Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else? (Read 246583 times)

jarih · « **Reply #500 on:** March 23, 2015, 04:02 »

Quote from: jarih on March 12, 2015, 08:59

Today 100% rejected of 25 images.

Those images, approval:
SS      0%
FT      96%
BS      100%
IS      100%
DT      .. still waiting approval
123RF   100%
CS      100%
VEER   100%
and so on ...

I sent complaint about two weeks ago.. how much time on average, those going..

photostockad · « **Reply #501 on:** April 01, 2015, 06:20 »

Same situation.
I am a contributor from 2010.
From 2010 to 2014 i used to have 10-20% rejection rate (with pertinent reasons - shadows, soft colours).
From 2014 to 2015 i have inconsistency on this rate. Days with 95% approval rate and days with 95% rejection rate. The same type of images (travel), the same editing (saturation, shadows, sharpness/noise reduction).

photostockad · « **Reply #502 on:** April 01, 2015, 06:37 »

Poor light?

cascoly · « **Reply #503 on:** April 02, 2015, 13:30 »

natural light, especially late afternoon light seems to be routinely flagged as 'poor lighting'

Fatmanphoto · « **Reply #504 on:** April 04, 2015, 02:46 »

Hi,

first post after lurking and learning for over a year.

To pass on a story of my own - I have been getting terrible stats from Shutterstock for a couple of months.

Checking everything in Lightroom before exporting to JPG - what can go wrong (apart from original quality of course)?

Only this morning, looking into something else, I realised that following a computer rebuild Lightroom was exporting at 60% quality, not 100%.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #505 on:** April 04, 2015, 03:04 »

Rejected for focus

everest · « **Reply #506 on:** April 04, 2015, 12:40 »

Same here...... usually 95-99 % acceptance rate everywhere & Shutterstock, and when you never suspect it....booommm....80%- rejection. Well..... part of the game but frustrating. Obviously it would be great if there would be some control over those Attilas that leave no grass under their feet. It should be easy as they are easily detected by their shotgun approach and massive damage . I guess their menu of the day was undercooked and someone had to pay for it.

stuttershock · « **Reply #507 on:** April 04, 2015, 15:35 »

Quote from: SLStudios on May 16, 2014, 16:58

Man, the last two weeks have been rough at SS for me. Everything I have tried to get in my portfolio has been kicked back at me and for stuff I feel like has not changed. Recently I am hearing that my images are out of focus and I know they are not. I check them close at 100% but still they are kicking my butt on this.

Anyone else seeing this? SS is the only place I have sold much lately so it is discouraging, to say the least.

nope, had that problem only on Pond5 so far ;)

KnowYourOnions · « **Reply #508 on:** April 04, 2015, 16:12 »

Quote from: stuttershock on April 04, 2015, 15:35

Quote from: SLStudios on May 16, 2014, 16:58
Man, the last two weeks have been rough at SS for me. Everything I have tried to get in my portfolio has been kicked back at me and for stuff I feel like has not changed. Recently I am hearing that my images are out of focus and I know they are not. I check them close at 100% but still they are kicking my butt on this.

Anyone else seeing this? SS is the only place I have sold much lately so it is discouraging, to say the least.

nope, had that problem only on Pond5 so far

For your free time only...trust me, you are not lonely!

http://www.microstockgroup.com/pond5/my-recent-experience-with-pond5-never-ever-using-them-again/

ITsME · « **Reply #509 on:** April 04, 2015, 21:32 »

100% rejections,as reason they give blurry/out of focus. Trust me those pics are 100% sharp. Some crazy reviewers!

oscarcwilliams · « **Reply #510 on:** April 04, 2015, 22:57 »

The same thing happen to me today. (1) image approved with the same outdoor setting out of 12. All others rejected for not in focus. These images were all approved at another top well know site.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #511 on:** April 06, 2015, 11:33 »

First you need to have a conversation with God about the lighting and then, consider the shadows in those windows. You should have a unit behind each one of them, to fill. I think I see some shadows behind the "Shrubbery" as well.

Honest, there should be standards but there should also be some leeway for natural lighting!

Only other alternative is - limit your shooting to Sunny overcast days. No really, it's getting to that point with some of these lighting rejections for natural light? Or maybe everything HDR, subtle 1/2 stop, not dramatic, high contrast.

Quote from: photostockad on April 01, 2015, 06:37

Poor light?

