoming a bit of a crap shoot with them. Re-thinking my agency upload priorities.
-
Same here, gnirtS and Nikovsk: reviews seem to be back to normal since the last 2 weeks.
If they addressed the issue in the background, despite publicly negating that there was a problem, it's fine for me.
I just hope that it would not happen again in the future, since it's not the first time.
I'm quoting myself to say that I spoke too soon.
I split my last 30 images into two batches:
1st batch: 100% rejection for poor lighting;
2nd batch: 100% acceptance.
Needless to say, lighting was exactly the same.
This is my last message on this topic: Shutterstock has no intention to listen.
Who cares... my rejected images are already selling on other agencies.
And every month the SS share is getting a bit lower and the share of other sites a bit higher:
this is a good thing actually.
-
I have added a 1000 images in a short period, but my earnings have stayed the same for over 8 months. Considering the offbeat rejections and lack of growth in earnings, I might as well stop uploading and just let my port generate the income. Free money, the work is already done, but less the frustrations that come with dealing with Shutterstock reviewers.
-
I have added a 1000 images in a short period, but my earnings have stayed the same for over 8 months. Considering the offbeat rejections and lack of growth in earnings, I might as well stop uploading and just let my port generate the income. Free money, the work is already done, but less the frustrations that come with dealing with Shutterstock reviewers.
I concur with that thought entirely. My income has also flat lined to the point where I can predict my downloads per week day and per weekend day. The similarity is startling as is the income. Their rationing software is actually excellent as soon as I reach 'my limit' for the day it's switched off - no more D/L's for me that day :D
I stopped uploading completely three months ago, (apart from the disastrous 'test' last week) and my income has not changed one jot, not even a bean.
I know I will get more than $500 and less than $1000 dollars every month without me doing anything.
It's also quite nice to see all my new stuff selling immediately on the other sites, in a rather sad but nevertheless satisfying Freudenschade sort of way :)
And I don't think I'm alone either, SS appear to have 'lost' a lot of steady, good contributors though their recent shenanigans. But they have their 30 million images and as long as they hit their EPS targets they won't give a sh*t about the talent that got them to where they are now. C'est la vie :)
I'll not be going back for the foreseeable future, I'll just take the cash :)
-
Can we see some of the images plus 100% crop.
Else this is just another whining over the reviewers thread.
And please note, that Shutterstock has been here and ever so politely and impersonal has explained procedures and things, and still you continue to whine.
Rejections are all about supply and demand, and you folks might be going out of demand, as we all are.
-
Could be that some SS reviewers figured out a way how to increase their income.
Firstly, by hitting the same Reject (and sometimes the Accept) button several times in a quick succession, they can drastically increase their productivity and profitability.
Secondly, by sending majority of images into the Rejected pile, they count on the fact that some contributors will resubmit their images what means more images in the pipeline and more income for the reviewers.
-
Could be the some SS reviewers figured out a way how to increase their income.
Firstly, by hitting the same Reject (and sometimes the Accept) button several times in a quick succession, they can drastically increase their productivity and profitability.
Secondly, by sending majority of images into the Rejected pile, they count on the fact that some contributors will resubmit their images which means more images in the pipeline and more income for the reviewers.
I know of sites that pay reviewers more for rejections with the assumption it takes longer to look at an image at 100%; which they expect the reviewer to do before rejecting an image. I have no way of knowing if shutterstock pays more for rejections.
-
....
Rejections are all about supply and demand, and you folks might be going out of demand, as we all are.
if that's the case they should say so rather than invent bogus 'ighting problems' or 'composition' rejects or asking for a model release when there are no people in t he picture
-
....
Rejections are all about supply and demand, and you folks might be going out of demand, as we all are.
if that's the case they should say so rather than invent bogus 'ighting problems' or 'composition' rejects or asking for a model release when there are no people in t he picture
Looks to me like they are still accepting a fair number of snaps. Take a look at a few ports from some of the LCV images here. Their new images are similar and they seem to have no problem getting them thru.
http://tinyurl.com/omjzzhs (http://tinyurl.com/omjzzhs)
-
A lot of very Old Images there, Of course thats what is selling. Maybe they want us whiners as jens said...To just go away. They may get there wish sooner than later and lots more will follow unless they start talking and actually saying something. Remember what the recession taught us, Your never to big to fail.
-
Yep, just got a whole batch rejected. Gutted. Some images of the same shoot (one accepted some time ago) were rejected on the basis of copyright. Contradiction again !
-
Yep, just got a whole batch rejected. Gutted. Some images of the same shoot (one accepted some time ago) were rejected on the basis of copyright. Contradiction again !
Love your Timeless Beauty this month, great photos! :)
-
Yep, just got a whole batch rejected. Gutted. Some images of the same shoot (one accepted some time ago) were rejected on the basis of copyright. Contradiction again !
Yeah, I've had various opinions on copyright before as well. Generally the stricter reviewer is correct though.
There could have been a logo visible in one shot and not the other. Or, with something like a John Deere tractor - which is generally refused because the green color is trademarked - not all reviewers catch it. There gets to be a lot of products and locations that have copyright issues and its probably a challenge to keep track of them all.
-
Yep, just got a whole batch rejected. Gutted. Some images of the same shoot (one accepted some time ago) were rejected on the basis of copyright. Contradiction again !
Love your Timeless Beauty this month, great photos! :)
I'm not with you ?
-
A lot of very Old Images there, Of course thats what is selling. Maybe they want us whiners as jens said...To just go away. They may get there wish sooner than later and lots more will follow unless they start talking and actually saying something. Remember what the recession taught us, Your never to big to fail.
Sort by new http://tinyurl.com/omjzzhs (http://tinyurl.com/omjzzhs)
-
With every beating, we get stronger. Hang in there, man! 8)
Man, the last two weeks have been rough at SS for me. Everything I have tried to get in my portfolio has been kicked back at me and for stuff I feel like has not changed. Recently I am hearing that my images are out of focus and I know they are not. I check them close at 100% but still they are kicking my butt on this.
Anyone else seeing this? SS is the only place I have sold much lately so it is discouraging, to say the least.
-
I normally don't think too much about rejected images, but I had 6 that were simply stunning.
I really wanted to get them through, so I resubmit them in two small batches.
Batch of 2: 1 approved
Batch of 4: 0 approved
Needless to say, rejection reasons were completely opposite.
First time they were rejected for lighting, composition and noise.
Now they were rejected only for focus. I didn't change a thing - exact same pictures.
So that's it, I'm tired of making a fool out of myself.
I'll shift my uploading priority to IS, they already sell more anyway.
-
Am experiencing high rejections at SS in some recent batches as well. Today it was 1 accepted out of 7 images. Really unusual because I have had pretty good acceptance rate over past years. Wondering what's up there … :-\
-
I normally don't think too much about rejected images, but I had 6 that were simply stunning.
I really wanted to get them through, so I resubmit them in two small batches.
Batch of 2: 1 approved
Batch of 4: 0 approved
Needless to say, rejection reasons were completely opposite.
First time they were rejected for lighting, composition and noise.
Now they were rejected only for focus. I didn't change a thing - exact same pictures.
So that's it, I'm tired of making a fool out of myself.
I'll shift my uploading priority to IS, they already sell more anyway.
Yep.
-
Last batch:
25 submitted
25 accepted…
No surprise
-
I think things are getting better- so far this month 168 submitted images with 150 being accepted thus almost 90%. 8)
-
I agree. I am starting to see more get through. What a pain in the arse though. I has taken a lot of work lately to get simple stuff through..... Hope this is a good omen.
-
With the ~24hr reviewing ive had quite a lot of batches lately and my reviews at least have been fair for quite a while now. The stuff still isn't selling obviously but its getting accepted.
-
My new stuff is accepted but my old 4MP pictures simply won't get through anymore... they definitely raised their standards. I simply ignore the rejection reasons as they are random, but the reviews are consistent (always 0% acceptance). It's sad because I have 30k pictures with my old camera. Good thing there is Istock to save the day.
-
Good thing there is Istock to save the day.
Honestly, this isn't a good thing.
Daily, I see files getting into iStock which would be substandard in a primary school photography project. (Quite apart from disgraceful keywording.)
In the old days, iStock had standards which were at least as high as SS's, and it was a far better collection as a result. I learned some things I had no idea about before (e.g. colour fringing, colour aberration) and it was all to the good.
Nowadays, they take just about anything (I had a rejection for a 'too simple' illustration, which was a classic symbol exactly 'as is', but I'm not bitter ;)) - but then they hide new files in the Best Match.
Are you actually getting a lot of sales on iStock or just sub sales in the PP?
-
Other than requiring a model release for any multi cellular invisible life form in the frame do IS actually reject ANYTHING at all now?!
-
ShadySue, I get only subs of course but SS is the same (98% of sales). I think it's better to take everything and let sales decide which files are good then to reject stunning pictures just because of possible camera limitations. I think how the picture actually looks like is way more important than purely technical aspects. SS has plenty of pictures lacking aesthetics but just because they have technical quality doesn't mean they are good.
-
Other than requiring a model release for any multi cellular invisible life form in the frame do IS actually reject ANYTHING at all now?!
Yes, as noted above, I have the honour of having what was probably the only file rejected by iStock in the past year or so.
-
Yes, I have also explained how they use technology. I have no idea where that quote is, its somewhere on a forum. I think even Scott came in here and explained it.
They open the image automatically for the reviewer at 100% on the screen. To speed things up. The reviewer still makes the decision. How do you explain inconsistency on the same image, if it was 100% automated? Technology is not ambiguous.
Probably the system proposes to the inspector some possible "verdicts" and the inspector, hurry to reach his quota of reviewed images for the day, to then go to smoke and drink beers with his unemployed friends, pushes hastily one of buttons correspondent to the various rejection reasons offered by the system…
(Or do they just use blind people as inspectors??)
Well any evidence found yet? I have not followed the case yet so bit lack the information.. Can you share some more details?
-
Hmm, I get stuff rejected all the time.
-
I dont worry about rejections
-
Another whole batch rejected bar one. rejections+poor sales=low incentive.
-
OMG they're rejecting even my new images downsized to 4MP, everything has poor lighting.
With these reviews you would think they sell your pictures for 25 dollars and not 25 cents.
-
Hm, I find nearly impossible to broad my port in SS... At IS they accept everything but if some living form is on the photo without MR (as somebody said). To be honest, even though I'm pretty new here, and I have tiny port on SS, I must say that I would show only my SS portfolio to somebody - there are my best photos.
The thing is - SS is far best stock agency. The pushing of the photos to SS is probably enormous. Everybody wants to place photo there. I've seen now that the number of photos is 35 millions and a few months ago there was less than 30, if I can remember. And now they rose the standards, that's normal to expect. With the new standards the quality of photos will be higher, and people will be still sending photos there as they only sell there.
The reasons of rejections are irrelevant - the real reason is that the photos are not the best for their collection. The photo must be ether extraordinary (if it is landscape for example) or something that they think will sale good.
-
Re: The reasons of rejections are irrelevant - the real reason is that the photos are not the best for their collection. The photo must be ether extraordinary (if it is landscape for example) or something that they think will sale good.
Sounds plausible, but have you looked at the new images they have been accepting lately?
-
OMG they're rejecting even my new images downsized to 4MP, everything has poor lighting.
With these reviews you would think they sell your pictures for 25 dollars and not 25 cents.
In fact THEY sell your images for $25 (and more) and YOU get ¢25…
___
-
218 NEW images accepted in the last 2 days
More to submit
Stay Tuned!
:)
-
218 NEW images accepted in the last 2 days
More to submit
Stay Tuned!
:)
You're a machine at that amount of images being produced! I only had 167 accepted images the entire month of June :-\
-
218 NEW images accepted in the last 2 days
More to submit
Stay Tuned!
:)
You're a machine at that amount of images being produced! I only had 167 accepted images the entire month of June :-\
Submitting less images is a good way to get less rejections :D
So… be happy!
-
218 NEW images accepted in the last 2 days
More to submit
Stay Tuned!
:)
You're a machine at that amount of images being produced! I only had 167 accepted images the entire month of June :-\
Submitting less images is a good way to get less rejections :D
So… be happy!
Creating Correctly Light, Bright, In Focus, Sharp, Crisp, Useful images is the ONLY WAY to Get Less Rejections! ;)
-
That's what I'm talking about, while 200 similar images like that go through, my 5 totally unique landscapes from Macedonia or whatever get banned. It's like composition doesn't matter anymore, as long as you have a super fancy camera. That's why I strongly prefer IS atitude over SS when it comes to image acceptance.
-
That's what I'm talking about, while 200 similar images like that go through, my 5 totally unique landscapes from Macedonia or whatever get banned. It's like composition doesn't matter anymore, as long as you have a super fancy camera. That's why I strongly prefer IS atitude over SS when it comes to image acceptance.
I didn't realize my Canon Rebel T2i was a super fancy camera - thanks 8)
-
That's what I'm talking about, while 200 similar images like that go through, my 5 totally unique landscapes from Macedonia or whatever get banned. It's like composition doesn't matter anymore, as long as you have a super fancy camera. That's why I strongly prefer IS atitude over SS when it comes to image acceptance.
The reviewers are not the problem, the competition (other contributors) is and landscape has got to be one of the toughest areas in which to compete. I do OKish images that don't sell particularly well but hardly ever get a rejection because there is less competition.
-
I took out the posts discussing one member's account/photos. Not because it turned particularly vile or nasty (it didn't) but because I don't want to have a culture of pointing figures at each other here or using people's portfolio to ridicule them.
-
I took out the posts discussing one member's account/photos. Not because it turned particularly vile or nasty (it didn't) but because I don't want to have a culture of pointing figures at each other here or using people's portfolio to ridicule them.
Thanks for "Defending" me (I guess)
The thing about Photography (and anything really, from Photography, Music, Games, Food Etc.) is Everyone and I mean EVERYONE around the world has their own opinion of what is "Good or Bad" depending on Their Perception and Opinions.
In fact the Photo In Questions (that has been removed) was Sold Overnight in Europe someplace (the SS Map is not exact but is a fun anyways)
I understand your censorship of your website, and am glad to be allowed to be part of the community.
For the naysayers I just wanted to say Another 38 images accepted overnight (the rejected ones are for Prominent Tattoo not cloned out, my mistake and a few other minor issues)
Thanks one and all
Like they say in England
Keep Calm
and
Take Stock Photos
:)
-
Just submitted 22 images. My rule in the past has been only do 10-15. But hey I was feeling lucky. Only 2 got accepted???? They threw out a bunch of really good and unique images. OH well... Back to 10 images at a time I guess
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
I can't get anything in for 2 weeks. I stopped uploading there.
Will resubmit everything later on but for now it's just a waste of time.
-
Alas I am only at 229 New Images accepted in the last few days from my 4 day Photo Shoot with Jeff Banke and others
I wonder why its so darn hard to get images accepted?
:)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-202046608/stock-photo-a-genuine-female-zombie-enjoys-eating-a-fresh-brain-from-her-latest-victim-zombies-are-currently.html?src=++uZac1zTshccuKpYQimiw-1-48 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-202046608/stock-photo-a-genuine-female-zombie-enjoys-eating-a-fresh-brain-from-her-latest-victim-zombies-are-currently.html?src=++uZac1zTshccuKpYQimiw-1-48)
-
Fine new images Mike.
I like doctor Ledray, and also that Jeff is so hungry that he eats the mail.
-
Fine new images Mike.
I like doctor Ledray, and also that Jeff is so hungry that he eats the mail.
Thanks Jens my friend.
Happy 4th of July
:)
Hope your doing good.
We should skype one of these days real soon and catch up
I appreciate it
-
Dang Only have accepted a mere 290+ in the last 3-4 days
When will Atilla go on vacation?
:)
Thanks Shutterstock
You cats Rock!
Shutterstock is the Best Site in the entire world!
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-201842443/stock-photo-a-handsome-and-friendly-father-or-business-man-holds-out-money-as-if-he-is-going-to-give-you-your.html?src=xViyhf9YHXvn8bT1X9xTCg-3-10 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-201842443/stock-photo-a-handsome-and-friendly-father-or-business-man-holds-out-money-as-if-he-is-going-to-give-you-your.html?src=xViyhf9YHXvn8bT1X9xTCg-3-10)
-
Shutterstock does not need constrictive feedback to support it's contributors.
"Whoooo Yay" http://tinyurl.com/pkuwt73 (http://tinyurl.com/pkuwt73)
-
Dang Only have accepted a mere 290+ in the last 3-4 days
When will Atilla go on vacation?
:)
Thanks Shutterstock
You cats Rock!
Shutterstock is the Best Site in the entire world!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-201842443/stock-photo-a-handsome-and-friendly-father-or-business-man-holds-out-money-as-if-he-is-going-to-give-you-your.html?src=xViyhf9YHXvn8bT1X9xTCg-3-10[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-201842443/stock-photo-a-handsome-and-friendly-father-or-business-man-holds-out-money-as-if-he-is-going-to-give-you-your.html?src=xViyhf9YHXvn8bT1X9xTCg-3-10[/url])
Ja, I say the same. I uploaded 4 images this month (or was it last?) and 3 were accepted. So Attila 1 vs Jens 3. We can only hope he goes on vacation soon so we can have the borderline images of poisonous plants and communists accepted.
-
Dang Only have accepted a mere 290+ in the last 3-4 days
When will Atilla go on vacation?
:)
Thanks Shutterstock
You cats Rock!
Shutterstock is the Best Site in the entire world!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-201842443/stock-photo-a-handsome-and-friendly-father-or-business-man-holds-out-money-as-if-he-is-going-to-give-you-your.html?src=xViyhf9YHXvn8bT1X9xTCg-3-10[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-201842443/stock-photo-a-handsome-and-friendly-father-or-business-man-holds-out-money-as-if-he-is-going-to-give-you-your.html?src=xViyhf9YHXvn8bT1X9xTCg-3-10[/url])
Ja, I say the same. I uploaded 4 images this month (or was it last?) and 3 were accepted. So Attila 1 vs Jens 3. We can only hope he goes on vacation soon so we can have the borderline images of poisonous plants and communists accepted.
:)
-
Dang Only have accepted a mere 290+ in the last 3-4 days
When will Atilla go on vacation?
:)
Thanks Shutterstock
You cats Rock!
Shutterstock is the Best Site in the entire world!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-201842443/stock-photo-a-handsome-and-friendly-father-or-business-man-holds-out-money-as-if-he-is-going-to-give-you-your.html?src=xViyhf9YHXvn8bT1X9xTCg-3-10[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-201842443/stock-photo-a-handsome-and-friendly-father-or-business-man-holds-out-money-as-if-he-is-going-to-give-you-your.html?src=xViyhf9YHXvn8bT1X9xTCg-3-10[/url])
I am glad you are having success with your submissions but gloating about it in a thread where people are discussing struggles with submissions hardly seems necessary.
-
I was wondering why someone would gloat, I guess it is in the nature of the beast.
SLStudios makes a good point. You have my vote.
I believe we should support each other as we are all in the same boat one way or another. No need to hurt fellow contributor feelings in my opinion.
-
Notwithstanding his gloating, Mike's post points out that not everyone is seeing large numbers of rejections. His experience is a counterexample to any claim that reviews are out of control. As is mine; the vast majority of my recent submissions have been accepted. And even those few rejections are arguable; I can see why the reviewer pushed back, even if I think they're on the proper side of the quality line.
I think it's worth looking closely at those rejected images to see what the reviewer saw. Certainly more productive than assuming it's all a plot or gross incompetence.
-
Ok they raised their standards, my pictures are not good anymore for them. I had a very decent approval rate two months ago with the same quality of images, but whatever. I would be fine with it, but they accept so many similar trash that it's at least intriguing.
If they want to raise technical standards, then they should raise composition standards as well. People complain how IS went on reviews, but this is not different or it's even worse as all this effort doesn't even accomplish the goal which is to have a good looking collection.
-
I am not uploading very much... but I get in everything that I think is good enough to get in.
I check Lighting, sharpness, noise and composition on every image and if it is acceptable, I submit.
-
Absolutely ridiculous rejections. Focus and or fringing yet they are sharp. I also de-fringed in Lightroom so I don't know what they are playing at. All my footage gets accepted.
-
finally they raised standards!! i'm kinda happy about that
i'm getting kicked too but it's ok...maybe noise or defocus is very little and we don't see it nor bother it
-
I think I am experienced enough to know if something is in focus or not. IS did this some time ago and now they accept everything.
-
When somebody says I just got 200 files accepted, you have to ask.....
1. Are they lying?
2. If not is that 200 accepted images out of 1000 submitted?
-
When somebody says I just got 200 files accepted, you have to ask.....
1. Are they lying?
2. If not is that 200 accepted images out of 1000 submitted?
Just some extra information; Mike's friend Jeff posted on SS that 33% of his images from the same shoot have been rejected. The model in Mike's images is Jeff, and vice verse. All their images are from the same shoot.
I'll let the good people of this forum make their own conclusions.
-
If they want to raise technical standards, then they should raise composition standards as well. People complain how IS went on reviews, but this is not different or it's even worse as all this effort doesn't even accomplish the goal which is to have a good looking collection.
Do you REALLY want reviewers who (i) can't even colour profile their own screen or judge exposure consistently who (ii) get paid fractions of a cent per image now responsible for making the 100% subjective "composition" decision as well? In other words, someone paid near nothing who can't judge more black and white criteria is now also deciding whether they like your image enough to approve or not. I can see that causing much much worse chaos as its the personal preference and a whim of an individual you don't know who might have zero experience in your particular photo area.
-
If that's too much to ask, at least they should hold off similars like DT does.
The way SS is doing just makes their collection even more redundant than it already is.
-
Some months ago I was one of those lamenting all the time about rejections.
Since this time I have changed some “little” things:
1) I have change my mind and my approach to stock photos
2) I have bought a better camera
3) I have bought good prime lenses
4) I came less on forums to complain and complain directly to [email protected]
The points 1 to 3 have led to produce better stock images. And maybe it tells me that the Shutterstock standards are growing.
The point 4 gave me the possibility to explain my point of view, and to get the point of view from the inspector with eventually some advice.
Finally:
> I get all the Images that I consider to be acceptable accepted
> I get the images that I consider borderline sometime accepted, sometime rejected, sometime accepted after some little adjustments based on the inspectors advices.
> I get the images “let’s try, who knows” rejected because they deserve to be rejected.
But it can happen that for incomprehensible reasons some acceptable images are rejected. In this situation I don’t even contact [email protected] or put a note to the inspector, I just resubmit the image as it is, and it is generally accepted.
So, before to always give the fault to the inspectors, what I did before, I think that it is better to try to be more objective about the own work, and maybe wait some days before to submit the images because with a little more reflection it is always possible to change the own vision.
-
If that's too much to ask, at least they should hold off similars like DT does.
The way SS is doing just makes their collection even more redundant than it already is.
Completely agree, you only have to search a few large ports by keyword, to see just how redundant the collection has become.
As for review consistency you only have to look at the new images approved, to see that the review process is badly out of whack and has been for a very long time.
-
Notwithstanding his gloating, Mike's post points out that not everyone is seeing large numbers of rejections. His experience is a counter example to any claim that reviews are out of control. As is mine; the vast majority of my recent submissions have been accepted. And even those few rejections are arguable; I can see why the reviewer pushed back, even if I think they're on the proper side of the quality line.
I think it's worth looking closely at those rejected images to see what the reviewer saw. Certainly more productive than assuming it's all a plot or gross incompetence.
My own rejections have not gone up, however when you make the mistake of confusing your own experience with the experience of other contributors. You run the risk of missing a great deal.
I have friends who shoot very high end images that are experiencing a much higher rejection rate than my own and that inconsistency in reviews needs to be addressed.
-
Notwithstanding his gloating, Mike's post points out that not everyone is seeing large numbers of rejections. His experience is a counter example to any claim that reviews are out of control. As is mine; the vast majority of my recent submissions have been accepted. And even those few rejections are arguable; I can see why the reviewer pushed back, even if I think they're on the proper side of the quality line.
I think it's worth looking closely at those rejected images to see what the reviewer saw. Certainly more productive than assuming it's all a plot or gross incompetence.
My own rejections have not gone up, however when you make the mistake of confusing your own experience with the experience of other contributors. You run the risk of missing a great deal.
I have friends who shoot very high end images that are experiencing a much higher rejection rate than my own and that inconsistency in reviews needs to be addressed.
I just got 200 accepted just this week. Oh, did I tell you I submitted 2000? :'( this is generally the missing datapoint and an important one. I didn't really submit anything, just used that to illustrate the second half of the equation that isn't always posted here. By the way I got five of my last six accepted. :)
-
ok guys you're completely right and i said a crap before...just got rejection of 30 images...
I've look my images at 100% and yes they have some artifacts, but, nothing so dramatic that my older images do not had, in future i will pay more attention
-
its not even worth tell you all about my acceptance rate
A really smart person once told me "Why would you help your competition?"
You are all my competition (ok well a few of you)
Gloat about my sales and acceptance rate?
I was only trying to be motivating but human nature being what it is you all read it as Gloating and Bragging when I was actually trying to help
That being said
Good Luck to all
:)
-
If your audience perceives your comments as gloating, but you meant them to be motivating, then there clearly is a disconnect between you and your audience. You might want to take that valuable feedback and consider changing your style of communication, so that what you mean to bring across, is perceived as such by the receiver. Those values should be the basics of communication.
-
I just had some rejections and my first reaction was what. When I took a close look at the images the photos were indeed a tad unsharp (not sure why but suspecting the lens). I have to say the inspectors were dead right with the exception of one image that was rejected on bad composition.
-
I trust people are pushing back through the correct channels - as I have just done for a couple of silly focus rejections.
Until the chap who manages submit@shutterstock is brought before the inner circle and explains his failure to hit query resolution targets is due to rocketing rejection disputes - nothing will change.
-
Until the chap who manages submit@shutterstock is brought before the inner circle and explains his failure to hit query resolution targets is due to rocketing rejection disputes - nothing will change.
+1
-
it's pretty hard to get a rejection on shutter if you upload stockworthy stuff.
-
What rejections? I just submitted 4 photos made 9 years ago with the dsrl ancestor canon 300d and the first generation kit lens. All approved, 3 sales yesterday.
What else would someone expect? When light is good, noise and focus OK, images go through. It's as simple as this, really!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yesterday 6 from 6 accepted... Looks like it depends on reviewer. Must say for my rejected images that somehow deep in my mind I expected them to be rejected.
The only problem is that they are usually rejected with totally wrong reason. I think they just fill that the image is not good enough for their collection and just put any reason for it. The image can be perfectly in focus and with perfect composition and light and still something is missing.
Maybe they also know that something is wrong with the image but can not describe it :) And therefore give some arbitrary reason... But I would be perfectly fine if there is a reason like - image does not suit to our collection or something similar.
-
But I would be perfectly fine if there is a reason like - image does not suit to our collection or something similar.
That reason would be even more frustrating than anything else, for me at least. Fotolia use that reason for rejection, and it never seems to be consistent. I can't make anything of that, and submitting to Fotolia therefor is like a crap shoot. Fotolia is the only agency for me where I submit and forget. Shutterstock is the only agency I know will accept everything as long as it is technically in order (bar the inconsistencies discussed in this very thread).
-
I feel for you guys. Photo inspectors are much more likely to reject my illustrations, even though they're just jpgs of my eps files. The identical Eps sails through. Jpgs not worth the time to resubmit, since they don't sell as well.
-
really i am sick and tired of the ss reviewers...today refused everything..reupload accepted...then again and again..when shutterstock will pay some real reviewers and not some mindless people who sell potatoes at the corner at the street as their real job. really i am sick of reupload again and again. i thought at least ss have bigger respect to the contributors.
-
When a whole batch of 30 gets rejected with the same reason, you know something is wrong.
-
Best Example.
-
And it's really hard to imagine that a human would be pressing the same button for all those rejections in a batch of 30.
-
When a whole batch of 30 gets rejected with the same reason, you know something is wrong.
I've done that before- forgot to take the lens cap off and did a full session without a memory card ;D
-
Some months ago I was one of those lamenting all the time about rejections.
Since this time I have changed some “little” things:
1) I have change my mind and my approach to stock photos
2) I have bought a better camera
3) I have bought good prime lenses
4) I came less on forums to complain and complain directly to [email protected]
The points 1 to 3 have led to produce better stock images. And maybe it tells me that the Shutterstock standards are growing.
The point 4 gave me the possibility to explain my point of view, and to get the point of view from the inspector with eventually some advice.
Finally:
> I get all the Images that I consider to be acceptable accepted
> I get the images that I consider borderline sometime accepted, sometime rejected, sometime accepted after some little adjustments based on the inspectors advices.
> I get the images “let’s try, who knows” rejected because they deserve to be rejected.
But it can happen that for incomprehensible reasons some acceptable images are rejected. In this situation I don’t even contact [email protected] or put a note to the inspector, I just resubmit the image as it is, and it is generally accepted.
So, before to always give the fault to the inspectors, what I did before, I think that it is better to try to be more objective about the own work, and maybe wait some days before to submit the images because with a little more reflection it is always possible to change the own vision.
+1 This should be the end of this discussion. I have exactly the same experience you put under "Finally". Yes sometimes you have stupid rejections but just resubmit and if they are good they get accepted next time. Complaining about it here is a waste of time. If you get sick of rejections you are probably getting to many of them and you should look closer at your work. The reviewers might just be right sometimes.
-
yep, gino is right....i was lamenting too, but indeed my images had some mistakes...last images i submitted 100% acceptance rate ;)
-
Is this thread still alive?
Ill say it again, then.
rejections are about supply and demand.
If your pictures gets rejected, they are not in demand. Just forget the "official" rejection reasons.
And there is nothing mysterious about that, when there have 20 mill pics online.
Your pictures can be borderline with camera, postprocessing, legal documents, keywords and content.
Which is all "content".
The agencies sell "content", and they accept "content" that is profitable and reject the unprofitable "content", and you are likely to provide unprofitable content if you photograph everyday things from western culture, have an ordinary camera/ lens combination and ordinary subject such as western looking woman with headset.
Now, feel free to call me an idiot, and feel free to continue whine about rejections of your splendid photos of garden tools, instead of stepping up some steps on the ladder and photograph something in demand and usefull, or even better, make a trend in colours and subject that can open a floodgate of downloads for your pictures. It has been done before, but not by people stuck in whining, but by people who were kicked in the arse.
-
Is this thread still alive?
Ill say it again, then.
rejections are about supply and demand.
If your pictures gets rejected, they are not in demand. Just forget the "official" rejection reasons.
And there is nothing mysterious about that, when there have 20 mill pics online.
Your pictures can be borderline with camera, postprocessing, legal documents, keywords and content.
Which is all "content".
The agencies sell "content", and they accept "content" that is profitable and reject the unprofitable "content", and you are likely to provide unprofitable content if you photograph everyday things from western culture, have an ordinary camera/ lens combination and ordinary subject such as western looking woman with headset.
Now, feel free to call me an idiot, and feel free to continue whine about rejections of your splendid photos of garden tools, instead of stepping up some steps on the ladder and photograph something in demand and usefull, or even better, make a trend in colours and subject that can open a floodgate of downloads for your pictures. It has been done before, but not by people stuck in whining, but by people who were kicked in the arse.
I say ANYTHING Photographed in and around the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Land of the Free Home of the Brave is a Good Photo and will sell like Hot Cakes on a Cold Swedish Winter Morning to a bunch of Hungry Vikings!
Just think Steaming Hot, Hot Cakes with Butter, Canadian Maple Syrup and Sardines. Yummy :)
Ps Hi Jens
-
Some months ago I was one of those lamenting all the time about rejections.
Since this time I have changed some “little” things:
1) I have change my mind and my approach to stock photos
2) I have bought a better camera
3) I have bought good prime lenses
4) I came less on forums to complain and complain directly to [email protected]
The points 1 to 3 have led to produce better stock images. And maybe it tells me that the Shutterstock standards are growing.
The point 4 gave me the possibility to explain my point of view, and to get the point of view from the inspector with eventually some advice.
Finally:
> I get all the Images that I consider to be acceptable accepted
> I get the images that I consider borderline sometime accepted, sometime rejected, sometime accepted after some little adjustments based on the inspectors advices.
> I get the images “let’s try, who knows” rejected because they deserve to be rejected.
But it can happen that for incomprehensible reasons some acceptable images are rejected. In this situation I don’t even contact [email protected] or put a note to the inspector, I just resubmit the image as it is, and it is generally accepted.
So, before to always give the fault to the inspectors, what I did before, I think that it is better to try to be more objective about the own work, and maybe wait some days before to submit the images because with a little more reflection it is always possible to change the own vision.
That is great advise. I now have about 90% approval in SS, it used to be 10%.
