Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else? (Read 215981 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #550 on:** April 10, 2015, 15:17 »

Sorry, my FTP window was acting up.

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

tickstock · « **Reply #551 on:** April 10, 2015, 15:21 »

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.

Thomas from France · « **Reply #552 on:** April 11, 2015, 03:41 »

Quote from: Rinderart on April 10, 2015, 15:01

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 »

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.

enstoker · « **Reply #554 on:** April 11, 2015, 07:42 »

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.

Mantis · « **Reply #555 on:** April 11, 2015, 07:50 »

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.

Cesar · « **Reply #556 on:** April 11, 2015, 09:06 »

a lot of noise , not enough detail

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 10, 2015, 15:08

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

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #557 on:** April 11, 2015, 09:22 »

Quote from: Cesar on April 11, 2015, 09:06

a lot of noise , not enough detail

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

gbalex · « **Reply #558 on:** April 11, 2015, 14:27 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 10, 2015, 15:08

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.

trek · « **Reply #559 on:** April 11, 2015, 15:03 »

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.

dpimborough · « **Reply #560 on:** April 12, 2015, 16:39 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 11, 2015, 09:22

Quote from: Cesar on April 11, 2015, 09:06
a lot of noise , not enough detail

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

Cesar must be a microstock reviewer

Asthebelltolls · « **Reply #561 on:** April 12, 2015, 16:45 »

....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?

Cesar · « **Reply #562 on:** April 13, 2015, 08:16 »

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.

Thomas from France · « **Reply #563 on:** April 13, 2015, 08:18 »

Quote from: Cesar on April 13, 2015, 08:16

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

enstoker · « **Reply #564 on:** April 13, 2015, 08:31 »

Quote from: Cesar on April 13, 2015, 08:16

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

Cesar · « **Reply #565 on:** April 13, 2015, 08:47 »

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

Quote from: enstoker on April 13, 2015, 08:31

Quote from: Cesar on April 13, 2015, 08:16
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

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #566 on:** April 13, 2015, 12:19 »

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

Copidosoma · « **Reply #567 on:** April 13, 2015, 12:37 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on March 12, 2015, 18:18

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.

pancaketom · « **Reply #568 on:** April 13, 2015, 12:51 »

last batch 100% rejected for light, noise, and focus. I can understand the grain on the pics of sand dunes, but otherwise...

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #569 on:** April 13, 2015, 14:42 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 11, 2015, 09:22

Quote from: Cesar on April 11, 2015, 09:06
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???

Thomas from France · « **Reply #570 on:** April 13, 2015, 14:50 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on April 13, 2015, 14:42

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???

This is masterpiece, the 'A' is so sharp

Rinderart · « **Reply #571 on:** April 13, 2015, 15:12 »

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.

Copidosoma · « **Reply #572 on:** April 13, 2015, 21:37 »

Quote from: Rinderart on April 13, 2015, 15:12

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.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #573 on:** April 13, 2015, 23:03 »

Quote from: Copidosoma on April 13, 2015, 21:37

Quote from: Rinderart on April 13, 2015, 15:12

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

Copidosoma · « **Reply #574 on:** April 13, 2015, 23:53 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on April 13, 2015, 23:03

Quote from: Copidosoma on April 13, 2015, 21:37
Quote from: Rinderart on April 13, 2015, 15:12

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else? (Read 215981 times)

Sean Locke Photography

tickstock

Thomas from France

Semmick Photo

enstoker

Mantis

Cesar

Sean Locke Photography

gbalex

trek

dpimborough

Asthebelltolls

Cesar

Thomas from France

enstoker

Cesar

etudiante_rapide

Copidosoma

pancaketom

etudiante_rapide

Thomas from France

Rinderart

Copidosoma

etudiante_rapide

Copidosoma

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors