pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 167727 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #525 on: April 08, 2015, 12:52 »
+2
Whole    batch rejected.


Quote
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Title--Titles must be in English, may not contain unnecessary information and must relate to the image.

The title is in English and they describe the image, and they are in focus.

Quote
Dirty tractor cabin interior with leather upholstery



« Reply #526 on: April 08, 2015, 14:23 »
+6
SS reviewers really piss me off right now!! 66% of my photos this week were rejected due to "poor lighting" I am livid. I work on each photo for 30-60 mins to get every tiny detail correct. They then reject a photo in a fraction of a second.
What has happened with SS?
Before any rejections were rational but now they are erratic.

« Reply #527 on: April 08, 2015, 14:54 »
+8
Hi all,
I'im new to forum,from France,  in Stock Since 2012, sorry for my english  :P
I shoot with d800e and mostly 24-70mm or 105mm macro

Here's my anecdote on one picture :
-First rejection for focus
-send mail to [email protected] with specific question
-answer from SS : please reconsider submission, etc...
-Second rejection for focus
-send mail to [email protected] with very specific question
-answer from SS : exactly the same as before !
-me : asking if the review is uncorrect
-SS :yes
 :o :o :o
I don't feel like uploading a third time this picture, this is lottery these days

Does someone think like me it's a weird algorithm doing reviews ??






Semmick Photo

« Reply #528 on: April 08, 2015, 15:07 »
+2
 I just cant get my head around 95% rejection, 95% acceptance from day to day.

No Free Lunch

« Reply #529 on: April 08, 2015, 22:32 »
0
I just cant get my head around 95% rejection, 95% acceptance from day to day.

At one time I used to not have any images for review on a Saturday or early Sunday believing that the reviewers were evil on those two days.  Friday always seem to be the best day but that is only my beliefs... 8)


Semmick Photo

« Reply #530 on: April 09, 2015, 01:02 »
+7
I just cant get my head around 95% rejection, 95% acceptance from day to day.

At one time I used to not have any images for review on a Saturday or early Sunday believing that the reviewers were evil on those two days.  Friday always seem to be the best day but that is only my beliefs... 8)
I always had good acceptance rates in the weekends. But lately its just all over the place. Something changed for sure, but the silence of SS is deafening. They used to come here on regular bases but with Scott leaving, there is no communication at all.

« Reply #531 on: April 09, 2015, 04:42 »
+9
I'm a contributor on ShutterStock, iStock, Dreamstime, Fotolia, BigStock, 123rf, CanStock, Deposit, CreStock, Alamy and Veer. I've been submitting to stock since 2007.

My experience with ShutterStock is that they hands down, by far, are the most inconsistent of all the bureaus, when it comes to what is accepted and what is rejected.

Noone are as inconsistent as ShutterStock - noone comes remotely close. It's absurd, but the trick is to not let the frustrations get the better of you.

On ShutterStock, I've tried to have 4 out of 10 images in studio shoot accepted - and the last 6 rejected becaues of noise. All shot at ISO 100, none of them boosted in exposure in post production. All 10 very identical in image quality, due to them having been shot in rapid succession (but very different poses and accessories for the model). Then, a week after, they accepted 4 out of 4 images, that were all shot at ISO 6400 with no noise reduction applied. I was like: What .??

If you get images bounced because of noise and/or artifacts, you can try to resize the images to fx. 4 - 6 MPixels size. That actually helps me most of the time. 

« Reply #532 on: April 09, 2015, 05:11 »
+1
i stoped uploading landscapes on ss, they become like fotolia, they reject, they think or they know landscape is waste of space, computer index,...

if i were reviewer i would also reject landscape like this for focus, even it is perfect image. yours is better then perfect.

Rejected for focus
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=22650.0;attach=13562

aly

« Reply #533 on: April 09, 2015, 21:39 »
+2
I had 18 rejected abstract designs because 5 had the word ECRU to describe the color of the lace    so I am very puzzled as to the reason=Spelling / Grammar -- Image contains spelling or grammatical errors.
I have sent them the details etc and will be interesting to see  why ECRU is wrong spelling , grammar.
Very very frustrated !!!!