But they still have ridiculous reviews. I had a whole series approved, and the last 4 were rejected for composition. I found that unreasonable and I submit again. This time composition was fine but they needed "editing" whatever that means. So I resubmit them a third time explaining the situation only to find out the sole reason for rejection is noise - THERE IS NO NOISE!
I feel offended when something like this happens.
-
Last batch all but one got accepted. A day later a whole batch (after half a day's editing) gets rejected. Coupled with dire sales there ain't much incentive to upload to SS anymore.
-
to me look that they are getting back to accept almost everything..i uploaded 40 img and only few were rejected (i thought more coz' were not perfect images)
-
(i thought more coz' were not perfect images)
Maybe you should raise your standard?
-
My last 50 all accepted. One rejection for no model release because I forgot to attach it, but it was accepted later that day.
-
(i thought more coz' were not perfect images)
Maybe you should raise your standard?
Maybe agencies should to pay us better first? Or should we keep raising our standards, but agencies can keep the earnings on 2005 levels?
Shutterstock have made it extremely clear there will be no raises and no extra tier when they were asked. Under what incentive should we then raise our standards when they ask us? The 120 dollar royalty mystical carrot which only happen to the select and few?
-
[Maybe agencies should to pay us better first? Or should we keep raising our standards, but agencies can keep the earnings on 2005 levels?
Their ball, their standards - we can choose not to meet the standard for the money being paid...
-
You can choose not to meet the standard true, but likewise, they can choose not to accept those images and then you have no sales. I worked hard to get my head around what they wanted and my acceptance rate has climb to about 95% with them.
It can be frustrating but you do always have the option to walk away.
-
(i thought more coz' were not perfect images)
Maybe you should raise your standard?
Maybe agencies should to pay us better first? Or should we keep raising our standards, but agencies can keep the earnings on 2005 levels?
Shutterstock have made it extremely clear there will be no raises and no extra tier when they were asked. Under what incentive should we then raise our standards when they ask us? The 120 dollar royalty mystical carrot which only happen to the select and few?
oh, u mean there is one higher than $105 ?
seesh, & i thought getting two $82 carrots in 6 months was something surpisingly charming,
..
then again, if i removed the mystical carrot(s)
the last 6 months sales are a sorry sight, indeed :o
-
There must be some butcher machine working, some random number generator and not human... Their rejections have no sense to me at all >:( Looks like someone said: limits time, accept 50/50, no matter what but reject at least half... I have nothing agains normal and reasonable rejections (after 7 years I have some experience) but sometimes it's boiling my blood! >:( They reject files that are best sellers after resubmition, and the same history is rolling over and over again.
-
Same problem for me. My vectors are all accepted, but jpgs are rejected. I email them with each rejection, and every time I get a note that the rejection was a mistake and to resubmit with a note for the reviewer. But if almost 100% of the rejections are mistakes, what's up with that reviewer? It's a waste of my time and the time of the person who takes the trouble to email me about the mistake. It really does seem like someone figures they should have a certain percentage of rejections, so eenie meenie miney moe...
-
Shelma, that's exactly why I'm so confused! It is the same, just the same with me. Rejection-email-mistake-resubmit-approve-sales (up to hits)... Some kind of stupid game here, really ::)
-
I am also having the same rejection problem.
-
Remember: Inspectors are contributors (of differents levels)and contributors are human.
first recognize that 80% of the stock photos are horrible, (because 80% of payments are miserable ...ok) but if something is true is that only shutterstock has the worst reputation for arbitrary rejections.
We must also recognize that sometimes horrific photos are approved ... or sometimes you can see a portfolio with 11000 similar pictures from yogurt approved.
it's crazy. I do not care about the mass rejections because I do uploads mass number of photos.
-
I still get the odd rejection now and then but reviews seem to be much more consistent than a few months ago.
-
Remember: Inspectors are contributors (of differents levels)and contributors are human.
first recognize that 80% of the stock photos are horrible, (because 80% of payments are miserable ...ok) but if something is true is that only shutterstock has the worst reputation for arbitrary rejections.
We must also recognize that sometimes horrific photos are approved ... or sometimes you can see a portfolio with 11000 similar pictures from yogurt approved.
it's crazy. I do not care about the mass rejections because I do uploads mass number of photos.
Well, we're all human, more or less. But when my eps files are accepted and *exactly the same file* in jpg format is rejected...and all those rejections are then labeled "mistakes"...then someone is rejecting things just for the heck of it. I'm not sure what the point is, either. it just puts a strain on the people who need to re-inspect all those files, the person who spent time creating something and now has to spend more time re-uploading and re-keywording, and the next inspector, who has to go through the same files again and approve them.
-
i don't know about illustration but about pictures this is my experience:
crappy studio isolation = 98% acceptance rate
studio composition = 60% acceptance rate
outdoors and landscape = 10% acceptance rate
-
i don't know about illustration but about pictures this is my experience:
crappy studio isolation = 98% acceptance rate
studio composition = 60% acceptance rate
outdoors and landscape = 10% acceptance rate
I don't shoot crappy studio isolations or studio compositions. Only shoot outdoors, landscape, and wildlife. My acceptance rate at SS is about 90%.
Everybody's miles will vary.
-
i don't know about illustration but about pictures this is my experience:
crappy studio isolation = 98% acceptance rate
studio composition = 60% acceptance rate
outdoors and landscape = 10% acceptance rate
as u all know me for one of ss biggest critic here, i have to say there is a reason why #3 is 10% vs crappy isolation 98%
perharps u mean crappy as in subject matter, but a poor isolation will get u 100% rejection too.
as for isolation being 98% acceptance, it's obvious because like it or not, isolation even of crappy (for you maybe ) objects make the most money for many of ss-ers. that's what buyers want.
i have images that took me some creative work that sells 0
while an isolation that took 0 mind other than plop it on white board and lighting it properly
so there is no shadow and clean edge etc that out sells many of the stuff that took time to create.
so why bother wasting time when u know crappy isolation sells?
u will be like a frustrated cordon-bleu chef working in the golden M and cussing how the food taste like cardboard .
-
Shelma, that's exactly why I'm so confused! It is the same, just the same with me. Rejection-email-mistake-resubmit-approve-sales (up to hits)... Some kind of stupid game here, really ::)
It was OK for me for the last 5 months or so last year but now gone back to that.
I've had batches approved all 100% last year across multiple periods. But this year even some images from those same batches are getting rejected randomly and approved randomly.
The last few i've had 100% rejection for a single reason despite being of 5 different topics spread over 3 months apart with 3 different cameras. Every single one of those images got approved and sold resubmitting 24hrs after that rejection (and are amazingly selling). After that i submitted ONE image in a batch (because internet here died for 3 days) and it got rejected for "too many similar images in the submission batch".
Last week 12/12 rejected for poor lighting, noise, focus,overuse. Same 12 all accepted again 48hrs later.
I don't think anyone minds standards and high standards but its the utter lack of consistency causing the problems. If they had a standard and ruthlessly applied that consistently across the board i really can't see many people complaining. But generally they don't.
It's annoying for me here as each image takes me roughly 30 minutes to upload and costs me roughly $0.10 due to the capped and draconian internet bandwidth allowances per month. That means an entire rejected batch for 1 reason where they clearly didn't look at any of the images past maybe the first one forcing me to reupload taking substantially more time and more money gets irritating fast.
-
Seems theres another reviewer Flu going around agin. I've seen some rejections by folks that are just Plain stupid!!!!! Flowers requiring a MR. C-mon.
-
... images from those same batches are getting rejected randomly and approved randomly..
Randomly is good word here, if we talk about SS reviewers opinion ::)
I told my man about this stupid situation lately and all he said is: "don't they (SS) want earn money?? :o Why reject something what can bring money? It's like kill the hen giving golden eggs "
-
Ah the beauty of stock, incompetent or competitive reviewers can hinder your progress, believe me I've had my share. But in the end it's your fault, your work just isn't good enough, at least that's what agencies or some fellow contributors with their head up their own .ss will tell you ;)
-
What makes me laugh is that SS reviewers still allow tons of crap through the doors.
Poor lighting, poor comp, poor keywords, ridiculous similars. :o
There's some real junk on that site. ::)
They need to clean out at least 50% of the so called art/crap that inhabits SS
Get some real quality in there not this Walmart stack it high sell it cheap philosophy 8)
-
They need to clean out at least 50% of the so called art/crap that inhabits SS
Get some real quality in there not this Walmart stack it high sell it cheap philosophy 8)
Teddy, I think we should start giving them that "note to reviewer" when uploading new files ;) Good point here!
Ps. I have deleted a lot of old files from my port lately, they were reeeaaally bad images and I felt bad having them in my gallery ;)
-
What makes me laugh is that SS reviewers still allow tons of crap through the doors.
Poor lighting, poor comp, poor keywords, ridiculous similars. :o
There's some real junk on that site. ::)
They need to clean out at least 50% of the so called art/crap that inhabits SS
Get some real quality in there not this Walmart stack it high sell it cheap philosophy 8)
Exactly my point, they reject work from established contributors with high quality work but take in the crap. My theory is that they know the low quality won't sell anyway so not in competition with their own or their dear friends work.
Then there's those who don't know wth they are doing in this business. What they should look for is copyright, releases and review ports occasionally to see if the contributor is uploading good quality, not inspect every batch.
Nope after 4 years I still haven't got the slightest respect for these guys even though I don't have any problems with them anymore.
Like Ariene I clean out my own port. I do a far better job then those reviewers anyway. If some are reading this, sorry guys but it's the truth, an easy job for you but nothing but a pain in the .ss to those who know what they are doing and trying to be successful in this business.
-
What makes me laugh is that SS reviewers still allow tons of crap through the doors.
Poor lighting, poor comp, poor keywords, ridiculous similars. :o
There's some real junk on that site. ::)
They need to clean out at least 50% of the so called art/crap that inhabits SS
Get some real quality in there not this Walmart stack it high sell it cheap philosophy 8)
Exactly my point, they reject work from established contributors with high quality work but take in the crap. My theory is that they know the low quality won't sell anyway so not in competition with their own or their dear friends work.
Then there's those who don't know wth they are doing in this business. What they should look for is copyright, releases and review ports occasionally to see if the contributor is uploading good quality, not inspect every batch.
Nope after 4 years I still haven't got the slightest respect for these guys even though I don't have any problems with them anymore.
Like Ariene I clean out my own port. I do a far better job then those reviewers anyway. If some are reading this, sorry guys but it's the truth, an easy job for you but nothing but a pain in the .ss to those who know what they are doing and trying to be successful in this business.
Yes seeing as the reviewers are also contributors makes you wonder if they are deliberately trying to stifle potential competition ???
I've heard of reviewers rejecting photos then stealing the concept and duplicating it themselves.
-
What makes me laugh is that SS reviewers still allow tons of crap through the doors.
Poor lighting, poor comp, poor keywords, ridiculous similars. :o
There's some real junk on that site. ::)
They need to clean out at least 50% of the so called art/crap that inhabits SS
Get some real quality in there not this Walmart stack it high sell it cheap philosophy 8)
Exactly my point, they reject work from established contributors with high quality work but take in the crap. My theory is that they know the low quality won't sell anyway so not in competition with their own or their dear friends work.
Then there's those who don't know wth they are doing in this business. What they should look for is copyright, releases and review ports occasionally to see if the contributor is uploading good quality, not inspect every batch.
Nope after 4 years I still haven't got the slightest respect for these guys even though I don't have any problems with them anymore.
Like Ariene I clean out my own port. I do a far better job then those reviewers anyway. If some are reading this, sorry guys but it's the truth, an easy job for you but nothing but a pain in the .ss to those who know what they are doing and trying to be successful in this business.
Yes seeing as the reviewers are also contributors makes you wonder if they are deliberately trying to stifle potential competition ???
I've heard of reviewers rejecting photos then stealing the concept and duplicating it themselves.
Hey I would! so what's stopping them? reviewer admins? yeah right but as I've said it's not a big issue for me anymore though I pity those who are having issues with them.
-
What makes me laugh is that SS reviewers still allow tons of crap through the doors.
Poor lighting, poor comp, poor keywords, ridiculous similars. :o
There's some real junk on that site. ::)
They need to clean out at least 50% of the so called art/crap that inhabits SS
Get some real quality in there not this Walmart stack it high sell it cheap philosophy 8)
Exactly my point, they reject work from established contributors with high quality work but take in the crap. My theory is that they know the low quality won't sell anyway so not in competition with their own or their dear friends work.
Then there's those who don't know wth they are doing in this business. What they should look for is copyright, releases and review ports occasionally to see if the contributor is uploading good quality, not inspect every batch.
Nope after 4 years I still haven't got the slightest respect for these guys even though I don't have any problems with them anymore.
Like Ariene I clean out my own port. I do a far better job then those reviewers anyway. If some are reading this, sorry guys but it's the truth, an easy job for you but nothing but a pain in the .ss to those who know what they are doing and trying to be successful in this business.
Yes seeing as the reviewers are also contributors makes you wonder if they are deliberately trying to stifle potential competition ???
I've heard of reviewers rejecting photos then stealing the concept and duplicating it themselves.
Hey I would! so what's stopping them? reviewer admins? yeah right but as I've said it's not a big issue for me anymore though I pity those who are having issues with them.
Well I have more honor than to do that.
-
What makes me laugh is that SS reviewers still allow tons of crap through the doors.
Poor lighting, poor comp, poor keywords, ridiculous similars. :o
There's some real junk on that site. ::)
They need to clean out at least 50% of the so called art/crap that inhabits SS
Get some real quality in there not this Walmart stack it high sell it cheap philosophy 8)
Exactly my point, they reject work from established contributors with high quality work but take in the crap. My theory is that they know the low quality won't sell anyway so not in competition with their own or their dear friends work.
Then there's those who don't know wth they are doing in this business. What they should look for is copyright, releases and review ports occasionally to see if the contributor is uploading good quality, not inspect every batch.
Nope after 4 years I still haven't got the slightest respect for these guys even though I don't have any problems with them anymore.
Like Ariene I clean out my own port. I do a far better job then those reviewers anyway. If some are reading this, sorry guys but it's the truth, an easy job for you but nothing but a pain in the .ss to those who know what they are doing and trying to be successful in this business.
Yes seeing as the reviewers are also contributors makes you wonder if they are deliberately trying to stifle potential competition ???
I've heard of reviewers rejecting photos then stealing the concept and duplicating it themselves.
Hey I would! so what's stopping them? reviewer admins? yeah right but as I've said it's not a big issue for me anymore though I pity those who are having issues with them.
Well I have more honor than to do that.
There is no honour in selling your work for pennies, you are in the wrong business then ;)
Of course I wouldn't do that and I've been asked to review before but kindly declined because I wouldn't want to be the guy that screws around with another man's income.
-
“A Man without honor
is worse than dead.”
~ Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra 8)
-
There is no honour in selling your work for pennies
Honour and money are two different things
-
Interesting example that just happened to me:
1. I get a rejection with the reason:
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized
2. I followed the procedure announced recently and I send the question to [email protected] challenging the rejection. I'm certain that my photo had no noise or grain when viewed at 100%
3. After 3 days, I'm telling myself, "what the heck, I got a bad review, my picture is fine, I'll resubmit with no change"
4. Shortly after, I received the answer to my email. I am told that picture has no noise (!) but rather an excessive use of noise reduction and sharpness problems! What now? I'm told that the reviewer was right (?). How can he be, since there is a different standard rejection reason for noise reduction or sharpness problems.
5. The same day, I get the answer to my second upload attempt: Image approved! The same image that was initially rejected for one reason, and confirmed as rejected for the opposite reason!
Probably the rule of averages worked in my case: (too much noise + too much noise reduction)/2 = image OK
Anyway, I'm happy, since I'm certain that my photo was OK to start with! And I'm certain that it will sell very well!
All well when it ends well!
-
Don't worry ultimagaina, it happens all the time, for all of us... Just keep it upload more... ;) ;D
-
anyone else having problems with the editorial review? wb problem and focus problem from a week now at tons of photos that are accepted on all other agencies. i do stock for 7 years with over 20000 photos and never ever had this problem before. i think there is a drunk at the review buttons or what . is going on?
-
If ya look back in the history of forums. theres 2 topics that way outpace all others by a Mile. Sales and rejections. rejections are normal and without seeing the Images in question it's just words. The Inconsistency at SS is the main Issue By far. and, At some point Must be addressed. Someone said there are 200 Reviewers? If thats true, Theres no way as I see it that they can all be on the same page. They need to revamp there system, It IS out of control at this point.
-
Thank you mr. Rinder for your answer. I have enough experience that i can see myself if i am or not wrong with the photos...and i am not.. i don't know what is in the reviewers heads when they reject anything for a long period of time and then approve the ones reject...it is the Russian roulette at ss for a while i see.
-
anyone else having problems with the editorial review? wb problem and focus problem from a week now at tons of photos that are accepted on all other agencies. i do stock for 7 years with over 20000 photos and never ever had this problem before. i think there is a drunk at the review buttons or what . is going on?
I had some editorial rejected for composition and lighting. It always baffles me, that they reject images that depict the actual scene for lighting. A shadow, or sunny day, is just that.
-
Someone said there are 200 Reviewers?
If there are indeed 200 reviewers, 400,000 accepted images per week, and average acceptance rate is about 50%, that would translate to 4000 inspected images for each reviewer in a week. At 25% acceptance - 8,000 inspected images per reviewer per week or over 1,000 per day. 8,000 viewed images paid by 5 cents each would translate to $400 a week in remuneration for each inspector. Significantly higher than an average contributor would make.
-
anyone else having problems with the editorial review? wb problem and focus problem from a week now at tons of photos that are accepted on all other agencies. i do stock for 7 years with over 20000 photos and never ever had this problem before. i think there is a drunk at the review buttons or what . is going on?
I had some editorial rejected for composition and lighting. It always baffles me, that they reject images that depict the actual scene for lighting. A shadow, or sunny day, is just that.
Nice directional sunlight = doubleplusgood
Natural shadows that come with that sunlight = doubleplusungood = rejection. :(
Not saying that this actually happens but when a person is paid per reviewed image, all the responsibility of the reviewer is in the accepted images. They have to comply with the SS criteria for acceptance. For rejections they get paid the same but without any 'real' responsibility. Up to the contributor to resubmit.
I once submitted an image that was rejected on poor isolation whilst the image wasn't isolated at all. I fixed some things that I imagined the reviewer might have rejected it on but pointed out that the image wasn't isolated in the first place....WRONG MOVE! It was rejected the second time for poor lighting, OOF and poor composition. Conclusion: Reviewers can be vindictive beetches. Henceforth, effem. They don't get no second chance and the image goes elsewhere.
-
Someone said there are 200 Reviewers?
If there are indeed 200 reviewers, 400,000 accepted images per week, and average acceptance rate is about 50%, that would translate to 4000 inspected images for each reviewer in a week. At 25% acceptance - 8,000 inspected images per reviewer per week or over 1,000 per day. 8,000 viewed images paid by 5 cents each would translate to $400 a week in remuneration for each inspector. Significantly higher than an average contributor would make.
Les, I reviewed for 3+ years 2006/09 then we had 15 reviewers. we got 10 cents per Image, Plus a Bonus of $500 for doing More than 10,000 a Month, a $750 Bonus for doing more than 15,000. Last I heard reviewers are getting a straight 3 cents Now. I did on average a 1000 a day. it took about 5 Hours. reviewers I Think and have always said should be paid a salary by time on the clock.And if the sites Paid a Liveable wage it would Perhaps attract Better qualified people.It is also a very transient Job at best. Burnout is very High.
Ever seen the qualifications? Geeeez. Sometimes these folks think there curating at the Guggenheim Museum.
Ever read a Post I did On the day in the Life? 100% true and very funny. written By a fellow reviewer. probably Holds up today as well.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10847 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10847)
-
“A Man without honor
is worse than dead.”
~ Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra 8)
Cool dude, that don Miguel.
-
Compare to others i think i have not a lot of unreasonable rejections, but i have them. The trend shows that SS does not have wish and possibilities to keep things clean. They devalue the efforts which were done by ss owner and contributors before. Inertion will give some life to continue, but something else comes. SS can miss their train like many other agencies.
-
After complaining and asking to have "poor rasterization" pointed out to me, once againl my rejections were labeled "mistakes." Then for a week everything was approved. Then right back to "poor rasterization." I try very hard to be Zen about it, but it's really irritating. What a complete waste of time for me and the person who has to re inspect everything. Now I'm keeping track of these "mistakes." We'll see how it nets out by year end.
-
Track record will give info about reviewer. Question does SS needs this? Are they capable to clean? For me this reviewer follows his private interest or his real employers interest.
-
Sunday, editorial 27/30 approved.
Tuesday, editorial 27/30 rejected.
-
I think someone else started the term, but I'm thinking it covers the situation. "Rogue Reviewers" who seem to be rejection happy and click random reasons to make faster reviews and more money. There must be a turnover and that could mean inexperienced reviewers also.
But that poor rasterization and soft at full size, is more of a full of it rejection. When one image is soft at full size and the next is over sharpened (and I don't sharpen!) then the next is soft, alternating down a line of rejections. I suspect someone is just an unhappy reviewer and making money with as little effort as possible.
SS says they review the reviewers. Yeah, but do the complaints get flagged? Why do we have to waste time writing and waiting for long periods of time, without knowing if anything will ever change. There needs to be more monitoring of the reviewers, and some way that we can easily flag these Rogue Reviews, so they get special attention.
Idea for SS.
Myself I don't get many rejections. (fingers crossed, 242 waiting in line right now) ???
After complaining and asking to have "poor rasterization" pointed out to me, once againl my rejections were labeled "mistakes." Then for a week everything was approved. Then right back to "poor rasterization." I try very hard to be Zen about it, but it's really irritating. What a complete waste of time for me and the person who has to re inspect everything. Now I'm keeping track of these "mistakes." We'll see how it nets out by year end.
-
I think someone else started the term, but I'm thinking it covers the situation. "Rogue Reviewers" who seem to be rejection happy and click random reasons to make faster reviews and more money. There must be a turnover and that could mean inexperienced reviewers also.
But that poor rasterization and soft at full size, is more of a full of it rejection. When one image is soft at full size and the next is over sharpened (and I don't sharpen!) then the next is soft, alternating down a line of rejections. I suspect someone is just an unhappy reviewer and making money with as little effort as possible.
SS says they review the reviewers. Yeah, but do the complaints get flagged? Why do we have to waste time writing and waiting for long periods of time, without knowing if anything will ever change. There needs to be more monitoring of the reviewers, and some way that we can easily flag these Rogue Reviews, so they get special attention.
Amen!! Those "mistakes" are to often and many people admit that. It makes me mad to see 100% batch rejected just to be sent again (after first email contact) to get 100% approved >:(
I just got info from few guys, they were reviewed by "butcher", 100% rejections. All work for nothing. WOT. Maybe next upload will be more lucky.
Uncle Pete, good luck, my files are waiting too. Review will be in a moment.
-
Paintings in a museum submitted as editorial, rejected because they arent editorial. Submitted as non editorial, rejected because they arent non editorial.
Someone is just taking the piss.
-
Sunday, editorial 27/30 approved.
Tuesday, editorial 27/30 rejected.
Parallel Universe 8)
-
On the same image
Similar Submissions--Images within this submission are nearly identical or have already been approved.
Do not included special characters in your title/caption/keywords. Please correct and resubmit.
:o
-
Paintings in a museum submitted as editorial, rejected because they arent editorial. Submitted as non editorial, rejected because they arent non editorial.
Someone is just taking the piss.
I have to blame myself here. Found this on the SS blog
Images of museum interiors that contain isolated artwork or artwork that is the main focus of the image are unacceptable for commercial or editorial use.
However the Capitole in toulose is not a museum and has no entrance fee. Photography is allowed as well.
-
Yes, I am the whipping boy at the moment. Every single one of my last batch rejected.
Harder and harder to get accepted images+less and less sales=Depressing.
-
The problem is that it is easy Shutter that support people isolated, apples studio shots, smling flashed people with forced poses ... and other "news".
If you do something realistic, natural light or not in high key usually have more rejections ... rejection buttons "noise" and "poor lighting" are clubbed like the jostick pad of a videogame.
There are several options that I think wickedly:
- SS is stupid and goes against the trends
- Reviewers do not want competition with your photos
- We are reviewed by the robot Skynet
So I'm not afraid about approved millions of photos per minute, because what most agree is repetitive stocky shots...
-
Well I've given up loading to SS for now.
I'll wait until things calm down there's no point going through the mill for pennies :(
-
100% rejection on 30 editorial images. Every image had 3-4 reasons for rejection. It absolute bullocks. Composition, exposure, WB, noise and focus. Every image. Someone went to town.
-
rogue reviewer , definitely pete...
i think shelma got it right on the button
semmick, herg, etc...
make a log of all the rejections and once it is substantial enough
everyone flood Support with it.
eventually, the papertrail of the mass rejections will identify the rogue reviewer(s)
and or the one who has conflict of interest as mxr points out , not want good works to
compete against their own.
did no one believe that person many months back who said it was a conspiracy???
most of us say it was all in our head. now we know it is not.
-
Its not a conspiracy, but I dont get it how all of a sudden 30 images have 3-4 problems each, when the previous 150 were basically accepted.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.
White Balance -- The incorrect white balance setting was used.
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
I dont see it
-
john used say...
You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
-
I came to Steve (Cascoly) with one idea for which i already did preparation on my side. Waiting from him for a final response. If test works, many photographers will receive additional option.
-
I dont get many rejections over the years and when I do, It was My fault Missing a clone mark or something and it's all good. just had rejections for "Titles Must be in English" I wouldn't know how to write in any other language!! . This is absolutely stupid...Really stupid. I won't re-submit. There not worthy of the Images if they can't even get that right.
-
I have been one of those lamenting more about inconsistent rejection here.
Now I just take a little more attention about what I submit and how I post process my images (I try to give them what they ask/want… and I also use a better camera and better lenses).
Doing so, from the beginning of the year I have uploaded around 500 images and I have got only 2 rejections. One was because it was a double image, the other has ben approved after some little adjustments.
Maybe I have only been fortunate, I don't know… It could be.
I hope it will continue like that…
Lately, a big change that I have made has been to stop to submit images from Friday morning to Sunday end of the afternoon… It has always been my impression that the week-end's inspectors were not serious at all…
-
Or exactly serious for some reasons. I have accepted manif photos, and rejected one, editorial too, because it was square (cropping reason). I checked that subject - tourist taking photo is acceptable as editorial and ss has many with the same gadgets. Mine was different generally, more stocksy style. Suspected reason - this composition which i cought "in nature" is reproduceable by image factories. Supporting this opinion were previous rejections of quality images with other subjects, but reproduceable. Images enough unique were accepted. Day of week - i didn't find the correlation strong enough.
-
I think something new kicked in, with the filter and preview software. I just got this one today: "Do not included special characters in your title/caption/keywords. Please correct and resubmit."
The other seven from last week, went through just fine. When I looked I saw that I had used a "forbidden" character. In the title it shows as this (on the accepted files) Juan Pablo GarcÃ?Âa and in the keywords, garcãÂÂa. Those passed, now the review caught it.
So I suspect you just ran into something the same? Look and see?
It was supposed to say - Juan Pablo Garcia without the í character.
Now I have to go do some editing, because I missed it when I was adding the title, description and keywords. :'(
I dont get many rejections over the years and when I do, It was My fault Missing a clone mark or something and it's all good. just had rejections for "Titles Must be in English" I wouldn't know how to write in any other language!! . This is absolutely stupid...Really stupid. I won't re-submit. There not worthy of the Images if they can't even get that right.
-
2 Images. One titled "Beautiful Woman" and "Handsome Italian Man" thats it. Oh well. rejection had "Titles must be in English" nothing else. So...I assume the normal Now is re-submit. thats silly.
-
They've rejected a couple of my illustrations, stating that they need to see a reference photo for them...Now where would I find a reference photo for something that came out of my imagination? Sounds like they got some new reviewers that don't know what they're doing!
-
I think something new kicked in, with the filter and preview software. I just got this one today: "Do not included special characters in your title/caption/keywords. Please correct and resubmit."
The other seven from last week, went through just fine. When I looked I saw that I had used a "forbidden" character. In the title it shows as this (on the accepted files) Juan Pablo GarcÃ?Âa and in the keywords, garcãÂÂa. Those passed, now the review caught it.
So I suspect you just ran into something the same? Look and see?
It was supposed to say - Juan Pablo Garcia without the í character.
Now I have to go do some editing, because I missed it when I was adding the title, description and keywords. :'(
I dont get many rejections over the years and when I do, It was My fault Missing a clone mark or something and it's all good. just had rejections for "Titles Must be in English" I wouldn't know how to write in any other language!! . This is absolutely stupid...Really stupid. I won't re-submit. There not worthy of the Images if they can't even get that right.
I think their own system turns normal characters into "special" characters. I've seen similar strings of odd characters replacing an apostrophe in my titles, for example. Then my files are rejected for special characters. I have to force myself to not use apostrophes where they would normally go.
-
Same for me . Sometimes I replied the same picture they had refused and they accept it. But a lot of rejections for mostly lighting. But, they could not be worse than Envato. I was new on Envato. First, they accept my 10 pictures so I could subscribe and after they rejected 10 pictures on 12. So, I decide to give up. All those pictures were accepted on Shutter. Is it'not funny !
-
You know what, I remember old period when SS was accepting around 95-100% of batch and it was normal, standard. Now, when I have better gear and postprocessing, they often reject 95-100% (next upload is approved but new files of mixed batch get rejection to get approved next time by "mistake" email). Crazy! I don't get them at all...
Edit
For a change I just got 100% approved, lol ??? SS spy must be here! ;D
-
I think something new kicked in, with the filter and preview software. I just got this one today: "Do not included special characters in your title/caption/keywords. Please correct and resubmit."
The other seven from last week, went through just fine. When I looked I saw that I had used a "forbidden" character. In the title it shows as this (on the accepted files) Juan Pablo GarcÃ?Âa and in the keywords, garcãÂÂa. Those passed, now the review caught it.
So I suspect you just ran into something the same? Look and see?
It was supposed to say - Juan Pablo Garcia without the í character.
Now I have to go do some editing, because I missed it when I was adding the title, description and keywords. :'(
I dont get many rejections over the years and when I do, It was My fault Missing a clone mark or something and it's all good. just had rejections for "Titles Must be in English" I wouldn't know how to write in any other language!! . This is absolutely stupid...Really stupid. I won't re-submit. There not worthy of the Images if they can't even get that right.
I think their own system turns normal characters into "special" characters. I've seen similar strings of odd characters replacing an apostrophe in my titles, for example. Then my files are rejected for special characters. I have to force myself to not use apostrophes where they would normally go.
123 dont have issues reading the characters but SS BS DT change them into gibberish. Quite cumbersome when you have lots of French names and keywords with lots of special charachters. I need to replace them all beforehand or change them after submitting. In BS its even worse, everything after the special character is deleted from the caption and then they reject it for incomplete caption.
SS praise themselves for being a tech company, but it seems they dont/wont/cant fixt these simple bugs.
-
I dont get many rejections over the years and when I do, It was My fault Missing a clone mark or something and it's all good. just had rejections for "Titles Must be in English" I wouldn't know how to write in any other language!! . This is absolutely stupid...Really stupid. I won't re-submit. There not worthy of the Images if they can't even get that right.
Methinks it's time to introduce the reviewer to the the word, 'floccinaucinihilipilification' in the titles/keywords. ;D
(Even the spelling checker here thinks it's wrong or estimates it as valueless). 8)
-
The stuff Im concerened about is the blatant mistakes. A friend of a friend Just had a Photo Of Algae rejected for needing a Model Release and a Photo of a Interesting Rock for Trademark. Thats a very distressing sign that someone has no concept of english, Has an Issue with the submitter or is simply a fool or, it's a Bot. I submit a lot of My abstract paintings which are BTW my Best sellers after my B&W Portraits. I had a rejection for composition on a Abstract painting. Really? A reviewer rejecting for composition on a abstract Piece. There is no such reason whatsoever. I wrote to submit and asked this..."Are your reviewers now working for the Guggenheim Museum Of Modern art now for a possible 38 cents to me"? And who gives them the right to Judge composition Of an abstract Piece? If He or she didn't Like the piece Thats fine, But keep those opinions to yourself, It has no Place in Microstock, They are Not Museum Curators .
Answer was, We disagree with the decision and Pls re-submit But "Please be aware, It is the reviewers call, and could be rejected again"
Really?.....Whos in charge here and is it now the new Normal to have to resubmit any rejection to SS?. I reviewed also and Im sure Lots of submissions won't or shouldn't make it But.........Hmmmm This is getting Out of hand and a complete waste of time..
