pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 167801 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #250 on: June 13, 2014, 21:25 »
+9
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.


« Reply #251 on: June 14, 2014, 12:24 »
+1
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.

« Reply #252 on: June 14, 2014, 18:11 »
0
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.

« Reply #253 on: June 15, 2014, 04:52 »
0
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...

« Reply #254 on: June 19, 2014, 06:46 »
+1
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.



« Reply #255 on: June 19, 2014, 06:57 »
+2
Yeah all my batches from the last 2-3 weeks got reviewed fairly, +1 point to SS.

Goofy

« Reply #256 on: June 19, 2014, 10:27 »
+1
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.


stealthmode

« Reply #257 on: June 19, 2014, 10:44 »
+1
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.

« Reply #258 on: June 19, 2014, 11:39 »
0
Is all ok, I still get 100% acceptance

farbled

« Reply #259 on: June 19, 2014, 16:51 »
+2
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.

OM

« Reply #260 on: June 19, 2014, 17:25 »
0
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.  :)

« Reply #261 on: June 20, 2014, 04:09 »
0
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.

« Reply #262 on: June 22, 2014, 09:25 »
+1
I praised them just to get another Attila review... 100% rejection.

This is getting old.

« Reply #263 on: June 22, 2014, 09:38 »
0
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.

« Reply #264 on: June 22, 2014, 12:29 »
0
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.

« Reply #265 on: June 22, 2014, 13:00 »
0
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.

Goofy

« Reply #266 on: June 22, 2014, 13:24 »
+1
Got pounded myself today! I am going to just take a break before I smash my camera!  >:(




« Reply #267 on: June 22, 2014, 13:25 »
0
Got pounded myself today! I am going to just take a break before I smash my camera!  >:(

 :D

« Reply #268 on: June 22, 2014, 14:00 »
+3
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.


stealthmode

« Reply #269 on: June 23, 2014, 02:05 »
+3
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.

« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 09:37 by stealthmode »

Valo

« Reply #270 on: June 23, 2014, 03:23 »
+4
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.

ethan

« Reply #271 on: June 23, 2014, 03:51 »
+4
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 :)
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 03:54 by ethan »

« Reply #272 on: June 23, 2014, 10:29 »
0
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.

« Reply #273 on: June 23, 2014, 12:33 »
0
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.

« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 17:10 by LesPalenik »

« Reply #274 on: June 23, 2014, 13:38 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 14:34 by gbalex »


 

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