MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 167798 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #225 on: June 08, 2014, 09:00 »
+5
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.


« Reply #226 on: June 08, 2014, 17:20 »
+3
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. :'(


« Reply #227 on: June 08, 2014, 17:32 »
0
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.

« Reply #228 on: June 08, 2014, 17:35 »
+1
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.

« Reply #229 on: June 08, 2014, 17:49 »
+1
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.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2014, 17:52 by Anja02 »

« Reply #230 on: June 08, 2014, 17:50 »
0
Oops, this last post was to PixelBytes - I am newly registered here and still learning how to post.

« Reply #231 on: June 08, 2014, 22:26 »
+1
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. 
« Last Edit: June 08, 2014, 22:35 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #232 on: June 09, 2014, 05:26 »
+1
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.

ethan

« Reply #233 on: June 09, 2014, 06:11 »
+1
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 :)
« Last Edit: June 09, 2014, 06:27 by ethan »

« Reply #234 on: June 09, 2014, 06:46 »
0
Thanks, Ethan  :)

« Reply #235 on: June 09, 2014, 17:12 »
0
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.

« Reply #236 on: June 09, 2014, 17:53 »
+2
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.

Milinz

« Reply #237 on: June 09, 2014, 19:24 »
0
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.

« Reply #238 on: June 09, 2014, 21:12 »
+3
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 :)


« Last Edit: June 09, 2014, 21:59 by onepointfour »

Goofy

« Reply #239 on: June 09, 2014, 21:51 »
+3
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"

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #240 on: June 09, 2014, 23:27 »
+2
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

Ron

« Reply #241 on: June 10, 2014, 02:42 »
+5
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.


Beppe Grillo

« Reply #242 on: June 10, 2014, 03:49 »
0
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??

ethan

« Reply #243 on: June 10, 2014, 03:55 »
+12
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 :)

Rinderart

« Reply #244 on: June 10, 2014, 09:10 »
+2
+1.

« Reply #245 on: June 11, 2014, 20:10 »
+3
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.

« Reply #246 on: June 12, 2014, 06:34 »
+1
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?

« Reply #247 on: June 12, 2014, 15:31 »
+6
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].

« Reply #248 on: June 13, 2014, 10:00 »
+1

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.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 10:02 by eZeePics »

« Reply #249 on: June 13, 2014, 16:02 »
+1
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.. :/


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
17628 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:03
by stuttershock
22 Replies
6950 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 18:37
by shudderstok
85 Replies
43864 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:02
by stuttershock
10 Replies
6709 Views
Last post June 22, 2015, 14:07
by Freedom
212 Replies
34128 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