Im telling ya guys, THE ONLY way that we can send a message is By flooding [email protected] with complaints BUT...... And a Big But, Pls be sure your right.Posting On a forum because your upset Just doesn't get it done.
In My 10 Years in Micro...Rejection threads and sales threads have always dominated, It's a different beast Now...I think.
-
2 Images. One titled "Beautiful Woman" and "Handsome Italian Man" thats it. Oh well. rejection had "Titles must be in English" nothing else. So...I assume the normal Now is re-submit. thats silly.
Silly, you shouldn't have mentioned the 'Italian' man in the title. ;)
-
the other 25 were fine weeks before.LOL
-
Right Rinderart, I've mentioned this before. There needs to be a way that we can send feedback for these rogue reviews, or absurd rejections that make no sense. The must be English is one, and the examples like yours of algae needing a release, or some pudding or a rock, also need to be reported. We have no way to make that known to SS so they can monitor their reviewers and educate them.
Some of the rejections seem to be random, between, poor composition, poor rasterization and soft at full size. I've never had that LCV but maybe that's where some of these come from. Heck, reject it, click anything, make the 5c and move on.
There needs to be a way to communicate these erroneous rejection reasons to SS so they can improve the review process, It's better for them and for us to have them know what's going on. The system for appealing is just fine, there needs to be a separate channel for reporting outright mistakes.
-
They will NEVER admit it Pete. Another issue and a can of worms there not willing to open.
-
Right Rinderart, I've mentioned this before. There needs to be a way that we can send feedback for these rogue reviews, or absurd rejections that make no sense. The must be English is one, and the examples like yours of algae needing a release, or some pudding or a rock, also need to be reported. We have no way to make that known to SS so they can monitor their reviewers and educate them.
Some of the rejections seem to be random, between, poor composition, poor rasterization and soft at full size. I've never had that LCV but maybe that's where some of these come from. Heck, reject it, click anything, make the 5c and move on.
There needs to be a way to communicate these erroneous rejection reasons to SS so they can improve the review process, It's better for them and for us to have them know what's going on. The system for appealing is just fine, there needs to be a separate channel for reporting outright mistakes.
[email protected]
As told Rinderart we should flood them with emails (but only when we are sure to be right).
I did this all the year 2014, contesting systematically all the rejections I did not agree with.
As result:
1) After a second review I get accepted most of the images previously rejected.
2) I have had some constructive discussion with them (with Matt most of the time) and learnt to produce better images in function of their rules/needs.
-
The long fortunate series has ended today!
After a long long period without rejection I have finally got 25 images, (four different situations) all rejected for "Focus". Obviously the images are all in focus. Some are so sharp that you can count any single hair of the model and see the pores of her leather jacket……
Maybe they have problem with selective focus (the background is blurred)?
I have already mailed to [email protected] to lament.
-
Yestearday I submitted 209 photos and only 4 got accepted. It seems SS have * high standard now.
-
I just got some stupid rejections. I'll just put them back through in a week or two.!!!
-
rejections after rejections...especially the editorials..until that moron that reviews and rejects our files goes away..i won't submit anything new to them. a good agency that is let in the hands of some idiot reviewers. were are the reviewers from 2 or 3 years ago?
-
Yestearday I submitted 209 photos and only 4 got accepted. It seems SS have * high standard now.
NEVER submit that many at one time.
-
Yestearday I submitted 209 photos and only 4 got accepted. It seems SS have * high standard now.
NEVER submit that many at one time.
NEVER submit that many CRAP at one time.
-
50 rejections for WB and focus. All these images are tack sharp.
One example,How is this not sharp? And the same image with a blurred background was accepted. :o
-
Rejected for WB, I even had instragram in the keywords
-
I haven't uploaded for a while and have been reading the complaints in both here and SS forum. I decided to give it a go and uploaded 8 photos (all different subjects, different landscapes) and all rejected because of focus issue.
-
The replies from customer service are even more frustrating.
They agree that 2 out of 3 reasons were incorrect, but because 1 reason was correct, the review was correct. If a reviewer makes so many mistakes, it needs to be addressed. It shouldnt be defended. Scott said we had to email SS so they could log reviewer history, but if the mistakes are being defended, whats the use?
Apparently the rejection on the image above for focus was correct, it is tack sharp, there is no discussion. Why does SS admin think the review was correct?
I now also need to explain in the image description that I used filters so that the reviewer knows my intentions. You would expect them to know the difference between white balance and a filter?
I am not even going to bother emailing them anymore.
-
Yes, you see, we are all older now, our eyesight is failing, our lenses are going soft and the sensors on the cameras are no longer sharp enough. We have all lost the ability to take a good shot or exposure and we forgot anything we once knew about lighting. Not only that, we don't know how to compose, create or edit anymore. Ignore that what we submitted for years, was fine in the past. (and keep in mind, all of that is terribly sarcastic!)
I haven't uploaded for a while and have been reading the complaints in both here and SS forum. I decided to give it a go and uploaded 8 photos (all different subjects, different landscapes) and all rejected because of focus issue.
-
Yes, you see, we are all older now, our eyesight is failing, our lenses are going soft and the sensors on the cameras are no longer sharp enough. We have all lost the ability to take a good shot or exposure and we forgot anything we once knew about lighting. Not only that, we don't know how to compose, create or edit anymore. Ignore that what we submitted for years, was fine in the past. (and keep in mind, all of that is terribly sarcastic!)
I haven't uploaded for a while and have been reading the complaints in both here and SS forum. I decided to give it a go and uploaded 8 photos (all different subjects, different landscapes) and all rejected because of focus issue.
Oh! Pete, our photos are blue to compensate the yellow effect of cataract!!
Time for calibration surgery.
-
Yestearday I submitted 209 photos and only 4 got accepted. It seems SS have * high standard now.
NEVER submit that many at one time.
Why not? Do the factories only submit fifty at a time to play it safe? If the images are good enough they will be accepted.
-
Yestearday I submitted 209 photos and only 4 got accepted. It seems SS have * high standard now.
NEVER submit that many at one time.
Why not? Do the factories only submit fifty at a time to play it safe? If the images are good enough they will be accepted.
That should be the case, but it proves not to be so.
I am not talking about my images, but about others with good images that get unjust rejections. People submitting to SS for 8 years all of sudden forget how to take a photo, like Pete sarcastically explained already.
-
This morning 100% rejections (4 photos) for Trademark on landscape photography ...
My SS approval rate in 2012-13-14 was 95-97% ... and in the last three months 40%.
-
Maybe Shutterstock reviewers will get more reject $$$?
-
The long fortunate series has ended today!
After a long long period without rejection I have finally got 25 images, (four different situations) all rejected for "Focus". Obviously the images are all in focus. Some are so sharp that you can count any single hair of the model and see the pores of her leather jacket……
Maybe they have problem with selective focus (the background is blurred)?
I have already mailed to [email protected] to lament.
Resubmitted…
only one rejected for composition and WB… > Cropped 2 pixels around, gave +3 or color balance in Lightroom [!!] > accepted :D :D
I think that they just want to play with us… little rascals…
-
Today 100% rejected of 25 images. *, I must start from beginning.. about 30 years..
-
The long fortunate series has ended today!
After a long long period without rejection I have finally got 25 images, (four different situations) all rejected for "Focus". Obviously the images are all in focus. Some are so sharp that you can count any single hair of the model and see the pores of her leather jacket……
Maybe they have problem with selective focus (the background is blurred)?
I have already mailed to [email protected] to lament.
Resubmitted…
only one rejected for composition and WB… > Cropped 2 pixels around, gave +3 or color balance in Lightroom [!!] > accepted :D :D
I think that they just want to play with us… little rascals…
My latest batch 95% approved. So I have submitted about 5 batches of 40 images to SS. It goes like this.
95% approved
98% rejected
95% approved
98% rejected
95% approved
Honestly, ist just improbable that my images are good bad good bad good bad in batches. The images were shot over a two week period, and edited all in the same way. Its like I take photographs in batches, where one the one batch I know what I am doing, and the next one I have no clue.
-
In all my time ron. never seen anything Like this. The inconsistency is off the chart.
-
All this is absolutely inadmissible.
We are human, not beasts!
If there is a way to write a collective letter (email) to the Shutterstock management I am ready to sign it
(Is there a way to do that?)
-
Multiple bs rejections. Overly defensive and useless responses from support. Resubmitted without changes to 100% acceptance. Multiple sales on many of those images within days.
I don't understand why they have such a blatant lack of respect for our time and effort, and why they refuse to acknowledge the obvious problems within their review staff. It just makes the whole company appear lazy and unprofessional. A representative acknowledging they have issues with some bad seeds and are in the process of addressing it would go a long way to maintaining some respectability.
-
In all my time ron. never seen anything Like this. The inconsistency is off the chart.
I've seen this for at least the last 6 months, but lately it's even worse -- and the reviews seem abnormally fast -- up to a hundred images all rejected w 3 or more 'reasons' -- anything not shot in a studio gets bounced for poor lighting. one idea is that they're looking at histograms rather than the actual image, since an 'auto tone' or 'autocolor' often gets the batch accepted
-
Last week U have 12 images uploaded and 100% rejected. Landscapes shooten with wide angle f/8 - f/10 so the focus is sharp in all areas. Rejection reason out of focus. I have controlled all pictures with 200% zoom. >:( I see this often, when I upload pictures on weekend. Maybe the automatic algorithm is working on weekend. ;D What is your experiance when you upload rejected Images again? I´ve never tried.
-
In all my time ron. never seen anything Like this. The inconsistency is off the chart.
I've seen this for at least the last 6 months, but lately it's even worse -- and the reviews seem abnormally fast -- up to a hundred images all rejected w 3 or more 'reasons' -- anything not shot in a studio gets bounced for poor lighting. one idea is that they're looking at histograms rather than the actual image, since an 'auto tone' or 'autocolor' often gets the batch accepted
Sorry to hear that, but lucky to know its not me then.
Multiple ... rejections. ...defensive and ... responses from support. ...
....
Thats really what I dont get, that support is backing the blatantly incorrect reviews.
-
Last week U have 12 images uploaded and 100% rejected. Landscapes shooten with wide angle f/8 - f/10 so the focus is sharp in all areas. Rejection reason out of focus. I have controlled all pictures with 200% zoom. >:( I see this often, when I upload pictures on weekend. Maybe the automatic algorithm is working on weekend. ;D What is your experiance when you upload rejected Images again? I´ve never tried.
I used to have a folder called "shutterstock rejections" that I'd build up over a month or so, then submit as a batch. Would get about the same acceptance rate as any other batch, around 80% and up. Once I got cocky and immediately resubmitted the few rejects from one of those batches, and quickly received a nasty little message warning against the practice. Now I'm much more selective. If their rejection reason is anywhere near the realms of possibility, I let it go. Their loss.
-
1. Rejected for noise.
2. Complained at [email protected] since I can't see noise.
3. Answer said "no noise" indeed, but the reviewer is right since the image is soft with too much noise reduction(!)
4. re-submitted the original photo without any modifications
5. Image accepted
6. Image sells a lot :)
Average (too noisy, too soft) = image OK ;)
-
But why are admins defending reviewers? Why not just stick to the facts? Fair treatment.
-
I also had the same problem today with over 25 images rejected. Reasons- not focused, noise. I doubled checked each one and these issues were not there. I can't quite understand why so many rejections are happening now. I have been doing this a long time and I know what makes a good marketable stock picture. Mr. Rohn Engh (Late) was my mentor and friend for 30 years and he taught me.
-
Yep everything 100% complete BS OOF my ass!
Sent SS a big letter and told them they may want to look at this thread and gave them the link to it.Also questioned us being used as guinea pigs for some software or hardware program they may be trying out and told them to trash it and then some.
-
Lots of bickering and personal posts on this thread, Like MSG is known for but, I think there gonna laugh.I would... I would Simply Like REAL reasons for a rejection Not 3 Like "Pick One" they should have one for "Not needed at this time" or "to many on site" instead of reasons that are Plain wrong and do not relate to the Image. Confusing or just silly. And...For what we get paid resubmitting is a waste of time, Some other person Likes it, Or some other person Picks 3 different reasons.
If they do answer here, Your gonna get the standard Pat answer...ie reviewing is a human thing and theres going to be Mistakes, or reviewing is a subjective process ETC,ETC... Well it seems other sites don't have these problems 90% of the time. The issues are things Like "Needs a model Release" when there are no People in the Image or a pic of a rock. There are a ton Of issues like this Not found on other sites. And, The Inconsistency factor kills Motivation as in what?. I submitted 7 a few weeks ago. rejected for focus. I normally don't downsize, But, I said what . and took 36MP down to 6 or so. resubmitted and rejected for WB and Lighting.One was accepted.
Thats the issue. And i can't see Not having Issues if they have as said 200+ reviewiers around the Planet. Monitor issues, Working on Laptops,Language problems and so forth. There is NO WAY they can Monitor that and what equipment everyone has...With what a questionnaire, I doubt they send someone to someones house to look . And yes..We know it can be a low paying Boring Job and Im sure turnover is high.
We also know, Or should know that not every Image rejection is bad, Nor is every Image good enough. I spent 10 years on the critique forum and trust me. A whole lot of people Just don't see the real Issues and should have been rejected But..... I/WE are seeing Posts for the first time from seasoned vets who know the difference and sure, we all take our work personally and try our best But as I said we can make mistakes also. I certainly Have and if your honest you guys have also. It's the other stuff that gets us. Most of all the rejections for completely wrong reasons and If SS thinks we Like writing Submit about them is fun?? Think again.
Now we get----- "You can resubmit, but that does not guarantee another reviewer will accept it " Whos in charge?? the reviewers? if so, Thats a huge Mistake on there part IMHO.. Reviewers, I've always said have the #1 most Important Job on any site, They are the gate keepers and the last Hudle.
By Far in my 10 years. rejection threads have always been the #1 threads. This...... Is different. Very different than anything I've seen.
-
i think we have to face facts.
1) we are all getting older, and we are all getting blind, so our focus is not all there anymore ;D ;D ;D
2) we may be competing with the reviewers so obviously the phone photos will not get rejected infocus or out , because they are no threat to the reviewers portfolio
3) we have been earning too much, and we are complaining too much , and this is not making ss happy... so it is time to blacklist all of us and make sure we get fedup and quit.
all to the joy of the reviewers with conflict of interest issue.
4) look at the right hand column... 94.9 % ss is not suffering at all. only certain contributors are suffering with less earnings. but the sales are still there. out of focus, poor composition, wrong wb
no matter, the clients will still slurp it up because it is ss .
or the reviewers portfolio is taking up the bigger piece of the pie.
so really, as rinderart says, different these days??? who really give a hoot what we think???
we can all quit tomorrow and ss will still be in the 90s and still gain top ranking on right column.
-
If there is a way to write a collective letter (email) to the Shutterstock management I am ready to sign it
(Is there a way to do that?)
Sure there is.
You draft up a letter in word then sign at the bottom, it would need to be posted on a blog available for all to sign and then once completed then it could be sent to SS with all of the signatures.
-
i think we have to face facts.
1) we are all getting older, and we are all getting blind, so our focus is not all there anymore ;D ;D ;D
2) we may be competing with the reviewers so obviously the phone photos will not get rejected infocus or out , because they are no threat to the reviewers portfolio
3) we have been earning too much, and we are complaining too much , and this is not making ss happy... so it is time to blacklist all of us and make sure we get fedup and quit.
all to the joy of the reviewers with conflict of interest issue.
4) look at the right hand column... 94.9 % ss is not suffering at all. only certain contributors are suffering with less earnings. but the sales are still there. out of focus, poor composition, wrong wb
no matter, the clients will still slurp it up because it is ss .
or the reviewers portfolio is taking up the bigger piece of the pie.
so really, as rinderart says, different these days??? who really give a hoot what we think???
we can all quit tomorrow and ss will still be in the 90s and still gain top ranking on right column.
Your probably right. Expressing our feelings on a forum has no Value whatsoever for change. I fear we as a whole are the VAST,VAST Minority of SS contributors and our voices and concerns mean absolutely nothing except to us. it's good to vent But, Might as well do it in front of a mirror. we gave the farm away many, Many years ago guys. because we got comfortable and Complacent. And we let it happen Those that joined after 2010 have no clue what Im saying But, It's true.
Im tired of it all,Im tired of being tired and Im super tired of whining and negative stuff. I just wanna do good work and feel good about it . I'll Find a way to Monetize it myself. It truly was inspiring to witness first hand what Jon has accomplished from a guy that used to call me asking for advice about a camera. But........I wanna feel Inspired also. And Im Not.
Last Post from me about SS. Sadly, I just don't care anymore. I'll do my thing and thats it. My days of trying to bang down doors is past. 50,100.300.500 signatures is a grain of sand now guys. Just Like your 50 Rejected Images. A grain of sand on a Very Long Beach.And a little tini voice in the distance.
Although, I will guarantee you that I strongly feel a change is coming . God knows we need it.
be well.
-
And yet...
SS reviewers still find it in them to accept
1. Ridiculous compositions
2. Really awful lighting set ups (over cooked flash is a favourite)
3. Underlit shots where the image is clearly under exposed.
4. Keyword spam to the point where it makes a joke of image searches.
5. Shed loads of similars
6. Really poor set ups full of dust, crumbs, lint etc.
7. Overcooked colours
And SS say they employ "professional" reviewers? Don't make me laugh these people are amateurs who wouldn't know one end of a lens from another.
They have ridiculous expectations applying their lack of knowledge to reviewing which results in junk being accepted and genuinely good photos being rejected.
It's trial by Flickerites ::)
-
I demand an official response.
shutter stock are teasing me and disrespecting me this.
10/10 shots taken at ISO 100 with 3 flashes and 6 models rejected by noise with a full frame Nikon 610
im tired and sad...
-
Wait, is it an even or odd day on the calendar? are we complaining that there are too many images being accepted today or that reviewers are being too harsh? I will comment as soon as someone lets me know.
-
I demand an official response.
shutter stock are teasing me and disrespecting me this.
10/10 shots taken at ISO 100 with 3 flashes and 6 models rejected by noise with a full frame Nikon 610
im tired and sad...
Noise @100iso with a D610??
Are your images 10 stops underexposed? :o
-
Noise @100iso with a D610??
It doesn't mean a much, even PhaseOne IQ140 ISO50 can be too NOISY!.. lol..
-
Noise @100iso with a D610??
It doesn't mean a much, even PhaseOne IQ140 ISO50 can be too NOISY!.. lol..
More than 120 dB?
-
Simply have rejected absurdly.
Yesterday they all in... today rejected all.
it's not funny, it's my * job.
-
Noise @100iso with a D610??
It doesn't mean a much, even PhaseOne IQ140 ISO50 can be too NOISY!.. lol..
More than 120 dB?
Yep, even that :) LOL .. my english.. noise ofcource :)
-
If you are getting rejections the best thing to do is figure out how to improve. The reviewers are almost certainly correct in their rejections, maybe the real reason is that the photos are not good so they pick some other reason from the list. Shutterstock doesn't have a "your image is no good" rejection do they, if you're getting focus rejections and you're sure they are actually in focus then that's probably the reason ( how many many times have people said their images were in focus or noise free but when zoomed into 100% they obviously aren't?). Make better images and you won't have problems, focus on improving rather than complaining and conspiracies.
-
If you are getting rejections the best thing to do is figure out how to improve. The reviewers are almost certainly correct in their rejections, maybe the real reason is that the photos are not good so they pick some other reason from the list. Shutterstock doesn't have a "your image is no good" rejection do they, if you're getting focus rejections and you're sure they are actually in focus then that's probably the reason ( how many many times have people said their images were in focus or noise free but when zoomed into 100% they obviously aren't?). Make better images and you won't have problems, focus on improving rather than complaining and conspiracies.
I really don't remember but was the fight here so bad that I cannot send you a message? it was a nice one though
-
Is not a improve question, is 100 images of one shot, 10 acepted, next 10, rejected, next 9/10 acepted, then, 7/7 rejected... im not newbie... i ususally have 80-90% acepted or more (95-100% acepted in fotolia for example)
Is inconsistent...
-
Is not a improve question, is 100 images of one shot, 10 acepted, next 10, rejected, next 9/10 acepted, then, 7/7 rejected... im not newbie... i ususally have 80-90% acepted or more (95-100% acepted in fotolia for example)
Is inconsistent...
Without seeing images at 100% it seems equally as likely that the ones accepted should have been rejected as the ones rejected should have been accepted. Maybe that series is not what they are looking for and you got a lenient reviewer on some of them?
-
If you are getting rejections the best thing to do is figure out how to improve. The reviewers are almost certainly correct in their rejections, maybe the real reason is that the photos are not good so they pick some other reason from the list. Shutterstock doesn't have a "your image is no good" rejection do they, if you're getting focus rejections and you're sure they are actually in focus then that's probably the reason ( how many many times have people said their images were in focus or noise free but when zoomed into 100% they obviously aren't?). Make better images and you won't have problems, focus on improving rather than complaining and conspiracies.
Explain my rejections for "poor rasterizeration," while the same jpgs are offered for sale at SS as an option to the vector file. And then after emailing about them I'm told to resubmit because the reviewer was mistaken.
I'm not sure what's going on...whether the reviewers really are making mistakes, or whether this is Shutterstock's way of holding back the huge tide of incoming images.
-
If you are getting rejections the best thing to do is figure out how to improve. The reviewers are almost certainly correct in their rejections, maybe the real reason is that the photos are not good so they pick some other reason from the list. Shutterstock doesn't have a "your image is no good" rejection do they, if you're getting focus rejections and you're sure they are actually in focus then that's probably the reason ( how many many times have people said their images were in focus or noise free but when zoomed into 100% they obviously aren't?). Make better images and you won't have problems, focus on improving rather than complaining and conspiracies.
Explain my rejections for "poor rasterizeration," while the same jpgs are offered for sale at SS as an option to the vector file. And then after emailing about them I'm told to resubmit because the reviewer was mistaken.
I'm not sure what's going on...whether the reviewers really are making mistakes, or whether this is Shutterstock's way of holding back the huge tide of incoming images.
I doubt I could help with that, I don't know much about raster illustrations. Obviously there could be some mistakes or they could have higher standards for rasters than vectors. If they already are accepted as vectors (and by extension rasters) then why would you be resubmitting the exact same files?
-
If you are getting rejections the best thing to do is figure out how to improve. The reviewers are almost certainly correct in their rejections, maybe the real reason is that the photos are not good so they pick some other reason from the list. Shutterstock doesn't have a "your image is no good" rejection do they, if you're getting focus rejections and you're sure they are actually in focus then that's probably the reason ( how many many times have people said their images were in focus or noise free but when zoomed into 100% they obviously aren't?). Make better images and you won't have problems, focus on improving rather than complaining and conspiracies.
Explain my rejections for "poor rasterizeration," while the same jpgs are offered for sale at SS as an option to the vector file. And then after emailing about them I'm told to resubmit because the reviewer was mistaken.
I'm not sure what's going on...whether the reviewers really are making mistakes, or whether this is Shutterstock's way of holding back the huge tide of incoming images.
I doubt I could help with that, I don't know much about raster illustrations. Obviously there could be some mistakes or they could have higher standards for rasters than vectors. If they already are accepted as vectors (and by extension rasters) then why would you be resubmitting the exact same files?
SS allows you to sell both vectors and rasters as separate images. I have a bunch of images that sell well in both formats. Recently they introduced the option to purchase a jpg if you're looking at the vector image. But they still accept both and buyers still look for and buy both. Perhaps certain buyers are unable to handle vectors and have gotten used to looking for raster illustrations only, so they don't bother to click on the vector files.
So in my case SS accepts the exact same jpg to sell as an option on the vector page that they reject for sale on its own. And of course, there's nothing wrong with the jpg, because when I email them I'm told it's a mistake and I should resubmit, which is the whole point of this thread.
-
Your raster issues are probably different than what other people are talking about, I assume there are a different set of inspectors for photographers and illustrators that might be part of the problem.
-
If you are getting rejections the best thing to do is figure out how to improve. The reviewers are almost certainly correct in their rejections, maybe the real reason is that the photos are not good so they pick some other reason from the list. Shutterstock doesn't have a "your image is no good" rejection do they, if you're getting focus rejections and you're sure they are actually in focus then that's probably the reason ( how many many times have people said their images were in focus or noise free but when zoomed into 100% they obviously aren't?). Make better images and you won't have problems, focus on improving rather than complaining and conspiracies.
Without submitting to Shutterstock, I believe you have no experience in the review process, to be honest.
If I get a rejections for focus, and the image is sharp, there is a problem. Rejections on HCV images for focus dont back up the part in bold. I do speak from experience as a version of one of my best selling images was rejected for focus when it was tack sharp. Selling multiple times per day means its a popular well selling image.
-
If you are getting rejections the best thing to do is figure out how to improve. The reviewers are almost certainly correct in their rejections, maybe the real reason is that the photos are not good so they pick some other reason from the list. Shutterstock doesn't have a "your image is no good" rejection do they, if you're getting focus rejections and you're sure they are actually in focus then that's probably the reason ( how many many times have people said their images were in focus or noise free but when zoomed into 100% they obviously aren't?). Make better images and you won't have problems, focus on improving rather than complaining and conspiracies.
Without submitting to Shutterstock, I believe you have no experience in the review process, to be honest.
If I get a rejections for focus, and the image is sharp, there is a problem. Rejections on HCV images for focus dont back up the part in bold. I do speak from experience as a version of one of my best selling images was rejected for focus when it was tack sharp. Selling multiple times per day means its a popular well selling image.
Like I said there may be a few errors but you posted your ones rejected for wb, they were LCV, had the wrong exposure, were taken at the wrong time of day, were cropped poorly, and had wb issues. With nearly 2 million files accepted a month I think it's a hard argument to make that they aren't accepting enough images. Focusing on the few errors in comparison to the vast majority of rejections which are for files with issues isn't going to help you in the long run. I think there is a reason almost everyone doesn't post photos, they know that there are problems with them but it's easier to blame reviewers than take responsibility for their work.
-
[…] maybe the real reason is that the photos are not good so they pick some other reason from the list. […]
I have always thought that it could be a reason: they don't like your image but they don't want to offend you so they find a random reason to reject your image…
Or, the contrary, the inspector likes a lot your image and rejects it, like this later he can copy it for his own portfolio…
Or the inspector reject your image because he feels that it could seriously compete with one of his best sellers…
Yes, everything is possible… and the contrary of everything too…
___
In the last email that I received from Shutterstock they confirmed me that the inspectors are inspected (by super inspectors), and that all the guys are doing a very good job…
So we all can be serene…
-
[…] maybe the real reason is that the photos are not good so they pick some other reason from the list. […]
I have always thought that it could be a reason: they don't like your image but they don't want to offend you so they find a random reason to reject your image…
Or, the contrary, the inspector likes a lot your image and rejects it, like this later he can copy it for his own portfolio…
Or the inspector reject your image because he feels that it could seriously compete with one of his best sellers…
Yes, everything is possible… and the contrary of everything too…
___
In the last email that I received from Shutterstock they confirmed me that the inspectors are inspected (by super inspectors), and that all the guys are doing a very good job…
So we all can be serene…
I doubt an inspector/contributor would risk doing that, they would most likely be fired and have their account closed if they got caught.
-
Why is an anonymous person criticising other's work, asking for examples, making assumptions about an agency he is not part of, when at the same time he is not man enough to share his own portfolio?
-
Why is an anonymous person criticising other's work, asking for examples, making assumptions about an agency he is not part of, when at the same time he is not man enough to share his own portfolio?
You posted those images asking for criticism. I know I've responded to you on here before that I am a video contributor on SS and that I was a photo contributor for years there. You don't need to be a contributor there to know that those images had multiple issues though. If I ever complain about a rejection on here I will be sure to post examples but my philosophy is to improve rather than complain.
-
The criticism on the images is fine, I appreciate that. That doesnt mean I agree with your assessment of the SS review process at the moment. I think you are wrong about it. You are anonymous probably for a good reason, but you could have a port of 200 crap images for all I know.
-
The criticism on the images is fine, I appreciate that. That doesnt mean I agree with your assessment of the SS review process at the moment. I think you are wrong about it. You are anonymous probably for a good reason, but you could have a port of 200 crap images for all I know.
You can think I'm wrong and continue to complain here about the reviews or you can take responsibility for your work and try to make it better. I am 100% confident that one way will be better and one way will do nothing for you. Assuming your shots of doors or other walk around shots were technically good enough to be accepted would it even matter, those kinds of shots have no chance of making good money. The take away from having them rejected shouldn't be that SS is messed up, it should be that your work needs to be better. You have much better shots than those, that's where your focus should be.
-
You know I am asking for help, so why do you keep insisting hat I dont take responsibility.
Second, when the reviewer is wrong, its not my images that is the problem
This image was downloaded over 150 times on SS alone. Doors sell. Thats what I mean, you are not on SS, you dont know whats happening there.
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/952942/154798928/stock-photo-detail-of-a-yellow-front-door-with-black-knob-and-letter-box-154798928.jpg)
Thanks for your insights.
thats all.
-
There is a reason that shot was accepted and the other one wasn't. Can't you look at the two shots and see that one is better exposed, more interesting, better cropped, etc... It looks less like a walk around snapshot than the other ones you posted and doesn't have the problems they did. Just because both photos are of doors doesn't mean they are anywhere near equal.
-
If you are getting rejections the best thing to do is figure out how to improve. The reviewers are almost certainly correct in their rejections, maybe the real reason is that the photos are not good so they pick some other reason from the list. Shutterstock doesn't have a "your image is no good" rejection do they, if you're getting focus rejections and you're sure they are actually in focus then that's probably the reason ( how many many times have people said their images were in focus or noise free but when zoomed into 100% they obviously aren't?). Make better images and you won't have problems, focus on improving rather than complaining and conspiracies.
Without submitting to Shutterstock, I believe you have no experience in the review process, to be honest.
someone who has never submitted to ss , standing up for their reviewers??? ironic!!!
someone who has never submitted to ss , standing up for their reviewers...
could be
that is a reviewer of ss , really... without wanting to admit it.
maybe this is atilla real name on msg ;D
-
There is a reason that shot was accepted and the other one wasn't. Can't you look at the two shots and see that one is better exposed, more interesting, better cropped, etc... It looks less like a walk around snapshot than the other ones you posted and doesn't have the problems they did. Just because both photos are of doors doesn't mean they are anywhere near equal.
Last comment on this, you said:
Assuming your shots of doors or other walk around shots were technically good enough to be accepted would it even matter, those kinds of shots have no chance of making good money.
That yellow door was taken in Kilkenny, Ireland in the same way as I took the shot in Limogne-en-Quercy, France and you generalised that doors dont make good money. I beg to differ.
Anyway, I am off to bed. Good night.
-
I thought it was obvious I was talking about the door shots that were rejected, those shots even if shot a little better to make them technically acceptable would have very little chance of making any money. They aren't that useful. The yellow door can be used for advertising, it has copyspace, bright colors, an interesting focus while the rejected doors you thought should have been accepted don't. That's why those should have been rejected and even if accepted wouldn't sell anyway.
-
I thought it was obvious I was talking about the door shots that were rejected, those shots even if shot a little better to make them technically acceptable would have very little chance of making any money. They aren't that useful. The yellow door can be used for advertising, it has copyspace, bright colors, an interesting focus while the rejected doors you thought should have been accepted don't. That's why those should have been rejected and even if accepted wouldn't sell anyway.
omg first we have a dude who is not a contributor to ss making qualified statement to speak for atilla
now we have the same dude claiming to be an expert of what sells in microstock
is this dude smug or what??? >:(
-
Why is an anonymous person criticising other's work, asking for examples, making assumptions about an agency he is not part of, when at the same time he is not man enough to share his own portfolio?
You posted those images asking for criticism.
I know I've responded to you on here before that I am a video contributor on SS and that I was a photo contributor for years there.
You don't need to be a contributor there to know that those images had multiple issues though. If I ever complain about a rejection on here I will be sure to post examples but my philosophy is to improve rather than complain.
I remember you mentioning that you have family members who contribute to shutterstock. I did not realize that you contributed to shutterstock for years before going exclusive at Istock.
I can see why you continue to contribute video at shutterstock
In the end the quality requirements for each site are similar and shutterstock's review & quality standards have not change much over the years.
I think it boils down to the reviewer who has been assigned to your port or area. Right now I am not having issues with reviews. However for a period of roughly a year in 2010, I had one bear of a reviewer who rejected anything of value. My lower quality images squeaked through but he or she rejected my best images.
-
Today 100% rejected of 25 images.