(images removed)

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #512 on:** April 06, 2015, 12:50 »

So after two batches of 95% approval, I just get about 98% rejected on a batch of 52 images for focus. Its simply not true. I am really getting tired of this.

What find weird is that SS admins defend reviews in a very strange way.

You get 3 rejections on one image, for example, composition, noise and focus, and you explain that the 3 reasons are incorrect. The admin will say, yes composition, noise and focus is fine, but its under exposed therefore the review was correct.

CuorerouC · « **Reply #513 on:** April 06, 2015, 12:58 »

Today not approved 100% af 19 pics. All for the focus

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #514 on:** April 06, 2015, 13:10 »

Noise and focus

This is 100% zoom

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #515 on:** April 06, 2015, 13:11 »

Quote from: CuorerouC on April 06, 2015, 12:58

Today not approved 100% af 19 pics. All for the focus

Something is up, and I think its software with very tight parameters on focus. I am downsizing all my images now, 4.1mp is what they will get.

jarih · « **Reply #516 on:** April 06, 2015, 14:17 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 06, 2015, 13:11

Quote from: CuorerouC on April 06, 2015, 12:58
Today not approved 100% af 19 pics. All for the focus
Something is up, and I think its software with very tight parameters on focus. I am downsizing all my images now, 4.1mp is what they will get.

Maybe it's better upload only downsized images until they are back in the business, I will downsize all to 6Mpx.

CuorerouC · « **Reply #517 on:** April 07, 2015, 06:24 »

In the Submission Guidelines of SS there is this written "Do send full-sized images. Don't upsize or downsize images."

dpimborough · « **Reply #518 on:** April 07, 2015, 06:37 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 06, 2015, 13:10

Noise and focus

This is 100% zoom

That's just comical

~ these reviewers need to go rest their eyes for a bit

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #519 on:** April 07, 2015, 06:38 »

You have to downsize images, I have panoramas wont go through because they are too big.

Everyone is downsizing, even cropping is downsizing. I dont know many people submitting full size 36mp images. They all downsize.

Its a guideline, not a requirement.

Upsizing is different ballgame, I never upsize.

Quote from: CuorerouC on April 07, 2015, 06:24

In the Submission Guidelines of SS there is this written "Do send full-sized images. Don't upsize or downsize images."

CuorerouC · « **Reply #520 on:** April 07, 2015, 06:50 »

Thanks Semmick

Julied83 · « **Reply #521 on:** April 08, 2015, 08:04 »

Don'T know what's wrong with SS reviewer this week. I never had this kind of rejection. The first time, they said I had a french word in my description (shepherd's pie so I wrote pate chinois this is how we call it in Canada). Ok fine, I resubmit, and now its the white balance for the same image ... ! What's gonna be next ? you don't like my food ? haha

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #522 on:** April 08, 2015, 08:53 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 07, 2015, 06:38

You have to downsize images, I have panoramas wont go through because they are too big.

Everyone is downsizing, even cropping is downsizing. I dont know many people submitting full size 36mp images. They all downsize.

Its a guideline, not a requirement.

Upsizing is different ballgame, I never upsize.

Quote from: CuorerouC on April 07, 2015, 06:24
In the Submission Guidelines of SS there is this written "Do send full-sized images. Don't upsize or downsize images."

No size limit for photos, have told people this before.

Quote from: Vincent Shutterstock

Jeff,

Were these jpegs rejected for being too large or couldn't you upload them because of the size? There is no size limitation for photos, but larger images can have issues uploading due to their size (depending on ISP, connection, time, etc.)

Vincent
Shutterstock

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #523 on:** April 08, 2015, 08:57 »

Ah, I am sorry, I didnt read the internet this morning.

dfikar · « **Reply #524 on:** April 08, 2015, 09:09 »

Even though their manual keywording is a pain I am moving away from SS and uploading to Getty more and more. I am getting sick and tired of ridiculous rejections for no good reason at SS.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else? (Read 246583 times)

jarih

photostockad

photostockad

cascoly

Fatmanphoto

Semmick Photo

everest

stuttershock

KnowYourOnions

ITsME

oscarcwilliams

Uncle Pete

Semmick Photo

CuorerouC

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

jarih

CuorerouC

dpimborough

Semmick Photo

CuorerouC

Julied83

ruxpriencdiam

Semmick Photo

dfikar

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors