pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 168025 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #575 on: April 14, 2015, 03:31 »
+7
It becomes ridiculous... A photo rejected for focus problems, I took it with tripod and did manual focus on lcd with magnification 100%... Could not be more in focus.

Anyway, I'll stop uploading to SS for a while, no point getting frustrated because of some crazy people there. 

The other thing - yesterday I got one SOD for 25c??? Did you ever get 25c for SOD?

The thing is, you spend sometimes hours on post-processing, and then some drunk maniac reviews it, and then then if it gets accepted, you get 25c for SOD, is it normal?


Semmick Photo

« Reply #576 on: April 14, 2015, 04:30 »
0
Yes it's the Facebook deal

« Reply #577 on: April 14, 2015, 08:00 »
+2
what a relief, yesterday 100% rejection got acceptance  100%  with same images. -0.01 exposure.

i can breathe now.

« Reply #578 on: April 14, 2015, 08:48 »
+10
Focus rejections?
Here's what I'm seeing on my homepage:


« Reply #579 on: April 14, 2015, 13:23 »
+3
Two weeks ago I submitted 7 images of phone linemen to the agencies I work with: SS, FT, DT, and BS.
Still waiting to hear from DT (duh), but FT and BS accepted them all.

Shutterstock rejected all of them for "focus and noise" problems.
Full frame, 1S0 200, sharp at  200%. 

I've become philosophical about such things; but after reading other posters' experiences, I decided to resubmit the exact, unchanged files and selected the "Resubmitted with corrections made" choice using the drop-down menu.

All accepted the next day.

So, I guess the takeaway here is, review your rejected images with a honest and critical eye, and then if you think the reviewer was wrong, resubmit.

Can't hurt, might help.

« Reply #580 on: April 14, 2015, 13:51 »
-2
they are ok, except this one, it is too dark, you have luck with this one

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=266952209&src=id

« Reply #581 on: April 14, 2015, 14:27 »
0
Two weeks ago I submitted 7 images of phone linemen to the agencies I work with: SS, FT, DT, and BS.
Still waiting to hear from DT (duh), but FT and BS accepted them all.

Shutterstock rejected all of them for "focus and noise" problems.
Full frame, 1S0 200, sharp at  200%. 

I've become philosophical about such things; but after reading other posters' experiences, I decided to resubmit the exact, unchanged files and selected the "Resubmitted with corrections made" choice using the drop-down menu.

All accepted the next day.

So, I guess the takeaway here is, review your rejected images with a honest and critical eye, and then if you think the reviewer was wrong, resubmit.

Can't hurt, might help.

yup same thing here. guess ss don't mind double paying reviewers
but won't hear nothing about increasing contributors pay .
guess best to apply to be reiveiwer, even if you don't, get your kid do it with his uncalibrated screen...
he wants to earn money... i say go fer it, just grab a whole load of files and macro it with "focus not where it should be"; WB off;...  and get paid. why not??? soon, my grandkid will earn more than i do as ss reviewer atilla the new  8)

Rinderart

« Reply #582 on: April 14, 2015, 15:12 »
+5
Thats fine BUT......Point being we, Shouldn't have to Play a silly game, or try and trick them By doing that or...resizing down to a minimum to get accepted. If an Image has merit and value. It should be accepted without jumping through a hoop doing so. For what ? a possible 25/38 cents?....They should Know, Thats there job. I've always said If you believe in an Image fight for it.  What....Now it's every other time? Silly is the only word that comes to mind.And no one should have to bang there head against a wall.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2015, 15:16 by Rinderart »

« Reply #583 on: April 14, 2015, 16:35 »
+2
Just keep in mind that if you resubmit too often you may get a SS warning.
Resubmit with moderation and when you know you're right.

I had review issues in 2014 but this year so far seems to be more consistent (for me).

Rinderart

« Reply #584 on: April 14, 2015, 16:42 »
0
Just keep in mind that if you resubmit too often you may get a SS warning.
Resubmit with moderation and when you know you're right.

I had review issues in 2014 but this year so far seems to be more consistent (for me).

correct, perfect advice.

Batman

« Reply #585 on: April 15, 2015, 09:32 »
+2
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.

How many sites are you with? You wrote this last time.
Just closed My account. simply not cost effective uploading.One down 3 to go.

Did you add 5 - 6 new sites?

Why don't you and yiour major player friends call jon, you claim to know everybody important.

« Reply #586 on: April 16, 2015, 16:27 »
0
My thought are like this: just get non-exclusive with them and load the same images to DT, IS, etc. Then you will get confidence burst.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #587 on: April 16, 2015, 17:33 »
+2
My thought are like this: just get non-exclusive with them and load the same images to DT, IS, etc. Then you will get confidence burst.
confidence doesn't butter my sandwich  ;)

Rinderart

« Reply #588 on: April 16, 2015, 20:08 »
+1
GOOD ONE RON....LOL

dpimborough

« Reply #589 on: April 17, 2015, 11:28 »
+1
My thought are like this: just get non-exclusive with them and load the same images to DT, IS, etc. Then you will get confidence burst.
confidence doesn't butter my sandwich  ;)

Love it I must remember that quote :D

« Reply #590 on: April 18, 2015, 07:33 »
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
 ??? ??? ???