Those images, approval:
SS 0%
FT 96%
BS 100%
IS 100%
DT .. still waiting approval
123RF 100%
CS 100%
VEER 100%
and so on ...
I sent complaint about two weeks ago.. how much time on average, those going..
-
Same situation.
I am a contributor from 2010.
From 2010 to 2014 i used to have 10-20% rejection rate (with pertinent reasons - shadows, soft colours).
From 2014 to 2015 i have inconsistency on this rate. Days with 95% approval rate and days with 95% rejection rate. The same type of images (travel), the same editing (saturation, shadows, sharpness/noise reduction).
-
Poor light?
(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/t/colosseum-rome-52066090.jpg)
(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/t/colosseum-rome-52065842.jpg)
-
natural light, especially late afternoon light seems to be routinely flagged as 'poor lighting'
-
Hi,
first post after lurking and learning for over a year.
To pass on a story of my own - I have been getting terrible stats from Shutterstock for a couple of months.
Checking everything in Lightroom before exporting to JPG - what can go wrong (apart from original quality of course)?
Only this morning, looking into something else, I realised that following a computer rebuild Lightroom was exporting at 60% quality, not 100%.
-
Rejected for focus
-
Same here...... usually 95-99 % acceptance rate everywhere & Shutterstock, and when you never suspect it....booommm....80%- rejection. Well..... part of the game but frustrating. Obviously it would be great if there would be some control over those Attilas that leave no grass under their feet. It should be easy as they are easily detected by their shotgun approach and massive damage . I guess their menu of the day was undercooked and someone had to pay for it. :o
-
Man, the last two weeks have been rough at SS for me. Everything I have tried to get in my portfolio has been kicked back at me and for stuff I feel like has not changed. Recently I am hearing that my images are out of focus and I know they are not. I check them close at 100% but still they are kicking my butt on this.
Anyone else seeing this? SS is the only place I have sold much lately so it is discouraging, to say the least.
nope, had that problem only on Pond5 so far ;)
-
Man, the last two weeks have been rough at SS for me. Everything I have tried to get in my portfolio has been kicked back at me and for stuff I feel like has not changed. Recently I am hearing that my images are out of focus and I know they are not. I check them close at 100% but still they are kicking my butt on this.
Anyone else seeing this? SS is the only place I have sold much lately so it is discouraging, to say the least.
nope, had that problem only on Pond5 so far ;)
For your free time only...trust me, you are not lonely!
http://www.microstockgroup.com/pond5/my-recent-experience-with-pond5-never-ever-using-them-again/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/pond5/my-recent-experience-with-pond5-never-ever-using-them-again/)
-
100% rejections,as reason they give blurry/out of focus. Trust me those pics are 100% sharp. Some crazy reviewers!
-
The same thing happen to me today. (1) image approved with the same outdoor setting out of 12. All others rejected for not in focus. These images were all approved at another top well know site.
-
First you need to have a conversation with God about the lighting and then, consider the shadows in those windows. You should have a unit behind each one of them, to fill. I think I see some shadows behind the "Shrubbery" as well. ;)
Honest, there should be standards but there should also be some leeway for natural lighting!
Only other alternative is - limit your shooting to Sunny overcast days. No really, it's getting to that point with some of these lighting rejections for natural light? Or maybe everything HDR, subtle 1/2 stop, not dramatic, high contrast.
Poor light?
(images removed)
-
So after two batches of 95% approval, I just get about 98% rejected on a batch of 52 images for focus. Its simply not true. I am really getting tired of this.
What find weird is that SS admins defend reviews in a very strange way.
You get 3 rejections on one image, for example, composition, noise and focus, and you explain that the 3 reasons are incorrect. The admin will say, yes composition, noise and focus is fine, but its under exposed therefore the review was correct.
-
Today not approved 100% af 19 pics. All for the focus >:(
-
Noise and focus
This is 100% zoom
-
Today not approved 100% af 19 pics. All for the focus >:(
Something is up, and I think its software with very tight parameters on focus. I am downsizing all my images now, 4.1mp is what they will get.
-
Today not approved 100% af 19 pics. All for the focus >:(
Something is up, and I think its software with very tight parameters on focus. I am downsizing all my images now, 4.1mp is what they will get.
Maybe it's better upload only downsized images until they are back in the business, I will downsize all to 6Mpx.
-
In the Submission Guidelines of SS there is this written "Do send full-sized images. Don't upsize or downsize images." >:( :( >:( :( >:(
-
Noise and focus
This is 100% zoom
That's just comical :( ~ these reviewers need to go rest their eyes for a bit ::)
-
You have to downsize images, I have panoramas wont go through because they are too big.
Everyone is downsizing, even cropping is downsizing. I dont know many people submitting full size 36mp images. They all downsize.
Its a guideline, not a requirement.
Upsizing is different ballgame, I never upsize.
In the Submission Guidelines of SS there is this written "Do send full-sized images. Don't upsize or downsize images."
-
Thanks Semmick ;D
-
Don'T know what's wrong with SS reviewer this week. I never had this kind of rejection. The first time, they said I had a french word in my description (shepherd's pie so I wrote pate chinois this is how we call it in Canada). Ok fine, I resubmit, and now its the white balance for the same image ... ! What's gonna be next ? you don't like my food ? haha
-
You have to downsize images, I have panoramas wont go through because they are too big.
Everyone is downsizing, even cropping is downsizing. I dont know many people submitting full size 36mp images. They all downsize.
Its a guideline, not a requirement.
Upsizing is different ballgame, I never upsize.
In the Submission Guidelines of SS there is this written "Do send full-sized images. Don't upsize or downsize images."
No size limit for photos, have told people this before.
Jeff,
Were these jpegs rejected for being too large or couldn't you upload them because of the size? There is no size limitation for photos, but larger images can have issues uploading due to their size (depending on ISP, connection, time, etc.)
Vincent
Shutterstock
-
Ah, I am sorry, I didnt read the internet this morning.
-
Even though their manual keywording is a pain I am moving away from SS and uploading to Getty more and more. I am getting sick and tired of ridiculous rejections for no good reason at SS.
-
Whole batch rejected.
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Title--Titles must be in English, may not contain unnecessary information and must relate to the image.
The title is in English and they describe the image, and they are in focus.
Dirty tractor cabin interior with leather upholstery
-
SS reviewers really piss me off right now!! 66% of my photos this week were rejected due to "poor lighting" I am livid. I work on each photo for 30-60 mins to get every tiny detail correct. They then reject a photo in a fraction of a second.
What has happened with SS?
Before any rejections were rational but now they are erratic.
-
Hi all,
I'im new to forum,from France, in Stock Since 2012, sorry for my english :P
I shoot with d800e and mostly 24-70mm or 105mm macro
Here's my anecdote on one picture :
-First rejection for focus
-send mail to submit@shutterstock with specific question
-answer from SS : please reconsider submission, etc...
-Second rejection for focus
-send mail to submit@shutterstock with very specific question
-answer from SS : exactly the same as before !
-me : asking if the review is uncorrect
-SS :yes
:o :o :o
I don't feel like uploading a third time this picture, this is lottery these days
Does someone think like me it's a weird algorithm doing reviews ??
-
I just cant get my head around 95% rejection, 95% acceptance from day to day.
-
I just cant get my head around 95% rejection, 95% acceptance from day to day.
At one time I used to not have any images for review on a Saturday or early Sunday believing that the reviewers were evil on those two days. Friday always seem to be the best day but that is only my beliefs... 8)
-
I just cant get my head around 95% rejection, 95% acceptance from day to day.
At one time I used to not have any images for review on a Saturday or early Sunday believing that the reviewers were evil on those two days. Friday always seem to be the best day but that is only my beliefs... 8)
I always had good acceptance rates in the weekends. But lately its just all over the place. Something changed for sure, but the silence of SS is deafening. They used to come here on regular bases but with Scott leaving, there is no communication at all.
-
I'm a contributor on ShutterStock, iStock, Dreamstime, Fotolia, BigStock, 123rf, CanStock, Deposit, CreStock, Alamy and Veer. I've been submitting to stock since 2007.
My experience with ShutterStock is that they hands down, by far, are the most inconsistent of all the bureaus, when it comes to what is accepted and what is rejected.
Noone are as inconsistent as ShutterStock - noone comes remotely close. It's absurd, but the trick is to not let the frustrations get the better of you.
On ShutterStock, I've tried to have 4 out of 10 images in studio shoot accepted - and the last 6 rejected becaues of noise. All shot at ISO 100, none of them boosted in exposure in post production. All 10 very identical in image quality, due to them having been shot in rapid succession (but very different poses and accessories for the model). Then, a week after, they accepted 4 out of 4 images, that were all shot at ISO 6400 with no noise reduction applied. I was like: What .??
If you get images bounced because of noise and/or artifacts, you can try to resize the images to fx. 4 - 6 MPixels size. That actually helps me most of the time.
-
i stoped uploading landscapes on ss, they become like fotolia, they reject, they think or they know landscape is waste of space, computer index,...
if i were reviewer i would also reject landscape like this for focus, even it is perfect image. yours is better then perfect.
Rejected for focus
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=22650.0;attach=13562[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=22650.0;attach=13562[/url])
-
I had 18 rejected abstract designs because 5 had the word ECRU to describe the color of the lace so I am very puzzled as to the reason=Spelling / Grammar -- Image contains spelling or grammatical errors.
I have sent them the details etc and will be interesting to see why ECRU is wrong spelling , grammar.
Very very frustrated !!!!
-
i stoped uploading landscapes on ss, they become like fotolia, they reject, they think or they know landscape is waste of space, computer index,...
if i were reviewer i would also reject landscape like this for focus, even it is perfect image. yours is better then perfect.
Rejected for focus
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=22650.0;attach=13562[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=22650.0;attach=13562[/url])
In this case, the rejection reason should be "Too Many on site".
One of the main things for shutterstock is to educate contributors (guidelines, shutterbuzz, trends, etc...)
So Why use a false rejection reason ?
-
I had 18 rejected abstract designs because 5 had the word ECRU to describe the color of the lace so I am very puzzled as to the reason=Spelling / Grammar -- Image contains spelling or grammatical errors.
I have sent them the details etc and will be interesting to see why ECRU is wrong spelling , grammar.
Very very frustrated !!!!
Maybe the reviewers doesn't have English as a native language...? I'm from Denmark, and I must admit that I had to google ECRU :D - I think I'd call it "dusty sand color" or something like that, and maybe in a partly drunken state (or if I were really busy) where I forgot that Google exists, I'd think that ECRU was the name of a corporation. Something along these lines could certainly explain why your images were rejected...
-
Noone are as inconsistent as ShutterStock - noone comes remotely close.
Not in my case, they are pretty consistent lately - in rejecting my photos :)
Somebody complained that they are growing too fast (and no competition at this moment) - so it might explain, now this is the period where they realized it, and want to stop the growth a little bit. So they accept only absolutely technically perfect photo. Even if it is technically perfect, it could be something that they don't like and then easily reject it with "light" as a reason reason. Or focus.
-
Shortly after my post all the designs were accepted. What a relief.
-
Hi all,
I'im new to forum,from France, in Stock Since 2012, sorry for my english :P
I shoot with d800e and mostly 24-70mm or 105mm macro
Here's my anecdote on one picture :
-First rejection for focus
-send mail to submit@shutterstock with specific question
-answer from SS : please reconsider submission, etc...
-Second rejection for focus
-send mail to submit@shutterstock with very specific question
-answer from SS : exactly the same as before !
-me : asking if the review is uncorrect
-SS :yes
:o :o :o
I don't feel like uploading a third time this picture, this is lottery these days
Does someone think like me it's a weird algorithm doing reviews ??
To be continued...:
"Dear Thomas,
Thank you for your message.
I don't think corrections are necessary with the images in question. If you try to sharpen those images it might get worse. Just resubmit them as they are for another review.
Best regards,
Shutterstock
Contributor Support"
Result : Third rejection for focus
??? ??? ???
-
Hi all,
I'im new to forum,from France, in Stock Since 2012, sorry for my english :P
I shoot with d800e and mostly 24-70mm or 105mm macro
Here's my anecdote on one picture :
-First rejection for focus
-send mail to submit@shutterstock with specific question
-answer from SS : please reconsider submission, etc...
-Second rejection for focus
-send mail to submit@shutterstock with very specific question
-answer from SS : exactly the same as before !
-me : asking if the review is uncorrect
-SS :yes
:o :o :o
I don't feel like uploading a third time this picture, this is lottery these days
Does someone think like me it's a weird algorithm doing reviews ??
To be continued...:
"Dear Thomas,
Thank you for your message.
I don't think corrections are necessary with the images in question. If you try to sharpen those images it might get worse. Just resubmit them as they are for another review.
Best regards,
Shutterstock
Contributor Support"
Result : Third rejection for focus
??? ??? ???
Didn't SS give you a review case number to add to the reviewer notes when re-submitting?
-
I got 6 differents but same subject photo that have been reject for wrong reason twice ... ( french word ???) (white balance ) That was good.
I decided to resbmitt only one from the serie. This photo was approve ! I submit a second one later ... ! Approuved ! They reject series ! So just upload them seperatly days later
-
Didn't SS give you a review case number to add to the reviewer notes when re-submitting?
That's they usually do. But not this time, although i noticed them !
Actually , with the new way to add a note to the reviewer, i don't understand how to indicate a case number.
-
I usually don't have a big problem with the reviews, but I did have a batch with shot with slightly dramatic lighting and very shallow depth of field. First half were rejected on focus, the other half on the category (they may have had a point on the category). Re-submitted downsized with category changed, and all were rejected on focus. I send an email to submissions saying they were tack sharp but with a narrow depth and they said to resubmit with no guarantee of approval. Submitted again - rejected for focus and poor lighting this time.
-
:( Rejection frenzy at the moment at Shutterstock. Not worth the time resubmitting.....nearly always rejected with another reason.......let's see if things calm down in a few weeks
-
Didn't SS give you a review case number to add to the reviewer notes when re-submitting?
That's they usually do. But not this time, although i noticed them !
Actually , with the new way to add a note to the reviewer, i don't understand how to indicate a case number.
you can choose an option to add case no
-
Didn't SS give you a review case number to add to the reviewer notes when re-submitting?
That's they usually do. But not this time, although i noticed them !
Actually , with the new way to add a note to the reviewer, i don't understand how to indicate a case number.
you can choose an option to add case no
Thank you, I had not seen this :-[
Anyway, the curious thing is "this review is not correct" and giving no case number.
-
2 questions. whos in charge? the reviewers or admin at submit?
Also, What can we, as a group do about this. It's getting really out of hand. Historically Rejection threads are as common as fleas on a dog But, this is quite different. Im sure there probably correct "Most" of the time?.. but something fishy is going on. Some really good shooters are getting very stupid rejections. Focus,Lighting and WB seem to be the big three. whoever took scotts Place has some answering to do But, were back to No Communication again. Maybe thats a complete No,No Nowdays? from staff or upper level management. If thats so...Man thats pretty sad.
NO OTHER SITE has this issue. We NEED answers. Will someone that writes well start a "Open Letter to Shutterstock VP of Content" and I'll do my best to make sure they read it.
And... There is simply no way with 200+ reviewers around the planet that they could know what Monitors these folks are using besides a questionnaire they fill out upon applying for a job.
The downside Im afraid to say is gonna be ""200/250 thousand Images added each week" so someone has no issues. All we want I think is better more comprehensive Guidelines. For the commissions we get, It is Just not cost effective to re-submit Over and Over when every other site takes them...And, Sells them.
If they don't want them? SAY SO, instead of bogus reasons. Other sites do and it works well with me. So we don't have to do it again and again and we can drop the silly attila Handle. Every admin since day One said "We agree with the reviewer..OR, Pls resubmit with My name and that always worked. Not anymore.
Reviewing Is and always has been the #1 most Important Job at any site.
-
I found out that rejection for WB can also mean over saturated. Which has nothing to do with WB.
-
I finally got my first bunch of crazy:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
Here's a 100% crop of one of the centers where the center of focus is/should be:
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/images/examples/sampleFromBG.jpg (http://www.seanlockephotography.com/images/examples/sampleFromBG.jpg)
-
I finally got my first bunch of crazy:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
Here's a 100% crop of one of the centers where the center of focus is/should be:
[url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/images/examples/sampleFromBG.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/images/examples/sampleFromBG.jpg[/url])
404 Page Not Found, it looks like Sean Locke Photography agency also rejected them. ;)
ETA: Now it's up, they overturned that one quick. It does look out of focus to me though.
-
Sorry, my FTP window was acting up.
The edge of the bevel and the join don't look razor sharp to you?
-
I'd say no they don't look that sharp. It looks like sharpening and noise reduction was added, it's kind of smudgy to use a technical term. That could also be because of the subject but I can see why they would reject it.
-
If they don't want them? SAY SO, instead of bogus reasons.
Yes
That's why i think the problem is something else.
-
I don't mean this in a bad way but I was hoping a top photographer would get these bogus rejections just so that we have it confirmed that we are not the problem. Something is off and I am hoping SS will clarify some things.
-
Yes, SS nazi is back!
Batch with 16 photos rejected on Monday, on Wednesday batch with 17 photos ( same photos, same thema, same lightning, everything same...) ACCEPTED 100%.
Nothing new on SS, so no worries, just our beloved SS nazi needs some quick money.
-
I find it VERY VERY telling that SS has stopped participating in these discussions. To me, that speaks volumes about what's to come. I like SS and they are by far my biggest earner but I suspect that we are seeing the end of the cheap-stock golden days & now are experiencing the beginning of the "stock holder model"............. enrich stock holders by beating down suppliers. No different than any other industry, really. I think deep down we all knew this was coming.
-
a lot of noise , not enough detail
I finally got my first bunch of crazy:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
Here's a 100% crop of one of the centers where the center of focus is/should be:
[url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/images/examples/sampleFromBG.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/images/examples/sampleFromBG.jpg[/url])
-
a lot of noise , not enough detail
Heh, ok. Please spotlight the "noise" for me.
-
I finally got my first bunch of crazy:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
Here's a 100% crop of one of the centers where the center of focus is/should be:
[url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/images/examples/sampleFromBG.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/images/examples/sampleFromBG.jpg[/url])
The wash of white paint scatters the light and fills in the scratches/grain of the woods surface.
My guess would be the reviewer did not look past that area and assumed the image was soft.
-
I have also seen the approval rate for my outdoor photography (full frame, L series lens, tripod, 100 ISO) drop from 90% to less than 50%. I only upload one photo from a series at a time. Some make it, some don't. The technical rejection reasons rarely seem valid. The inconsistency has led me to believe it's either reviewer roulette... or they're simply swimming through oceans of (well covered subject matter) uploads and are exercising the luxury of rejecting most of those (well covered subject matter) uploads as matter of policy.
-
a lot of noise , not enough detail
Heh, ok. Please spotlight the "noise" for me.
Cesar must be a microstock reviewer :D
-
....and do you think the SS is snubbing their nose at us, the contributors, with their current home page image where the female is completely out of focus except for her left arm? >:(
-
first time after one year i got reject 5/5 , all images was same aperture, same time, same work, they were office work, last 1000 was ok, not it is not anymore.
can i join to rejection club?
it is depressing, i spend 8 hours for this 5 images.
-
first time after one year i got reject 5/5 , all images was same aperture, same time, same work, they were office work, last 1000 was ok, not it is not anymore.
can i join to rejection club?
As a new member, i say welcome 8)
-
first time after one year i got reject 5/5 , all images was same aperture, same time, same work, they were office work, last 1000 was ok, not it is not anymore.
can i join to rejection club?
it is depressing, i spend 8 hours for this 5 images.
Hi, Cesar, You can join any "rejection club", but not mine.
My members can spent max 2-5 minutes for finishing each photo, which will then bring 30 cents...
8 hours for 5 photos?
Wow, this photos are good for Smithsonian Museum or some Modern art gallery,
but not for our 30 cents or one $ clubs.
;) twice
-
i always spend one hour for one photo, first make scene, shooting about half hour, editing,keywording
goal is to earn 10$ with every image at least, in 80% im successful
first time after one year i got reject 5/5 , all images was same aperture, same time, same work, they were office work, last 1000 was ok, not it is not anymore.
can i join to rejection club?
it is depressing, i spend 8 hours for this 5 images.
Hi, Cesar, You can join any "rejection club", but not mine.
My members can spent max 2-5 minutes for finishing each photo, which will then bring 30 cents...
8 hours for 5 photos?
Wow, this photos are good for Smithsonian Museum or some Modern art gallery,
but not for our 30 cents or one $ clubs.
;) twice
-
i think there is definitely a misunderstanding or absolute no guideline for reviewers as to what is acceptable or not.
just look at the pix that is on the current homepage of ss
the one of the lady with stripe with camera. which part of the image is in focus???
then compare it to the images old contributors and new get for OUT OF FOCUS rejection.
tweet Oringer to ask him ???
-
Yep everything 100% complete BS OOF my ass!
Sent SS a big letter and told them they may want to look at this thread and gave them the link to it.Also questioned us being used as guinea pigs for some software or hardware program they may be trying out and told them to trash it and then some.
Maybe you should post the images in the critique forum. ::)
Never know, maybe the reviewers are correct. ;)
-
last batch 100% rejected for light, noise, and focus. I can understand the grain on the pics of sand dunes, but otherwise...
-
a lot of noise , not enough detail
Heh, ok. Please spotlight the "noise" for me.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/?language=en (http://submit.shutterstock.com/?language=en)
(http://ak.picdn.net/assets/cms/51a325a1ff60cafe24088938ffd09023a55b4d44-shutterstock_200385650b.jpg)
how did this image get approved. better still, so good that it is used by ss for home page
... bigger question...
how did atilla miss this one??? ;D ;D ;D
-
how did this image get approved. better still, so good that it is used by ss for home page
... bigger question...
how did atilla miss this one??? ;D ;D ;D
This is masterpiece, the 'A' is so sharp :P
-
Amazing...The public face of SS? wow. I guess this is what they want. Although I do see the concept of the Image but... Perhaps a bit more DOF?
submitted 42, 40 rejected. Most ever in 10 years was 3/4 that were my fault. Fixed and resubmitted with No Problem. last 40 were for Lighting,WB and focus. All were the Filtered,Vintage,Faded poloroid Look. which was clearly Noted in descriptions and Keywords. Im with 9 sites. The other 8 took all of them and starting to sell. I will Not resubmit. I now see a lot of submitters submitting The Trendy Blur thing. Im sorry, I just don't get it. Im starting to advise folks on the critique forum with focus issues to Blur it and resubmit....Guess what? It's working for them.
OH WELL.....................This is where we are. and to answer Ron's query... A few of my old time friends that are Long time major Players that have been shooting forever Like myself that are getting rejections right and left.
I assume the Instagram look Is Not my thing, And I guess trendy things doesn't work for me either.Im kinda glad. LOL
Also..Let me add, There is no way SS can know what kind of Monitors 200+ reviewers around the world are using. All there is, is a questionnaire. And BTW...Who's really In charge of content?? Admin or reviewers? when you write submit, they say there is no Guarantee they will be accepted if resubmitted.
Someone has to take responsibility for submissions. and re=submissions. The Buck has to stop somewhere....Right? kinda Lost here and scratching My head in wonderment of where this is going. Nothing against change but....Geeeez.
On the flip side I have a friend and former student who does Nothing But Instagram Images. He has about 1300 and makes a small fortune. He couldn't get accepted because of Noise and switched to filtered Look. Quite amazing.
-
On the flip side I have a friend and former student who does Nothing But Instagram Images. He has about 1300 and makes a small fortune. He couldn't get accepted because of Noise and switched to filtered Look. Quite amazing.
Some people will adapt to new trends and microstock agency demands and will do well. Others will keep trying the same old thing (along with the thousands of others who do the same thing) and wonder why they aren't getting sales/positive reviews.
One person's observation/opinion. Feel free to ignore. I'm a small fish.
-
On the flip side I have a friend and former student who does Nothing But Instagram Images. He has about 1300 and makes a small fortune. He couldn't get accepted because of Noise and switched to filtered Look. Quite amazing.
Some people will adapt to new trends and microstock agency demands and will do well. Others will keep trying the same old thing (along with the thousands of others who do the same thing) and wonder why they aren't getting sales/positive reviews.
One person's observation/opinion. Feel free to ignore. I'm a small fish.
op is not talking about adapting to new trends or getting sales. op is talking about reviewers
saying one thing and ss using images that say another thing.
you cannot talk from both sides of the mouth...
either it is in focus or it is not. you can say that experienced contributors suddenly lost their sight and all their work is now out of focus
then put an amazingly out of focus image as the main image to show clients
ss is the place to get the best images in the market.
small fish or big fish, there has to be some form of clarity
and lately looking at the forum there is no clear rule of what reviewers are doing
if you being a small fish is getting 100% approval on out of focus image
no problem , so long as images that are in fact in focus do not get rejected en masse
simply because the reviewer feel the focus is not where it should be
and no, we do not have to ignore you simply cos we do not agree with you.
ignore is not going to make the issue go away
-
On the flip side I have a friend and former student who does Nothing But Instagram Images. He has about 1300 and makes a small fortune. He couldn't get accepted because of Noise and switched to filtered Look. Quite amazing.
Some people will adapt to new trends and microstock agency demands and will do well. Others will keep trying the same old thing (along with the thousands of others who do the same thing) and wonder why they aren't getting sales/positive reviews.
One person's observation/opinion. Feel free to ignore. I'm a small fish.
op is not talking about adapting to new trends or getting sales. op is talking about reviewers
saying one thing and ss using images that say another thing.
you cannot talk from both sides of the mouth...
either it is in focus or it is not. you can say that experienced contributors suddenly lost their sight and all their work is now out of focus
then put an amazingly out of focus image as the main image to show clients
ss is the place to get the best images in the market.
small fish or big fish, there has to be some form of clarity
and lately looking at the forum there is no clear rule of what reviewers are doing
if you being a small fish is getting 100% approval on out of focus image
no problem , so long as images that are in fact in focus do not get rejected en masse
simply because the reviewer feel the focus is not where it should be
and no, we do not have to ignore you simply cos we do not agree with you.
ignore is not going to make the issue go away
I was commenting on Laurin's comment. Although it does apply to the topic in general.
SS reviews are inconsistent. It is frustrating. SS isn't publicly addressing it. You can adapt to that reality or you can bang your head against the wall until it gets better.
-
It becomes ridiculous... A photo rejected for focus problems, I took it with tripod and did manual focus on lcd with magnification 100%... Could not be more in focus.
Anyway, I'll stop uploading to SS for a while, no point getting frustrated because of some crazy people there.
The other thing - yesterday I got one SOD for 25c??? Did you ever get 25c for SOD?
The thing is, you spend sometimes hours on post-processing, and then some drunk maniac reviews it, and then then if it gets accepted, you get 25c for SOD, is it normal?
-
Yes it's the Facebook deal
-
what a relief, yesterday 100% rejection got acceptance 100% with same images. -0.01 exposure.
i can breathe now.
-
Focus rejections?
Here's what I'm seeing on my homepage:
(http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz187/rimglow/Dan001_zpsfgpotmvd.jpg)
-
Two weeks ago I submitted 7 images of phone linemen to the agencies I work with: SS, FT, DT, and BS.
Still waiting to hear from DT (duh), but FT and BS accepted them all.
Shutterstock rejected all of them for "focus and noise" problems.
Full frame, 1S0 200, sharp at 200%.
I've become philosophical about such things; but after reading other posters' experiences, I decided to resubmit the exact, unchanged files and selected the "Resubmitted with corrections made" choice using the drop-down menu.
All accepted the next day.
So, I guess the takeaway here is, review your rejected images with a honest and critical eye, and then if you think the reviewer was wrong, resubmit.
Can't hurt, might help.
-
they are ok, except this one, it is too dark, you have luck with this one
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=266952209&src=id (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=266952209&src=id)
-
Two weeks ago I submitted 7 images of phone linemen to the agencies I work with: SS, FT, DT, and BS.
Still waiting to hear from DT (duh), but FT and BS accepted them all.
Shutterstock rejected all of them for "focus and noise" problems.
Full frame, 1S0 200, sharp at 200%.
I've become philosophical about such things; but after reading other posters' experiences, I decided to resubmit the exact, unchanged files and selected the "Resubmitted with corrections made" choice using the drop-down menu.
All accepted the next day.
So, I guess the takeaway here is, review your rejected images with a honest and critical eye, and then if you think the reviewer was wrong, resubmit.
Can't hurt, might help.
yup same thing here. guess ss don't mind double paying reviewers
but won't hear nothing about increasing contributors pay .
guess best to apply to be reiveiwer, even if you don't, get your kid do it with his uncalibrated screen...
he wants to earn money... i say go fer it, just grab a whole load of files and macro it with "focus not where it should be"; WB off;... and get paid. why not??? soon, my grandkid will earn more than i do as ss reviewer atilla the new 8)
-
Thats fine BUT......Point being we, Shouldn't have to Play a silly game, or try and trick them By doing that or...resizing down to a minimum to get accepted. If an Image has merit and value. It should be accepted without jumping through a hoop doing so. For what ? a possible 25/38 cents?....They should Know, Thats there job. I've always said If you believe in an Image fight for it. What....Now it's every other time? Silly is the only word that comes to mind.And no one should have to bang there head against a wall.
-
Just keep in mind that if you resubmit too often you may get a SS warning.
Resubmit with moderation and when you know you're right.
I had review issues in 2014 but this year so far seems to be more consistent (for me).
-
Just keep in mind that if you resubmit too often you may get a SS warning.
Resubmit with moderation and when you know you're right.
I had review issues in 2014 but this year so far seems to be more consistent (for me).
correct, perfect advice.
-
Amazing...The public face of SS? wow. I guess this is what they want. Although I do see the concept of the Image but... Perhaps a bit more DOF?
submitted 42, 40 rejected. Most ever in 10 years was 3/4 that were my fault. Fixed and resubmitted with No Problem. last 40 were for Lighting,WB and focus. All were the Filtered,Vintage,Faded poloroid Look. which was clearly Noted in descriptions and Keywords. Im with 9 sites. The other 8 took all of them and starting to sell. I will Not resubmit. I now see a lot of submitters submitting The Trendy Blur thing. Im sorry, I just don't get it. Im starting to advise folks on the critique forum with focus issues to Blur it and resubmit....Guess what? It's working for them.
OH WELL.....................This is where we are. and to answer Ron's query... A few of my old time friends that are Long time major Players that have been shooting forever Like myself that are getting rejections right and left.
I assume the Instagram look Is Not my thing, And I guess trendy things doesn't work for me either.Im kinda glad. LOL
Also..Let me add, There is no way SS can know what kind of Monitors 200+ reviewers around the world are using. All there is, is a questionnaire. And BTW...Who's really In charge of content?? Admin or reviewers? when you write submit, they say there is no Guarantee they will be accepted if resubmitted.
Someone has to take responsibility for submissions. and re=submissions. The Buck has to stop somewhere....Right? kinda Lost here and scratching My head in wonderment of where this is going. Nothing against change but....Geeeez.
On the flip side I have a friend and former student who does Nothing But Instagram Images. He has about 1300 and makes a small fortune. He couldn't get accepted because of Noise and switched to filtered Look. Quite amazing.
How many sites are you with? You wrote this last time. Just closed My account. simply not cost effective uploading.One down 3 to go.
Did you add 5 - 6 new sites?
Why don't you and yiour major player friends call jon, you claim to know everybody important.
-
My thought are like this: just get non-exclusive with them and load the same images to DT, IS, etc. Then you will get confidence burst.
-
My thought are like this: just get non-exclusive with them and load the same images to DT, IS, etc. Then you will get confidence burst.
confidence doesn't butter my sandwich ;)
-
GOOD ONE RON....LOL
-
My thought are like this: just get non-exclusive with them and load the same images to DT, IS, etc. Then you will get confidence burst.
confidence doesn't butter my sandwich ;)
Love it I must remember that quote :D
-
Hi all,
I'im new to forum,from France, in Stock Since 2012, sorry for my english :P
I shoot with d800e and mostly 24-70mm or 105mm macro
Here's my anecdote on one picture :
-First rejection for focus
-send mail to submit@shutterstock with specific question
-answer from SS : please reconsider submission, etc...
-Second rejection for focus
-send mail to submit@shutterstock with very specific question
-answer from SS : exactly the same as before !
-me : asking if the review is uncorrect
-SS :yes
:o :o :o
I don't feel like uploading a third time this picture, this is lottery these days
Does someone think like me it's a weird algorithm doing reviews ??
To be continued...:
"Dear Thomas,
Thank you for your message.
I don't think corrections are necessary with the images in question. If you try to sharpen those images it might get worse. Just resubmit them as they are for another review.
