MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 167770 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #550 on: April 10, 2015, 15:17 »
0
Sorry, my FTP window was acting up.

The edge of the bevel and the join don't look razor sharp to you?


« Reply #551 on: April 10, 2015, 15:21 »
-4
I'd say no they don't look that sharp.  It looks like sharpening and noise reduction was added, it's kind of smudgy to use a technical term.  That could also be because of the subject but I can see why they would reject it.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2015, 15:23 by tickstock »

« Reply #552 on: April 11, 2015, 03:41 »
0
If they don't want them? SAY SO, instead of bogus reasons.
Yes
That's why i think the problem is something else.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #553 on: April 11, 2015, 06:33 »
+3
I don't mean this in a bad way but I was hoping a top photographer would get these bogus rejections just so that we have it confirmed that we are not the problem. Something is off and I am hoping SS will clarify some things.

« Reply #554 on: April 11, 2015, 07:42 »
+3
Yes, SS nazi is back!
Batch with 16 photos rejected on Monday, on Wednesday batch with 17 photos ( same photos, same thema, same lightning, everything same...) ACCEPTED 100%.
Nothing new on SS, so no worries, just our beloved SS nazi needs some quick money.


« Reply #555 on: April 11, 2015, 07:50 »
+10
I find it VERY VERY telling that SS has stopped participating in these discussions. To me, that speaks volumes about what's to come. I like SS and they are by far my biggest earner but I suspect that we are seeing the end of the cheap-stock golden days & now are experiencing the beginning of the "stock holder model"............. enrich stock holders by beating down suppliers.  No different than any other industry, really. I think deep down we all knew this was coming.

« Reply #556 on: April 11, 2015, 09:06 »
-6
a lot of noise , not enough detail


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 #557 on: April 11, 2015, 09:22 »
+5
a lot of noise , not enough detail

Heh, ok.  Please spotlight the "noise" for me.

« Reply #558 on: April 11, 2015, 14:27 »
+2
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


The wash of white paint scatters the light and fills in the scratches/grain of the woods surface.

My guess would be the reviewer did not look past that area and assumed the image was soft.

« Reply #559 on: April 11, 2015, 15:03 »
0
I have also seen the approval rate for my outdoor photography (full frame, L series lens, tripod, 100 ISO) drop from 90% to less than 50%.  I only upload one photo from a series at a time.  Some make it, some don't.  The technical rejection reasons rarely seem valid.  The inconsistency has led me to believe it's either reviewer roulette... or they're simply swimming through oceans of (well covered subject matter) uploads and are exercising the luxury of rejecting most of those (well covered subject matter) uploads as matter of policy. 
« Last Edit: April 11, 2015, 21:21 by trek »

dpimborough

« Reply #560 on: April 12, 2015, 16:39 »
+1
a lot of noise , not enough detail

Heh, ok.  Please spotlight the "noise" for me.

Cesar must be a microstock reviewer :D

« Reply #561 on: April 12, 2015, 16:45 »
+1
....and do you think the SS is snubbing their nose at us, the contributors, with their current home page image where the female is completely out of focus except for her left arm?  >:(

« Reply #562 on: April 13, 2015, 08:16 »
+2
 first time after one year i got reject 5/5 , all images was same aperture, same time, same work, they were office work, last 1000 was ok, not it is not anymore.

can i join to rejection club?

it is depressing, i spend 8 hours for this 5 images.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 08:21 by Cesar »

« Reply #563 on: April 13, 2015, 08:18 »
0
first time after one year i got reject 5/5 , all images was same aperture, same time, same work, they were office work, last 1000 was ok, not it is not anymore.

can i join to rejection club?

As a new member, i say welcome  8)

« Reply #564 on: April 13, 2015, 08:31 »
+1
first time after one year i got reject 5/5 , all images was same aperture, same time, same work, they were office work, last 1000 was ok, not it is not anymore.

can i join to rejection club?

it is depressing, i spend 8 hours for this 5 images.

Hi, Cesar, You can join any "rejection club", but not mine.
My members can spent max 2-5 minutes for finishing each photo, which will then bring 30 cents...
8 hours for 5 photos?
Wow, this photos are good for Smithsonian Museum or some Modern art gallery,
but not for our 30 cents or one $ clubs.
 ;) twice

« Reply #565 on: April 13, 2015, 08:47 »
0
i always spend one hour for one photo, first make scene, shooting about half hour, editing,keywording

 goal is to earn 10$ with every image at least, in 80% im successful



first time after one year i got reject 5/5 , all images was same aperture, same time, same work, they were office work, last 1000 was ok, not it is not anymore.

can i join to rejection club?

it is depressing, i spend 8 hours for this 5 images.

Hi, Cesar, You can join any "rejection club", but not mine.
My members can spent max 2-5 minutes for finishing each photo, which will then bring 30 cents...
8 hours for 5 photos?
Wow, this photos are good for Smithsonian Museum or some Modern art gallery,
but not for our 30 cents or one $ clubs.
 ;) twice

« Reply #566 on: April 13, 2015, 12:19 »
0
i think there is definitely a misunderstanding or absolute no guideline for reviewers as to what is acceptable or not.
just look at the pix that is on the current homepage of ss
the one of the lady with stripe with camera. which part of the image is in focus???
then compare it to the images old contributors and new get for OUT OF FOCUS rejection.
tweet Oringer to ask him ???


« Reply #567 on: April 13, 2015, 12:37 »
0
Yep everything 100% complete BS OOF my ass!

Sent SS a big letter and told them they may want to look at this thread and gave them the link to it.Also questioned us being used as guinea pigs for some software or hardware program they may be trying out and told them to trash it and then some.

