pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 168092 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dpimborough

« Reply #50 on: May 19, 2014, 04:22 »
+3
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.  :-\


« Last Edit: May 19, 2014, 04:25 by dpimborough »


« Reply #51 on: May 19, 2014, 05:18 »
0
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.

« Reply #52 on: May 19, 2014, 05:39 »
0
Anyone know if SS sales is partly tied to acceptance rate?

Ron

« Reply #53 on: May 19, 2014, 05:41 »
0
Why would any agency punish your sales for the images they accepted?

stealthmode

« Reply #54 on: May 19, 2014, 05:56 »
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.  :-\

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?

« Reply #55 on: May 19, 2014, 06:03 »
0
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.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #56 on: May 19, 2014, 07:06 »
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.  :-\

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

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun

« Reply #58 on: May 19, 2014, 08:59 »
+1
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.

Ron

« Reply #59 on: May 19, 2014, 09:15 »
+9
Its a lot of work and worries for 38 cents per image. If any agency demands such quality they should up the royalties.

« Reply #60 on: May 19, 2014, 09:17 »
+7

« Reply #61 on: May 19, 2014, 09:34 »
+1
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)

« Reply #62 on: May 19, 2014, 09:37 »
+4



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.

Ron

« Reply #63 on: May 19, 2014, 09:38 »
+1
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

Ron

« Reply #64 on: May 19, 2014, 09:41 »
+1


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.

« Reply #65 on: May 19, 2014, 09:56 »
+2
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.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2014, 10:01 by Sean Locke Photography »

Ron

« Reply #66 on: May 19, 2014, 10:01 »
+1
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  ;)


« Reply #67 on: May 19, 2014, 10:13 »
+1
Don't ruin my tv experience!

« Reply #68 on: May 19, 2014, 10:52 »
0
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/

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/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

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

« Reply #69 on: May 19, 2014, 11:00 »
0
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.

Ron

« Reply #70 on: May 19, 2014, 11:20 »
0

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.


« Reply #71 on: May 19, 2014, 12:13 »
+1
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.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2014, 12:16 by wordplanet »

dpimborough

« Reply #72 on: May 19, 2014, 14:55 »
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.  :-\

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. :)





Ron

« Reply #73 on: May 19, 2014, 15:02 »
+2
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.

farbled

« Reply #74 on: May 19, 2014, 15:24 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
17643 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:03
by stuttershock
22 Replies
6953 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 18:37
by shudderstok
85 Replies
43880 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:02
by stuttershock
10 Replies
6713 Views
Last post June 22, 2015, 14:07
by Freedom
212 Replies
34208 Views
Last post December 20, 2019, 10:08
by Snow

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle