MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 168059 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MxR

« Reply #475 on: March 13, 2015, 05:56 »
+2
Simply have rejected absurdly.

 Yesterday they all in... today rejected all.

 it's not funny, it's my * job.


« Reply #476 on: March 13, 2015, 06:20 »
0
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 :)

« Reply #477 on: March 13, 2015, 12:08 »
-16
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. 

« Reply #478 on: March 13, 2015, 12:57 »
0
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

MxR

« Reply #479 on: March 13, 2015, 12:59 »
+3
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...

« Reply #480 on: March 13, 2015, 13:02 »
-1
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?

Shelma1

« Reply #481 on: March 13, 2015, 13:05 »
+1
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.

« Reply #482 on: March 13, 2015, 13:08 »
0
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?

Shelma1

« Reply #483 on: March 13, 2015, 13:25 »
+1
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.

« Reply #484 on: March 13, 2015, 13:39 »
0
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.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #485 on: March 13, 2015, 13:52 »
0
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.

« Reply #486 on: March 13, 2015, 13:55 »
-1
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.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2015, 13:59 by tickstock »

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #487 on: March 13, 2015, 14:03 »
0
[] 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

« Reply #488 on: March 13, 2015, 14:06 »
-5
[] 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.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #489 on: March 13, 2015, 14:43 »
0
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?

« Reply #490 on: March 13, 2015, 14:51 »
+1
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.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #491 on: March 13, 2015, 14:56 »
+1
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.


« Reply #492 on: March 13, 2015, 16:21 »
+1
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.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #493 on: March 13, 2015, 16:32 »
-1
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.




Thanks for your insights.

 thats all.

« Reply #494 on: March 13, 2015, 16:40 »
+4
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.

« Reply #495 on: March 13, 2015, 16:47 »
+4
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

Semmick Photo

« Reply #496 on: March 13, 2015, 17:00 »
0
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.

« Reply #497 on: March 13, 2015, 17:06 »
+2
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. 

« Reply #498 on: March 14, 2015, 12:06 »
-3
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??? >:(

« Reply #499 on: March 14, 2015, 12:45 »
+1
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.


 

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
34206 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