« Reply #534 on: April 10, 2015, 02:06 »
0
i stoped uploading landscapes on ss, they become like fotolia, they reject, they think or they know landscape is waste of space, computer index,...

if i were reviewer i would also reject landscape like this for focus, even it is perfect image. yours is better then perfect.

Rejected for focus
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=22650.0;attach=13562



In this case, the rejection reason should be "Too Many on site".
One of the main things for shutterstock is to educate contributors (guidelines, shutterbuzz, trends, etc...)
So Why use a false rejection reason ?

« Reply #535 on: April 10, 2015, 02:17 »
0
I had 18 rejected abstract designs because 5 had the word ECRU to describe the color of the lace    so I am very puzzled as to the reason=Spelling / Grammar -- Image contains spelling or grammatical errors.
I have sent them the details etc and will be interesting to see  why ECRU is wrong spelling , grammar.
Very very frustrated !!!!

Maybe the reviewers doesn't have English as a native language...? I'm from Denmark, and I must admit that I had to google ECRU :D - I think I'd call it "dusty sand color" or something like that, and maybe in a partly drunken state (or if I were really busy) where I forgot that Google exists, I'd think that ECRU was the name of a corporation. Something along these lines could certainly explain why your images were rejected...

« Reply #536 on: April 10, 2015, 03:32 »
+2
Noone are as inconsistent as ShutterStock - noone comes remotely close.

Not in my case, they are pretty consistent lately - in rejecting my photos :)
Somebody complained that they are growing too fast (and no competition at this moment) - so it might explain, now this is the period where they realized it, and want to stop the growth a little bit. So they accept only absolutely technically perfect photo. Even if it is technically perfect, it could be something that they don't like and then easily reject it with "light" as a reason reason. Or focus.

aly

« Reply #537 on: April 10, 2015, 04:29 »
-1
Shortly after my post all the designs were accepted. What a relief.

« Reply #538 on: April 10, 2015, 05:02 »
0
Hi all,
I'im new to forum,from France,  in Stock Since 2012, sorry for my english  :P
I shoot with d800e and mostly 24-70mm or 105mm macro

Here's my anecdote on one picture :
-First rejection for focus
-send mail to [email protected] with specific question
-answer from SS : please reconsider submission, etc...
-Second rejection for focus
-send mail to [email protected] with very specific question
-answer from SS : exactly the same as before !
-me : asking if the review is uncorrect
-SS :yes
 :o :o :o
I don't feel like uploading a third time this picture, this is lottery these days

Does someone think like me it's a weird algorithm doing reviews ??

To be continued...:
"Dear Thomas,
Thank you for your message.
I don't think corrections are necessary with the images in question. If you try to sharpen those images it might get worse. Just resubmit them as they are for another review.
Best regards,
Shutterstock
Contributor Support"

Result : Third rejection for focus
 ??? ??? ???

dpimborough

« Reply #539 on: April 10, 2015, 07:24 »
0
Hi all,
I'im new to forum,from France,  in Stock Since 2012, sorry for my english  :P
I shoot with d800e and mostly 24-70mm or 105mm macro

Here's my anecdote on one picture :
-First rejection for focus
-send mail to [email protected] with specific question
-answer from SS : please reconsider submission, etc...
-Second rejection for focus
-send mail to [email protected] with very specific question
-answer from SS : exactly the same as before !
-me : asking if the review is uncorrect
-SS :yes
 :o :o :o
I don't feel like uploading a third time this picture, this is lottery these days

Does someone think like me it's a weird algorithm doing reviews ??

To be continued...:
"Dear Thomas,
Thank you for your message.
I don't think corrections are necessary with the images in question. If you try to sharpen those images it might get worse. Just resubmit them as they are for another review.
Best regards,
Shutterstock
Contributor Support"

Result : Third rejection for focus
 ??? ??? ???

Didn't SS give you a review case number to add to the reviewer notes when re-submitting?

« Reply #540 on: April 10, 2015, 07:38 »
0
I got 6 differents but same subject photo that have been reject for wrong reason twice ... ( french word ???) (white balance ) That was good.

