Quote from: jarih on March 13, 2015, 05:41

Quote from: MxR on March 13, 2015, 04:45

Noise @100iso with a D610??

It doesn't mean a much, even PhaseOne IQ140 ISO50 can be too NOISY!.. lol..

More than 120 dB?

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.

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...

Quote from: tickstock on March 13, 2015, 12:08

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.

Quote from: tickstock on March 13, 2015, 12:08

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.

Quote from: tickstock on March 13, 2015, 12:08

[�] 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�

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?

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.

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.

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. 

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.