Best regards,
Shutterstock
Contributor Support"
Result : Third rejection for focus
??? ??? ???
Episode Three :
I sent a fourth message to SS about the same picture.
They gave me a case number.
What a waste of time... :(
-
Reviewer claims a rejection reason was "Trademark", which (I can only guess) is a tiny hint of a logo between tree branches way off from the subject. Tiny, but the image is clearly so tack sharp they found this as an issue. Oh yeah, it was also rejected for focus.
No where to put notes anymore, so have to add notes within the description, which will probably get the next batch rejected. Or send message to support, wait, get a defensive half-assed response claiming that whether the review was right or wrong, they can't control what these rogue reviewers do, and waste more time.
I'd think it's just about time that whoever is in charge of these (possibly legally blind) reviewers removes their head from their rectum and take control of the situation. Maybe getting the reviews right is better than getting them done fast.
-
Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all.
-
Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all.
You are starting to sound like a parrot. Yes, we know you don't like subs and we are fed up with hearing about it. !!!
-
Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all.
You are starting to sound like a parrot. Yes, we know you don't like subs and we are fed up with hearing about it. !!!
Actually, that was not my point. The image/s for whatever reason/s was rejected as per SS standards for better or worse as per their requirements etc. Get over it, move on. If a shot is rejected for being out of focus, once, twice, three times take the clue. This has nothing to do with subs, rejection is rejection, accept it and get on with life. I may not like subs, but my gut tells me that SS knows what they want and what they don't want and 24 pages of whining is really sounding like a parrot.... lot's of parrots.
-
I have a felling that alot of focus rejections come from the fact that SS reviewers typically don't like shallow DOF (particularly when part of the main subject is blurred) but people are so conditioned to think that razor thin DOF and "bokehlicious" backgrounds is the end-all be-all of photography.
It isn't about what you like, it is about figuring out what gets accepted and sells at a particular site.
small fish opinion.
-
Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all.
You are starting to sound like a parrot. Yes, we know you don't like subs and we are fed up with hearing about it. !!!
Actually, that was not my point. The image/s for whatever reason/s was rejected as per SS standards for better or worse as per their requirements etc. Get over it, move on. If a shot is rejected for being out of focus, once, twice, three times take the clue. This has nothing to do with subs, rejection is rejection, accept it and get on with life. I may not like subs, but my gut tells me that SS knows what they want and what they don't want and 24 pages of whining is really sounding like a parrot.... lot's of parrots.
Yes, I agree on that point. If they don't want the image then we just have to move on.
-
"Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all."
It's not a matter of "beating myself up" or whining about their policy. I've understood how much money I make on a sale in microstock since I began 5 years ago, but thanks for the reminder. Seems like a bizarre thing to point out as a negative on MICROSTOCK forum, considering that's how this whole thing works, the relevant prefix there being MICRO. So back on topic...
There is time, money and effort involved with production of these images. I hold myself to a high standard from equipment, subject/location choice, editing quality and keywording. When a weak link in the chain (reviewer) at the most dominant market for selling my work drops the ball, my choice is to accept that and move on, losing all the aforementioned time and money. Or speaking up in an attempt to get the issue addressed, and getting as many of my images up for sale as I can. The other contributors speaking up are no slackers either, and if SS decides to ignore us, that's their choice. But laying down and letting things fall further apart quietly is not a smart option. You're welcome, considering we're on the same side.
-
"Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all."
It's not a matter of "beating myself up" or whining about their policy. I've understood how much money I make on a sale in microstock since I began 5 years ago, but thanks for the reminder. Seems like a bizarre thing to point out as a negative on MICROSTOCK forum, considering that's how this whole thing works, the relevant prefix there being MICRO. So back on topic...
There is time, money and effort involved with production of these images. I hold myself to a high standard from equipment, subject/location choice, editing quality and keywording. When a weak link in the chain (reviewer) at the most dominant market for selling my work drops the ball, my choice is to accept that and move on, losing all the aforementioned time and money. Or speaking up in an attempt to get the issue addressed, and getting as many of my images up for sale as I can. The other contributors speaking up are no slackers either, and if SS decides to ignore us, that's their choice. But laying down and letting things fall further apart quietly is not a smart option. You're welcome, considering we're on the same side.
excellent post
-
what a relief, yesterday 100% rejection got acceptance 100% with same images. -0.01 exposure.
i can breathe now.
Good for you BUT......This is the problem right here!!
-
"Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all."
It's not a matter of "beating myself up" or whining about their policy. I've understood how much money I make on a sale in microstock since I began 5 years ago, but thanks for the reminder. Seems like a bizarre thing to point out as a negative on MICROSTOCK forum, considering that's how this whole thing works, the relevant prefix there being MICRO. So back on topic...
There is time, money and effort involved with production of these images. I hold myself to a high standard from equipment, subject/location choice, editing quality and keywording. When a weak link in the chain (reviewer) at the most dominant market for selling my work drops the ball, my choice is to accept that and move on, losing all the aforementioned time and money. Or speaking up in an attempt to get the issue addressed, and getting as many of my images up for sale as I can. The other contributors speaking up are no slackers either, and if SS decides to ignore us, that's their choice. But laying down and letting things fall further apart quietly is not a smart option. You're welcome, considering we're on the same side.
excellent post
One of the best level Headed posts ever. IMHO!
-
"Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all."
It's not a matter of "beating myself up" or whining about their policy. I've understood how much money I make on a sale in microstock since I began 5 years ago, but thanks for the reminder. Seems like a bizarre thing to point out as a negative on MICROSTOCK forum, considering that's how this whole thing works, the relevant prefix there being MICRO. So back on topic...
There is time, money and effort involved with production of these images. I hold myself to a high standard from equipment, subject/location choice, editing quality and keywording. When a weak link in the chain (reviewer) at the most dominant market for selling my work drops the ball, my choice is to accept that and move on, losing all the aforementioned time and money. Or speaking up in an attempt to get the issue addressed, and getting as many of my images up for sale as I can. The other contributors speaking up are no slackers either, and if SS decides to ignore us, that's their choice. But laying down and letting things fall further apart quietly is not a smart option. You're welcome, considering we're on the same side.
I am not questioning your integrity, expenses, or talent or anyone else's for that matter.
To say it is also a weak link in the chain (reviewer) is rather silly. If it is just one reviewer then yes that is a weak link in the chain, but I am more inclined to think it is "reviewers" in which case it is company policy to accept or reject images as chosen and trained to do.
Now a company that apparently boasts 50 million images and payouts of $80 million is not what I would call inexperienced in the whole process.
They have done this a few times and at the end of the day, they get the final say in whether they want to accept and market your work or not.
Is there anywhere in their contract that says they have to take all of your images just because you put a bit of time and money into it? I somehow doubt it.
I get work rejected all the time but I sure as heck don't have a temper tantrum about it.
-
what a relief, yesterday 100% rejection got acceptance 100% with same images. -0.01 exposure.
i can breathe now.
but for how long??? the next one is going to be the same thing... rejection 100% approval on 2nd run... so obviously the first reviewer is not doing his/her job with the first round of 100% rejection...
you should twitter Big O with this and ask him why he has to pay 2 reviewers to do one job ;D
-
I am not questioning your integrity, expenses, or talent or anyone else's for that matter.
To say it is also a weak link in the chain (reviewer) is rather silly. If it is just one reviewer then yes that is a weak link in the chain, but I am more inclined to think it is "reviewers" in which case it is company policy to accept or reject images as chosen and trained to do.
Except that so many people report getting the previously rejected files accepted without change when resubmitted. I can easily understand 'honest mistakes', but there seem to be an awful lot being reported.
-
"Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all."
It's not a matter of "beating myself up" or whining about their policy. I've understood how much money I make on a sale in microstock since I began 5 years ago, but thanks for the reminder. Seems like a bizarre thing to point out as a negative on MICROSTOCK forum, considering that's how this whole thing works, the relevant prefix there being MICRO. So back on topic...
There is time, money and effort involved with production of these images. I hold myself to a high standard from equipment, subject/location choice, editing quality and keywording. When a weak link in the chain (reviewer) at the most dominant market for selling my work drops the ball, my choice is to accept that and move on, losing all the aforementioned time and money. Or speaking up in an attempt to get the issue addressed, and getting as many of my images up for sale as I can. The other contributors speaking up are no slackers either, and if SS decides to ignore us, that's their choice. But laying down and letting things fall further apart quietly is not a smart option. You're welcome, considering we're on the same side.
I am not questioning your integrity, expenses, or talent or anyone else's for that matter.
To say it is also a weak link in the chain (reviewer) is rather silly. If it is just one reviewer then yes that is a weak link in the chain, but I am more inclined to think it is "reviewers" in which case it is company policy to accept or reject images as chosen and trained to do.
Now a company that apparently boasts 50 million images and payouts of $80 million is not what I would call inexperienced in the whole process.
They have done this a few times and at the end of the day, they get the final say in whether they want to accept and market your work or not.
Is there anywhere in their contract that says they have to take all of your images just because you put a bit of time and money into it? I somehow doubt it.
I get work rejected all the time but I sure as heck don't have a temper tantrum about it.
Yeah, there is no way the reviewer tail is wagging the SS dog – this is policy for sure.
I’d be interested to see if someone did a search to find something similar to one of the rejected images would they be spoiled for choice?
It’s strange that everyone is ok with the likes of stocksy not being interested in a submission simply on the basis that they are not interested and yet SS is expected to take anything regardless of whether it’s useful (to them) as long as it’s technically sound.
-
"Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all."
It's not a matter of "beating myself up" or whining about their policy. I've understood how much money I make on a sale in microstock since I began 5 years ago, but thanks for the reminder. Seems like a bizarre thing to point out as a negative on MICROSTOCK forum, considering that's how this whole thing works, the relevant prefix there being MICRO. So back on topic...
There is time, money and effort involved with production of these images. I hold myself to a high standard from equipment, subject/location choice, editing quality and keywording. When a weak link in the chain (reviewer) at the most dominant market for selling my work drops the ball, my choice is to accept that and move on, losing all the aforementioned time and money. Or speaking up in an attempt to get the issue addressed, and getting as many of my images up for sale as I can. The other contributors speaking up are no slackers either, and if SS decides to ignore us, that's their choice. But laying down and letting things fall further apart quietly is not a smart option. You're welcome, considering we're on the same side.
I am not questioning your integrity, expenses, or talent or anyone else's for that matter.
To say it is also a weak link in the chain (reviewer) is rather silly. If it is just one reviewer then yes that is a weak link in the chain, but I am more inclined to think it is "reviewers" in which case it is company policy to accept or reject images as chosen and trained to do.
Now a company that apparently boasts 50 million images and payouts of $80 million is not what I would call inexperienced in the whole process.
They have done this a few times and at the end of the day, they get the final say in whether they want to accept and market your work or not.
Is there anywhere in their contract that says they have to take all of your images just because you put a bit of time and money into it? I somehow doubt it.
I get work rejected all the time but I sure as heck don't have a temper tantrum about it.
Yeah, there is no way the reviewer tail is wagging the SS dog – this is policy for sure.
I’d be interested to see if someone did a search to find something similar to one of the rejected images would they be spoiled for choice?
It’s strange that everyone is ok with the likes of stocksy not being interested in a submission simply on the basis that they are not interested and yet SS is expected to take anything regardless of whether it’s useful (to them) as long as it’s technically sound.
Mike, if thats true then why were these images accepted yesterday? Would that be a rogue reviewer ignoring SS policy then?
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/952942/270181340/stock-photo-red-brick-wall-made-of-red-bricks-and-mortar-270181340.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/952942/270181343/stock-photo-cracked-wooden-plank-with-wood-nerves-to-be-used-as-overlay-or-background-270181343.jpg)
I dont think you get many rejections because you create a niche of illustrations. The rejection reasons I get on some images are just plain wrong. Plain wrong, no other way about it. I understand the argument that if they dont want an image, they can reject it at their will. But at least say so then, instead of giving 3 bogus rejection reasons per image.
Yesterday 100% approval on 19 images. I am sure the next batch will see 98% rejections.
-
... and yet SS is expected to take anything regardless of whether it’s useful (to them) as long as it’s technically sound.
It is entirely reasonable for SS to reject because they perceive the image content to be of little commercial use, lots of agencies do. It is not reasonable to do so but blame it on focussing etc (when this is not the case).
If SS are rejecting for content, then give us that reason. It would save a lot of time for them and us.
-
... and yet SS is expected to take anything regardless of whether it’s useful (to them) as long as it’s technically sound.
It is entirely reasonable for SS to reject because they perceive the image content to be of little commercial use, lots of agencies do. It is not reasonable to do so but blame it on focussing etc (when this is not the case).
If SS are rejecting for content, then give us that reason. It would save a lot of time for them and us.
Totally agree - bad for the submitter and bad for the site because of the bad feeling this generates when the reason given is empirically wrong.
@Ron,
Some well covered content will always get through (maybe there are quotas??) but it's turned into a bit of a lottery. I'm just getting away with it at the moment because there is a bit less of this stuff on the site. It will sell a lot less than some of the rejected images would but the buyer wouldn't have easy alternatives on the odd occasion when they do want something like this.
-
Agree on the lottery part. That's the main issue. It shouldn't be like that.
-
I am not questioning your integrity, expenses, or talent or anyone else's for that matter.
To say it is also a weak link in the chain (reviewer) is rather silly. If it is just one reviewer then yes that is a weak link in the chain, but I am more inclined to think it is "reviewers" in which case it is company policy to accept or reject images as chosen and trained to do.
Now a company that apparently boasts 50 million images and payouts of $80 million is not what I would call inexperienced in the whole process.
They have done this a few times and at the end of the day, they get the final say in whether they want to accept and market your work or not.
Is there anywhere in their contract that says they have to take all of your images just because you put a bit of time and money into it? I somehow doubt it.
I get work rejected all the time but I sure as heck don't have a temper tantrum about it.
just because they're the biggest doesn't mean they know what they're doing, and right now reviewers ARE the weak link -- nonsensical rejections keep salable images out of the market; acceptance is a lottery -- SS is huge but they are successful DESPITE such bad business practices
IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting
-
dbl post
-
I am not questioning your integrity, expenses, or talent or anyone else's for that matter.
To say it is also a weak link in the chain (reviewer) is rather silly. If it is just one reviewer then yes that is a weak link in the chain, but I am more inclined to think it is "reviewers" in which case it is company policy to accept or reject images as chosen and trained to do.
Now a company that apparently boasts 50 million images and payouts of $80 million is not what I would call inexperienced in the whole process.
They have done this a few times and at the end of the day, they get the final say in whether they want to accept and market your work or not.
Is there anywhere in their contract that says they have to take all of your images just because you put a bit of time and money into it? I somehow doubt it.
I get work rejected all the time but I sure as heck don't have a temper tantrum about it.
just because they're the biggest doesn't mean they know what they're doing, and right now reviewers ARE the weak link -- nonsensical rejections keep salable images out of the market; acceptance is a lottery -- SS is huge but they are successful DESPITE such bad business practices
IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting
+1 Million.
-
I am not questioning your integrity, expenses, or talent or anyone else's for that matter.
To say it is also a weak link in the chain (reviewer) is rather silly. If it is just one reviewer then yes that is a weak link in the chain, but I am more inclined to think it is "reviewers" in which case it is company policy to accept or reject images as chosen and trained to do.
Now a company that apparently boasts 50 million images and payouts of $80 million is not what I would call inexperienced in the whole process.
They have done this a few times and at the end of the day, they get the final say in whether they want to accept and market your work or not.
Is there anywhere in their contract that says they have to take all of your images just because you put a bit of time and money into it? I somehow doubt it.
I get work rejected all the time but I sure as heck don't have a temper tantrum about it.
just because they're the biggest doesn't mean they know what they're doing, and right now reviewers ARE the weak link -- nonsensical rejections keep salable images out of the market; acceptance is a lottery -- SS is huge but they are successful DESPITE such bad business practices
IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting
so let me get this straight... "just because they're the biggest doesn't mean they know what they're doing" yet you have submitted 9K+ images to them???
i will reach out on a limb here and presume you are the type who yells at the television telling the coach/player that they don't know what they are doing.
Fourth quarter revenue increases 38% from prior year, to $68.0 million
Full year revenue increases 39% from prior year, to $235.5 million
Adjusted EBITDA of $15.4 million in fourth quarter, increase of 37%
Adjusted EBITDA of $53.4 million for full year, increase of 53%
Quarterly paid image downloads reach record of 28.0 million
Collection exceeds 33 million images and 1.5 million video clips
Number of active customer accounts surpasses 940,000
^ yep, they really don't know what they are doing, go ahead grab your bag of dorito's and go tell em how to do it tiger. i am sure they would like to know your winning formula.
-
You are missing the point and taking his point out of context
-
so let me get this straight... "just because they're the biggest doesn't mean they know what they're doing" yet you have submitted 9K+ images to them???
i will reach out on a limb here and presume you are the type who yells at the television telling the coach/player that they don't know what they are doing.
wow u can follow a link! you even get that wrong tho - I've SUBMITTED many more than 9K images & that's exactly the point - how much MORE might have been made if they dumped the faux rejections? SS is the only game in town -- so of course I submit to them -- doesn't mean they cant get better
as an aside, too bad you don't return the common courtesy of showing who u are -
IBM was the biggest name in computers til Microsoft tore their throat out in the 80's; then MS got too big and have been surpassed by other, hungrier companies; that's capitalism -- $$ & superstats don't mean u know what you're doing - just that you're selling more than anyone else AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
-
IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting
Also they could save some serious money by not paying the reviewers multiple times for looking at the same image.
-
IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting
Also they could save some serious money by not paying the reviewers multiple times for looking at the same image.
I sometimes wonder if rejection rates jump, when the review queues drop to low levels of images waiting to be reviewed.
-
IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting
Also they could save some serious money by not paying the reviewers multiple times for looking at the same image.
I sometimes wonder if rejection rates jump, when the review queues drop to low levels of images waiting to be reviewed.
that would mean the reviewers have more time to look over the images in better detail. I've heard the same about submitting your taxes- wait until the last day April 15th and you have less than a 1% chance of being audited due to the flood of submissions. You might have a valid point here...
-
IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting
Also they could save some serious money by not paying the reviewers multiple times for looking at the same image.
I sometimes wonder if rejection rates jump, when the review queues drop to low levels of images waiting to be reviewed.
that would mean the reviewers have more time to look over the images in better detail. I've heard the same about submitting your taxes- wait until the last day April 15th and you have less than a 1% chance of being audited due to the flood of submissions. You might have a valid point here...
Or they make double the money by reviewing some images twice.
-
IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting
Also they could save some serious money by not paying the reviewers multiple times for looking at the same image.
I sometimes wonder if rejection rates jump, when the review queues drop to low levels of images waiting to be reviewed.
that would mean the reviewers have more time to look over the images in better detail. I've heard the same about submitting your taxes- wait until the last day April 15th and you have less than a 1% chance of being audited due to the flood of submissions. You might have a valid point here...
Or they make double the money by reviewing some images twice.
Or indeed all images twice.
-
Why would SS support back that up? Why would they support reviewers to generate extra unnecessary work and drive up cost?
-
Why would SS support back that up? Why would they support reviewers to generate extra unnecessary work and drive up cost?
Obviously they wouldn't because that would be stupid and SS are not stupid. It's not like there is a shortage of new stuff being submitted so no percentage whatsoever for anyone in reviewing the same thing twice.
-
Why would SS support back that up? Why would they support reviewers to generate extra unnecessary work and drive up cost?
If shutterstock did not support multiple reviews for the same image they would take solid measures to prevent the practice on both sides of the fence.
I would say that roughly 90% of contributors resubmit images which have been rejected. How many contributors do you know who have had warnings for this practice?
We would not be having this discussion if shutterstock were actually monitoring reviewers who reject images that eventually get through in future reviews.
-
someone got get them to review their capcha words and now even more ridiculous capcha pixs!!!
each day ss comes up with more and more ridiculous ideas.
wish they come up with the ridiculous ultimate by giving contributors an increase in pay !!! >:(
-
Hey Shutterstock ...WAKE THE F..K UP!!!!! Uploading for over 5 years...over 20k photos and again i have accepted 2/80 photos. What .? What drunk and incompetent reviewers are you paying? All photos refused for WB and focus...yeah right...accepted on all agencies, tripled checked by me before uploading and you give me idiotic motives.. Thanks again. I won't upload anymore until you fire that morons who review.
-
Hey Shutterstock ...WAKE THE F..K UP!!!!! Uploading for over 5 years...over 20k photos and again i have accepted 2/80 photos. What .? What drunk and incompetent reviewers are you paying? All photos refused for WB and focus...yeah right...accepted on all agencies, tripled checked by me before uploading and you give me idiotic motives.. Thanks again. I won't upload anymore until you fire that morons who review.
Wow. Definitely something going on there based on many of these posts.
-
They do seem to be a bit brutal lately.
However, with submitting to several agencies (16) I often find that what gets rejected on one, will usually sell on another.
As long as somebody buys it, I'm good. I do not depend on this for my main source of income. This is planned to be my retirement beer-money in the near future!
8)
-
They do seem to be a bit brutal lately.
However, with submitting to several agencies (16) I often find that what gets rejected on one, will usually sell on another.
As long as somebody buys it, I'm good. I do not depend on this for my main source of income. This is planned to be my retirement beer-money in the near future!
8)
I want stuff to sell on Shutterstock mostly. They sell like 15:1 compared to some other agencies. 20:1 to others. Any image rejected doesnt make you money.
-
They do seem to be a bit brutal lately.
However, with submitting to several agencies (16) I often find that what gets rejected on one, will usually sell on another.
As long as somebody buys it, I'm good. I do not depend on this for my main source of income. This is planned to be my retirement beer-money in the near future!
8)
I want stuff to sell on Shutterstock mostly. They sell like 15:1 compared to some other agencies. 20:1 to others. Any image rejected doesnt make you money.
Since Shutter makes around 35% of my overall income I tend to shoot for them and than I do a few artsy shots for some of the other sites. So getting rejected by Shutter really hits the pocket book :-[
-
Hi all,
I'im new to forum,from France, in Stock Since 2012, sorry for my english :P
I shoot with d800e and mostly 24-70mm or 105mm macro
Here's my anecdote on one picture :
-First rejection for focus
-send mail to submit@shutterstock with specific question
-answer from SS : please reconsider submission, etc...
-Second rejection for focus
-send mail to submit@shutterstock with very specific question
-answer from SS : exactly the same as before !
-me : asking if the review is uncorrect
-SS :yes
:o :o :o
I don't feel like uploading a third time this picture, this is lottery these days
Does someone think like me it's a weird algorithm doing reviews ??
To be continued...:
"Dear Thomas,
Thank you for your message.
I don't think corrections are necessary with the images in question. If you try to sharpen those images it might get worse. Just resubmit them as they are for another review.
Best regards,
Shutterstock
Contributor Support"
Result : Third rejection for focus
??? ??? ???
Episode Three :
I sent a fourth message to SS about the same picture.
They gave me a case number.
What a waste of time... :(
End : Image approved (after 3 rejections)
I think the reviewer's son is playing with daddy's keyboard.
-
End : Image approved (after 3 rejections)
I think the reviewer's son is playing with daddy's keyboard.
worst case scenario -
dad, son, pet monkey are all registered reviewers of ss
all 3 clueless about microstock, but knows how to click rejection.
,,, by the time mom gets to it,
she is the only one who knows about photography.
your image is approved ;)
-
And if we - for 30 cents working ants, want to tell Mr. Oringer, about his stupid reviewers, he will have no time for listening us. Because he must give another interview, telling how perfect his company is.
Or, SS has new politics, because of too many photos in their library : REJECT 98 % !
-
Any image rejected doesnt make you money.
hmm, now that's something i never thought of before...
when million images are rejected , only reviewers make money
contributors only make money if images get approved.
we should ask the million$ question, in whose benefit is it to have more rejections
and re-submissions (and yes, they do all get approved eventually)..???
-
Hey Shutterstock ...WAKE THE F..K UP!!!!! Uploading for over 5 years...over 20k photos and again i have accepted 2/80 photos. What .? What drunk and incompetent reviewers are you paying? All photos refused for WB and focus...yeah right...accepted on all agencies, tripled checked by me before uploading and you give me idiotic motives.. Thanks again. I won't upload anymore until you fire that morons who review.
I won't moderate this post, but please watch your language. Being rude/vulgar doesn't help in making any changes at Shutterstock.
-
Hey Shutterstock ...WAKE THE F..K UP!!!!! Uploading for over 5 years...over 20k photos and again i have accepted 2/80 photos. What .? What drunk and incompetent reviewers are you paying? All photos refused for WB and focus...yeah right...accepted on all agencies, tripled checked by me before uploading and you give me idiotic motives.. Thanks again. I won't upload anymore until you fire that morons who review.
I won't moderate this post, but please watch your language. Being rude/vulgar doesn't help in making any changes at Shutterstock.
I fully understand your comment Tyler, but it show that people are getting frustrated over these rejections. I get it if they reject my snapshot landscape or whatever, but if you have seasoned pros, 5 years or longer, with 20,000 images (!) getting 99% rejections, or even Sean/Laurin getting rejections, somethng is the matter. Writing SS (as per Scott's advice) doesnt work either because they defend the bogus rejections. Communications from SS have disappeared as well with his departure, which only adds to the frustration, leaving everyone in limbo.
-
sorry for the language, but is really really frustrating being the insult of some so called "reviewers". i was expecting RESPECT from a company as big and successful as Shutterstock.
-
sorry for the language, but is really really frustrating being the insult of some so called "reviewers". i was expecting RESPECT from a company as big and successful as Shutterstock.
It isn't about respect. It's about fair inspections and reasonably explained rejections. As many have rightfully pointed out there is not sufficient, accurate rejection reasons. I would have to conclude that something is happening beyond Atilla the reviewer. It's like they are choosing to use the same reviewers as Fotolia. No rhyme, no reason, no basis for rejection other than the review doesn't like the work or it is competing with the inspectors' own work. It's crazy behavior and Shutterstock should be all over this, or at least communicating to us as to what submission requirements have changed to trigger so many rejections.
-
sorry for the language, but is really really frustrating being the insult of some so called "reviewers". i was expecting RESPECT from a company as big and successful as Shutterstock.
It isn't about respect. It's about fair inspections and reasonably explained rejections. As many have rightfully pointed out there is not sufficient, accurate rejection reasons. I would have to conclude that something is happening beyond Atilla the reviewer. It's like they are choosing to use the same reviewers as Fotolia. No rhyme, no reason, no basis for rejection other than the review doesn't like the work or it is competing with the inspectors' own work. It's crazy behavior and Shutterstock should be all over this, or at least communicating to us as to what submission requirements have changed to trigger so many rejections.
+++++++ One trillion!!!!!!! But...I hate to say, the boss sits there as sees 250,000 a week accepted and goes "Thats fine" No Problems here.
-
Hey Shutterstock ...WAKE THE F..K UP!!!!!
I won't moderate this post, but please watch your language. Being rude/vulgar doesn't help in making any changes at Shutterstock.
but if you have seasoned pros, 5 years or longer, with 20,000 images (!) getting 99% rejections, or even Sean/Laurin getting rejections, somethng is the matter. Communications from SS have disappeared as well with his departure, which only adds to the frustration, leaving everyone in limbo.
we may all be missing the fine prints until we look at what i highlighted ...
frustrating the experienced contributors.
maybe that is what ss wants , frustrate the old contributors so they go away...
to stocksy canva etc since they are the ones complaining
promoting newbies with low cost equipment (mob photos)
obviously the clients no longer need sharp images from Sean/Laurin etc
only barely in focus nouveau blurring stuff you see on the homepage
-
Hey Shutterstock ...WAKE THE F..K UP!!!!! Uploading for over 5 years...over 20k photos and again i have accepted 2/80 photos. What .? What drunk and incompetent reviewers are you paying? All photos refused for WB and focus...yeah right...accepted on all agencies, tripled checked by me before uploading and you give me idiotic motives.. Thanks again. I won't upload anymore until you fire that morons who review.
I won't moderate this post, but please watch your language. Being rude/vulgar doesn't help in making any changes at Shutterstock.
I fully understand your comment Tyler, but it show that people are getting frustrated over these rejections. I get it if they reject my snapshot landscape or whatever, but if you have seasoned pros, 5 years or longer, with 20,000 images (!) getting 99% rejections, or even Sean/Laurin getting rejections, somethng is the matter. Writing SS (as per Scott's advice) doesnt work either because they defend the bogus rejections. Communications from SS have disappeared as well with his departure, which only adds to the frustration, leaving everyone in limbo.
Ya know throughout My 10 years at SS, I've had some rejections along the way But 99% of them were pointed out and they were absolutely My fault, I fixed them and there in.. Now, I get zero rejections if I play it safe with Portraits and or Photos of paintings.
I did a 4000 Mile trip shooting specifically the Blooming aspen tree scenes in the high Mountains of New mexico near the Colorado Border . I thought they were spectacular...I really did and think Im somewhat fairly good at that. Tons rejected for WB and Lighting.Every site took them and they were benchmark Images of that incredible Place compared to databases and a expensive trip, Also a ton of Images of the Chili growing fields along the Mexican Border, Same rejection reason and was the beginning of "somethings really wrong here". One Image got through and is my #1 selling landscape.
Then a few Months ago, I searched my HD gazillion Images for subjects that Might work well for the filtered/Instagram look and feel, Along with some stuff that Might work as Blurred Images...That newbies don't seem to have a problem with getting them accepted. Im not a fan of either style But, Im not against making a few dollars either. Submitted 42.....40 rejected for Lighting and WB.
Im not at all Mad in anyway, Just frustrated as to what . is going On?? And, If any one of my other sites agreed...At least I might understand it better. Suddenly my 55 years behind a camera, Being a reviewer for 3+ years,Helping Critique 1000's of others, Shooting for major national products means nothing whatsoever. This issue is by far something that cannot be dismissed by SS. They MUST address this and I mean Now.
Sure, Like said , They can sit back and say "250,000 accepted last week" And think they have no Problem. But, Theres a problem, They simply do not recognize or acknowledge it. We are back to Zero Communication with the folks we support, Maybe Scott's departure was because he did communicate or at least tried the best he could and someone said to keep your mouth shut....... What else can we think without communication?? Im sick of all these threads Here and on SS, What can we do? Who do we write? This is not Personal in anyway. This is business and for a lot of us, Our Livelihood and our time involved trying to produce the best we can with Knowledge and experience..
Funny Fact. a few weeks ago I joked around telling Folks on the critique forum with focus issues. "Blur it and re-submit" They took it to heart, Did it and guess what? accepted. Thats where we are.
The "New and Improved" rejection reasons SUCK!!!!!! They don't want it. Just say so, * it! Stop with confusing reasons that make no sense at all and Bogus reasons that do not relate to the image in any way. And...I've said before there is no way they know that 200+ reviewers around the world use calibrated Monitors let alone Laptops.
PLEASE SS..... Talk to us, so we can stop this wasting of Our time, your time and reviewers time. Out of respect!!!!!.
OK...So tell me Im just a trouble maker. I am NOT!! But I will stand up when somethings wrong and I/we believe there is. Look at your own site. I've never seen so much talk about anything in 10 years. And it's not about a New person with OOF Images who gripes. This is quite different. 36,332 views Just here.
Will we get a response? Don't bet on it. Someone doesn't want that to happen.
Last Post On this subject.....it does nothing and makes me feel like chit and thats not the way we should feel For the measly commissions we get. But, thats another story. And like quite a few others here. Waiting for a new site with new ideas that treats us fair. This is not the end of the world and could be fixed and at the very least addressed.
-
, I get zero rejections if I play it safe with Portraits and or Photos of paintings.
Suddenly my 55 years behind a camera, Being a reviewer for 3+ years,Helping Critique 1000's of others, Shooting for major national products means nothing whatsoever.
precisely as i said. keep on making your redundant stuff to make yourself even more redundant .
but if you go with what nouveau bs the newbies are doing and getting accepted
you will get 100% rejection for out of focus.
they do want out of focus neuveau stuff , but not from you... from those who won't whine at earning 28 cts a day.
it's almost like you playing music... no one wants to old greats coming out with new stuff,
they want them to just go away and die.
-
I agree with the comments made by Rinderart. Just got a whole batch of abstract designs rejected for NOISE when previous lots almost same were accepted. Very very frustrating and time wasting. Never had a noise problem before. Why can't someone write a letter and we can all sign it saying we are not happy with the reviewers?
-
Apparently I've forgotten how to achieve crisp focus in my editorial work using an 18mp or 16mp camera - but not with my tired old 10mp camera. Either way, something is afoot - or a leg, or even a wing if you happen to be an SS inspector.
-
.....