I decided to resbmitt only one from the serie. This photo was approve ! I submit a second one later ... ! Approuved ! They reject series ! So just upload them seperatly days later

« Reply #541 on: April 10, 2015, 09:19 »
0
Quote
Didn't SS give you a review case number to add to the reviewer notes when re-submitting?

That's they usually do. But not this time, although i noticed them !
Actually , with  the new way to add a note to the reviewer, i don't understand how to indicate a case number.


« Reply #542 on: April 10, 2015, 09:29 »
+1
I usually don't have a big problem with the reviews, but I did have a batch with shot with slightly dramatic lighting and very shallow depth of field. First half were rejected on focus, the other half on the category (they may have had a point on the category). Re-submitted downsized with category changed, and all were rejected on focus. I send an email to submissions saying they were tack sharp but with a narrow depth and they said to resubmit with no guarantee of approval. Submitted again - rejected for focus and poor lighting this time.

« Reply #543 on: April 10, 2015, 11:11 »
+2
 :( Rejection frenzy at the moment at Shutterstock. Not worth the time resubmitting.....nearly always rejected with another reason.......let's see if things calm down in a few weeks

Semmick Photo

« Reply #544 on: April 10, 2015, 11:20 »
0
Quote
Didn't SS give you a review case number to add to the reviewer notes when re-submitting?

That's they usually do. But not this time, although i noticed them !
Actually , with  the new way to add a note to the reviewer, i don't understand how to indicate a case number.
you can choose an option to add case no

« Reply #545 on: April 10, 2015, 13:05 »
0
Quote
Didn't SS give you a review case number to add to the reviewer notes when re-submitting?

That's they usually do. But not this time, although i noticed them !
Actually , with  the new way to add a note to the reviewer, i don't understand how to indicate a case number.
you can choose an option to add case no


Thank you,  I had not seen this  :-[
Anyway, the curious thing is "this review is not correct" and giving no case number.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2015, 13:18 by Thomas from France »

Rinderart

« Reply #546 on: April 10, 2015, 15:01 »
+6
2 questions. whos in charge? the reviewers or admin at submit?

Also, What can we, as a group do about this. It's getting really out of hand. Historically Rejection threads are as common as fleas on a dog But, this is quite different. Im sure there probably correct "Most" of the time?.. but something fishy is going on. Some really good shooters are getting very stupid rejections. Focus,Lighting and WB seem to be the big three. whoever took scotts Place has some answering to do But, were back to No Communication again. Maybe thats a complete No,No Nowdays? from staff or upper level management. If thats so...Man thats pretty sad.

NO OTHER SITE has this issue. We NEED answers. Will someone that writes well start a "Open Letter to Shutterstock VP of Content" and I'll do my best to make sure they read it.
And... There is simply no way with 200+ reviewers around the planet that they could know what Monitors these folks are using besides a questionnaire they fill out upon applying for a job.

The downside Im afraid to say is gonna be ""200/250 thousand Images added each week" so someone has no issues. All we want I think is better more comprehensive Guidelines. For the commissions we get, It is Just not cost effective to re-submit Over and Over when every other site takes them...And, Sells them.

If they don't want them? SAY SO, instead of bogus reasons. Other sites do and it works well with me. So we don't have to do it again and again and we can drop the silly attila Handle. Every admin since day One said "We agree with the reviewer..OR, Pls resubmit with My name and that always worked. Not anymore.

Reviewing Is and always has been the #1 most Important Job at any site.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #547 on: April 10, 2015, 15:05 »
0
I found out that rejection for WB can also mean over saturated. Which has nothing to do with WB.

« Reply #548 on: April 10, 2015, 15:08 »
0
I finally got my first bunch of crazy:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.

Here's a 100% crop of one of the centers where the center of focus is/should be:
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/images/examples/sampleFromBG.jpg

« Reply #549 on: April 10, 2015, 15:10 »
0
I finally got my first bunch of crazy:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.

Here's a 100% crop of one of the centers where the center of focus is/should be:
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/images/examples/sampleFromBG.jpg

404 Page Not Found, it looks like Sean Locke Photography agency also rejected them.   ;)

ETA:  Now it's up, they overturned that one quick.  It does look out of focus to me though.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
17627 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
43861 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