Maybe you should post the images in the critique forum.   ::)

Never know, maybe the reviewers are correct.  ;)

« Reply #568 on: April 13, 2015, 12:51 »
0
last batch 100% rejected for light, noise, and focus. I can understand the grain on the pics of sand dunes, but otherwise...

« Reply #569 on: April 13, 2015, 14:42 »
0
a lot of noise , not enough detail


Heh, ok.  Please spotlight the "noise" for me.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/?language=en


how did this image get approved. better still, so good that it is used by ss for home page
... bigger question...
how did atilla miss this one??? ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #570 on: April 13, 2015, 14:50 »
0

how did this image get approved. better still, so good that it is used by ss for home page
... bigger question...
how did atilla miss this one??? ;D ;D ;D

This is masterpiece, the 'A' is so sharp :P
« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 14:54 by Thomas from France »

Rinderart

« Reply #571 on: April 13, 2015, 15:12 »
+1
Amazing...The public face of SS? wow. I guess this is what they want. Although I do see the concept of the Image but... Perhaps a bit more DOF?

submitted 42, 40 rejected. Most ever in 10 years was 3/4 that were my fault. Fixed and resubmitted with No Problem. last 40 were for Lighting,WB and focus. All were the Filtered,Vintage,Faded poloroid Look. which was clearly Noted in descriptions and Keywords. Im with 9 sites. The other 8 took all of them and starting to sell. I will Not resubmit. I now see a lot of submitters submitting The Trendy Blur thing. Im sorry, I just don't get it.  Im starting to advise folks on the critique forum with focus issues to Blur it and resubmit....Guess what? It's working for them.

OH WELL.....................This is where we are. and to answer Ron's query... A few of my old time friends that are Long time major Players that have been shooting forever Like myself that are getting rejections right and left.
I assume the Instagram look Is Not my thing,  And I guess trendy things doesn't work for me either.Im kinda glad. LOL

Also..Let me add, There is no way SS can know what kind of Monitors 200+ reviewers around the world are using. All there is, is a questionnaire. And BTW...Who's really In charge of content??  Admin or reviewers? when you write submit, they say there is no Guarantee they will be accepted if resubmitted.

Someone has to take responsibility for submissions. and re=submissions. The Buck has to stop somewhere....Right? kinda Lost here and scratching My head in wonderment of where this is going. Nothing against change but....Geeeez.

On the flip side I have a friend and former student who does Nothing But Instagram Images. He has about 1300 and makes a small fortune. He couldn't get accepted because of Noise and switched to filtered Look. Quite amazing.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 19:12 by Rinderart »

« Reply #572 on: April 13, 2015, 21:37 »
+1


On the flip side I have a friend and former student who does Nothing But Instagram Images. He has about 1300 and makes a small fortune. He couldn't get accepted because of Noise and switched to filtered Look. Quite amazing.

Some people will adapt to new trends and microstock agency demands and will do well. Others will keep trying the same old thing (along with the thousands of others who do the same thing) and wonder why they aren't getting sales/positive reviews.

One person's observation/opinion. Feel free to ignore. I'm a small fish.

« Reply #573 on: April 13, 2015, 23:03 »
0


On the flip side I have a friend and former student who does Nothing But Instagram Images. He has about 1300 and makes a small fortune. He couldn't get accepted because of Noise and switched to filtered Look. Quite amazing.

Some people will adapt to new trends and microstock agency demands and will do well. Others will keep trying the same old thing (along with the thousands of others who do the same thing) and wonder why they aren't getting sales/positive reviews.

One person's observation/opinion. Feel free to ignore. I'm a small fish.

op is not talking about adapting to new trends or getting sales. op is talking about reviewers
saying one thing and ss using images that say another thing.

you cannot talk from both sides of the mouth...
either it is in focus or it is not. you can say that experienced contributors suddenly lost their sight and all their work is now out of focus
then put an amazingly out of focus image as the main image to show clients
ss is the place to get the best images in the market.
small fish or big fish, there has to be some form of clarity
and lately looking at the forum there is no clear rule of what reviewers are doing
if you being a small fish is getting 100% approval on out of focus image
no problem , so long as images that are in fact in focus do not get rejected en masse
simply because the reviewer feel the focus is not where it should be

and no, we do not have to ignore you simply cos we do not agree with you.
ignore is not going to make the issue go away

« Reply #574 on: April 13, 2015, 23:53 »
0


On the flip side I have a friend and former student who does Nothing But Instagram Images. He has about 1300 and makes a small fortune. He couldn't get accepted because of Noise and switched to filtered Look. Quite amazing.

Some people will adapt to new trends and microstock agency demands and will do well. Others will keep trying the same old thing (along with the thousands of others who do the same thing) and wonder why they aren't getting sales/positive reviews.

One person's observation/opinion. Feel free to ignore. I'm a small fish.

op is not talking about adapting to new trends or getting sales. op is talking about reviewers
saying one thing and ss using images that say another thing.

you cannot talk from both sides of the mouth...
either it is in focus or it is not. you can say that experienced contributors suddenly lost their sight and all their work is now out of focus
then put an amazingly out of focus image as the main image to show clients
ss is the place to get the best images in the market.
small fish or big fish, there has to be some form of clarity
and lately looking at the forum there is no clear rule of what reviewers are doing
if you being a small fish is getting 100% approval on out of focus image
no problem , so long as images that are in fact in focus do not get rejected en masse
simply because the reviewer feel the focus is not where it should be

and no, we do not have to ignore you simply cos we do not agree with you.
ignore is not going to make the issue go away


I was commenting on Laurin's comment. Although it does apply to the topic in general.

SS reviews are inconsistent. It is frustrating. SS isn't publicly addressing it. You can adapt to that reality or you can bang your head against the wall until it gets better.


 

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