Episode Three :
I sent a fourth message to SS about the same picture.
They gave me a case number.
What a waste of time... :(

« Reply #591 on: April 18, 2015, 09:09 »
+4
Reviewer claims a rejection reason was "Trademark", which (I can only guess) is a tiny hint of a logo between tree branches way off from the subject. Tiny, but the image is clearly so tack sharp they found this as an issue. Oh yeah, it was also rejected for focus.

No where to put notes anymore, so have to add notes within the description, which will probably get the next batch rejected. Or send message to support, wait, get a defensive half-assed response claiming that whether the review was right or wrong, they can't control what these rogue reviewers do, and waste more time.

I'd think it's just about time that whoever is in charge of these (possibly legally blind) reviewers removes their head from their rectum and take control of the situation. Maybe getting the reviews right is better than getting them done fast.


shudderstok

« Reply #592 on: April 18, 2015, 09:27 »
-1
Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all.

« Reply #593 on: April 18, 2015, 09:50 »
+4
Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all.
You are starting to sound like a parrot.  Yes, we know you don't like subs and we are fed up with hearing about it. !!!

shudderstok

« Reply #594 on: April 18, 2015, 09:57 »
+1
Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all.
You are starting to sound like a parrot.  Yes, we know you don't like subs and we are fed up with hearing about it. !!!

Actually, that was not my point. The image/s for whatever reason/s was rejected as per SS standards for better or worse as per their requirements etc. Get over it, move on. If a shot is rejected for being out of focus, once, twice, three times take the clue. This has nothing to do with subs, rejection is rejection, accept it and get on with life. I may not like subs, but my gut tells me that SS knows what they want and what they don't want and 24 pages of whining is really sounding like a parrot.... lot's of parrots.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 10:00 by shudderstok »

« Reply #595 on: April 18, 2015, 10:01 »
+2
I have a felling that alot of focus rejections come from the fact that SS reviewers typically don't like shallow DOF (particularly when part of the main subject is blurred) but people are so conditioned to think that razor thin DOF and "bokehlicious" backgrounds is the end-all be-all of photography.

It isn't about what you like, it is about figuring out what gets accepted and sells at a particular site.

small fish opinion.

« Reply #596 on: April 18, 2015, 10:16 »
+1
Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all.
You are starting to sound like a parrot.  Yes, we know you don't like subs and we are fed up with hearing about it. !!!

Actually, that was not my point. The image/s for whatever reason/s was rejected as per SS standards for better or worse as per their requirements etc. Get over it, move on. If a shot is rejected for being out of focus, once, twice, three times take the clue. This has nothing to do with subs, rejection is rejection, accept it and get on with life. I may not like subs, but my gut tells me that SS knows what they want and what they don't want and 24 pages of whining is really sounding like a parrot.... lot's of parrots.
Yes, I agree on that point.  If they don't want the image then we just have to move on.

« Reply #597 on: April 18, 2015, 10:35 »
+10
"Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all."

It's not a matter of "beating myself up" or whining about their policy. I've understood how much money I make on a sale in microstock since I began 5 years ago, but thanks for the reminder. Seems like a bizarre thing to point out as a negative on MICROSTOCK forum, considering that's how this whole thing works, the relevant prefix there being MICRO. So back on topic...

There is time, money and effort involved with production of these images. I hold myself to a high standard from equipment, subject/location choice, editing quality and keywording. When a weak link in the chain (reviewer) at the most dominant market for selling my work drops the ball, my choice is to accept that and move on, losing all the aforementioned time and money. Or speaking up in an attempt to get the issue addressed, and getting as many of my images up for sale as I can. The other contributors speaking up are no slackers either, and if SS decides to ignore us, that's their choice. But laying down and letting things fall further apart quietly is not a smart option. You're welcome, considering we're on the same side.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 10:40 by Daryl Ray »

Semmick Photo

« Reply #598 on: April 18, 2015, 10:41 »
0
"Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all."

It's not a matter of "beating myself up" or whining about their policy. I've understood how much money I make on a sale in microstock since I began 5 years ago, but thanks for the reminder. Seems like a bizarre thing to point out as a negative on MICROSTOCK forum, considering that's how this whole thing works, the relevant prefix there being MICRO. So back on topic...

There is time, money and effort involved with production of these images. I hold myself to a high standard from equipment, subject/location choice, editing quality and keywording. When a weak link in the chain (reviewer) at the most dominant market for selling my work drops the ball, my choice is to accept that and move on, losing all the aforementioned time and money. Or speaking up in an attempt to get the issue addressed, and getting as many of my images up for sale as I can. The other contributors speaking up are no slackers either, and if SS decides to ignore us, that's their choice. But laying down and letting things fall further apart quietly is not a smart option. You're welcome, considering we're on the same side.
excellent post

Rinderart

« Reply #599 on: April 18, 2015, 11:33 »
+1
what a relief, yesterday 100% rejection got acceptance  100%  with same images. -0.01 exposure.

i can breathe now.

Good for you BUT......This is the problem right here!!


 

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