I did a 4000 Mile trip shooting specifically the Blooming aspen tree scenes in the high Mountains of New mexico near the Colorado Border . I thought they were spectacular...I really did and think Im somewhat fairly good at that. Tons rejected for WB and Lighting.Every site took them and they were benchmark Images of that incredible Place compared to databases and a expensive trip, Also a ton of Images of the Chili growing fields along the Mexican Border, Same rejection reason and was the beginning of "somethings really wrong here". One Image got through and is my #1 selling landscape.
.....
I've had similar problems getting rejects ranging from landscapes from Utah to temples in Cambodia using late afternoon light -- rejected for WB or 'lighting' -- as if the reviewers are checking histograms and never looking at the actual images
another oddity - editorial images seem to incur these rejections less frequently (I often have both editorial and rf images taken at same time & place - editorials get in while others get kicked for 'lighting'
-
It is obvious that the policy of the company changed a bit, since a lots of the photos have been uploaded recently, so they want to restrict that. We also complained about that in this forum :)
So, they got new rules - probably only the photo with perfect histogram (from 10 - 245, in the middle) + warm colors, no noise and no shallow DOF will pass. They can do that - they are the best. So, as long as we are struggling and improving our photos to what they want - and uploading them for 25c/38c per download, they will have even benefit of this, as the new photos will be the perfect stock ones.
Only, there is the catch - as this can be highly demotivating as well...
So, I was thinking - why is there almost no reviews on iStock - there almost everything pass - but - isn't that actually what stock photography should be? If you are good enough to join them, your photos should be good enough for stock without much technical screening. Tones of photos for little price - that should be essence of stock photography by my opinion. If you have a better quality photos, then you should treat it a little better, and not sell it for cents, I guess.
-
I am really getting tired of this. There's no rhyme nor reason to their rejections and acceptance. I am not going to post examples. I just wish SOMEONE FROM SHUTTERSTOCK WOULD TELL US SOMETHING. PLEASE?
Thanks.
-
SS accepts 2,000,000 images a month and there is 70% acceptance for pro cameras. If anything they are accepting too many images. They could probably do fine with 25% acceptance but it's a numbers game now on the sites. I guess the idea is accept most everything and let the search sort it out. Maybe when they pass Alamy they'll slow down?
-
SS accepts 2,000,000 images a month and there is 70% acceptance for pro cameras. If anything they are accepting too many images. They could probably do fine with 25% acceptance but it's a numbers game now on the sites. I guess the idea is accept most everything and let the search sort it out. Maybe when they pass Alamy they'll slow down?
I have always had the idea SS wants to outgrow Alamy. Alamy was adding 450K images a week, and thats unedited. SS is now at the same rate. Not sure if they will ever catch up with Alamy. But I agree, I think SS wants to claim the biggest library in stock. But Getty has over 110 million images.
-
I never had a big issue with rejection ... but one batch I had was rejected for focus. I checked @ 200% -- they are tack sharp with purposeful shallow depth of field. I complained and was told to resubmit saying I made corrections. I dropped the size (just in case) and re-submitted and they were rejected for focus and lighting. I then put them through some grunge filtration as a last ditch effort, noted in the name and description and they were rejected because of noise (which is intentional). I admit defeat. My biggest complaint was the supervisor telling me to resubmit with no guarantee of acceptance. Surely they could look at them at %100 and see they were sharp. Just seems to be a big waste of time for everyone. They were accepted by all other agencies.
-
I am really getting tired of this. There's no rhyme nor reason to their rejections and acceptance. I am not going to post examples. I just wish SOMEONE FROM SHUTTERSTOCK WOULD TELL US SOMETHING. PLEASE?
Thanks.
My best guess is that inspectors are aware that there has historically been about a 40%-ish rejection rate, so they just go through everything as quickly as possible and reject 40% of everything. The easiest way to do that is to reject 40% of submitted batches in one fell swoop, rather than studying each image individually. That would account for a batch being rejected once and then accepted the second time.
If you make money based on volume/speed, there's little incentive to spend time actually looking at things. And as long as acceptance/rejection ratios remain steady, there's little incentive for SS management to look into things further—their library is still growing at the same rate.
-
Hmmm, thats an interesting theory.
-
My best guess is that inspectors are aware that there has historically been about a 40%-ish rejection rate, so they just go through everything as quickly as possible and reject 40% of everything. The easiest way to do that is to reject 40% of submitted batches in one fell swoop, rather than studying each image individually. That would account for a batch being rejected once and then accepted the second time.
If you make money based on volume/speed, there's little incentive to spend time actually looking at things. And as long as acceptance/rejection ratios remain steady, there's little incentive for SS management to look into things further—their library is still growing at the same rate.
but that's not what's being reported -- we're getting 90+% rejects and 2nd submissions are getting rejected for DIFFERENT reasons
-
Perhaps they've identified photographers they really like and approve everything from them. So they need to make up the 40% rejection rate elsewhere. Perhaps when you resubmitted, your inspector still hadn't gotten to the 40% that day. And had to click a different rejection button.
This is pure speculation on my part. But I have the same problem with jpg illustrations. Well, until recently, I think because I complained so much. But that can change in an instant, and they can go right back to being rejected for invisible "noise" again.
-
Perhaps they've identified photographers they really like and approve everything from them. So they need to make up the 40% rejection rate elsewhere. Perhaps when you resubmitted, your inspector still hadn't gotten to the 40% that day. And had to click a different rejection button.
This is pure speculation on my part. But I have the same problem with jpg illustrations. Well, until recently, I think because I complained so much. But that can change in an instant, and they can go right back to being rejected for invisible "noise" again.
Well, It's true when I reviewed I couldn't wait for yuri ,Andres and so many others. Also The last I heard which could be BS is... 22% was the rejection rate. That was 2 years ago though. And yes....We had favorites. Thats pretty Normal I think. some Just "Get" what you do and others don't see it or feel it. pretty simple.
-
I just took a look at the front page for contributors. I don't want to disrespect other's work but if SS feel these images represent the best of the site no wonder we have problems with what they are looking for. I used to sign in there and think I hope one day I can come up with images that good.
-
I just took a look at the front page for contributors. I don't want to disrespect other's work but if SS feel these images represent the best of the site no wonder we have problems with what they are looking for. I used to sign in there and think I hope one day I can come up with images that good.
bravo someone finally noticed that too!!!
problem is Pauws99, is this to show us their best
or is this to tell us there are one measuring stick with bar lifted so high for experienced contributors
and there is another for less experienced
or is it to show us there is one rule for us ,
and another rule for selected privilegios
-
I think all these theories are way too complicated.
The truth may be much simpler. For SS it's a pure numbers game. They are still accepting 400k+ images per week. They can be sure that there's a lot stuff in those 400k that's sellable and keeps the collection looking fresh enough for buyers.
And inspecting such amounts of images must be a huge cost item - if you want to do it absolutely correct, with clear guidelines, extensive trainings for reviewers, paying well to get good reviewers...
They are trying to keep costs down, spend as little as possible on the whole reviewing process from guidelines to actual reviewers - and consider what we see as inconsistency, as lost revenue opportunity, as unfair, ... - simply as collateral damage.
Yes, they may lose a few commercially valuable, technically flawless images - but does that matter when you get 400k others that you accept per week?
Yes, they may produce a few disgruntled contributors who may (or may not) lose interest and upload less in the future - but does that matter if hundreds if not thousands are waiting to get in?
To get to an "optimal" review process (one that rejects any image that is not commercially viable or not technically correct and accepts all others) they would need to invest. Into Trainings, technology, reviewer salaries...
The question they will ask is: What's the ROI on that investment?
Maybe they have figured out that they'll make more by investing that money in marketing or some other customer facing features...
-
Perhaps they've identified photographers they really like and approve everything from them. So they need to make up the 40% rejection rate elsewhere. Perhaps when you resubmitted, your inspector still hadn't gotten to the 40% that day. And had to click a different rejection button.
This is pure speculation on my part. But I have the same problem with jpg illustrations. Well, until recently, I think because I complained so much. But that can change in an instant, and they can go right back to being rejected for invisible "noise" again.
Well, It's true when I reviewed I couldn't wait for yuri ,Andres and so many others. Also The last I heard which could be BS is... 22% was the rejection rate. That was 2 years ago though. And yes....We had favorites. Thats pretty Normal I think. some Just "Get" what you do and others don't see it or feel it. pretty simple.
"58% of all submitted photos were approved in 2014. Of the top 10 cameras, the Canon EOS 5D Mark III and the Nikon D800 had the highest approval rates, with 69% and 68%, respectively."
From the Peta Pixel article referenced in the Shutterstock top ten cameras thread.
-
I just took a look at the front page for contributors. I don't want to disrespect other's work but if SS feel these images represent the best of the site no wonder we have problems with what they are looking for. I used to sign in there and think I hope one day I can come up with images that good.
bravo someone finally noticed that too!!!
problem is Pauws99, is this to show us their best
or is this to tell us there are one measuring stick with bar lifted so high for experienced contributors
and there is another for less experienced
or is it to show us there is one rule for us ,
and another rule for selected privilegios
So, your theory is that SS is rejecting great material from experienced shooters in favour of rubbish from newbies - how does that make any kind of commercial sense? If you were selling any product, would you fill your shelves with row upon row of almost identical goods or would you try and offer some bit of variety?
-
I recall that SS's financial report when they went public said that they had invested in proprietary inspection software. I just wonder if they are testing it. If they are it doesn't work worth a (S)hit.
-
I've been saying this for years -- what they need to do is put upload limits on contributors and let us edit ourselves. As you get more successful, your upload limit would increase. Likewise if you make poor decisions your maximum number of uploads would decrease, giving you incentive to be choosier about what you upload. They could save a ton of money on reviewers, contributors would be much happier, and I think the overall quality of uploads would improve. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
-
I just took a look at the front page for contributors. I don't want to disrespect other's work but if SS feel these images represent the best of the site no wonder we have problems with what they are looking for. I used to sign in there and think I hope one day I can come up with images that good.
bravo someone finally noticed that too!!!
problem is Pauws99, is this to show us their best
or is this to tell us there are one measuring stick with bar lifted so high for experienced contributors
and there is another for less experienced
or is it to show us there is one rule for us ,
and another rule for selected privilegios
So, your theory is that SS is rejecting great material from experienced shooters in favour of rubbish from newbies - how does that make any kind of commercial sense? If you were selling any product, would you fill your shelves with row upon row of almost identical goods or would you try and offer some bit of variety?
no theory needed. unless you missed the amazing high standard images chosen on the homepage .
variety ??? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
On the contributor side I see my own account page, on the customer side I'm not seeing anything horrible. This thing is that your perception of a high standard (or mine) is completely irrelevant - this is just product on a shelf and the commercial basis of adding to the collection is to produce sales that they probably wouldn't get otherwise. If someone wants a picture for a web site, do you think they give a rats how good it looks at 30 MP full resolution as long as it suits the purpose?
-
On the contributor side I see my own account page, on the customer side I'm not seeing anything horrible. This thing is that your perception of a high standard (or mine) is completely irrelevant - this is just product on a shelf and the commercial basis of adding to the collection is to produce sales that they probably wouldn't get otherwise. If someone wants a picture for a web site, do you think they give a rats how good it looks at 30 MP full resolution as long as it suits the purpose?
I can see what you mean and it is true that my perception is not that relevant. I just think if I was a buyer I currently wouldn't be very impressed. Also I thought SS said they were looking to eat into the higher priced market and not all their sales are for web sites. As a contributor I am confused as to what it is they are looking for.
-
I recall that SS's financial report when they went public said that they had invested in proprietary inspection software. I just wonder if they are testing it. If they are it doesn't work worth a (S)hit.
That well could be. Since they changed the "Notes for Reviewer" field in the submission dialog from free text to a drop menu with three fixed options, this could be interpreted in such a way that this field is not read by humans.
-
Probably been said already in this post- I've been told that some companies have a 'Hit List'- things not to accept anymore so they just automatically reject them. For example, management tells the reviewers stop taking mountains images until told otherwise.
-
Some sites tell you they already have enough and unless its better than what they have it won't get accepted (Dreamstime I think) - seems a sensible approach.
-
Some sites tell you they already have enough and unless its better than what they have it won't get accepted (Dreamstime I think) - seems a sensible approach.
Believe GL use to do the same but now they don't accept anymore images at all.
-
Most of my photos are very basic objects (all done in studio) and lack attitude that many of the higher end photographers have in their images maybe explaining the lower acceptance rate. The high end pro's maybe boarding Stocksy style which will fail acceptance in a lot of companies. Just my two cents worth... ???
-
I've been saying this for years -- what they need to do is put upload limits on contributors and let us edit ourselves. As you get more successful, your upload limit would increase. Likewise if you make poor decisions your maximum number of uploads would decrease, giving you incentive to be choosier about what you upload. They could save a ton of money on reviewers, contributors would be much happier, and I think the overall quality of uploads would improve. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
That is actually a great idea - if you ever set up a site let me know!
-
I recall that SS's financial report when they went public said that they had invested in proprietary inspection software. I just wonder if they are testing it. If they are it doesn't work worth a (S)hit.
That well could be. Since they changed the "Notes for Reviewer" field in the submission dialog from free text to a drop menu with three fixed options, this could be interpreted in such a way that this field is not read by humans.
what about checking for trademarks and reléases?
-
what about checking for trademarks and reléases?
Machines could make a first read and reject some pictures
Envoyé de mon iPod touch à l'aide de Tapatalk
-
what about checking for trademarks and reléases?
Machines could make a first read and reject some pictures
Envoyé de mon iPod touch à l'aide de Tapatalk
Exactly! Many things are automated. Micro is micro, but human interests exist on any level. Automatic detection of trends in work manner of every reviewer is absolutely doable too. If sales machine still functioning on acceptable for owners level - who will care about this?
-
Some sites tell you they already have enough and unless its better than what they have it won't get accepted (Dreamstime I think) - seems a sensible approach.
There are two sides to this, but you are right. If I send in a shot that they have lot's of and I feel mine is better/more useful, I am not allowed to compete. However, if I weighed the factors, I would rather not shoot stuff that agencies already have a pile of. To be successful it's really up to us to differentiate our ports, shoot new concepts or very different compositions than the pile of stuff they already have. Frankly, for me, as frustrating as it is when I upload some nice nature stuff and it gets rejected, it motivates me to be different, so I appreciate the honest, candid "reasons for rejection" from DT. Why? It tells me EXACTLY why they don't want it and, consequently, what to avoid submitting moving forward. With SS you DO NOT KNOW the reason....as we have pretty much debunked WB & focus rejections, so one is left TO GUESS. How freaking productive is that?
SHUTTERSTOCK, PLEASE COME CLEAN. Many of us rely on the income from SS and cannot grow our income as serious business people. PLEASE DO NOT become one of "THEM".
-
When I started getting rejections for noise for the first time I realised something was not quite right! :)
-
When I started getting rejections for noise for the first time I realised something was not quite right! :)
-
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.
-
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
-
.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUK-w_xbrTg)
-
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. ???????
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
Reviews have become a frustrating , unfair, and unpredictable
-
Within the last month or two I have noticed a huge problem with the consistency of the reviewers at Shutterstock. Sometimes I will slip in an image I know has been approved or is flawless as a litmus test and I can tell you that if they reject several they will reject that one also.
I think part of the problem is that photography is so subjective and the reviewers show that in their review process. They have always been picky about noise of any kind but I find any noise at all now is not tolerated. In my mind a little shadow noise is fine if it only shows up at 100%, but I will get rejected often with even small amounts of noise.
I wrote an article on my blog recently I was so disgusted. I think the blog entry is somewhat overly critical but I think I also made some valid points.
http://mattcuda.com/index.php?/essays/2015/03/shutterstock-inconsistancy/ (http://mattcuda.com/index.php?/essays/2015/03/shutterstock-inconsistancy/)
-
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)
maybe we call a closure on this issue...
and everyone submit images of someone banging his/her head on a brick wall with the words ss on it.
the answer from ss is pretty writing on the wall by now after so many pages on this issue here and on ss own forum...
admin edit: edited for language
-
Let's keep it civil before Leaf closes this thread.
-
Well 29 pages in and SS have not chipped in - what usually happens is this goes on and on until they notice a rise in staff turnover at submit@shutterstock or some twit with a 6 sigma bent finally earns his badge by attaching an efficiency cost to the rejection/review/rejection/review metrics. But that could take months.
-
Well 29 pages in and SS have not chipped in - what usually happens is this goes on and on until they notice a rise in staff turnover at submit@shutterstock or some twit with a 6 sigma bent finally earns his badge by attaching an efficiency cost to the rejection/review/rejection/review metrics. But that could take months.
And 40,023 views. Thats Huge.
-
Rinderart - So we can assume it's not an isolated incident or favoritism? :)
Yes Red Dove, some of us have pointed this out, year after year. They have to review the same images, over and over, it's churning, and just makes more work and money for the reviewers, costs money for the company. Some bean counter will eventually figure this out.
The added expense of inconsistent reviews hurts the profits.
Well 29 pages in and SS have not chipped in - what usually happens is this goes on and on until they notice a rise in staff turnover at submit@shutterstock or some twit with a 6 sigma bent finally earns his badge by attaching an efficiency cost to the rejection/review/rejection/review metrics. But that could take months.
And 40,023 views. Thats Huge.
-
Submitted 93 images yesterday morning, 100% approval. Including 25 images previously rejected. I am happy with the result but it still feels like a lottery. I know the images are good, so I shouldnt have to feel like that.
Lets hope that things may have changed now. It seems this thread has gone quiet. Anybody else see an improvement on acceptance?
-
Anybody else see an improvement on acceptance?
I went through a couple of weeks when everything I submitted while on a recent photo trip got rejected. Whole batches.
Then suddenly, this week, I'm back home and getting my normal 80-85% acceptance rate. Same cameras and lenses. Same processing. Same subjects. Same locations. Same early-morning light. Same photographer.
No clue what happened, but it's better for sure… while it lasts.
-
I stopped submitting photos for nearly three months, I sent them only videos. I will slowly try again in the coming weeks. But most of my income is from video, so if they don´t want my photos I can live with it. The inconsistency in the rejections was the biggest problem. Hope it has improved. And whatever they don´t like sells elsewhere, so it is not a big drama.
-
For me it is still about 75 % rejections or 100 % acceptance - depending on the day. You can't predict which will happen.
-
Yes today I was beat up very bad--All rejected (20 plus images). All had 100% views and very much in focus. The issues were poor lighting where (3) from another batch with the same scene , background and lighting were approved. I will not resubmit and waste my time--.
-
Terrible. So few accepted, especially outdoor shots. Accepted by others (yes I KNOW they aren't as strict BUT....).
Virtually all outdoor shots rejected for light, focus and/or composition ie fairly much EVERYTHING! And it's not true, though some of it is fairly shallow dof to separate object from background!
Back to the studio shots then.....or maybe not given how low sales in SS have become....
:(
-
My "best" rejection just 2 days ago:
- uploaded around 10 iceberg pictures to SS
- used only the keywords from SS' own keyword guessing tool
- get all 10 rejected because "too many irrelevant keywords"
maybe they test some kind of new artificial intelligence there ...
-
Submitted 93 images yesterday morning, 100% approval. Including 25 images previously rejected. I am happy with the result but it still feels like a lottery. I know the images are good, so I shouldnt have to feel like that.
Lets hope that things may have changed now. It seems this thread has gone quiet. Anybody else see an improvement on acceptance?
I stopped uploading so now I have 100% acceptance :D
-
My "best" rejection just 2 days ago:
- uploaded around 10 iceberg pictures to SS
- used only the keywords from SS' own keyword guessing tool
- get all 10 rejected because "too many irrelevant keywords"
maybe they test some kind of new artificial intelligence there ...
It's doesn't matter whether you use SS keyword tool or not, it's your responsibility to filter out irrelevant keywords. We can get a better idea if you can show us a sample picture and the keywords that you used.
-
I was not affected by rejection problem but didn't upload several months. Returned from new trip and will try to send some images which i can share to micros. Had before near 100% acceptance. Will see what changed. Time is very expensive thing
-
Well, I went from over 90% approval to 90% rejection. Since Shutterstock went on NYSE is playing hardball. If anybody else remembers this is exactly what happened few years back to iStock. For now I just avoid to upload to SS. iStock got down to earth again and approvals and sales picked up lately, same with Fotolia. It's just a bug what goes around these agencies. SS went from the most friendly to screw you guys.
-
Let's keep it civil before Leaf closes this thread.
yes - quite agreed. one post edited for language.
-
They accepted an image and in the next batch they rejected the vertical version (on tripod same light, same focus, same aperture, same shutter etc.) I can give many similar stupid rejection examples. They rejected the almost whole batch three in a row, even reuploads. Enough is enough. Not uploading for a while >:(
-
They accepted an image and in the next batch they rejected the vertical version (on tripod same light, same focus, same aperture, same shutter etc.) I can give many similar stupid rejection examples. They rejected the almost whole batch three in a row, even reuploads. Enough is enough. Not uploading for a while >:(
While I understand what you say, I just want to comment that "same light, same focus, same aperture, same shutter etc" doesn't always mean "same quality" even on a tripod. A stronger wind can make your tripod vibrate, hence ruining your vertical version, especially during long exposures.
-
If it's all the same it actually does mean it's the same quality
-
Another 1.9 million files accepted in the last month and they are rejecting too much?
-
That's not the point anyone is making. No need to read all pages but the gist is that perfectly good images are rejected. Not that they reject too much.
-
It looks like they are letting a lot of stuff through to me. I just did a couple searches and I have a hard time believing they are rejecting anything at all, the few searches I did and sorted by new have basically 1 shot done 100 times (literally more than 100 shots of what could be covered in at most 3 or 4 shots with dozens of identical images just converted to black and white).
-
I noticed that too. Same object and then shot at 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, then turned to 30 degrees left, 35 degrees left and so on, and then turned to all possible angles to the right and shot 20 times..... it's crazy, I think they should reject such stuff, no wonder, some people have 20k+ images.
For example: http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest (http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest)
This is just ridiculous, what they're accepting.
-
Another 1.9 million files accepted in the last month and they are rejecting too much?
it's the new generation of photographer that grew up without the ability to have rejection or failure because it might single them out and be discriminatory and/or hurt their feelings. ever notice how they call it an inspector and not an editor? editor's reject work that is weak, imagine that. i remember when 10%-15% was a very good acceptance rate and now the new acceptance rate is 80%++ and the whining over the other 20% of rejection is just a little bit over the top.
-
I noticed that too. Same object and then shot at 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, then turned to 30 degrees left, 35 degrees left and so on, and then turned to all possible angles to the right and shot 20 times..... it's crazy, I think they should reject such stuff, no wonder, some people have 20k+ images.
For example: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
This is just ridiculous, what they're accepting.
what a joke that is, and yep ridiculous sums it up. gee whiz i have 6000 images of the same shot on SS. and now i will come to MSG and whine because they did not take them all, there should have been 7000 of the same thing and they rejected me. boo hoo.
-
Anyway, posting so many images of the same thing I think it's a mistake. If I was a buyer, I wouldn't bother to look at portfolio of someone, who has a whole page of same thing, shot 100 different times.
-
Anyway, posting so many images of the same thing I think it's a mistake. If I was a buyer, I wouldn't bother to look at portfolio of someone, who has a whole page of same thing, shot 100 different times.
that is not a mistake, that is lack of editing.
-
I noticed that too. Same object and then shot at 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, then turned to 30 degrees left, 35 degrees left and so on, and then turned to all possible angles to the right and shot 20 times..... it's crazy, I think they should reject such stuff, no wonder, some people have 20k+ images.
For example: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
This is just ridiculous, what they're accepting.
Ok you win that is hilarious. 35,000 pictures of one piece of weed, he would probably have the same amount of sales with that collection edited down to 20 images.
-
Two IS exclusives completely missing the point. Typical.
Carry on, its funny to read.
-
Two IS exclusives completely missing the point. Typical.
Carry on, its funny to read.
The point is that SS accepts way more images than they should. If you can't get images in now you need to re-evaluate what you are doing.
-
Still missing the point Tickstock. Its about incorrect reviews.
Anyhoo...
-
Still missing the point Tickstock. Its about incorrect reviews.
Anyhoo...
I agree completely it's about incorrect reviews, accepting way too many images. Just do a search of basically any common keyword and sort by newest it's pretty much a guarantee that there will be many many examples of huge amounts of similars accepted when just one or two would cover the concept or subject.
-
Still missing the point Tickstock. Its about incorrect reviews.
Anyhoo...
I agree completely it's about incorrect reviews, accepting way too many images. Just do a search of basically any common keyword and sort by newest it's pretty much a guarantee that there will be many many examples of huge amounts of similars accepted when just one or two would cover the concept or subject.
go easy on him, he is from the generation that has never known the process of editing images and has a sense of entitlement that every shot he takes is acceptable.
the following article pretty much sums it up...
http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-are-unhappy.html (http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-are-unhappy.html)
-
They are accepting too many images - in some cases.
They are rejecting too many images - in some cases.
All in all their review process is broken.
That's what it is about.
-
They are accepting too many images - in some cases.
They are rejecting too many images - in some cases.
All in all their review process is broken.
That's what it is about.
Just keep resubmitting they will eventually accept everything. ;)
-
They are accepting too many images - in some cases.
They are rejecting too many images - in some cases.
All in all their review process is broken.
That's what it is about.
Just keep resubmitting they will eventually accept everything. ;)
I do think that is true.
-
And iStock is not accepting everything? They accepted some of my images, that even I myself would reject them.
-
They are accepting too many images - in some cases.
They are rejecting too many images - in some cases.
All in all their review process is broken.
That's what it is about.
Just keep resubmitting they will eventually accept everything. ;)
I do think that is true.
but then what would the few have to whine about?
-
They are accepting too many images - in some cases.
They are rejecting too many images - in some cases.
All in all their review process is broken.
That's what it is about.
Just keep resubmitting they will eventually accept everything. ;)
I do think that is true.
but then what would the few have to whine about?
a completely useless waste of time.
-
And iStock is not accepting everything? They accepted some of my images, that even I myself would reject them.
if you yourself rejected them, then who submitted them? or is it a habit to submit work you would personally reject?
-
And iStock is not accepting everything? They accepted some of my images, that even I myself would reject them.
I agree they should be rejecting more, you won't ever hear me complain about a rejection, ever. Just because they will accept an image doesn't mean it's worth my time or self respect to upload it. I don't think you do yourself any favors by submitting sub par work and what's even worse is complaining that it was rejected.
ETA: I meant in general all the complaining about rejections for what is surely sub par work, that part wasn't specifically aimed at you.
-
Show me a post, where I was complaining about rejections at SS?
-
They are accepting too many images - in some cases.
They are rejecting too many images - in some cases.
All in all their review process is broken.
That's what it is about.
Just keep resubmitting they will eventually accept everything. ;)
I do think that is true.
When you look at the latest accepted images it's clear some reviewers will accept just about anything.
-
They are accepting too many images - in some cases.
They are rejecting too many images - in some cases.
All in all their review process is broken.
That's what it is about.
Just keep resubmitting they will eventually accept everything. ;)
I do think that is true.
When you look at the latest accepted images it's clear some reviewers will accept just about anything.
Seems to be the fashion.
I wonder what's the hidden agenda?
-
They are accepting too many images - in some cases.
They are rejecting too many images - in some cases.
All in all their review process is broken.
That's what it is about.
Just keep resubmitting they will eventually accept everything. ;)
I do think that is true.
but then what would the few have to whine about?
a completely useless waste of time.
Sort of like this thread?
-
Still missing the point Tickstock. Its about incorrect reviews.
Anyhoo...
I agree completely it's about incorrect reviews, accepting way too many images. Just do a search of basically any common keyword and sort by newest it's pretty much a guarantee that there will be many many examples of huge amounts of similars accepted when just one or two would cover the concept or subject.
go easy on him, he is from the generation that has never known the process of editing images and has a sense of entitlement that every shot he takes is acceptable.
the following article pretty much sums it up...
[url]http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-are-unhappy.html[/url] ([url]http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-are-unhappy.html[/url])
Why be a tool when you can be a condescending tool….
-
I noticed that too. Same object and then shot at 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, then turned to 30 degrees left, 35 degrees left and so on, and then turned to all possible angles to the right and shot 20 times..... it's crazy, I think they should reject such stuff, no wonder, some people have 20k+ images.
For example: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
This is just ridiculous, what they're accepting.
Ah you're only pissed because he drowned out all of your maryjane shots :D
Love the guy's FB page Stock Pot-Ography :o ::) ;D
Now if he shot catnip I'd really like that :)
-
Hehe, I'm not pissed, I was just giving example and this guy first came on my mind.
-
I noticed that too. Same object and then shot at 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, then turned to 30 degrees left, 35 degrees left and so on, and then turned to all possible angles to the right and shot 20 times..... it's crazy, I think they should reject such stuff, no wonder, some people have 20k+ images.
For example: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
This is just ridiculous, what they're accepting.
Hahaha this guy surely smoked too much lol! ;D
-
Is there really a huge market which will actually pay for these pics?
-
lol lol lol, he is smoking a lot of weed, ha ha, what people upload lol lol
35000 lol
probably some sort of disease or too much weed :D 8) ::)
I noticed that too. Same object and then shot at 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, then turned to 30 degrees left, 35 degrees left and so on, and then turned to all possible angles to the right and shot 20 times..... it's crazy, I think they should reject such stuff, no wonder, some people have 20k+ images.
For example: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
This is just ridiculous, what they're accepting.
-
Is there really a huge market which will actually pay for these pics?
I doubt it. Those are just thousands of useless variations of the same thing. One marijuana bud.
-
Is there really a huge market which will actually pay for these pics?
I doubt it. Those are just thousands of useless variations of the same thing. One marijuana bud.
microstock is millions of variations of the same thing - far fewer images of weed than of tomatoes so probably fill a gap of sorts. Mind you, in principle, I think dozens of variations of the same image or the same image dozens of times with some different naff text shouldn't be allowed but I'm probably in a minority given how popular DT's similars policy is.
-
:o :o :o :o I am speechless...........
lol lol lol, he is smoking a lot of weed, ha ha, what people upload lol lol
35000 lol
probably some sort of disease or too much weed :D 8) ::)
I noticed that too. Same object and then shot at 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, then turned to 30 degrees left, 35 degrees left and so on, and then turned to all possible angles to the right and shot 20 times..... it's crazy, I think they should reject such stuff, no wonder, some people have 20k+ images.
For example: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
This is just ridiculous, what they're accepting.
-
:o :o :o :o I am speechless...........
lol lol lol, he is smoking a lot of weed, ha ha, what people upload lol lol
35000 lol
probably some sort of disease or too much weed :D 8) ::)
I noticed that too. Same object and then shot at 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, then turned to 30 degrees left, 35 degrees left and so on, and then turned to all possible angles to the right and shot 20 times..... it's crazy, I think they should reject such stuff, no wonder, some people have 20k+ images.
For example: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
This is just ridiculous, what they're accepting.
That is what makes me frustrated about the whole rejection thing. He must be affiliated with SS in some way, but he's sure as sh!t not an inspector..........or maybe he is.......that could explain a LOT! ;)
-
It's probably because he has 30,000 plus images they will see him as a major contributor and cut some slack
-
It's probably because he has 30,000 plus images they will see him as a major contributor and cut some slack
Well, from the 12 pages of images of "Candy" (of all sorts) that I looked at on his portfolio, before I got bored and stopped clicking forward, I'm guessing that his entire 30,000+ collection probably consists of (maybe) 40-50 different subjects.
That SS is allowing those shots into its collection right now, when they're excluding so much other work, truly is depressing.
-
It's probably because he has 30,000 plus images they will see him as a major contributor and cut some slack
Well, from the 12 pages of images of "Candy" (of all sorts) that I looked at on his portfolio, before I got bored and stopped clicking forward, I'm guessing that his entire 30,000+ collection probably consists of (maybe) 40-50 different subjects.
That SS is allowing those shots into its collection right now, when they're excluding so much other work, truly is depressing.
Looked at the first couple of pages...you know what's there! Skipped to page 300...deja vu all over again...skipped to last page, 357, he started as he meant to go on. Simply mind boggling that SS accepts it all. Makes me want to reconsider adding to my own port.
-
Simply Mind Blowing. How is this possible.
-
What Shutterstock has done here by allowing this nonsense portfolio is a complete insult to hard working stock photographers who submit high quality work in the hope of earning a decent living. A complete insult. Absolutely unacceptable.
-
It's probably because he has 30,000 plus images they will see him as a major contributor and cut some slack
Well, from the 12 pages of images of "Candy" (of all sorts) that I looked at on his portfolio, before I got bored and stopped clicking forward, I'm guessing that his entire 30,000+ collection probably consists of (maybe) 40-50 different subjects.
That SS is allowing those shots into its collection right now, when they're excluding so much other work, truly is depressing.
And actually this gives right to exist many conspiracy theories. Kind of a proof.
-
I have seen quite a few portfolios like these, people with 20k, 50k, 90k similar images of the same subject over and over again. There is one guy who does this in my niche, he buries my new files with ugly similars, but in the end I have seen maybe one of his images on the top page. Most of these will never sell, some do but not very often. It definitely affects visibility of new files though, as they are already born around page 3.
-
Simply Mind Blowing. How is this possible.
No departure from white poodles riddled with flea dirt, the anomaly has been in place for years.
Accept virtually anything from some ports and reject high end technically superior images from others.
-
How does that benefit SS?
-
:o :o :o :o I am speechless...........
lol lol lol, he is smoking a lot of weed, ha ha, what people upload lol lol
35000 lol
probably some sort of disease or too much weed :D 8) ::)
I noticed that too. Same object and then shot at 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, then turned to 30 degrees left, 35 degrees left and so on, and then turned to all possible angles to the right and shot 20 times..... it's crazy, I think they should reject such stuff, no wonder, some people have 20k+ images.
For example: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
This is just ridiculous, what they're accepting.
That is what makes me frustrated about the whole rejection thing. He must be affiliated with SS in some way, but he's sure as sh!t not an inspector..........or maybe he is.......that could explain a LOT! ;)
Or maybe the reviewer was off his head on weed.
-
How does that benefit SS?
Not ss, but people which work there. Too high probability that it is a usage of position in own interest
-
How does that benefit SS?
Not ss, but people which work there. Too high probability that it is a usage of position in own interest
This is what I was saying in an earlier post. There has to be more to this than just a "regular uploader".
-
I don't buy it that SS is so gullible not to notice a rogue reviewer. It would also mean a portfolio has a dedicated reviewer which I doubt as well.
-
I don't buy it that SS is so gullible not to notice a rogue reviewer. It would also mean a portfolio has a dedicated reviewer which I doubt as well.
Really your guess is as good as mine. But for the sake of argument there are more than a few ports filled with replicated crap. I know of one huge port filled with nothing but a mostly identical shot of plain yogurt.
As an example there was one well know pimper that used to baffle minds in regard to reviews. Not only did shutterstock accept everything the pimper submitted, we had to see it in every thread, day after day, year after year. Mean while much better images were being rejected on a daily basis.
There is just no way shutterstock could have NOT noticed this. As for the explanation of why shutterstock never did anything about it. It baffles the mind.
-
You have a point. I agree with that. It is weird.
-
I am SO fed up! Another 100% rejection. Most nature, some macro shots - perfectly fine, all accepted elsewhere. All outdoors.
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.
TRULY well p'd off. And sales plummetting.
-
That weed portfolio :o I decided to skip to page 100 to see what his other subjects were about, until I found there are basically no other subjects. It's page after page of identical crap.
-
I am SO fed up! Another 100% rejection. Most nature, some macro shots - perfectly fine, all accepted elsewhere. All outdoors.
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.
TRULY well p'd off. And sales plummetting.
You're not alone. I just shot some beach images in a remote area using a tripod, remote release, F8, no wind, Nikon 17-35 2.8 (about the sharpest wide zoom Nikon makes) and most rejected for out of focus and poor lighting. Here is a sample of my poorly lit image.
-
Here is a sample of my poorly lit image.
Ya, we can all see how poorly lit that image is! :o
-
Your horizon doesn't look horizontal too me.
And it looks like it is taken at high noon. This is why it is considered not much as "poorly lit", but rather taken during "unfavorable lighting conditions"
I am SO fed up! Another 100% rejection. Most nature, some macro shots - perfectly fine, all accepted elsewhere. All outdoors.
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.
TRULY well p'd off. And sales plummetting.
You're not alone. I just shot some beach images in a remote area using a tripod, remote release, F8, no wind, Nikon 17-35 2.8 (about the sharpest wide zoom Nikon makes) and most rejected for out of focus and poor lighting. Here is a sample of my poorly lit image.
-
Your horizon doesn't look horizontal too me.
I noticed the tilted horizon too, but since that wasn't a reason for the rejection…
-
Your horizon doesn't look horizontal too me.
I noticed the tilted horizon too, but since that wasn't a reason for the rejection…
Looking closely at the image, it looks to me as if there is a coastline on the horizon and the water is following the coast, rather than being slanted.
-
Your horizon doesn't look horizontal too me.
I noticed the tilted horizon too, but since that wasn't a reason for the rejection…
Looking closely at the image, it looks to me as if there is a coastline on the horizon and the water is following the coast, rather than being slanted.
Thats accurate. The tripod is set with a leveling bubble. But the illusion of the rising coastline gives it that look. Perhaps the fairly high sun was an issue, who knows, but it was definately at my back. Oh well, some got in some didnt.
-
In general, you can no longer rely on reviewer rejection comments to actually mean much. In fact they are toxic to the point of actually misleading some newer photographers who might take them to heart and be set upon the wrong path. I'm not sure whether the reviewers are really as incompetent as they sometimes seem or whether they are under orders to reject a named percentage. They are forced to choose from a limited list box.
Myself, I think SS is sowing the seeds of their own destruction, something the whole of microstock is experiencing. It was a fun ride while it lasted!
-
The reviewers are not incompetent at all.
But they do see things from the side of the agency.
Which they are hired for.
And Mantis, since you are brave enough to upload a picture and throw it into the pirrhanya infested waters.
Look at the rejection reasons again, and aks yourself, what it is, the reviewer (who expresses the viewpoints of the agency) politely is is trying to tell you.
-
The reviewers are not incompetent at all.
But they do see things from the side of the agency.
Which they are hired for.
I disagree. We are used to pick up and try out new trends in styling, lightning, subject, concept etc. all the time. In fact, a half time Job was created just for research and analytics of the market. Every now and then a new look/concept hits the nail and the images start selling like crazy. Subsequently we produce more in that style over a period of about one month first. SS usually rejects everything which is out of the ordinary - even after 6 month a new style was established and has proven on most stock sites to sell really well. They have absolutely no idea what sells or not, how to define trends, quality or even what stock photography is about in general. They just follow a certain scheme, get paid, get another coffee, do not care about anything. That is my harsh impression.
-
The reviewers are not incompetent at all.
But they do see things from the side of the agency.
Which they are hired for.
And Mantis, since you are brave enough to upload a picture and throw it into the pirrhanya infested waters.
Look at the rejection reasons again, and aks yourself, what it is, the reviewer (who expresses the viewpoints of the agency) politely is is trying to tell you.
I think a major point of this thread is that reviewers should not be 'trying to tell you' anything, politely or not, but telling you exactly why a image is rejected. Other agencies have a rejection category along the lines of "This is not what we are looking for" and this I find perfectly acceptable when I get them. Furthermore if SS does come clean that it does not want certain subjects as it is saturated already, then that is fine. It saves everyone time (but, as many have pointed out, it potentially saves reviewers revenue).
-
Look at the rejection reasons again, and aks yourself, what it is, the reviewer (who expresses the viewpoints of the agency) politely is is trying to tell you.
It would be very interesting to know the 'viewpoints of the agency' which has accepted all these hundreds, probably thousands, of extremely similar cannabis images.
In addition, the many people who have reported reuploading rejected images without change and getting them accepted.
-
Look at the rejection reasons again, and aks yourself, what it is, the reviewer (who expresses the viewpoints of the agency) politely is is trying to tell you.
It would be very interesting to know the 'viewpoints of the agency' which has accepted all these hundreds, probably thousands, of extremely similar cannabis images.
In addition, the many people who have reported reuploading rejected images without change and getting them accepted.
I would pay a lot for that info.
-
Today, I was really beat up. A batch of (5) images--- 1 accepted. Same lighting, focus 100%, Same subject, various, composition placement (The other (5) were rejected.
-
Your horizon doesn't look horizontal too me.
And it looks like it is taken at high noon. This is why it is considered not much as "poorly lit", but rather taken during "unfavorable lighting conditions"
I am SO fed up! Another 100% rejection. Most nature, some macro shots - perfectly fine, all accepted elsewhere. All outdoors.
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.
TRULY well p'd off. And sales plummetting.
You're not alone. I just shot some beach images in a remote area using a tripod, remote release, F8, no wind, Nikon 17-35 2.8 (about the sharpest wide zoom Nikon makes) and most rejected for out of focus and poor lighting. Here is a sample of my poorly lit image.
Is there a rule somewhere that says that you are not allowed to photograph mid-day?
I don't see anything wrong with the lighting on that image. Bright, colorful, no harsh shadows. Should be just what SS wants.
Maybe if 1000 more images of virtually the same thing (tripod moved 6 inches to the right, tilt up 1 degree, pan left 1 degree, piece of pot on the road) the reviewers would have approved it.
-
regarding OPs initial claim -- google's penguin was first issued more than 3 years ago, last major update was fall of 2014
-
regarding OPs initial claim -- google's penguin was first issued more than 3 years ago, last major update was fall of 2014
Crossed threads?
-
If you look hard enough I guess you can find a reason to reject anything as the comments on the image posted shows. I think maybe for some categories the instruction to reviewers is to look for any reason to reject rather than saying "we have too many of this subject - unless your image is stunning it will be rejected"
-
Your horizon doesn't look horizontal too me.
And it looks like it is taken at high noon. This is why it is considered not much as "poorly lit", but rather taken during "unfavorable lighting conditions"
I am SO fed up! Another 100% rejection. Most nature, some macro shots - perfectly fine, all accepted elsewhere. All outdoors.
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.
TRULY well p'd off. And sales plummetting.
You're not alone. I just shot some beach images in a remote area using a tripod, remote release, F8, no wind, Nikon 17-35 2.8 (about the sharpest wide zoom Nikon makes) and most rejected for out of focus and poor lighting. Here is a sample of my poorly lit image.
Is there a rule somewhere that says that you are not allowed to photograph mid-day?
I don't see anything wrong with the lighting on that image. Bright, colorful, no harsh shadows. Should be just what SS wants.
Maybe if 1000 more images of virtually the same thing (tripod moved 6 inches to the right, tilt up 1 degree, pan left 1 degree, piece of pot on the road) the reviewers would have approved it.
Totally agree. All landscape advice is to shoot during golden hours, beautiful light, etc, etc but when you look at travel brochures, city guides, etc they are 90% full of blue sky shots. If you want to shoot landscapes that look great then shoot during golden hours in beautiful light, if you want to shoot landscape images that sell do it on a blue sky idyllic day.
I have changed my shooting habits to match what sells, especially in RM and the difference in sales has been noticeable. Blue sky sunny day pics sell to businesses. Golden hour shots look great as prints and sold as prints.
-
Also before they hated everything I do S stock used to HATE shadows I always had more noon pics accepted than "golden hour" pics
-
Jeez. You guys really only want to sit and whine.
Can you not see it?
It is not about you and your pictures, they mean nothing. Art is not important. Light isnt either.
Nothing is. Photography is only a mean to put amounts of sellable data online.
Only marketability is important. Keywords and substance in form of pictures. The better connected they are, the more sales.
And yes, you can make me go away by giving me minusses and you can continue uploading meaningless coastlines and whine instead of finding out.
That coastline Mantis did, has NO KEYWORDS!
-
Jeez. You guys really only want to sit and whine.
Can you not see it?
It is not about you and your pictures, they mean nothing. Art is not important. Light isnt either.
Nothing is. Photography is only a mean to put amounts of sellable data online.
Only marketability is important. Keywords and substance in form of pictures. The better connected they are, the more sales.
And yes, you can make me go away by giving me minusses and you can continue uploading meaningless coastlines and whine instead of finding out.
That coastline Mantis did, has NO KEYWORDS!
Really, bug man? Who says i posted a reduced image of my keyworded image? And are you so clairvoyant that you know landscapes don't sell? I will give you a tip, like you probably do with your bugs. If you keyword them right, particularly where it was shot, your selling odds go way up. I do quite well with my landscapes, but as usual you bring nothing to the table of any value in these forums and again proved it here.
-
poor light in underwater, reviewer looks more deeply.
I am SO fed up! Another 100% rejection. Most nature, some macro shots - perfectly fine, all accepted elsewhere. All outdoors.
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.
TRULY well p'd off. And sales plummetting.
You're not alone. I just shot some beach images in a remote area using a tripod, remote release, F8, no wind, Nikon 17-35 2.8 (about the sharpest wide zoom Nikon makes) and most rejected for out of focus and poor lighting. Here is a sample of my poorly lit image.
-
Mantis for god heavens sake, I do not critisize your pictures.
Its not your images Im after, it was just there because you were brave enough to upload it.
and it proved to be a good example.
because you cannot see the keywords in the image.
Contrary to an image of a bicycle.
My message was pointing at something completely different.
-
Mantis for god heavens sake, I do not critisize your pictures.
Its not your images Im after, it was just there because you were brave enough to upload it.
and it proved to be a good example.
because you cannot see the keywords in the image.
Contrary to an image of a bicycle.
My message was pointing at something completely different.
I can see keywords in the image such as adventure, travel, tourism, unspoiled nature, quiet getaway, secluded beach, clean environment, to name just a few, I bet others can name more.
-
poor light in underwater, reviewer looks more deeply.
;D ;D ;D
-
...most rejected for out of focus and poor lighting. Here is a sample of my poorly lit image.
...because you cannot see the keywords in the image.
Really confused... what's the role of keywords here?
You mean you cannot see the keywords due to poor lighting....?
-
I dont feel like I should fight to express my views here. Its not fun. I get nothing in return. Except for the discussion it self. Which is worthless.
Why should I qualify my competitors? and be scorned and be patronized and called "Bugman"
But what I can do is to repeat what I have said. We have a bunch of photographers here, who think, the light in the picture was important, could be bad light or good or better light. They think about image quality. They think the reviewers are bad, and their pictures should have gone through, because of the quality and the light.
I say, it is not what this game is about. Its about grabbing licence rights, distributing them and even redistribute them as middlemens middlemen. Its endless. Its exploitation. But thats another story.
And you talk about focus, where you should focus (ha ha) on keywords and never ever, take a photo because of the light, but only because of the keywords.
So I did it again, explained, educated my competitors, how stupid is that. And Ill even get minuses for doing it. Halleluja. Foolish of me.
-
Jen...I like Minus's. It shows I hit a nerve...LOL
-
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me
So goes the old saying ~ what sensistive little flowers ;D
-
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me
So goes the old saying ~ what sensistive little flowers ;D
I'd suggest that it's the minus givers rather than receivers who are the sensitive little flowers - folks who can't bear an alternative POV.
-
Why are people disagreeing with someone's POV sensitive little flowers?
Does everyone have to agree with everyone?
Cheers
A sensitive little flower
-
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me
So goes the old saying ~ what sensistive little flowers ;D
I'd suggest that it's the minus givers rather than receivers who are the sensitive little flowers - folks who can't bear an alternative POV.
As a general point, not confined to this thread, it's perfectly possible to disagree totally with someone and accept that they have a valid alternative view.
-
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me
So goes the old saying ~ what sensistive little flowers ;D
I'd suggest that it's the minus givers rather than receivers who are the sensitive little flowers - folks who can't bear an alternative POV.
As a general point, not confined to this thread, it's perfectly possible to disagree totally with someone and accept that they have a valid alternative view.
Unless your name is Alice Eve ;D
-
.
-
Why are people disagreeing with someone's POV sensitive little flowers?
Does everyone have to agree with everyone?
Cheers
A sensitive little flower
They can agree or disagree. Methinks the minus indicates more disapproval than disagreement though..
-
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me
So goes the old saying ~ what sensistive little flowers ;D
I'd suggest that it's the minus givers rather than receivers who are the sensitive little flowers - folks who can't bear an alternative POV.
As a general point, not confined to this thread, it's perfectly possible to disagree totally with someone and accept that they have a valid alternative view.
But if everyone agreed with that point (fwiw I do) then surely that would break The Internet.
-
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me
So goes the old saying ~ what sensistive little flowers ;D
I'd suggest that it's the minus givers rather than receivers who are the sensitive little flowers - folks who can't bear an alternative POV.
As a general point, not confined to this thread, it's perfectly possible to disagree totally with someone and accept that they have a valid alternative view.
But if everyone agreed with that point (fwiw I do) then surely that would break The Internet.
LOL 8)
-
I must say this is a new one. The person who inspects jpgs approved one of mine, which then appeared in my portfolio yesterday. Then the vector reviewer rejected the same jpg and it disappeared from my portfolio! For the ridiculous "title" reason, despite the fact that the vector has the same title and was approved. Amazing. Absolutely amazing.
-
Greek Mountain scene taken under blue skies at 100 ISO is rejected for excessive noise ???
And yet next image taken an hour later in similar conditions, accepted :o
It is completely random and I can learn nothing to improve my submissions from the reasons given.
Initially I used to get upset now I just move on. I may try slipping one or two of the random rejects in another upload in a few weeks (by accident ;) ), to see if I get a different result, if I can be bothered.
-
Heres what I want....HOLDING REVIEWERS TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS THEY DO SUBMITTERS.
-
I may try slipping one or two of the random rejects in another upload in a few weeks (by accident ;) ), to see if I get a different result, if I can be bothered.
I've done that a few times lately and, guess what? It works! Not always, but enough to help build that port on SS.
-
Heres what I want....HOLDING REVIEWERS TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS THEY DO SUBMITTERS.
It's a pity there isn't an industry Association of reviewers or some kind of minimum competency standard :D
What's the most confusing to someone starting out is the inconsistencies between agencies. I'm lucky enough, in these very early days, to have a fairly good acceptance ratio at 8 of the 9 I've submitted to (I'm still waiting for CS to accept anything after 21 days in the pending queue ???). In these early days I am submitting the same images to all agencies. It's amazing how SS will reject an image for any number of random reasons for others to accept it with no problem. However it's also quite bizarre how an image accepted by SS and 6 other will be rejected by FT for poor lighting or BS for focus issues when there clearly isn't a problem.
At least fotolia were honest with one declined image when they just simple said they had too many of that subject.
I don't mind rejection (I don't like it but I realise it's part of the business) I just wish that I could learn something from the rejection reasons so that I can improve!
-
A few weeks ago my Shutterstock application is accepted. But after that, all my submissions are rejected and my images are on other stocksites
For example:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-electricity-pole-against-blue-sky-image40809877 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-electricity-pole-against-blue-sky-image40809877)
This image were rejected for the following reasons:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
When i view the image on full resolution, the subject is sharp
And i don't see exposure issues (over or under exposuere), what they mean in this image?
The image is taken om ISO 80 and i don't see any noise at full reslution.
Can someone give feedback about this image?
And how can i produce images that accepted on Shutterstock?
This image is on Dreamstime and Fotolia
-
Maybe SS doesn't have a dropdown reason for "We have this subject Covered" and used generic Ones instead which is silly But... Image is a bit Flat . Needs some Punch. 244 Pages of electric Poles . just saying....You asked. RF sites really Like Punchy Images. especially SS my friend.
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=143447923736218730000&search_tracking_id=wgiR7LXN6kAdmoYLHV_eBg&searchterm=Electricity+pole&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color= (http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=143447923736218730000&search_tracking_id=wgiR7LXN6kAdmoYLHV_eBg&searchterm=Electricity+pole&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=)
-
I love how they reject my seamless patterns as not seamless when they are absolutely seamless! They are also now rejecting my submissions of Latino women because of the non-English word "Latina!" Moreover, they reject most of them for not having a correct reference file when I attach the reference file! So I resubmit and then it's rejected for "poor execution"! :o
Time to resubmit again! 8)
-
I love how they reject my seamless patterns as not seamless when they are absolutely seamless! They are also now rejecting my submissions of Latino women because of the non-English word "Latina!" Moreover, they reject most of them for not having a correct reference file when I attach the reference file! So I resubmit and then it's rejected for "poor execution"! :o
Time to resubmit again! 8)
Sometimes you just can't win for losing!
-
I'm going back and forth with them now on "poor rasterization." I asked them to show me where things are poorly rasterized. It's becoming clear that the inspector opens the file at 100% (or more likely 200%), sees whatever's in the middle of the illustration, doesn't understand what it is because he/she never looks at the whole image, sees overlapping vector shapes and misinterprets where the shapes meet as "noise" or something. But most of all I think the new auditing system is pressuring them to make rejections, so they just press the most likely reason they can think of. Once in a great while the reason is valid (for example, I forgot to click the "illustration" button), but the great majority of the time the rejection is bogus.
Hopefully with Adobe Stock SS will take a step back and rethink this process.
-
Yeah, I think they are taking ANYONE for reviewers. Inconsistent and crappy. Then they keep changing options for Reviewer Notes. Annoying! >:(
I'm going back and forth with them now on "poor rasterization." I asked them to show me where things are poorly rasterized. It's becoming clear that the inspector opens the file at 100% (or more likely 200%), sees whatever's in the middle of the illustration, doesn't understand what it is because he/she never looks at the whole image, sees overlapping vector shapes and misinterprets where the shapes meet as "noise" or something. But most of all I think the new auditing system is pressuring them to make rejections, so they just press the most likely reason they can think of. Once in a great while the reason is valid (for example, I forgot to click the "illustration" button), but the great majority of the time the rejection is bogus.
Hopefully with Adobe Stock SS will take a step back and rethink this process.
-
Maybe SS doesn't have a dropdown reason for "We have this subject Covered" and used generic Ones instead which is silly But... Image is a bit Flat . Needs some Punch. 244 Pages of electric Poles . just saying....You asked. RF sites really Like Punchy Images. especially SS my friend.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=143447923736218730000&search_tracking_id=wgiR7LXN6kAdmoYLHV_eBg&searchterm=Electricity+pole&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=143447923736218730000&search_tracking_id=wgiR7LXN6kAdmoYLHV_eBg&searchterm=Electricity+pole&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=[/url])
This is a really important point. One of the keys to making this Biz work is coming up with valuable, unique content or original takes on a tired theme. I always get a little wiggle room if I have something relatively unique to submit, equally I get my head handed to me if I submit an already covered subject, even if I have technically good images.
-
They had an LCV rejection reason and did away with it. They can implement a photo is too similar reason in 3 minutes. Instead - Why do they choose to throw every bogus reason in the book at contributors? It... Just.... Doesnt..... Make....... Sense!
-
I got a bunch of rejections on shallow DOF images again - though the reviewer who got the first 3 or 4 accepted them - a series ended up in two batches because of some supposedly misspelled words - the second batch got rejected and I think you're right that they look at it at 100 or 200% without looking at the whole image and if they focus on the part that should be OOF they reject. They all got accepted elsewhere including Alamy with their strict rules.
I also had an image rejected as being the same as one I had online, which was a first for me. I had done a concept image for the new year using roadsigns and when it kept selling well into the spring, I uploaded one with mostly blank signs figuring it would save designers the trouble of removing my words, and also make it easy for small businesses who might be designing their own stuff to just pop in their own text, but it was rejected. I send a message and was told that it was the same file despite explaining the difference (I had already given it a different file number since it was a different image IMHO) so I gave up and the new years version sold that day and a few more times this week so perhaps they are right and that image is going to place better in searches than the new one anyway.
Interestingly, I have mistakenly uploaded duplicates and they never rejected them, so I've just deleted them when I realized my mistake.
-
Alamy has a strict rules? For me, they are the only agency, beside iStock, that didn't reject any of my files.
-
Alamy adopts a different philosophy it expects contributors to do their own QC - if one photo does not meet their technical requirements it rejects the whole batch (and puts you on the naughty step for about a month). They do not assess aesthetic or commercial value.
-
Ok, review results of my last editorial batch received. I had 4 images taken from a DSLR which were rejected for out of focus and only image taken from my mobile phone was accepted. Feeling crazy! :-@
-
I'm now at 100% rejection for "Poor Execution" of my illustrations now (my average is 60 submissions weekly). Unprecedented! I've got a 4,000+ portfolio selling 200+ monthly of other "Poor Execution" images? They've got to have a reviewer that hates my work. I've gone this far with great success of acceptances and sales on SS only to be stopped by one reviewer? This is such BS!!! >:(
-
And just to add to the jollity of it all, I'm getting Illustratve Editorial images rejected for
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.
when I have done NOTHING.
Nothing added, nothing taken away.
But how can I prove this?
Sigh........
-
And just to add to the jollity of it all, I'm getting Illustratve Editorial images rejected for
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.
when I have done NOTHING.
Nothing added, nothing taken away.
But how can I prove this?
Sigh........
Complain, have a laugh, and resubmit ;)
-
lol! Probably will too (even though I can't add an editorial note now)!
-
SS must have hired a batch of reviewers that just want to be paid for all their rejections (easier to do than to accept).
And just to add to the jollity of it all, I'm getting Illustratve Editorial images rejected for
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.
when I have done NOTHING.
Nothing added, nothing taken away.
But how can I prove this?
Sigh........
-
For the first time in my 5 years as a microstock artist, my acceptance rate is higher on iStock than it is on Shutterstock! :o
-
And just to add to the jollity of it all, I'm getting Illustratve Editorial images rejected for
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.
when I have done NOTHING.
Nothing added, nothing taken away.
But how can I prove this?
Sigh........
I had the same. Editorial image with shallow depth of field. I emailed them. They thought I had created the blur in photoshop. Upon explanation that I hadnt I was allowed to resubmit.
-
After doing a resubmission test of some "Poor Execution" rejections compared to accepted—and selling—outline and separate component illustrations from the same original, I am convinced there is a vector reviewer working there who is just trying to make money by rejecting large amounts of work. It is much easier to reject work basing a judgement of a specific contributor than it is to open it, really look at it and check for problems (I have applied for reviewer positions at SS just to get an idea of what they must do and their job is to weed out images with technical problems more than subjective "execution" issues). So I have sent complaints to support with various batch and image numbers. :o
-
SS must have hired a batch of reviewers that just want to be paid for all their rejections (easier to do than to accept).
And just to add to the jollity of it all, I'm getting Illustratve Editorial images rejected for
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.
when I have done NOTHING.
Nothing added, nothing taken away.
But how can I prove this?
Sigh........
Some sites pay more for rejections, the reasoning being it takes longer to inspect an image thoroughly to determine that it needs to be rejected.
-
I see. I never got hired as a reviewer, so I don't know the pay structure. However, if that is the case for SS, then it makes perfect sense. I figure if support doesn't step in to help, then the reviewer will get mad enough to complain that I've been resubmitting the same drawings. Then I'm hoping they'll see that my stuff—despite its unconventional grotesque style—sells well, and tell the reviewer to cool it with his/her 100% rejections of my work.
SS must have hired a batch of reviewers that just want to be paid for all their rejections (easier to do than to accept).
And just to add to the jollity of it all, I'm getting Illustratve Editorial images rejected for
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.
when I have done NOTHING.
Nothing added, nothing taken away.
But how can I prove this?
Sigh........
Some sites pay more for rejections, the reasoning being it takes longer to inspect an image thoroughly to determine that it needs to be rejected.
-
I appealed and resubmitted with case number etc and they have now been accepted.
:)
-
I appealed and resubmitted with case number etc and they have now been accepted.
:)
Yeah, I got some case numbers too now. I'll let you all know what happens...
-
Horrendous, and obviously under-experienced reviewing by SS lately. Batch completely rejected at SS, a batch with 100% approval at FT & P5, both notorious for excessive nonsense rejections.
SS clearly doesn't mind having useless reviewers that waste their time and money, as well as ours. Now I'll be messaging support and resubmitting, again. Done this so many times now, almost always getting the rejection reversed and many of those turning out to be top sellers and dominating the popular search results in their respective categories.
Unbelievable.
-
Alamy has a strict rules? For me, they are the only agency, beside iStock, that didn't reject any of my files.
You said it man - those sites are about as picky as flickr ;D
-
Here's our chance to ask about the recent ridiculous rejections...sad that they're talking to us instead of their reviewers:
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/shuttertalk-live-presents-the-top-5-most-common-rejection-reasons-for-vector-illustration-submissions-and-how-to-avoid-them?customer_ID=554923&campaign_ID=shutters.10379485&launch_ID=10258465 (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/shuttertalk-live-presents-the-top-5-most-common-rejection-reasons-for-vector-illustration-submissions-and-how-to-avoid-them?customer_ID=554923&campaign_ID=shutters.10379485&launch_ID=10258465)
-
Absolutely ridiculous rejections. A whole days work editing for all to be rejected. The stock reason seems to be "Poor lighting conditions" but last time with the same image it was something different.
SS and Photodune are both as bad as each other. The worst thing is I deleted a good image (that made an A list movie poster) re-edited it to make it better (I didn't have lightroom in those early days) and they keep rejecting it on the basis of out of focus, despite the fact it was taken on a tripod. UNBELIEVABLE !
-
Focus obssesion in Shutter. Is stupid...
-
Has anybody got any case numbers from SS recently? How long does it usually take? I emailed them a week ago and still no reply.
-
This whole reviewer thing is funny. They reject my images quite a bit for focus which is silly for bird photography. With an f4 lens, you will never have the subject completely in focus. The important focus point is the facial disk/ beak and eye. I just wait then resubmit until I find someone who actually gets it.
-
Has anybody got any case numbers from SS recently? How long does it usually take? I emailed them a week ago and still no reply.
It took five days week ago.
First, 80% were rejected, new submit with a case number and 7% rejected.
-
Has anybody got any case numbers from SS recently? How long does it usually take? I emailed them a week ago and still no reply.
2 days for me
-
I appealed and resubmitted with case number etc and they have now been accepted.
:)
Yeah, I got some case numbers too now. I'll let you all know what happens...
Update: All accepted with case numbers. Definitely alot of poorly trained reviewers over there.
-
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.
-
This is not a joke: some years ago, one of my first submission was a simple and clear pictur of two pidgeons grabbed on an electrical wire suspended. Just pidgeons, wire and sky. It was rejected because "we require a model release". Unfortunately these two pidegeons were flight away.
-
Lol. Pigeons.
Once from me they requested a model release for an image of a saint on editorial photo of medieval vitrage
-
Thanks for your replies ! I am still waiting for their reply after emailing them 9 days ago.
-
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
-
Alamy has a strict rules? For me, they are the only agency, beside iStock, that didn't reject any of my files.
You said it man - those sites are about as picky as flickr ;D
Alamy's rules are "strict" when it comes to focus and other technical issues - so getting shallow DOF files past their reviewers can be tricky. They don't reject for anything other than focus, file size or noise.
-
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.
-
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.
-
ShuterBuzz: -"We want candid photos with natural or ambient light"
Reviews: -"Poor lightning, Noise, Focus... you are competitor"
Shutter only accept isolated shits
Shutter be careful, fotolia come in the rearview ... who will be the next istcok ??
-
Eh ...nothing can beat this one guys :o
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 (http://www.pond5.com/community?forum=8750973&thread=44841443&lp=1)
and more...
http://www.pond5.com/community?forum=622&thread=45112740&lp=1 (http://www.pond5.com/community?forum=622&thread=45112740&lp=1)
-
Eh ...nothing can beat this one guys :o
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..
[url]http://www.pond5.com/community?forum=8750973&thread=44841443&lp=1[/url] ([url]http://www.pond5.com/community?forum=8750973&thread=44841443&lp=1[/url])
and more...
[url]http://www.pond5.com/community?forum=622&thread=45112740&lp=1[/url] ([url]http://www.pond5.com/community?forum=622&thread=45112740&lp=1[/url])
Wrong thread, I guess.
-
Eh ...nothing can beat this one guys :o
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..
[url]http://www.pond5.com/community?forum=8750973&thread=44841443&lp=1[/url] ([url]http://www.pond5.com/community?forum=8750973&thread=44841443&lp=1[/url])
and more...
[url]http://www.pond5.com/community?forum=622&thread=45112740&lp=1[/url] ([url]http://www.pond5.com/community?forum=622&thread=45112740&lp=1[/url])
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.
-
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.
:o
-
What is more "beating me up" is trademark rejection I had, I contacted them, they told me that all is good and to resubmit with note to reviewer, I did that but it seems that they can not agree because today I got same rejection.
Something is not right there.
they should never remove writing note like it was before something like "ATTN REVIEWER: See an Admin about this batch... " because this doesn't look serious at all and doing damage to our income without any reason.
-
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.
:o
There are all signs of what you described.
-
Ok, so what's the point of rejecting images, if you put some trademark word into keywords? If you upload a photo, showing detail of a car, let's say BMW, and there isn't any trademark logos or signs in photo, and then you put BMW in keyword, is that allowed or not. And if not, why not?
-
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.
-
....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.
....
each agency has different rules for releases & editorial -- ss has started asking for releases on any interior shots, eg., or else submit as editorial
-
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..
-
So your claiming that:
- every natural outdoor light is a good light?
- every outdoor natural light is favorable lightning condition?
- you can't have tons of noise at ISO 50?
-
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=297546848 (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.
-
So your claiming that:
- every natural outdoor light is a good light?
- every outdoor natural light is favorable lightning condition?
- you can't have tons of noise at ISO 50?
Of course you are right too, but please, do not go for that kindergarten line. We all know what is the point in SS reviewing. We all are professional photographers and always word in 100% review
Here is one example, 100% drop, darkest area in image ISO 50 (SS = NOISE). Only normal noise removed, no more, in Capture One.
-
Don't panic ! I'm contributor to many micro-stocks since 2006 and they all seems to have the same life cycle...
At the moment SS has a very fast review time with a 100% rejection result. Reviewers seems to be replaced by some automatic process and they need time to fix some bugs...
When your photos are accepted by few and rejected by one, it helps to feel less frustrated :)
-
When your photos are accepted by few and rejected by one, it helps to feel less frustrated :)
Not when the one is half of your income.
-
Just got 4 images rejected for focus issues on SS. Bogus review even by a software review--- software can show where the focus point-- right where it should be on all 4 and no, there was no movement and shutter speed was fast enough to catch it if there was.
Images accepted on all other stock sites.
Accepted photos of same subject matter on their website are of very poor technical quality.....and boring content-wise.
Obviously my sales elsewhere are better. It is getting to the point where I do not even want to bother with SS. I hear their sales are great from you guys but hard to believe.
-
Just got 4 images rejected for focus issues on SS. Bogus review even by a software review--- software can show where the focus point-- right where it should be on all 4 and no, there was no movement and shutter speed was fast enough to catch it if there was.
Images accepted on all other stock sites.
Accepted photos of same subject matter on their website are of very poor technical quality.....and boring content-wise.
Obviously my sales elsewhere are better. It is getting to the point where I do not even want to bother with SS. I hear their sales are great from you guys but hard to believe.
+1.
My first 150+ images since joining SS were accepted at around 80% acceptance rate (by feeling, as there's no formal acceptance counter on SS). Since then, after one or two bad submissions (I would rather agree that photos could be of lower quality than my average) my acceptance rate now is close to zero. To give you a feeling, after those 150+ accepted images, I have submitted in total around 100-150 more images. Accepted: 5 or 6. Usual reasons: soft/blurred image, poor lighting conditions and noise. It goes without saying that by using the same camera, my skills and experience (gained, inter alia, with SS over some time) could not produce such a poor quality of photos that they would objectively be rejected. The same goes to the content as it's mainly the relatively in demand quality landscapes (despite been over-saturated on market) and high-value industrial photos (world's largest sea ports, like Hamburg, Rotterdam, Antwerp).
Despite the fact that SS so far provided me with most of the profits, I will try with one or two more photo sets to be uploaded (and then resubmitted, to see if the different reviewer makes a different decision), and if it goes the same way, I will stop with SS, and focus on other stocks, notwithstanding their poor sales. I might need to spend more time with them to improve those sales (and I still believe there is potential for me with places like iStock, FT, DT, 123RF).
-
A little bit of self-criticism would be nice.
-
Hi,
I almost miss this thread.
After contacting SS about another 'poor lighting' rejection, here's their message :
Thank you for contacting us.
Unfortunately due to the large number of submissions we receive we are unable to offer individual comments on specific rejections.
You are always welcome to try it again.
What can i say to that ?! :o :o :o :o
-
I had that rejection problem today, and I know it was not right.
-
Interesting this SS rejection problem, isn't it?
I have almost the same acceptance ratio as few month ago.
My sells are excellent, almost every day some SOD's...
AND YES, TODAY IS APRIL THE FIRST !
;)
Ok, no more sarcasm.
If you are not an agency with signed contract with SS , you can slowly forget on SS.
Bye bye, good old times for us indies.
-
Hi,
I almost miss this thread.
After contacting SS about another 'poor lighting' rejection, here's their message :
Thank you for contacting us.
Unfortunately due to the large number of submissions we receive we are unable to offer individual comments on specific rejections.
You are always welcome to try it again.
What can i say to that ?! :o :o :o :o
I got that too. Pissed me right off.
-
I am getting fed up with Shutterstock and their review process. A recent image was rejected for focus.... the main item in the photo WAS in sharp focus. Nikon Transfer marks that area as the focus point as well. There was nothing else wrong with the image either. The focus point even looks nice at 200%. Until they rejected that particular image, I thought maybe the focus/sharpness rejections might have been true.
SS rejects images accepted everywhere else. Lately I have stop uploading bother to upload to them because I am so sick of the absurdity of it. I do not mind trying to make my images technically better. Was always very technical when did film-- even mixed my own print and film chemicals from scratch-- not powder mixes but the isolated chemicals, used a medium format camera etc. I appreciate some feedback but not when it does not make sense.
I have finally come to the conclusion that I am not going to allow SS to dictate my photography. I know that SS is supposed to be the big money maker for most but I am selling better on other sites. I think part of the low sales on SS is the review process which has little basis in reality.
-
Yep, very little taken outside gets accepted for one reason or another.
Latest - special characters. I think they mean an apostrophe. But the place IS called Jacob's Ladder. Grrrrrr....
Update. Just got it again. No apostrophe in sight.
Dash? But it's editorial and there is one already....
Double Grrrrrr!
-
I am getting fed up with Shutterstock and their review process. A recent image was rejected for focus.... the main item in the photo WAS in sharp focus. Nikon Transfer marks that area as the focus point as well. There was nothing else wrong with the image either. The focus point even looks nice at 200%. Until they rejected that particular image, I thought maybe the focus/sharpness rejections might have been true.
SS rejects images accepted everywhere else. Lately I have stop uploading bother to upload to them because I am so sick of the absurdity of it. I do not mind trying to make my images technically better. Was always very technical when did film-- even mixed my own print and film chemicals from scratch-- not powder mixes but the isolated chemicals, used a medium format camera etc. I appreciate some feedback but not when it does not make sense.
I have finally come to the conclusion that I am not going to allow SS to dictate my photography. I know that SS is supposed to be the big money maker for most but I am selling better on other sites. I think part of the low sales on SS is the review process which has little basis in reality.
Dont worry be happy look on the bright side of life.
Its not about photography, and it is not about your technical skills, or your cameras. You are not selling images, but content, which is a combination of pixels, keywords and availability for the customer. You deliver the first 2, the agency the last. Because there is an overabundance of keyworded images and availability is expensive, they can be carelesss in how they reject, and they come up with strange (or good) reasons that they hope will push the stream of keyworded images in a direction. And so it does, images gets sharper, and cameras bought by the contributors become better untill it reaches a current maximum, where it becomes absurd.
And now for your rejected sharp image, it might be so, that it is not about the sharpness, or the focus, but which areas in the image that are unsharp and they way they are unsharp. So take a look and examine the out of focus areas.
-
The reviewers have a limited number of reasons for rejection available in the list box, the reviewers (most, these days) are not competent and Shutterstock's motives are never shared with contributers. In addition, most of the elements that cause an image to be worthwhile in most situations except microstock — backlighting, crosslighting, selective focus, original composition — are frowned on by SS and their ilk Therefor: Never take their canned responses as legitimate criticism. It might lead you down the wrong path.
-
The reviewers have a limited number of reasons for rejection available in the list box, the reviewers (most, these days) are not competent and Shutterstock's motives are never shared with contributers. In addition, most of the elements that cause an image to be worthwhile in most situations except microstock — backlighting, crosslighting, selective focus, original composition — are frowned on by SS and their ilk Therefor: Never take their canned responses as legitimate criticism. It might lead you down the wrong path.
Probably one of the best Posts ever on this topic. I could not agree more.
-
Just saw this SS communication from August 31th:
Hello,
As some of you may have noticed we are a few days behind with replying to your email because of an unexpected high volume of emails received. We are sincerely sorry for any inconvenience as you wait to hear back from us.
If you sent us an email in recent days we ask for your patience in receiving a response from us, we also ask you not to email us multiple times since this only exacerbates the issue and slows things down even more.
Thank you for your understanding as we work to catch up and reply to your email in a timely manner
vincent
unexpected high volume of emails received : because of strange rejections ?
-
Had to re-upload about a dozen images because, even though they were abstract photographs taken with my lensbaby, SS rejected them for not being in the "illustration" category. I put them in that category if I tweak them a lot but when they are basically straight from the camera I feel so frustrated - if they insist on calling photos "illustrations," they could just switch them into the other category - I have to think it's faster and more efficient than 1.rejecting - 2.advising me - and then 3. reviewing the exact same photo again. At least they are all online now.
-
Virtually everything i submit now at SS gets rejected for focus (they are in focus, at 100%, often shallow DOF tho), noise (virtually all shot at base ISO), or oversharpening - i rarely sharpen more than a few notches more than LR's default.
Its a complete joke.
If it werent for the high sales SS would barely have any contributors left...
-
Yep im in a similar situation......however they also seem to be accepting more pics than ever I can only conclude they just don't like the stuff I do. I expect their site will get blander and more stocky despite them occasionally saying customers are looking for something "different" then stamping all over anything that doesn't meet their mysterious standards.
-
I have just been through absolute waste of time myself, 3 times, they are even rejecting the files that they OK'd previously.
Telling me I had NOT selected Editorial when I not only selected it but also put a tag in the keywords.
Probaly spent 10 hours so far and that is more than enough for me, there is NO consistancy to the rejections.
But this is what happens when people who know nothing about photography are employed to review images, they have no abaility to understand the nuances of the art.
SS will suffer in the end because there are places like Stocksy and Imagebrief, that ask for images, that have a creativeness about them.
-
Had a rejection recently that I uploaded as a bit of a test...just to see whether it would be rejected and on which grounds. A completely defocused/blurred shot of a restaurant outdoors with al fresco dining. Nice afternoon sunlight and perfecly lit. Nikon D600 at 125ISO, virtually no post-processing and certainly no sharpening.....rejected on noise! There was no noise. ;D ;D
They need an 'honesty' rejection key, like 'IMHO LCV' or just 'Crap'!
-
They changed Inspectors by Rejectors (or Terminators).
-
The reviews are baffling.
SS remains my top site for DL's but the rejections of entire batches, or taking 10% of a batch is frustrating.
Thankfully, FT, 123 and IS are accepting most of the SS rejections (about 80% of them). I guess the next couple of months will see if this will lead to FT, 123 and IS closing the gap on SS in terms of DLs.
-
So...does anybody knows, is photo of music notes allowed to upload? I uploaded a close-up of a few notes and got rejected with Trademark--Image / Metadata potentially infringes on intellectual property rights.
Then I checked on SS site for "music notes" and there are plenty of photos of music notes.
-
The reviews are baffling.
I guess the next couple of months will see if this will lead to FT, 123 and IS closing the gap on SS in terms of DLs.
For me they already are and have been for a few months now
-
So...does anybody knows, is photo of music notes allowed to upload? I uploaded a close-up of a few notes and got rejected with Trademark--Image / Metadata potentially infringes on intellectual property rights.
Then I checked on SS site for "music notes" and there are plenty of photos of music notes.
Probably they fear it is the MUSIC which is copyright. I drew some notes in PS and they were accepted (I also clarified the fact that the 'music' was created by me).
Or maybe there was something else in the photo....
-
So...does anybody knows, is photo of music notes allowed to upload? I uploaded a close-up of a few notes and got rejected with Trademark--Image / Metadata potentially infringes on intellectual property rights.
Then I checked on SS site for "music notes" and there are plenty of photos of music notes.
Probably they fear it is the MUSIC which is copyright. I drew some notes in PS and they were accepted (I also clarified the fact that the 'music' was created by me).
Or maybe there was something else in the photo....
Nope, just notes, but they are from some book with guitar notes for some songs. Anyway, I guess I'll just re-arrange the notes and put a message that music is "fictional".
Tnks
-
So, how do you leave a note to reviewer if none of the 3 options doesn't apply to your photo?
-
So, I just left a note in Title/Description that music notes have been changed and they still rejected images. Probably they didn't even read that. Any ideas what else could I do?
-
Personally I try and forget it and move on - I may lose money but I keep my sanity ;)
-
So, I just left a note in Title/Description that music notes have been changed and they still rejected images. Probably they didn't even read that. Any ideas what else could I do?
Create a property release with the relevant info.
-
I can't, it's more then 20 years old book with guitar notes and tabs from some USA band. Beside that, only few notes are visible in photo. Even if you played them, you wouldn't recognize the songs. And I completely re-arranged notes and tabs in Photoshop anyway. I'm just gonna skip uploading this to Shutterstock.
-
I can't, it's more then 20 years old book with guitar notes and tabs from some USA band. Beside that, only few notes are visible in photo. Even if you played them, you wouldn't recognize the songs. And I completely re-arranged notes and tabs in Photoshop anyway. I'm just gonna skip uploading this to Shutterstock.
A few years ago I had an image of a check that showed the account number, but I changed it with bogus numbers in Photoshop. When I submitted it with an explanation (when SS used to allow that) it still got rejected for the account number. I resubmitted with another note, but once again it was rejected for account number. Once I escalated it, I got a case number and resubmitted it, finally accepted. The point I wanted to make is notes (no pun intended) haven't always worked for me either.
-
I put any info like that as part of the description now. Bit odd but we have no other simple way....
music invented by me.....
Even down to ' .... in golden yellow evening light....' in the hopes it gets rid of (some of the) wrong WB rejections!
-
Yeah, got one of those too. Photo shot in early winter morning, when the sun gives this orange/golden light to the subject, and of course it got rejected for WB. It's just ridicilous.
-
And how about:
"Effects--Image has quality issues from digital in-camera effects and/or techniques done in post production"
Recently I started getting some of my images rejected that reason. Since I always post process my images the same way, with basically the same workflow, and this kind of rejections never happened before, was there any change of evaluation criteria that I'm not aware of?
-
It is weird to intentionally add noise to an image (processed with the noise reduction slider at 0) to get it accepted, after an initial rejection, for "too much noise reduction" :)
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
I DEMAND That reviewers and who they answer to be held to the same standards we are. PERIOD!! If I were King, I would hire the best Photographers with the most diverse ports that understand this market Not just someone with a fast Internet speed and Likes to work in there pajamas.!! .... I've known quite a few reviewers in My time. trust me. thats about it.
-
Trouble is if you were actually any good would you really want to be a reviewer must be a horrible job
-
It seems the 100% rejection "Poor Execution" vector reviewer is back from vacation. >:(
-
Yeah, I got one of those last weekend. Ridiculous. So I resubmitted Monday, it got approved no problem, then I avoided submitting Friday and Saturday this week. I think this reviewer is a person who agreed to be available on weekends but would rather party, so just rejects everything on Saturday and Sunday to get it over with.
-
I DEMAND That reviewers and who they answer to be held to the same standards we are. PERIOD!! If I were King, I would hire the best Photographers with the most diverse ports that understand this market Not just someone with a fast Internet speed and Likes to work in there pajamas.!! .... I've known quite a few reviewers in My time. trust me. thats about it.
Ha! same old story. Cheap labour, cheaper the better. Professional editors, art-buyers don't come cheap as its a different class. Shareholders! want the money but at the cost of a pittance. ::)
-
This is the best, in the same image:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
Overuse--Image has excessive noise reduction and/or excessive sharpening effects applied.
So ...
1. is too soft but too sharp in the same time :)
2. Has to much noise, but i used excessive noise reduction.
3. I used excessive sharpening but is too blurry and too soft.
I don't think the problem is in my garden :)
This is one from a set with 95% rejection after a set in the same way with 100% approval.
-
This is the best, in the same image:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
Overuse--Image has excessive noise reduction and/or excessive sharpening effects applied.
So ...
1. is too soft but too sharp in the same time :)
2. Has to much noise, but i used excessive noise reduction.
3. I used excessive sharpening but is too blurry and too soft.
I don't think the problem is in my garden :)
This is one from a set with 95% rejection after a set in the same way with 100% approval.
The reviewer might think that your photo is:
1. too soft
2. poorly rasterized (eg, banding)
3. too much noise reduction
I get variations of these "reasons" especially on long exposure photography.
For some reviewers it is hard to believe that 5dm3 is a low noise camera, that a good technique like ETTR is naturally reducing noise levels, and that water or clouds turn soft and silky when the exposure is long enough.
As mentioned above, try adding 0.5% gaussian noise.
The photo will definitely be worse, but it will look more "natural" to some ignorant reviewer.
-
Yeah, I got one of those last weekend. Ridiculous. So I resubmitted Monday, it got approved no problem, then I avoided submitting Friday and Saturday this week. I think this reviewer is a person who agreed to be available on weekends but would rather party, so just rejects everything on Saturday and Sunday to get it over with.
We need to come up with names for these folks. Weekend Willy or something like that. ::)
-
This is getting ridiculous-I had the whole batch of 60 assorted images rejected for the same reason-Poor Lighting and Composition. Yet during the week similar batches were accepted. Just what is going on ?? I submit about 2 or 3 of each batch daily so they are virtually all the same quality.It is about time SS gave better reasons than the same old ones every time. For eg-how can a cloud in a blue sky be poorly composed? I guarantee if I resubmit these 60 most will get accepted. But why do we have to muck around like this? It is getting seriously stupid.Not to mention the time converting from RAW, zooming to 100%, cropping, key wording, etc. If I submit to other sites they are accepted no questions. SS must be missing out on 1000's of images daily. And for what purpose? It just raises our ire and causes extra work on our part. I would not mind if the same rejection reasons were legitimate but I fail to see how 60 different images can be rejected for the same 2 reasons. Has any one else had this lately??
-
theres 37 pages of complaints, so it is safe to say, yes, others have experienced this as well lately. as for the cloud, i was told that i had cut off a cloud and therefore it was rejected. unfortunately i have not found a camera yet that can photograph the entire sky in a single image
-
Yeah, I got one of those last weekend. Ridiculous. So I resubmitted Monday, it got approved no problem, then I avoided submitting Friday and Saturday this week. I think this reviewer is a person who agreed to be available on weekends but would rather party, so just rejects everything on Saturday and Sunday to get it over with.
Exact same thing happened to me last weekend. "Poor lighting"....resubmitted same two images taken seconds before/after the first submission and they were accepted on Monday. :-\ Avoid weekends I guess...but like someone else added: 37 pages of complaints and nothing's changed. Very frustrating.
-
This is the best, in the same image:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
Overuse--Image has excessive noise reduction and/or excessive sharpening effects applied.
So ...
1. is too soft but too sharp in the same time :)
2. Has to much noise, but i used excessive noise reduction.
3. I used excessive sharpening but is too blurry and too soft.
I don't think the problem is in my garden :)
This is one from a set with 95% rejection after a set in the same way with 100% approval.
The reviewer might think that your photo is:
1. too soft
2. poorly rasterized (eg, banding)
3. too much noise reduction
I get variations of these "reasons" especially on long exposure photography.
For some reviewers it is hard to believe that 5dm3 is a low noise camera, that a good technique like ETTR is naturally reducing noise levels, and that water or clouds turn soft and silky when the exposure is long enough.
As mentioned above, try adding 0.5% gaussian noise.
The photo will definitely be worse, but it will look more "natural" to some ignorant reviewer.
Lol!
The artificial noise trick worked again! My latest batch was 100% accepted!
This is so stupid! :)
Why should a SS customer buy the equivalent of an ISO 200-400 photo instead of the clean ISO 100 original, available on other sites?
-
This is the best, in the same image:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
Overuse--Image has excessive noise reduction and/or excessive sharpening effects applied.
So ...
1. is too soft but too sharp in the same time :)
2. Has to much noise, but i used excessive noise reduction.
3. I used excessive sharpening but is too blurry and too soft.
I don't think the problem is in my garden :)
This is one from a set with 95% rejection after a set in the same way with 100% approval.
The reviewer might think that your photo is:
1. too soft
2. poorly rasterized (eg, banding)
3. too much noise reduction
I get variations of these "reasons" especially on long exposure photography.
For some reviewers it is hard to believe that 5dm3 is a low noise camera, that a good technique like ETTR is naturally reducing noise levels, and that water or clouds turn soft and silky when the exposure is long enough.
As mentioned above, try adding 0.5% gaussian noise.
The photo will definitely be worse, but it will look more "natural" to some ignorant reviewer.
Lol!
The artificial noise trick worked again! My latest batch was 100% accepted!
This is so stupid! :)
Why should a SS customer buy the equivalent of an ISO 200-400 photo instead of the clean ISO 100 original, available on other sites?
Amazing and shocking. They are truly ruining the reputation of skilled reviewers.
-
Today (Sunday) I got beat up by having all 30 images rejected for focus which I always double check at 100%. They are my best sellers at other sites and even Alamy has them on their site. Maybe it's not a good idea to upload on the weekend as some as stated in this forum. Any thoughts on what will eventually happen with all these rejections we are getting. Thanks.
-
I stop submitting on Thursday evening and start again Saturday night or Sunday morning. smaller batches might also help.
-
I stop submitting on Thursday evening and start again Saturday night or Sunday morning. smaller batches might also help.
That's essentially what I do as well.
-
I stop submitting on Thursday evening and start again Saturday night or Sunday morning. smaller batches might also help.
Tip duly noted and appreciated ;D I'm having a severely injured batch I submitted on Friday (9 out of 10 rejected), will resubmit on Monday to check if the magic really works!
-
I stop submitting on Thursday evening and start again Saturday night or Sunday morning. smaller batches might also help.
That's essentially what I do as well.
I do this too. I feel that this also ensures that the approved images can be seen by buyers before the work week ends. Images approved late on Friday or over the weekend may not get to be seen much.
-
I see that last time status e-mail didn't arrive, i simple found my new images online in my port. Or they stopped to send them?
-
I see that last time status e-mail didn't arrive, i simple found my new images online in my port. Or they stopped to send them?
Probably some images of the batch are still pending. You won't get an email till all the images are reviewed. Reviewed images can go online.
-
Thank you. Just checked - they gave priority to editorials, exactly they are online and one was downloaded probably in some minutes after it was shown in my port
-
My only rejections lately were for a few with a missed bit of a brand name (how did they spot that!) and descriptions with extra info not about the image. Nothing for soft, noise, or anything like that. I submit at random times during the week. In case anyone cares.
-
Sounds like you have a decent reviewer where you live.
-
Maybe its time to relax and smoke a cigar:
http://www.shutterstock.com/da/pic-322048943/stock-photo-homemade-cigars-tobacco-leaves-organically-grown-in-the-garden.html?src=tP0htaVlXsvYFXtLceq83g-1-5 (http://www.shutterstock.com/da/pic-322048943/stock-photo-homemade-cigars-tobacco-leaves-organically-grown-in-the-garden.html?src=tP0htaVlXsvYFXtLceq83g-1-5)
-
Sounds like you have a decent reviewer where you live.
I think we all have the same reviewers and they use software as a tool to review, not 100% eyes.
http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-ela.php#WhatToLookFor (http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-ela.php#WhatToLookFor)
-
My only rejections lately were for a few with a missed bit of a brand name (how did they spot that!) and descriptions with extra info not about the image. Nothing for soft, noise, or anything like that. I submit at random times during the week. In case anyone cares.
Sean, you have an excellent professional portfolio, so it's natural that you have 99% approval rate.
The professional studio pictures and illustrations are almost always approved.
But the issue is on all the rest of live, wildlife, and travel photography where the lights cannot be perfectly set, and the time and exposure cannot be planned, and the subject is not posing.
-
The reviewers seem to have something new: Dust and scratches, unnecessary to say that my batch of images got rejected for this reason although I can't see any dust even at 200%.
-
Sometimes, you need to downsize image, to see dust spots. I put shadows/higlights or contrast to the maximum to check for some hard seeing senzor dust
-
it should be useful to know that software and technique SS uses to inspect our pictures...
probably they reject for some contrasts, temperature and details, we cannot see by eyes even with perfect calibrated monitor
To inspect so much images in few hours they probably have some semi-automatic process that help reviewer to find imperfections.
Also they could discard some kind of pictures cause of less sale potential but they do not write it, just report some general error
I use the same reflex 5d mkIII, lens, hand and postproduction process, but some themes are always accepted, some others very few
If i upload some old pictures from old compact 10 mpix camera from 2008... some are refused some are accepted, depending on subject and theme.
So "sale potential" could be a criteria they use, but never say it in notes...
I'd like that SS and all the other selective agencies would not accept pictures from compact cameras and mobile... instead of refuse good pictures of rare landscapes, from a professional camera and lens
-
I'd like that SS and all the other selective agencies would not accept pictures from compact cameras and mobile... instead of refuse good pictures of rare landscapes, from a professional camera and lens
Subject really matters. Sometimes it's not so important how you capture it if it's one of few images available on an important subject.
I can explain you one of my personal experiences. I had a image taken inside of a underground tunnel, and it's very noisy due to high ISO. When I first submitted it to SS, they rejected it for noise. Then I noticed that there are no stock images taken inside that tunnel which is a quite important place. Then I resubmitted with all those explanations and they accepted it. As expected, it generated some sales. Just because it's the only stock image available on that subject.
Buyers don't care about how you capture it if they don't have any other options. If you submit images on sufficiently covered subject, I do think that SS should consider more about the technical quality.
-
yes, its true about covered subject, but I think in general about the stock photography overflow
now we are in the worst time for this job because there is a lot of offer cause of easy pictures from mobiles and casual uploaders.
Some people (not me) used to live on stock photography but now its more difficult, you need to contribute several sites, thousand images to gain something worthing your time.
and its getting worst day by day due to oversupply
Also for customers, that cannot even see a big preview of what they are about to buy.
Some may not care, but the most of them may prefer to buy the same shot from the better camera :)
the problem is that now all agencies may refuses some good HQ pictures because they are full of old crap of the same subject and continue to accept low quality crap from mobile
They should
-
The reviewers seem to have something new: Dust and scratches, unnecessary to say that my batch of images got rejected for this reason although I can't see any dust even at 200%.
I've had a coupla instances recently where one or 2 small drops of water got on my lens while shooting at the shore. an easy way to detect these later is to display 'fit to screen', then zoom in once -- now when you scroll any defects become obvious - your eye will see the fault moving when it might not when it's still
PS spot healing cures these easily
-
I'd like that SS and all the other selective agencies would not accept pictures from compact cameras and mobile... instead of refuse good pictures of rare landscapes, from a professional camera and lens
Subject really matters. Sometimes it's not so important how you capture it if it's one of few images available on an important subject.
I can explain you one of my personal experiences. I had a image taken inside of a underground tunnel, and it's very noisy due to high ISO. When I first submitted it to SS, they rejected it for noise. Then I noticed that there are no stock images taken inside that tunnel which is a quite important place. Then I resubmitted with all those explanations and they accepted it. As expected, it generated some sales. Just because it's the only stock image available on that subject.
Buyers don't care about how you capture it if they don't have any other options. If you submit images on sufficiently covered subject, I do think that SS should consider more about the technical quality.
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest (http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest)
very true. you have to submit HCV images and images that is not stuff ,no pun intended, that
is already fully overloaded by yuri arcurs, sjlocke,etc...
like this one... 100% approval no doubt...
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest (http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'd like that SS and all the other selective agencies would not accept pictures from compact cameras and mobile... instead of refuse good pictures of rare landscapes, from a professional camera and lens
Subject really matters. Sometimes it's not so important how you capture it if it's one of few images available on an important subject.
I can explain you one of my personal experiences. I had a image taken inside of a underground tunnel, and it's very noisy due to high ISO. When I first submitted it to SS, they rejected it for noise. Then I noticed that there are no stock images taken inside that tunnel which is a quite important place. Then I resubmitted with all those explanations and they accepted it. As expected, it generated some sales. Just because it's the only stock image available on that subject.
Buyers don't care about how you capture it if they don't have any other options. If you submit images on sufficiently covered subject, I do think that SS should consider more about the technical quality.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
very true. you have to submit HCV images and images that is not stuff ,no pun intended, that
is already fully overloaded by yuri arcurs, sjlocke,etc...
like this one... 100% approval no doubt...
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thats what "El Chapo's" port would look like....
-
Love that weed Port. Tried to find it the other day. Thanks for the Link again.
-
I'd like that SS and all the other selective agencies would not accept pictures from compact cameras and mobile... instead of refuse good pictures of rare landscapes, from a professional camera and lens
Subject really matters. Sometimes it's not so important how you capture it if it's one of few images available on an important subject.
I can explain you one of my personal experiences. I had a image taken inside of a underground tunnel, and it's very noisy due to high ISO. When I first submitted it to SS, they rejected it for noise. Then I noticed that there are no stock images taken inside that tunnel which is a quite important place. Then I resubmitted with all those explanations and they accepted it. As expected, it generated some sales. Just because it's the only stock image available on that subject.
Buyers don't care about how you capture it if they don't have any other options. If you submit images on sufficiently covered subject, I do think that SS should consider more about the technical quality.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
very true. you have to submit HCV images and images that is not stuff ,no pun intended, that
is already fully overloaded by yuri arcurs, sjlocke,etc...
like this one... 100% approval no doubt...
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thats what "El Chapo's" port would look like....
LOL. funny.
-
Weekend selection is horrible. Rejected for wrong keywords. :o
-
I'd like that SS and all the other selective agencies would not accept pictures from compact cameras and mobile... instead of refuse good pictures of rare landscapes, from a professional camera and lens
Subject really matters. Sometimes it's not so important how you capture it if it's one of few images available on an important subject.
I can explain you one of my personal experiences. I had a image taken inside of a underground tunnel, and it's very noisy due to high ISO. When I first submitted it to SS, they rejected it for noise. Then I noticed that there are no stock images taken inside that tunnel which is a quite important place. Then I resubmitted with all those explanations and they accepted it. As expected, it generated some sales. Just because it's the only stock image available on that subject.
Buyers don't care about how you capture it if they don't have any other options. If you submit images on sufficiently covered subject, I do think that SS should consider more about the technical quality.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
very true. you have to submit HCV images and images that is not stuff ,no pun intended, that
is already fully overloaded by yuri arcurs, sjlocke,etc...
like this one... 100% approval no doubt...
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Wow what a very creative port
This guys going to burn through a cameras shutter actuations just on this one subject lol
-
can not believe :)
-
I use the same reflex 5d mkIII, lens, hand and postproduction process, but some themes are always accepted, some others very few
I have noticed more rejections now that I am using a 5DMIII. Starting a new thread on the subject.
-
Weekend selection is horrible. Rejected for wrong keywords. :o
the magic mushroom 100% approved guarantee set of keywords are as follows...
abuse, addiction, addictive, alternative, background, bud, cannabis, dope, drug, ganja, grass, green, grunge, hashish, healthcare, hemp, herb, herbal, high, illegal, isolated, joint, law, leaf, legalization, legalize, legislation, marihuana, marijuana, medical, medication, medicinal, medicine, narcotic, natural, nature, plant, pot, prescription, relax, smoke, symbol, weed
;)
-
just to show the coast guard has a sense of humor (?) here's the 'battle honors' painted on a coast guard cutter ( the snowflakes are for cocaine busts )
(http://cascoly.com/jpg/marijuana.jpg)
-
Wow what a very creative port
This guys going to burn through a cameras shutter actuations just on this one subject lol
That's not all he's burning through. Probably makes it easier to shoot the same shots 1000 times.
-
Wow what a very creative port
This guys going to burn through a cameras shutter actuations just on this one subject lol
That's not all he's burning through. Probably makes it easier to shoot the same shots 1000 times.
With that much weed, maybe he just forgot he shot the previous thousand images :P
-
Wow what a very creative port
This guys going to burn through a cameras shutter actuations just on this one subject lol
That's not all he's burning through. Probably makes it easier to shoot the same shots 1000 times.
With that much weed, maybe he just forgot he shot the previous thousand images :P
lmao, and his buddy reviewer friend(s) is seeing every other contributors' work as out of focus
now that the effect of smoking weed has taken over their eyesight.
-
i am now convinced that there is a renegade atilla-style weed smoking reviewer in ss.
proof:
last month , i have 25 images all rejected for unfavorable lighting, poor compostion, out of focus...
all in 5 minutes. i know 5 minutes because i was still in the process of uploading more photos...
and i saw the rejected images taken off the queque list ...1,2,3..and then whammo 25 all rejected.
the other images were all approved the next morning, by another reviewer no doubt.
last week i uploaded the same 25 images including 5 other new ones, and they all got approved.
someone is earning money without properly reviewing the mass-rejected contribution of us.
-
yesterday had several sunset pix rejected as not being marked editorial (similar from diff angles, etc had already been accepted)
then there those background images of cirrus clouds on blue sky rejected for trademark infringement (maybe reviewer is not atilla but zeus!)